as soon as the appeal is filed there would never been an -- appeals action. the first decision making body of the city adopts the negative declaration under section 3111. this would provide for appeals when that happens but in other instances one could appeal without having been adopted. it's not consistent with the advice previously given to the board on those two points. both of the wiener ordinance and the kim ordinance provide an appeal for eir after both certification and approval. i don't think i have to go into detail about that, but this does not provide for that. it simply provides for appeal after certification. >> okay. thank you. let me ask also the planning department i know we had a brief conversation around whether there were other issues raised in this version that i have circulated to you around when appeals could happen and sort of the timing and when the closure would happen and i wonder if you had any additional thoughts on that. >> my first thought is what she said. in a nutshell i'm concerned about the clarity around this issue. my conce

about the automatic appeal? >> is no it's out. >> so we don't actually directly put that language back in. let's ask our city attorney. i want i want to thank you. >> i believe the question is do the amendments that supervisor chu delete entirely the notice of the board acting as a decision maker? >> i understand the question is around 3116 does it bring back the spirit of it or undelete that provision. >> it deletes that provision so it reverts back to the way the ordinance is written now. and i think supervisor chu indicated it tries pretty substantially to keep it the way it is. there's a number of smaller changes that are in both ordinances. both your ordinance and supervisor wiener's ordinance. it has altering bit to be the procedural matters before but you need to file on appeal the way it's done now >> so we take out the automatic appeal. this is the question of about how project modifications are determined and this is a question to president chiu. so when an eir is required to verify and there's no up t

appeals. i think it's incredible important to expedite also bike and safety projects. your office is exploring president chiu. already planning is a sign of planner to a hundred percent of affordable housing and another two weeks - we've often heard about the housing projects the suggested language from the council of housing organizations is we come to a determination in 60 days. i know you're interested in that but we want to further explore that. we again see this extensive from the community our neighborhoods are opened to parks. we live in very small residential units in san francisco so the open space people are concerned about it the city is planning changes. the last people is the subscription based notification. i know folks in this room are interested in that. we continue to know this is the temple that exists today but i think we have to get the resources to connect to planning in order to do that. from a lay persons prospective i feel this is something businesses and organizations

we say this in a appeal on supervisor campos appeal resulted. we saw recently that the delores park was appealed to the planning commission after the commission approves that project and someone wants to appeal it it can wait until plans are pulled and at which the construction will have to grind to a halt and it will cost additional money. i think this is not the right process that will continue under supervisor kim's legislation. it will eliminate over the counter permits by requiring that the planning department go there an analysis of smaller plans and when permits from what departments might be neat and then a compilation will be another delay. this abandons the delegation to other departments. this year hundreds of categorical reductions that are done every year. we have a reduction for any sewer repair or water repair that is in repair for one mile. it has small bikes and pedestrian upgrades and a curb closings and painting determinations on the street. the planning department would have to do that that is a significant shift not only at

by one appeal person or lots of appeals we also carefully consider that appeal and it takes typically months to move through the process and to have an inflexible rule that no other government body can take an action f even if this habilitation has nothing to do with the appeal is not okay. i'm looking at - so president chiu i'm curious to know the thinking behind that. i understand, you know, there are a bunch of different views on this subject area but i do stand by the proposal i made >> i think there have been a number of independence where city boards have taken action that continue to take more momentum from a project when the project has been appealed because there are problematic issues that should be settled first. >> so what i thought made since was to again, when the appeal is scheduled it tolls the clock k clock for other boards and commissions. once we know that has been appealed we hopeful that timeframe will resolve those issues soon enough but this language was attempting to strike between the varies possibilities of whether we could start to hear items at other boards

can be an appealed again. and with new or evidence, clearly new information can be generated and identified. it simply takes somebody else submitting their opinion about a projector or another report. that creates an ability for projects that have not changed to appeal on multiple times. so those two aspects of these proposed guidelines are very concerning to me. >> if i may jump in, in terms of no. 1 and 2. i don't have a copy of the two proposals. but one of the intent, i think is current practice where there is a material change to the project, that you have one story addition approved and you have two skris and you are going to expand materially change a project as opposed to we got it approved with the window here and in construction we realize that it has to be two inches over here an i think, i don't want to speak for everyone. most people say if you are adding one story to two, it should be new project, new cadet and if you move a window two inches over, chance are that is not a change in the material

