you recite the appeal number? >> this is 10-138. and no finding. so on that motion to deny this. [roll call vote] thank you, and commissioner hwang is absent. this vote is also 4-0 and this appeal is denied. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners, we move on to item no. 3 which is general public comment. if there is any member of the public would like to speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda. seeing none, item four, commissioner comments and questions. if commissioners? ok, seeing none, adoption of minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the meeting for january 19, 2011. president goh: commissioners? i move for adoption. and any public comment on the minutes? >> seeing none, if you could call the roll on the item number five, please? %ñ4x8 president goh to adopt the january 19 minutes -- [roll call vote] the vote is 4-0, those minutes are adopted. >> no further business, commissioners, we are adjourned. >> i work with the department of environment and we are recycling

they still have an appeal going of the board of appeals, and our clients cannot complete the work. if the appellants get this revision subject to more where view, they have an opportunity to go to the planning commission for review of the entire project. our system is very generous in that it appeals to the planning commission. it is a decent system. it is being asked for a small revision. certain revisions are increased. this is not one of them. finally, i would like to point out an interesting statistic, and is an article. it is an article several years ago stating the following. they have had the lowest percentage of people under 18 years of any large city in the nation. seattle was a close second. they asked what were some of the most important reasons why they did not feel comfortable keeping their families and the city. is cited three reasons, and one was how difficult and expensive and long it took to make minor renovations to existing homes, to update them, to allow families to extend, to allow generations to move in. we have a good system, and we believe today is one of th

if it was received by the new owner, they had the appeal to -- right to appeal the within 10 days. so i would support. commissioner walker: maybe we could look at ways of letting this to the assessor's office somehow? especially in our new system. if there are violations attached to property, that these things are recorder quickly so that people and the public are updated as to the reality of it. >> so commissioner walker, or motion to take jurisdiction over the case? that is your motion? all those in favor? oppose? the motion carried unanimously. the payment appeals board is taking jurisdiction over item to which is case 6743. the owner of record it in the appellant is christina fong. the department has seven minutes if it wishes to state its case. ms. fong will then have seven minutes. commissioner lee: then we will have public comment and rebuttal. >> since i have already summarized the case, i want to address some of the question that have come up previously. the timeframe from the position of the director's officer to the time it gets sent to the recorder, it is because the de

time the eir appeal to the planning decision. i have a hard time understanding the changes that were being made today. i am not sure whether the entire cadex process was taken out. i am pleading for you to make specific -- you have cadex notices for this brand new category we have a lot of. you adopt an area plan and there are no more eirs in that area because they are tiered from that document. need something that says that just because you're in the east part of the city you are not second-class citizens and do not have notices like you have in supervisor mar's district. the rest of us do not get any notices anymore. it is an affirmative change. i have sent you the changes i want. i thought we could solve this. but i do not think we can solve it by tomorrow thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. robert black, san francisco chamber of commerce. i am glad we are considering ceqa reform here in san francisco. i had the pleasure of attending the green california sixth annual conference in sacramento last week. i was able to hea

>> there is the other appeal, commissioners. commissioner fung: i apologize, there is an appeal of the permit. commissioner peterson: so you have the second appeal which is protesting the issuance of the permit. >> the revision permit, yes. that is why i was not exactly sure how procedurally you would put that out. the net effect is what i am looking for, how you guys see that from a parliamentary or whatever it is standpoint, perhaps mystical steam or the adviser to the board, the city attorney, would know how to call that. i don't know. commissioner peterson: okay, thank you. >> mr. sanchez, no rebuttal? ok, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> it is a different permit. icommissioner fung: for the main permit that was there before. president goh: they cannot have !zthe second without the fir, right? commissioner fung: they could. >> scott sanchez, planning department. it depends what the board wants to do. if the board were to uphold the appeal and require changes, then that would be there revision permit. at that point,

they still have an appeal going of the board of appeals, and our clients cannot complete the work. if the appellants get this revision subject to more where view, they have an opportunity to go to the planning commission for review of the entire project. our system is very generous in that it appeals to

they have indicated they planned several more, and they did not appeal to the board of appeals or the planning commission. the project stopped for about six months. the revision was made necessary when the contractor started to repair certain walls and found debt -- found the wall needed to be replaced and not nearly repaired. he talked about rebuilding them in the same dimensions as they are today. you realize things need to change. the only issue is whether the planning department did sufficient review. this revision allows for to 5 feet of the wall and 15 taser 18 feet of the south wall -- 15 to 18 feet of the south waltol the reasons it gave cover those reasons. the area has already been reviewed under historic guidelines, and the additional demolition that is not a historic. finally, the replacement does not trigger enough demolition so it runs afoul of the rules subject to a an automatic planning commission. they say the decision which was late although it was not late for two reasons. they still have an appeal going of the board of appeals, and our clients cannot complete the w

