however, they had 10 days after the appeal to file an appeal. rather than do that, they went ahead with the demolition, so i do feel this is an area, a specialized area, that needs to be addressed, not just in regards to appeals of this appeals ofceqa process but in regards of appeals in general, and it should include the area during which the demolition would not occur. [bell] all right, thank you. chair maxwell: does anybody else after paul -- please line up and come forward. >> thank you, supervisors, for the opportunity to get in touch with the front of a coatt -- he the fun topic of ceqa. this is not doing a good job either for the product sponsors or as the community as a whole. i have not had time to begin the most recent revision of this proposal legislation in death, but i am extremely concerned about the timing after documents are released, the tight restrictions for an appeal. when you consider the voluminous comments, the voluminous documentation that comes out with the final eir, the short time. i believe you will see people rushing

that were not appealed would not be subject to the subsequent appeal. that has been incorporated. the planning commission requested clarification that would require objection in order to maintain appeal rights. this is no longer relevant, and the requirement that you have to have a prior has been deleted, so that is no longer relevant. the supervisor can specify what kind of demolition would be applicable to this, in section 317 of the planning code, as well as alterations to buildings of a surge in your or older. -- of a surge in year or older -- a certain year or older. and we requested an additional note, -- an additional item. this was actually not incorporated. this is something that we can do to further provide clarity. i guess there are some things in the ordinance before you that describe what sort of notice is required, but we do many additional notices before you get to that step of the eir, such as the notice of preparation, and that it be codified in specified in the law, we can post the information online and make that part of the previous

we believe the decision was correctly made by the board of appeals to deny the appeal and to allow the stop work order to be rescinded. perhaps i can help clarify some of the issues that were raised here. first, the conditional use was heard and approved by the planning commission on february 2005, february 24, 2005. at the hearing, the zoning administrator according to the record had granted the variance. that variance decision letter was not issued until the during 12, 2007. that started the clock ticking that would allow us until february 2010 to receive the required permit. that was issued in june 2009. it was not issued in june 2010. it was issued within the three years from the issuance of the variance decision letter. in december 2009, a stop work order was issued because of concerns we had with conditions of approval related to preservation issues. there was no discussion about expiration of the entitlement. that was not the concern. the concern was the preservation components of the approval. we worked for six months with the project sponsor to get those issues resolved. in ju

was that the basis of your appeal? >> yes, as well as the fact that the entirety of the project has not been reviewed by planning. these are the secretary of the interiors of guidelines for any project on a building over 50 years old. it is more complicated than saying it is a historic building. when you do that, you get into a variety of other issues i am sure mr. sanchez has discussed. it is not just an old building. it is an old building that has been invoked under standards through the residential design guidelines of the secretary of the interior, which affect the whole project. commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president goh: it seems like if we deny the permit we are denying the repairs to the foundation for at least a year. i am not willing to do that or to force the permit holder to go through the emergency application process. i think continuance makes sense to the earliest possible date -- the earliest possible date after the board of supervisors. commissioner fung: i am in agreement. it is up to the permi

we also had two appeals before the full board, one was an appeal for city place. the other was the appeal of a conditional use authorization. this is authorized by the signatures of four members of the border supervisor's. maybe you can -- you consider this on july 8th. at that time, we recommended approval of the form of a retail. at the hearing, the appellants concern was the approval of independent pet stores. the initial vote to approve your decision failed on a vote of 4- 7. the board would have needed six votes in order to appeal the decision. they would have needed a super majority to overturn your decision. the board unanimously voted to table the item and by tabling the appeal, your conditional use authorization stands. you are approved the environmental impact report on august 31st of this year. this consists of the demolition of three buildings and retail based shopping. the primary issues were with traffic and pedestrian concerns and preservation of the theater. prior to the hearing, the developer agreed to provide additional funding at a rate of 20 ce

number 09 -- appeal number 09-4142. they voted to grant the findings -- to grant a permit with the adoption of findings at a later time. it will and in restoration of the living in a to make a three dwelling unit. president peterson: my understanding is that we are in agreement. if you have questions or comments, you can call them up. is there any public comment on these findings? commissioners, the matter is before you for adoption. >> i will move to adopt the findings. >> on that motion from president peterson to adopt findings. commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner goh: aye. commissioner fung: aye. the vote is 5-0, the minutes are adopted. president peterson: if you can move on to 4b. the subject property, it is appeal number 10-025. it was decided april 14, 2010. at that time, the board voted to uphold the denial of the tow firm permit with adoption of findings at a later time. president peterson: i would just like to confirm that you are able to revert -- review the video, commissioner gar

we move on to item number five, appeal number 10-079, the property at 3750 scott street, appealing thesition of penalty imposed on july 16, 2010, for construction work done without a building permit. we will start with the appellant in this case. >>. afternoon, laurence kornfield. this is a penalty imposed for the installation of windows in the building at 3750 scott street.

