up beepers were approved when test on monday february 23rded this is the only objection to the appellants request we're on to questions >> the contractor has indicated the specific name of that particular back up beeper. >> yes. >> and i'm not we can ask the appellant whether the introduction of those specific ones showed in the test will satisfy. >> i think our position we're referencing the approval provided by the gentleman at the time, we conducted the tests upon these or based on that we thought we had an agreement. >> i'm assuming what you read from in terms of the miegsdz and companies was different than our brief. >> slightly different based on and incorporating the changes suggested by the gentleman. >> thank you so we can it can public comment can i see a show of hands holdup how many people wish to speak in public comment arrest rub9, sir. >> i think you've heard were close and you're right there was a thing about the whole weekend or the next night and indeed accident unilateral contract modification called for the next weekend and that was unacceptable so if they had as a pro

activities during the shutdowns nevertheless of sequence so due to that we've discussed with the appellant and sfmta in regards to those noise issues what could be performed to mitigate the concerns of the resident initially we had 3 shut denounce getting the night time noise issuing the notices and doing the due diligence didn't have appeals or any issues at this point in time once we started up in january the december period was essentially no work to be performed due to the holidays in january immediately there's no changes to the activity that we performed there is been a new issue a bigger concern that the residents feeling multiple weekend to mitigate the sound it's a going on we still maintain we're within the noise orients requirements millennial the permit is essentially requiring us to - sorry the police code said when a noise issue are be is issued no maximum noise this is an issue for the residents on site currently in the neighborhood so sfmta pro-bin and others have met for an accord we provided initially our mitigation plan but since then we've met a few more times people ag

can look at page 12 in my briefly you'll go over a few to create less shadow the upper floor the appellant has been set back 6 feet plus and windows on that side have been made clearly with fills of 6 feet home was reduced by 3 feet several years ago in negotiation and more recently rutsz under 14 inches move forward 2 feet and move forward 3 foot before the commission took action overwhelmingly our clients wanted the second-story not 80 moved at all the appellant minded they were 13 and ended up with 5 it's a reasonable compromise you'll hear why much more if any will cost a lot of money when mr. shapz talks to you there's no rear yard open space in the rear the blocks come together you could point your fingers at a acute angle the open space you're looking at it is now there are 4 homelands on 24 by one hundred rear lots and not coming at strange understandably not a open space in the mid enclosing block the zoning administrator said in 2003 quote the exposed building will not impede the enjoyment of surrounding property and also quote grant the rear yard variants is necessary for the su

and person of record action requested by appellant reserve the order of abatement or grant a 10 year moratorium under the section of the san francisco building code. >> morning from the department 4 one one boulevard is a use for installation of a second kitchen on the ground floor abatement was issued on may 21st of last year we don't see any permits that will deal with the violation therefore staff represents to uphold the abatement and goes an assessment of costs that concludes my report. >> i have a question is it right. i read the letter that the attorneys wrote this is not allowed by planning that the second kitchen is not allowed is there an issue about permitting it if it's not allowed by planning. >> it's i would say with recent changes to the code it could be possible to legalize it. >> commissioner walker. >> are there 0 any safety issues involved with this at this junction i mean it's not really a second unit correct it's more of a man. >> any breach of the code until we can verify it is assumed it's a second. >> has the department been there to inspector the department i

and is new information i just was able to share this with the permit holder this evening and the appellant i think may not be aware of this, although i think they probably should be but on november 10th of last year, mr. merchant did file a bbm request which is a black book notification request, it was entered into our computer system on the 12th but we count the one year date that it's valid from the date they submitted it so it's valid from november 10th last year to november 10th of this year. the permit was reviewed by the planning department on november 12th which is the same day i think it was entered into the computer system, i would say staff probably may have not seen this, it could have been entered in the afternoon and staff reviewed the permit in the morning, i feel we must honor the bbn request, the appellant did not make any arguments regarding the bbn or failure to get bbn notice as part of their appeal, the purpose of it is to inform the party of the permit application gives them the ability to take it to the planning commission. if they have no intention of taking it to th