i want to impress upon you how the board of appeals accepting this appeal is in the public interest. the port commission could establish an appellant process for hearing this, but no such appellate process does exist. ~ this body typically hears appeals at place of entertainment permits and has relevant expertise in terms of transportation, noise, neighborhood impacts and other concerns to adjudicate that. and all parties at the table from the appel apt be to the mayor's office to the port to the entertainment commission have requested that this body be the adjudicatory body for this issue. with that general overview i'd like to invite susan reynolds from the port to specifically discuss the port's delegation of that authority to the entertainment commission through the m-o-u for the last decade. >> mr. reynolds, may i interrupt for just a moment? i apologize for not having stayed this earlier. i was a member of the port commission when certain votes were taken on matters ~ that may be heard this evening and i did consult with the city attorney's office and have been advised that the

and then it would give the clerk 7 days from the filing of the appeal date to determine if the appeal complies with the requirements because there are additional requirements besides being timely. and whether it is timely. the clerk would need to provide that notification to the public within 7 days. and then lastly, there was language that would require the clerk of the board to schedule the appeal hearing no less than 30 days after filing and no more than 45 days after the appeal is filed. so, supervisor chiu moved to amend the ordinance as i just described it and supervisor wiener seconded that motion. supervisor kim then asked that the item be continued for two weeks so that her ordinance could also be considered at the same time. board president chiu stated that he is considering her ideas that have been proposed in her ordinance and believes that a one-week continuance of supervisor wiener's ordinance is sufficient. and with that, the committee continues supervisor wiener's ordinance with these amendments to next week. so, it will be back at lubetionv on this coming monday. and

that is currently under appeal to the board of appeals consistent with the following amendments. curfew for paid concerts can be extended by 1/2 hour. permittee submits request for curfew engs tensions to the san francisco police department with at least 10 days notice. sfpd is encouraged to work with the neighborhood steering committee for requests of extensions. two, the permittee should abide by contract between america's cup and the port of san francisco to remove all site improvements and repair any damage by october 31, 2013, and lastly no more than 30 concerts at the maximum capacity of 9287 are otherwise set by sf fire department. and further authorizing our director to present these recommendations to the board of appeals together with any other corresponding amendments and clarifications to the permit that may arise for approval by the board of appeals and that is my motion. >> second anybody? >> i will second. >> okay. second it. now we can open the discussion if you choose commissioners. >> you know we have a world class event going on in this city and i understand th

the appeal is accepted and appeal 14 05 shall be heard next as item 6. thank you. >> i'd like to take a short break, 10 minutes. >>please stand by; meeting in recess >> welcome back to the may 8, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we are calling item number 6, appeal number 13-0 45, [speaker not understood] open space to the water froth, [speaker not understood] versus the entertainment commission. this has to do with piers 27 and 29 protesting the issuance on april 3rd, 2013 to matt prieshoff doing business as live nation, america's cup pavilion conditional place entertainment permit to hold no more than 30 paid concerts between october 3rd, 2013 and october 19, 2013 at specified. this is on for hearing, and we will begin with the appellant. mr. wagoner, you have 7 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. my name again is keith wagoner, i'm here with libby wagoner lle representing the appellants recreation and open space for the waterfront [speaker not understood] and fred. we've already discussed the first portion of our brief that addres

if members of the public would like to appeal the modification of the ero. again we are very open in the conversations around that. we split the file because the item is required to go back to the planning commission, so that's why we made that separation, but again i think we really want to figure out how we deal with modifications and for a way for the public to understand when a modification occurs or not so if it's outlined in a way that everyone understands that is one way to deal with it. we haven't come up with that language so far and we have a way for members of the public to appeal that. >> so there are potentially multiple appeals of modifications but go to the planning commission instead of the board of supervisors? >> it would go to the planning commission and this is when a department actually refers something to planning. it's not that members of the public get to decide but if it's referred to the planning department this is done by other departments when they feel that is the case and the ero makes a determination whether the previous exempt

>> do you want to speak to both appeals? >> i - again, it's up to you guys kind of in a consolidated appeal. >> i think our staff - >> on the complaint tracking number that's associated with u the fees on when the gentleman filed that permit we didn't schedule that so that one doesn't have an order. the problem is that the filing of that building permit was aborted so we have an open case. we set aside the statement of costs and the order of abatement is not being appealed here its the assessment of costs so it's a different kind of appeal >> thank you. i hear two different messages from the board is one the unit is illegal and not illegal >> the owner has attempted to correct - he says he never aborted a permit that was issued it was only that he required to fix. and yet in emphasis file i don't see in his file he adopted aborted - . the board of representatives discussed i really think it was a global representation of everything. the record states after refusing documents chief approved the removal of the application requ