they forwent their right to appeal. the exception to the variance is based upon the thing that was built with that the permit. i do not know how we can fix it particularly. it does not seem quite fair to the neighbor. >> it is interesting. in my personal experience, i have had laid -- had neighbors filed just in case, as opposed to not filing just in case. vice president goh: is that the system we want? i think that is a system we really do not want. >> that is correct. vice president goh: are telling the city with -- when in doubt, file a dr? >> people are more comfortable when they know they have a safety route. commissioner fung: i did get this from you. but we are saying is the first notice was filed much closer to the actual situation. then the question is twofold. one is whether we feel that the 1'6" or 1'2" -- is that a significant amount with respect to notice and appeal rights of the neighbor? the second portion to this is whether it was actually constructed on the existing footprint. vice president goh: i thin

number -- of appeal number 10-081 protest in the issuance to alter a building. we will start with the appellant or her agent and dow. >> i am a personal friend of the architect and have had professional contact with the permit holder. this will not affect my ability to rule on this. >> i'm speaking on behalf of the appellant. i am her architect. she is appealing approval for neighbors proposed addition and the rescission -- the decision of discretionary review. the documents not considered are in two categories. the document requested but not produced was a shadow study requested in the review of the proposed design. page 9 of the review is a copy of the notes showing that the study requested be provided. it would be helpful and clarifying where this will cast shadows. the documents are two sections of the san francisco general plan. the policy says that it should reflect the natural slope of the hill. it appears that these documents were overlooked during a planning review. currently there are no policies governing solar access. building construction was one of

we received the appeal from the board of appeals and stopped work. we installed the windows and the interior. the building code requires us to maintain our building. they are a direct replacement. it would also have one other when no on that same permit, but that was not in dispute. we have this one also. we just put it on the same permit. the windows are a direct replacement of windows that were already in existence we wanted to increase privacy for our neighbors and ourselves. they stated as if the windows are new openings, and they are not. it actually increases their privacy and to minimize noise. we intend on being good neighbors and apologize for the noise that the work produces. my husband spoke to discuss the issues. she was forthcoming and polite and described this was a negative experience with the windows wide open. we do not intend on being inconsiderate towards our neighbors. she had also been ill during our renovation. we apologize for this construction and for the inconvenience the work has caused. projects can sometimes be allowed, bu

i have been on the board of appeals for five years. i did serve as president there, and also obviously, vice president. i do not know what else you want me to say. a quick word about our board is that our board service somewhat as a barometer of this activity in sentences go in that for the last two years, we have heard on average 150 cases whereas eight years prior to that, we have heard 260 cases. the difference is about 40%. it indicates what is going on in the city in terms of business community. 78% approximately of the cases we here come from either dbi, planning, or the zoning and ministration. your office kindly called me yesterday and asked me to be prepared to talk about whatever accomplishments i feel i might have been irresponsible for as a member of the board of appeals. we are not a policy body. on a policy body, there is something that might come of that you feel needs dealing with, but the one thing i would point to is the fact that when i was president of the board, we have a different type of commission. in the same y

to the board of appeals.that is something for the board of supervisors to deal with. this authorization might be made to the board of supervisors but the board might not be appealed to any government body. with respect to the notices special restrictions, the appellant them brings up paragraph two which is what we have been discussing. the aircraft nine states in support of the decision that the minor modifications determined by the zoning administrator might be permitted if it is determined that such modifications are necessary in order to comply with the department of building inspections. this is what occurred during those few years. that gives the planning department broad discretion to order the permit holder to make modifications and to give the permit holder at the time to make those changes requested. we are hearing about historical preservation. i would like to make an argument that the three-year period was in 2008. the permit holders did not receive the deed for the recording in the assessment offi

i move that the appeal be denied. i have to except the appeal and modified on the condition that the permit is modified and a one hour fix window assembly was opaque and this was the class that would be installed. >> the assembly was translucent. >> or opaque glass. >> i think if we add some language to comply with this, that what kind of wrapped everything up. >> this would have to be to protect their future rights. you can add the language for it to be opaque or gas. >> are you ready to call the role? >> to restate the motion to grant the appeal but the permit is upheld, the scope is modified to include a one hour not operable with the with translucent or opaque glass. >> we are setting their appeal that the permit be revised and that the new assembling conforms to the administrative bulletin with a translucent or opaque fire-rated class. >> isn't this transparent? >> with glass that you cannot see through. >> that is pretty scientific. >> do you want to respond to my motion? >> i'm wondering why a -- is consulted o