. >> good evening commissioner joe duffy dbi just one thing on the brief i've read from the appellant she wasn't aware of the notice of violation and the sick amended notice was caused because of the first calling the notice of violations are available at dbi for mop to see you can you can look it up on line and there's a notice if you come down to the department of. >> sorry. >> i wanted to respond to that item i read in the brief we do make them available to anyone that wants them. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, then commissioners. >> different. >> the excuse me. the rehearing requester has not provided any you knew information i'm not prepared to have a rehearing. >> any other comment questions. >> move to deny it on the basis no new information has been provided. >> mr. pacheco call the roll please. >> there's a motion on the floor tb commissioner fung to deny this rehearing request commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you vote is 4 to zero this is denied and a notice of decision a shall be released. >> moving on to hayes va

ask the appellant's agent. you have 7 minutes. >> good evening, my name is nick skinas and i'm here representing my number voula skinas and i would like to respectfully withdraw our appeal to this project. i spoke with one of the architect ts and we are -- we think you could find the solutions to the problem wes eel be having, and as such i'll withdraw the appeal. >> okay, mr. skinas, we always tell folks would want to withdraw their appeals to understand that if you do so, the board will no longer have any jurisdiction over this matter. >> yes,. >> okay, thank you. >> good luck. >> okay, so item number 8 has been withdrawn, we'll move on to items 9a, b, c and d, this is appeal number 14197 14198 and 1419, against the building inspection with the planning department approval. the properties at 1325 kansas city, the first appeal is protesting the issuance on november 13th to michael welch to remove ill laoem permit and bathroom from second floor legalize illegal bathroom the next is for an electric permit and th

afternoon and staff reviewed the permit in the morning, i feel we must honor the bbn request, the appellant did not make any arguments regarding the bbn or failure to get bbn notice as part of their appeal, the purpose of it is to inform the party of the permit application gives them the ability to take it to the planning commission. if they have no intention of taking it to the planning commission, then i think this matter would be mute, if they do have an intent to take it to the planning commission, then i think it would be best if the board were to deny the permit and we can go through that proper process and as we saw in the case last week with cesar chavez, it's something we need to be cautious and we're trying our best to implement these appropriately. i will note that -- and in the case of cesar chavezfinger we recommended approval to the planning commission, recognizing it was an illegal unit, it wasn't subject to the regular directive, in that case, the planning commission did not align themselves with staff's recommendation and voted to deny the permit and i don't want to talk to

. >> i have been writing things down so let me see the appellant sooerm has two options there's either one to give the planning department the plans so the planning department legalize the thank you very much or the second unit at the house and as soon as they submit it the work of abatement is stayed considered stayed we don't take action it becomes whatever it becomes the permit action becomes whatever it becomes; right? the second action the appellant requests a moratorium the moratorium requires the board to make finding we'll have to send a staff member out to inspector the building and if there are problems through then the appellant needs to fix it okay. >> basically if there are problems. >> before we grant a moratorium. >> correct say the inspectors comes back and there are serious hazards the board will be in a position we'll they'll not quality for the moratorium there will only be the other option. >> commissioner walker. >> i think that this is yeah. it's kind of i mean in my case we should continue it i'd like to see if we can get that code section sent to us so we can re

. >> thank you item 4 a hearing request phenomenon garfield street a reserve from lynn the appellant requesting the hearing for mar versus dbi on february 2, '78 did board voted with one vacant vacancies to uphold the permit and the project is two walls and one door to be removed and the doors to be restored to the original position. >> ms. mar. >> ms. mar is not in the room commissioner president lazarus would you like to call the next item. >> so we'll just hold off and move on to item 5 another subject property on caesar chavez street the board received a letter lawyers miller versus dbi and january 29th the board voted with commissioner wilson and other commissioners to deny the permit it is enrolling issued 3 votes being required to overturn or modify the departmental actions the subject permit was uphold by the operation of law and the project is disconnect and remove the sink and over-the-counter put it below the flat mr. crow 3 minutes. >> good evening members of the board and staff i'm dave i represent the appellant pam miller the request was an extraordinarily cases to prev

are inconsistent with the zoning decision as you know the appellant has the burden of demonstrating the zoning administrator has record or abused his creation would be an arbitrary misuse we believe the appellant has failed to do so in the set of laws commercial uses are not allowed in the residential zoning as stated so the appellant claimed the zoning administrator violated their constitutional right to legal protection unstomach for a lingual and commercial use they claim their commercial use we obviously disagree i think that if this were true turn a century of you land use law on hitting its head the city can decide that a commercial use is inappropriate in some places and appropriate in outside the so over the course the city can decide has it did here my clients residential garage and backyard may not be used for commercial storage and parking so we ask you, please uphold the decision thank you. >> question counselor how long have your property clients been at the property. >> how long have you guys lived that. >> a year every two. >> they need to come forward. >> hi i believ

