we started with this data after all of these months at the appellant's insist. i just wanted to walk you through the calculations. the height calculations start at the top of the curb which is 184 and you go up 30 feet and over at a 45 degree angle by 5 feet and as we've discussed with several planners there is an allowance for a jump to the count it average grade at a maximum of 35 feet. that is starting at 221.52. according to the revised plans that have been submitted, the project applicant has drawn this 2.268 that does not follow the average flow of 58 percent. the average slope should follow this red dotted line whereas under with this additional 68 percent is jumping up by one point and using different data point to the data calculation. we have determined that the varying points take into account the average grade but add an additional 35 feet which is not what the planning code permits, it's the very starting point. it should follow a parallel line back. the result of this erroneous application is twofold and has far reaching it packets. with the respec

63 wawona street, san francisco, ca 94127 action requested by appellant: the appellant is requesting the aab's assistance in securing the tenant's cooperation to complete the necessary repairs. >> this is testimony, delibation and possible action to reverse or modify the order of abatement. >> the department? the department their staff representative? good morning, members of the voting session and mr. president, my name is senior housing inspector and i'm here for inspector who cannot make it here today, i just want to give you a quick synopsis of the case and you have the staff report for all pertinent information regarding the case. the property at 326, 330 procidio avenue is a 6-unit apartment p building. >> housing services roefd a complaint on october 8, 2009 on the same day we inspected the property and found the violations and issued a notice of violation, it is to be regarding maintenance repairs and peeling paint. over the course of the complaint, the owner and the tenant, were allowed to work out accessibility to the unit to conduct the repairs. and prior to the notice of

>> yes, the appellant is is to the east. the pell appoint is is to the east. >> so the, is that a recent addition to the rear or is that original? >> i believe it is not original. the adjacent property to the west does not appear to have that pop out. i think it has stairs more like this property used to. but i did not review the property to the west. i would note too that the on this it is sloping down. so this is a down sloping lot. the properties on the south side of 26th street are on higher ground and you will find more 3-4 story buildings there and the property does go down to the north that it does go downhill. >> that was likely added before the change to the rh 2 where you know the introduction of the pop out -- >> that's a good question, based upon what this project architect said, it sounded like it may also comply with the section 136 pop out. so it sounds like the appellant is saying that that building was extended in the late 90s which would be a time where we had the pop out. that property was built in the sam

>> correct. >> counselor for the appellant? >> can you... no, thank you. >> can you refer us to the list of information specific with that you asked for? >> exhibit 16? >> it is subsection bon page 7. and it lists all of the information that we have requested. and so this report is number 1. and this is subsection b? >> that is on page 7. line 22? >> line 21 in >> those are reported mentioned on the following page. okay. >> continue. >> and this test at 3 points. and we have the base line survey documentation already. laser point measurement and then there was information that in a letter to the quinn's counsel and that is attached as exhibit m. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> vice president, lazarus. members of the board, denny shanaher for the permit holders, this is a small project, 186 gross square feet and there is minimal to no excavation work that is a part of this project. the addition is at grade, there are three hand dug piers two feet by three feet that are going to be installed to suppo

and we have had communications and writing with the appellant. and we have meetings with him to discuss the project and all of our meetings he has been supportive of the project as he has mentioned here tonight. and i think that we are dealing with phantoms here in terms of speculation about what might happen with respect to this project. we have agreed to monitor the project and the retaining wall to see if in fact there is impact which we don't believe that there will be we will address it through the monitoring and equals that we are undertaking with respect to the project and address them at that time and i don't know how else to respond. because it is a never ending series of questions which they are only speculating on what might happen with the project. >> you indicated that there were... >> two by three feet piers. >> how deep? >> to the bottom of the appellant's foundation? >> how deep? >> roughly? >> i don't know, how deep do they want? >> the stairs that are being put into the side of the property and it is not going to increase the lo

the appellant is twin peaks east side neighborhood. we will start with the appellants. >> i'm here on bemaf of the project sponsor, i was retained shortly after the last hearing and i'm here to ask that you grant a rehearing request. to begin, i want to emphasize the gravity of the board's revocation of a fully code compliant pronlt that was approved by the planning commission. before my compliant embarked on a four year permitting process that cost 300 thousand dollars, he sat down with a meeting with the department of public works and talked very specifically about open space restrictions on the property they were told there were none, they then came before this body and had it revoked, regarding open space restrictions, i think it's fair to say the decision to revoke a permit for a fully code compliant project is a bit of a shutter through the development community, it's both extraordinary and manifestly unjust to deny a code compliant project, the decision is made without full development of the facts, with uncertainty or misinform

the problem with the appellant calculation is that they totally ignored section 102.12 c of the planning code which defines height. what it says is the height limit as you start in this case we start with the legislative setback which would go up 30 feet and the 45 degree and up, but then this particular section set that in every other cross section of the building a right angle to the center line of building set such point shall be taken of the average of the ground elevation of either side of the building of building steps at the cross section. the reason is because a slope that is not necessary and in fact they usually do not go on a straight line by connecting the point in front that they had and then got to the property line, the center line and connect it. what the code section said is that you have to take at the critical point of the building especially in addition on both sides and establish that at that point of the cross section. so in this case, the instruction by the planning department is correct. and that is at the point of the front of the new floor. you have to calculate

so we heard from the pell appellant, it's the kate spade stores. the kate spade new york stores should be added to the stores. kate spade new york has this sort of an appearance as you will see from the overhead. as you probably know there is a kate spade store in the west field center. there is a kate spade store on grand avenue close to main and the appellant would have you believe that a spade is a spade. the kate spade new york would move into 3166, 16th street. this is quite a stretch. 703.3, we talked about the letter of the law and we know the appellant has already told you we are within the letter of the law. the spirit of the law and i was involved in the formula retail discussion 10 years ago with the president working with supervisor tom, was to keep the neighborhood unique and that was based on visual factors. on all the visual factors, standardized array of merchandise where women's wear could be men's wear. that one is a stretch. standardized facade, total stretch, standardized decor which you are not going to find in these stores. th