he is not hurt as a result of the appeal. thank you. >> mr. burr well? >> i would like to comment on a few the -- of the items that rob mentioned. there is a two wall system that lombardy property company paid for. there was some other items including a replacement of the complete stairwell on his property and several other items that we paid for and gathering his support and in drafting the neighbor agreement and also in insurance matters as well. a couple of comments that frank more oh one of the other neighbors mentioned. you saw the picture of the area. there was a retaining wall in place. he talked about bringing in all of this dirt and there wouldn't be any reason to bring in any dirt because ideally you wouldn't want it to be any higher. you would prefer it to be at the level of that retaining wall. the notion of bringing excavated dirt. it was cement. i will be happy to answer any questions. the items on the appeal are items related to the name on the permit. we had some clarity here and we are happy to correct that.

>> okay, i will move to grant the appeal. up holding the permit on condition that a6 will be stricken from the plans. >> is that all? >> on the parties' mut agreement. thank you. >> we have a motion from the president. to grant the appeal and up hold the permit on the condition that apple 6, a6, that the approved plan set be struck from the scope of the permit and on the basis of the party's mutual agreement. on the condition to up hold it. >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> hurtado? >> aye. >> lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> thank you. >> the vote is 5-0 and the permit is upheld with page a6 instruct and on that basis. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay we will call item five, 12-171, matthew and kristine building, 611 vista west rtment avenue, providing the issuance of the permit to alter a building, one story vertical addition to two story residents and will include, and the project will have a basement addition. and we will start with the appellant. attorney, brandt holly. >> good afternoon, i am representing f

>> i am going to move to grant appeal on all four permits. and to reinstate that portion of, i guess, it is permit ending in 634 for the new ada bathroom. and to condition that based upon verification by the building department of what was existing walls previous in the previous use, matching walls that were recently constructed will be allowed to remain. >> okay, so commissioners, just so that we are clear, would you mind if we just went permit by permit, since therare four different scopes of work, it sounded to me that you said for the first one, 12-158, the alteration permit, that you were accepting the proposal of having it amended and the scope of work reverting to the space of preexisting condition prior to issuance of the permit with the exception of allowing the construction of the new ada baths room? >> correct. >> do you want to say anything about no change of use? or do you feel like that is already covered? >> i thought it was covered. >> the second one you would allow the bathroom but strike the sink in the break room and i am u

the board has power to grant the appeal. they should grant the appeal on a number of basis. one, if the appeal is not granted there will be a decrease in affordable housing contrary to statutory state of the policy of the city again, it is basically in equitable to give a bonus to someone who violates the law who is not available to someone who follows the law. i think the equities here lie greatly in favor of my client and that this should not be permitted to be a means to rce her out and possibly get in a new tenant at 2-3 times the rent and reward the landlord for the wrongdoing. thank you. >> thank you. miss the salas, do you want to speak >> i don't know if i should. i'm not represented by a lawyer. >> she's the agent for the permit holder. she's been actively involved in this appeal in terms of -- but it's -- i don't know if, she can decide for herself. >> i didn't know she was the agent. i didn't realize. >> she's been submiting the documents as the agent? >> no. she had some phone calls to the office. >> okay. >> do you feel authorized to speak on behalf of the holde

the appeal passed. there was noah appeal filed and it was canceled by the permit holder. there are some change in the language listed on the project description, but otherwise i'm unclear as to why it was refiled. anyway. it was an appealed here and so say the zoning only allowed a single family dwelling. i'm available for questions. >> would an novb issued on the property. they are asking for permits on something that is not warranted. they are giving permission for the nov. >> there have been no complaints by the planning department. but the planning department may have a violation on the property. >> thank you. >> commissioners, i'm not aware of any violations for the illegal unit. we sometimes get people that come involuntarily. we want to recognize there is an illegal unit and they want to take it out. that's what it sounds like this permit is for. we also have owners who make a complaint on their own property in order to have us write a notice of violation. i'm not aware that that happened in this case, otherwise we would have wanted some language on the permit to c

appeals. >> thank you so after public comment i'll be asking the count i committee to adopt the amendment and i'll all the one by ms. warren. >> thank you, mr. chewy want to take a moment and thank our deputy city attorney and as well as all the public stakeholders after the amendments we offered two years ago, i brought more amendments to continue to insure that when the planning depended are making decisions those are properly noticed to the public. so i brought some additional amendments to run through. those are fairly technical but for the record i have an amendment that will be adopted to modify section 34 i that helps to modify the sequa decision and this will be provided on its website and in other manners as well. anotrmendment will provide in section 38.08 d that other departments should provide planning with copies and planning shall make the information available on its website to deal with issues that other departments are making. and in section 31.08 when planning must prepare an