the department will come up first. >> for the hearing. >> i think usually for rehearing for the appellant goes first. >> okay. you can come up first. >> morning commissioners well, the reason i came is because of the hearing to say it is illegal error to request to goes abatement based on to demand work to be done in a period of time that's not possible to be done as was evidenced by the previous during the previous hearing. >> the report points out out for the code there needs to be new evidence so forth over and over a illegal error do you have any argument further about the illegal error. >> well it's the same as previous arguments during previous hearings just it is illegal i believe - well, it's illegal mistake to demand the correction for repairs within the period of time that was demanded if me first place. >> and i can add that maybe i haven't stressed it enough during the previous hearing that had the department building inspection inspirations were properly done i won't probably have to be here in the first place during the intieksz the thing was signed off incorrectly for insta

the same scenario apologies for the lateness of this information but if during the rebuttal, the appellant can indicate whether they would have any indication of taking the discretionary review, i think that would help us inform the board. >> there's no long gap in time like the last one? >> that is correct. >> and a lot of process in between. >> yes, and just for the board's kind of informationfinger we do have another case that's similar with a bbn that was not properly noticed and it's our intention to avoid that additional process of the planning commission hearings when their outcome cannot be fully guaranteed, we're looking at other alternatives. >> by the way, is a new computer system going the take care of those things? >> well, this was as under the new computer system, but it's -- it's simply was a backlog between it being on staff's desk and getting a computer up in two days. >> i have a question which i'm not sure is your purview, does rent control apply to illegal units? >> it's my understanding that the answer is yes, so there are conferencing we've had with the rent board it

we're advocates of the healthy and gifted urban foresty streetscape we're all in argument like the appellant court we're not questioning the benefits nor the goals by the city of san francisco it is those reasons we're asking for the removal upon the recommendations of our firm and i arborist this is do trees important structure as a relative to structural or suckle soil it's age and years of neglect and years of structural pruning the assessment of the trees is bookend not only my professional experienced but supported by an independent consulting arborist the ficus trees in san francisco are not loud for replanting we've seen this last storm assault weapon numerous flurlz causing dame the property owners don't accept the risk or the responsibility in essence their inheriting trees in poor condition and the yearly pruning of the knapp can occur it is eir reversible and they represent a potential liability and should be replaced with the trees with narrow sidewalks in hayes valley and a heavily traffic pedestrian and commercial street that will provide the correct memoranda support so for sh

i want to thank you for working with the appellant and project sponsor. i don't know how long this effort has been. i want to thank president miguel. this project is different when i and a couple of my colleagues were addressing the issues of historic significance of the building, i think the common wealth club seems to have a good place for involving labor and i thank mark for being here as well and ilw reps also. while i personally feel the embarcadero side, the character of the fine features are really important, it seems unbalanced. this project does significantly retain the historic significance of the building especially the stuart side. i want the common wealth club to have a building as well for future and educational opportunities as supervisor mentioned. i will support the project. >>supervisor london breed: thank you. there is a motion to approve item no. 28 and table item no. 29 and 30. mr. clerk, i think it was already seconded by supervisor avalos. thank you for your eagerness, supervisor farrell. with that, >>clerk, please call the roll. >>

. >> the appellant raised his hand. >> i recognized him first do you want to push the - >> good evening i just i agree but i'm just curious if it didn't go through this pronged notice to the neighborhood i've spent all the money so if the department of public works make it like a special circumstances that this locates because of the you know the - compliment i mean the move it to the to the east side okay. but i can't for me it's kind of hard to wait to go to the properties. >> at this point sir, if this motion passes then that will be it for you expect if the department comes back and give us a mandate reign why you can't at this location. >> okay. thank you. >> do having you have a question? >> i believe in fair business practices and fair i know the gentleman spent a lot of money doing what he is doing but it dawned ownership on me if he moves over to the west it is closer to the bus stop where all the bend over backwards buildings are i can't see why we he can't flush there. >> thank you. >> east or west 15 feet. >> that way he gets it both sides. >> that gives the city department