. >> so, we will now call item 8, appeal 13.089 jeff & tracey schlarb, appellant(s) vs. zoning administrator, respondent 2823-2827 greenwich street. appealing a revocation request dated july 15, 2013, requesting that alteration permit nos. 2012/01/24/2796, 2012/04/18/8561, and 2013/06/18/9812 at the subject property be revoked because they were improperly issued and resulted in the removal of one dwelling unit without proper review under the planning code. for hearing today. >> good evening, members of the board and thank you for your time tonight, i am here representing the appellants in this appeal. i know that you have seen our brief and it contains very concise chronology of the events. and so i want to emphasize a few quick points and i think that it is best that you hear from the appellant directly and then we can answer any questions that you might have and the things that i wanted to stress are that the appellants in this case have not engaged in an active to circumvent the procedures, when they bought the property it was marketed as a two unit building with an l

i'm doug appearing on behalf of the appellants. i live about one block away. given the serious safety issues raised by this particular project in this particular location i have to say in my 13 years of working on the site of wireless facilities in every district in san francisco this is by more the most egregious example that have i've seen agencies bending over be background to operate a wireless facility on a building that doesn't prolong. and in light of the grand jury report which speaks of preferential treatment and inconsistent in his building codes i have to say that the planning departments position is those position are best addressed by d b i is not particularly reassuring. so let's take a look at that property. it is a building between supervisors district 1 and 2. 67 property owners representing over 40 percent of the property area within a 40 foot radius subscribe to those appeal. in 2006 at&t installed a two antenna micro facility and nobody received the notice and nobody had the right to contest is because this board didn't pass an ordinance un

appellants and permit holders and department representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3-minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board, but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the podium. >> speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions and there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium. and if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules are hearing schedules please speak to the board staff during the break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning, 1650 mission street room 304, this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government

for hearing toda. >> we will start with the appellant. thank you members of the board.nd the claim here is that the planning commission abused the discretion of 309 of the planning code because it made determinations that do not comply with 295 and because it made determinations that did not comply with sequa. so on the section 295 issues, the planning commission voted to increase the acl, or the annual limit for shadow and to allocate that to this project entire and with that increase or action was not going to have a significant effect on the use of the park. and the state law that applies here, requires the planning commission to trace the route that it takes from the evidence to the findings and the findings of no significant effect is not supported by the evidence and did not provide any route between and several respects. one is that the 295 decisions are actually not enforcable because it is not clear, what the final number is in terms of total maximum that would be permitted. and to demonstrate that using the motion holder figure of 38.30 percent for the amount

carping took of the conditions on the roof are included in appellants exhibit no. 1. the building was built in 1976 and the building is substandard and can't support the equipment that at&t has on the roof. nor can it support any new loads including the 9 antennas that they're asking for. the major conclusions are the folsom 4216 california requires the retrofitting to bring it to the standards of 2010 san francisco building code and the at&t equipment on the roof as well as the proposed rooftop antennas present additional weight that will be subject to largely loads by earthquakes and can't be permit without a service upgrade system. in short the building has accrual proposed equipment is a life safety problem. the city should be instructing alter at to remove its equipment from the building not approving an additional use equipment to be placed on the roof. please deny those permits >> thank you. next speaker. >> good afternoon supervisors. i'm also the neighborhood resident. the resident of the neighborhood retained awning architect and engine engineer. a copy of t

appellant, permit holders and department representatives each have 7 minutes to present their case and is three minutes for rebuttal, people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 3 and 7 minute periods, they have 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals, to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members who wish to speak on an item are asked but not require today submit a speaker card when you come up to the podium, speaker cards and pens are available at the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your questions and suggestions, there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing or rules or hearing schedule, speak to board staff at break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning, it is located at 1615 mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgovtv cable 78 and dvd's of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention, we

any other members wish to speak in support of the appellant. seeing none, why don't we go to the planning department for your presentation >> good afterno management of f to e department. i'm joined by my colleagues as well as the project planner for this project. we're here today to defend the sequa determination and the authorization as was proposed by our planning commission. for today's hearing the first decision was that the permit was issued legally. we're here to say it was. is this facility capable with the neighborhood is in another issue. for the sequa determination you've heard there's some risk of fire or flood related to the batteries and that's not the case. as was described the batteries have been commonly used throughout the city and we've done research there's zero hazard with those battery types of. further the batteries will be placed to commonly practiced with the building and fire codes. including for seismic sate. the department it did not identify any unusual circumstances. on the second question our commission based thei

>> it's shown on -- if you look on to the -- if we look into the appellant's grief and we see the current plot plan here, the subdivision map, there are shown, and i believe it's in reference to the hatch lines, so they have it, i can put it on the overhead. >> that is all one sheet? >> i think it's a single sheet, yeah. >> the color is not quite right, but in any event, it's this line, so this is -- this is the subject lot, i believe, we have vista and crestline and the green is something that was added by the appellants to demonstrate the open space and i believe that this is the demarcation line of the building setback and that's what the department of public works has said cannot be built beyond that line and the area of the project is the area in green, that's my understanding, we have received this letter today from dpw, yesterday is when i first heard about this and so that they would -- the subdivision could still potentially move forward, i mean, this is new information to us and i would want to discuss this with our director about how to proceed, the subdivision is code complyin