just going back briefly to the whole multi-appeal issue. one of the proposals in here which was mentioned but not discussed is the idea of the planning department has to predict all the different permits from every department even though there is 4 or 5 or 6, have to predict for this project what the permits are going to be and if there is anything different from that. as anyone who knows construction affordable or market or otherwise knows there are times in construction where you have to pull another permit. there is an additional permit that you didn't think you had to get an encroachment permit. under this proposal, the planning department would have to modify it's memo and put it on there and trigger a new board of appeals to supervisor. if you have units for affordable housing, that's additional ero because they have to amend their memo. i think it's important to keep that one as well. >> i just don't know how many affordable projects for exemption will get that. >> 30 units. that's just a number. >> actually exemptions have most of t

there is nothing for the public to appeal. that's the way i'm reading that language. >> if you read the beginning of that paragraph at the bottom of page 16 for purposes of exempt project. >> i'm on page 47. appeal of determinations on modified projects. i apologize if i'm talking about something totally different. >> yeah. they do link together. >> modification requiring reevaluation shall mean. and that's where it says the change in scope and that's the challenge. >> i guess, i'm sorry, i will be done after this. i think that we need to define what the scope is and what a change in modification is. i think that clarity would help everyone and there is less of a fear on planning side in terms of what an appeal might light look -- look like and a change in modification would be determined. >> if you go back to the first clause in that section on page 16, line 21, where a modification that determines to be exempt, the ero shall reevaluate the project and make a determination pursuant to this chapter. it actually mandates a reev

>> i am unaware of whether there was any appeal of that or intent to appeal that. the appeal period began with the issuance of the permit in february. >> if we can hear from the permit holder. >> aye. ~ ~ >> good evening, commissioners. my name is brendan halloran and i represent tree med cannabis dispensary, 5 234 mission street. the permit holder. this process began in the spring of 2010 when tree med submitted their application to the health department. subsequently that summer they submitted a building permit for change of use to cannabis dispensary as well as planning department ac application. these applications weren't heard by the department or planning commission until october 2012. this two-year period allowed for significant public outreach and participation and also for the planning department to do a very thorough analysis of this project and impact on the surrounding area and the community in general. however, the issue we're here for tonight is a jurisdiction request. the permit was issued february 14, valentine's day. it would have expired on march

he's appealing the assessment of costs on both open properties. that's why i'm saying this discussion is misleading you want all the costs waved and that's not appropriate. we have waved the assessment of costs open the permit associated with the illegal unit. >> can we think separate it if he's appealing everything together can we say we're not dealing with the case that doesn't have an and i basement order? it so you would the department is already >> about two years ago the building code was changed so the statement of costs is no longer link to this order. the assessment of costs is for violation occurred and we don't have compliance. that's why there's awesome gut it's not a situation where he's appealing the ownerships of order in 15 days. so keep in mind he also has two more in houses hearing with us and if we loin the property for the statement of costs we has a hearing before the board of supervisors. so that's part of the loin process >> just define a doraborters permit. >> he takes it from station-to-station he started the process and d

two days before the appeal period. she was willing to listen to concerns. one of the things that miss pres sta did want to propose was it was create twog creating two walls and she was still willing to incorporate that into the design. in the end this process is going to createnew family size dwelling unit. the recently adopted housing element of the general plan has a clear policy to develop new housing and encourage the remodel of the new housing. new multi-bedroom is expensive and that creates a more affordable family housing. it's three units with open dedicated buildings. >> thank you. mr. sanchez, nothing further. the matter is submitted. >> a lot of things were brought up, but i think the primary issue with the appellant has to deal with the stair to the roof and the stair penthouse. looking at the orientation i would have guess that the blockage of the sun occurs relatively late in the afternoon. given that the penthouse is almost directly due west of the appellant's property. which means the southern sun is wh

going on, criteria for appeal for modification. that's really important. we can't just depend on one person's opinion. we need a set criteria. and another thing, in regards to supervisor wiener, he said there are three organizations working.cfn has three organizations. environmental justice. >> thank you. good afternoon, neighborhood council. thank you. a little more work will give this the certainty and better impact. thank you for working with the over 40 organizations. currently final approval is the law and by putting in an appeal period of 90 days after the final approval will give certainty and incentive for developers and neighbors for them to make sure that projects fit the neighborhood. all of planning objections about more work should be considered and balanced against the publics need to know and public's need to work city. please make the best possible legislation by giving it another week. i really appreciate supervisor chiu's open discussion taking on the community coalition on the thoughts and i am improvements that you have made. the hearin