>> the appellants are saying the canisters are thrown on both sides. so, if it's tied to an event, doesn't seem like you can really distinguish for purposes of the event one side or the other. do you have evidence to the contrary? >> we are simply saying there is more information about the building and the cessation on the stuart street side. we are not saying the entire building on embarcadero didn't also play a part in the building significance. we are saying that the stuart treat side is the facade most closely associated. >> for purposes of looking at the event for what was said earlier is the event makes it other unique. for purposes of the event is there a distinction between one side of the building or the other? >> not from our standpoint. both facades have their defining features and they are outlined very clearly about what they are. >> i think that's the crux of what i have a problem with that in a way you are saying two different things. so, it doesn't make sense to me. thank you. >> thank you, and with that we are going to hear from the pr

is there an appellate process, is an appellate court going to be part of the next steps as we look to the next several weeks? >> absolutely. the first stage and the next 30 days, the defense team will get together and they can if they want to file a motion for new trial which essentially begins to catalogue whatever legal mistakes they think that judge jason cashon made. that's pretty much a formality. i think they have a better chance of winning the heisman trophy than a motion for a new trial. then appellate process starts in earnest. a three-judge court that will probably hear this case sometime within the next year. written briefs will be filed. oral argument and a decision ultimately rendered. as we talked about, the over/under is not good for the defense. less than a 4% chance of success during that first appeal. and then on to the court of criminal appeals and austin, our state's high court for criminal cases. >> why are you saying the likelihood of getting that which you just described, a retrial in essence here is like winning the heisman? why is the chance so small? >> well,

could case 679 six the appellant and owner of record the revocable trust the attorney for the appellant reuben, junius & rose action by appellant reverse the moratorium of the orders under the section of the san francisco building code. >> good morning john engine for the department the address for 411 marina building is a single-family dwelling and the slooegs solution for a kitchen on the ground floor director is here to meet 2013 which an order of abatement was issued no permits filed to deal with the abatement so the staff asks for the abatement order that concludes my report and is the appellant here? good morning, commissioners john with reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the project sponsor since we were last here we asked joe duffey to come out and talk about life safety issue there were no one we're moving forward decided to maintain our request from the board for a 10 year moratorium on enforcement of the order of abatement due to financial hardship that is the property owners mother that lives in the basement she's 0 no longer able to live diligently and can't afford to

. >> apologizes scott sanchez want to stay i stated earlier the appellant has two appointed plans there is an inconsistency in the planned on the belief are not the approved plans they're essentially the approved plans the subtle differences first the approved planned the site plan is consistent with the plan it didn't show the changes or reduction only the original proposal xepd to the rear but the other 40 plans shows the change the second discretion there's an on railing for the rear deck alongside both property links on the plans submitted that i i did permit holder that is gone to a solid wall it's my understanding from the project sponsor that they intend to make that roof obey some means have that be an open railing along the side for the rear deck for the site plan can be addressed through the addendum and the floor planned are correct but explicit reflect the editions to the process i hope that wasn't confusing that is almost 8 o'clock at night. >> is the fire rated wall. >> fire rated roof that's an alternative to the fire rated wall it could be glass that's fire rated. >> oka

bradley, the appellant and we thank you for that continuance and i think it provides ample time to get to the case management conversation, find out what the court can do with scheduling. >> >> and continue with the efforts to find a way to settle this case. >> thank you. is there any members of the public to provide public comment at this time? >> yes, i am david myers and from the law firm [inaudible] and my pleasure to represent the applicant in this matter and this needs to be adjudicated in the court before the board has enough time to pass on the resolution one way or another so it's my recommendation that the board support the motion of supervisor campos. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that would like to pride public comment at this time? seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] . and. mr. gibner. >> deputy city attorney john gibner. the board it continue it but you have to keep it open to continue for three months so take the motion to continue the hearing open per a subsequent hearing at the continued date. >> okay. thank you. and supervisor

we sit in appellate divisions. and it's a collegial atmosphere. and certainly in the first and second departments, we have a great diversity. we have every group represented in the second department. and because of that, you never hear anything that's -- that's tinged with racial or religious prejudice. you don't even hear a word of partisanship. and we come from different parties. nothing, nothing of that nature. so when everyone is around the table, you're compelled to look beyond the biases we might have. i think to a large degree. and get to the heart of the matter. >> all right. i'll take the opposite view. >> you want to dissent. >> i'll dissent. >> i'll dissent. the case that did go in favor of the chinese that was presented to us in which i read a little bit about in preparation for this where i think it was -- there was a statute, i think it was in california, that was -- seemed to be rational on its face. with a purpose. but when it was enforced, it was only enforced against chinese only enforced against chinese and this case was appeale