item five is appeal -- i am sorry.em six is appeal 10-011, larissa belsky versus the department of building inspection about the property 530 liberty street protesting the issuance of a permit to alter a building with pressure treated plywood sheets. we will start with the appellant. >> commissioners, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you. i worked hard to save enough money to buy my home at 524 liberty swoop -- liberty street. i love my neighborhood in my home. unfortunately, my neighbors have obtained a permit to make a material change that would irrevocably harmed not only my house but impose an eyesore on me and several other individuals in the city. i asked the board to revoke the permit so my neighbors will have the sighting that originally said they would. in their 311 notification, the owners testified to painted siding. now the plan untraded pressure- treated plywood sheets as a finished product. this unattractive large wall from a zero lot line, visible from almost every room in my home as we

>> against. -- against the appeal? >> against. >> you will have an opportunity in a little bit. >> i am speaking on behalf of the appellant. i would like to make one point. the food express was requesting to be located in an underserved neighborhoods, and we are not convinced they didn' the busines surge. of>> good afternoon. we have one store located in district 6. ha hthey have a conditional use permit. in the findings of the executive summary, they downplayed the community's support. they stated that the department received a phone call from bob be white, who said he had signatures. he is the owner of a boutique that store. additional letters from associations requesting the denial of the conditional use permit and letters were attached. hawkthey were contesting the opg of pet food supplies rigid pose food express. i would like to mention -- the opening of pet food express. i would like to mention we have customers much more comfortable driving to their neighborhood shop. >> i can say that low prices on pet food hav

"reference to an appeal at that address. -- >> heat referenced an appeal at that address. any other comments on minutes? president peterson: i will move to adopt. is there any public comment? this is a motion to adopt the minutes as written. commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. >> the boat is 4-0. the motion passes. we are moving on to item four. it is the adoption of findings. 4a is in regards to appeal 10- 205, koehler vs sfpd. the board voted to uphold the denial of the tougher permit with the adoption of findings at a later time. the public hearing was held and closed on august 18 and was scheduled today for further consideration. the matter was continued to allow time for parties to respond in writing to the proposed findings. >> we have left copies of revised findings. they were revised to make some technical requests -- technical corrections. copies have also been destroyed it did to the parties. with the president's consent, i will give the parties each three minutes to address the board. >> my name is ann seldon. i have been a

the permit was subsequently appealed to the board of appeals. on july 10 of this year the board unanimously upheld the permit. however, the apell ant did file a rehearing request. and last night the board unanimously denied the rehearing request. the board will now issue a notice of decision and the building permit will be final. that concludes the board of appeals' report as well. president miguel: thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, if we can move forward on your calendar, eye ty tell number -- item number six is an abbreviated institutional mat -- master plan for heald college. >> good afternoon, members of the commission. i'm handling the case for erin holster who is out of the office today. this is a submission of the abbreviated master plan for heald college. planning department staff has determined that documents contain all of the information required for an abbreviated i.m.p. pursuant to the planning code this i.m.p. is similar to the ones that you've you a -- approved previously at 350 mission street. this is for their new location

addendum or not, appealable to the board of appeals. ]tçcommissioner fung: :jqe[tódoe sed elevations different floors? >> what was included in my pack it does not show -- included in my pocket -- packet. i do not see it in the paper work. regarding the possible excavation, juin one of these pages that was associated with the package, i am seeing iand i emcea point, which was no. 1 in the package, and it shows a site plan. the front right corner of the curb, and that is 00, so everything is related to it 00 -- to 00 elevations. this would be about 19 or 20 inches above the reference point curb,e2mñ and thero references for the rear yard. it seems to be an up sloping lot. the only thing i can assume -- it seems to be an up-sloping lot. the steps to the left-hand side of the property, it shows8dsá-juj5ei0 which would typically be#q about 7.5 inches, so it seems weg climbing above 5 feet to get the rear yard, so that would suggest that is that much excavation. commissioner fung: at a minimum. the problem is that we do not know how it sits on the site. thank you. president peterson: commi

commissioner garcia: if we a grant the appeal -- if we grant the appeal and overturned the permit, and as the year and a day applied? >> would not be able to apply for the same project until one year has elapsed. president peterson: i have one question about language access in your office. do you have competent people who speak in multiple languages at your office? >> we do. we have multan lingual phone numbers as well. you can call and request information in your native tongue. we would have someone return that call to them. president peterson: thank you. >> mr. kornfield, do you have anything to add? and is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: well, commissioners, i thought we were very specific what we needed at this meeting and the information was not provided. the situation is the following right now. if you look at the site permits, it is almost exactly the same as the 311. it shows that the things that were mentioned in the various letters -- it was also very similar to the set that was initially approved