according to the appellant there are three concerns. . the building is not only significant to the strike but significant with the association of harry bridges and not compatible with the neighborhood that insure considered historic district. it's in the findings that these areas are a historic resource. the property qualifies as a historic resources with the association with the longshoremen's association and has a district association with the 1934 general strike and other events such as the shootings that occurred outside of the building known as bloody sunday and the property is a resource. as stated in the documents the building was not found under listing two for persons and because of the lack of association between the building and in individual includes harry bridges. while he was a member of the union and one of the organizers of the strike the building doesn't have direct association with harry bridges or union members or leaders. without evidence to give connection between them the department stands behind the determination th

the appellants approach san francisco beautiful asking for their support in their cause. and i want to read the letter that san francisco beautiful wrote as a result of that meeting. dear supervisors, i'm writing to you in support of the common wealth club. their new headquarters at 110 embarcadero. san francisco beautiful supports the club's proposal to renovate the building that has long been neglected. with the design proposal sensitive to community needs and to preservation. the club has appropriately honored the historic events associated with this building by preserving and restoring the historic stuart street facade. their careful attention to the historic prominence of the building is show cased by their effort to educate visitors about the history of the building and the water front area, particularly of the labor history. the common wealth club's relocation to the neighborhood along with their extensive programs for all age groups will increase civic engagement and activation at the water front. san francisco beautiful request that you uphold the planning depart

we will start with the appellant, ms. woods. you have 7 minutes and thank you all for your patience this evening. >> overhead please. >> i need the overhead. mel murphy has been trying to tear this house down for here, in 20 ot he was denied a demo permit because it was determined affordable housing, so next mr. murphy called this project an alteration, an alteration is a way that a lot of developers use to get around the demolition rules of section 317, pretending to be an alteration and keeping a certain amount of the original house, developers can basically demolish a house through remodeling, this al ration would increase the size of the house six times over the original size, on december 16, 2013, the house was jacked up on an overstressed beep supported by shoring towers, the beam collapsed dropping the house dun hill demolishing it, the construction company owned and managed by mel murphy was responsible for failing to follow an implemented aproved plan, special instructions as mandated by his permit. this was not a natur

up to 10 minutes for the appellant to speak and up to two minutes for supporters to speak in support of the appeal and 10 minutes for the planning department to certify the mitigated negative declaration and 10 minutes for the real party and interest to present their case for certification of the negative declaration. up to two minutes for public comment for support of the negative declaration will have three minutes for rebuttal argument and at this time i would like to recognize supervisor kim for any opening remarks in regards to this item. >> thank you . we have before us a think other -- building with long interest and on the waterfront with historical nature regarding the project before us. i look forward to hearing both sides of this project and i will reserve the rest of the comments after the arguments. >> thank you and at this time can the appellant please come forward with their presentation. you will have up to 10 minutes. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am david [inaudible]. once again san francisco's heart and soul are under attack and for no important reason. i hope y

pacheco is stated before us and talks about how the greater height and length proposed by the appellate will visibly dominate and make the existing roof appear to are secondly visible to the new reproach however dominate it to appear to be a smaller main mask and in response to live together and compromise i want to say the appellants added a third bedroom a noisy piece of construction during the last half my clients simply didn't complain about the noise that's something we do in the city we understand that at some point our lives change we do you want and move out of the city if by the can't put up with temporary construction too bad we lost 18 percent of families in the city have children one of the lowest in the united states in the new york times i think i printed that statistic at the end of my written presentation and it's why so many people that normally don't look at 4 hundred and 84 secret editions have written letters of support and citywide organizations and people that i mentioned represent whether it's margaret the real heart of san francisco work hard to keep famed and ke

however, amount that you can the permit holder will be happier and the appellant court will be happier >> will that require renotification. >> under do code it will require renotification that will be a new location associated to a new address. >> is there a solution with you don't want the permit holder to be out of business does there a way to issue and apply to have it moved over 9 or 10 feet. >> i believe because of the existing location that of the approved. >> or would you prefer we condition it to be moved 15 feet to the east. >> is that what you're getting into night time i'm to take into account it it one more time if we come up with a decision right there. >> it's really become an issue of really just being in compliance with the code this is strictly reviewed at this location if we decide to move i'd like to prefer that the department take into account that. >> the condition if possible. >> it's not a condition. >> right. >> i'm not prepared to uphold it. >> yeah. >> well, because are we discussing the business. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> the other business has been ther