to the board of appeals. and we have no issue one way or another if you take jurisdiction. we have no issue with your request to take jurisdiction carry commissioner hwang: -- to take jurisdiction. commissioner hwang: you are taking no jurisdiction? >> no. any other questions? commissioner garcia: -- >> in tier 3, and people can correct me if i am wrong. i am doing this by memory, so excuse me. after it has been reviewed by e the department of public health, in some cases the planning department -- after it has been reviewed by the department of public health. the permit requester will be required to do a neighborhood notification. commissioner garcia: and how wide? >> can i confer? commissioner garcia: if you just knew off of the top of your head. vice president goh: i had the same question. commissioner garcia: 150 feet in every direction? >> for the neighborhood residents, 300 feet for the neighborhood association. commissioner garcia: in my last question would be, are you familiar enough with the legislat

consequently, i was not able to appeal this before the board and was therefore denied the right to appeal the directors' decision within the 10 days allowed because i was not made aware that there was a proceeding. i did my due diligence once i became aware of the issue and believe that dbi was negligent in not pursuing its notices hearing and order of the basement with the bank. now that i have corrected the problem, i am forced to pay the fee that was made against the bank. when i purchased this house, i was not over there was a complaint filed with dbi or notices of proceedings that followed. this is evidence from the housing record of all documents from december 23 through april 21% to the bank of new york, the trustees. the only document that was said to me as acknowledgement that i was the owner was the august 13 final bill assessing cost of $1,300. dbi did not in good fit provide me notice at the directors hearing or order of abatement and i disagree with the directors believe that dbi for build its obligation when it notified the bank. i believe dbi failed in its fiduciary duty to

i would like to ask you to grant this appeal. i have to say that when i heard about nextg's equipment, installing these before the law changed, i was pretty disgusting. while there was no laws requiring them to notify the neighborhood, their future potential clients, customers, they obviously could have done it on their own, and, instead, they chose to send in executives who loitered in the neighborhood and ask people randomly if it bothered them. i think that that haphazard interest in the wants and needs and concerns of the neighborhood shows a real -- is really concerned, because these of the people who are installing and are in charge of maintaining this equipment in a residential neighborhood, near people's houses, and if there is that negligence in the neighborhood with residents, how can you a expect them to maintain the neighborhood and assure that the equipment is safe? and so, that is about it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, my name is chris. i appreciate you guys taking in interest on

he has a tenure with the relocation appeals board. he has been an important part of the civic fabric, recognizing there has not been strong petition -- participation with the korean-american community at city hall. he has been part of the process and deserves continued service. herb cohn i have known for 10 years. he was providing assistance to the merchants of upper market and castro. one of the things that has distinguished his participation is his level of positivity. he is proactive. he is looking for solutions, not to blame our be negative. brought people who had not been participating in the district merchants into it, but stepped up and is now a resident of the council. he is an incredible member of our community. he is doing great work citywide. the thing he will do wonderfully on this panel. i will have to step away. at the earlier hearing, i did support ms. kong's nomination. i also will support mr. elliott's. thank you for allowing me to be here. >> my name is stephen cornell. i have been involved with small business for ma

at the board of appeals. that is currently scheduled for february 16. in light of that, they worked with the permit holder and has a voluntary withdrawal of their entertainment permit from operation, which took place between december 23 and january 3, 2007, which took us through the new year's eve holiday. obviously, there were major concerns for public safety, and the conditions for the appeal were set aside kerplunked 32 were set aside, -- conditions for the appeal were set aside. there were safety concerns. the voluntary withdrawal i thought was a victory for us, and since that, staff understands that this was open only for the service of food as it negotiates a possible sale. at the end of this report, and if inspectors -- inspector falzon is still here -- i will leave that there. i think it is really important that i remind the commission with respect to this club that you might be hearing an appeal, so let me go through this briefly. on december 9, staff issued something to club 181. that suspension wou

the appeal procedures. currently, the has that the city may not approve or issue permits during the appeal period except to mitigate a hazard. the board must here and act within 30 days of the hearing. and a preseason schedule for materials to be submitted to the board will be specified under the new ordinance. there is also in the current ordinance no requirement to have appealed at the planning commission prior to appeal to the board of supervisors. and the board may affirm or reverse the decision with six votes. a tie would be seen as non-approval. >> it must be in writing and posted on the website and mailed to interested parties. notice of exemptions would be required to be online and mailed. e.i.r.'s would have to be mailed 14 days before the hearing. notices by city would not require the notice. the historic preservation commission is formally included in the review. it is to provide comments at least eight days prior to the planning commission hearing. and the chief environmental review officer is r

to the board of appeals. and we have no issue one way or another if you take jurisdiction. we have no issue with your request to take jurisdiction carry commissioner hwang: -- to take jurisdiction. commissioner hwang: you are taking no jurisdiction? >> no. any other questions? commissioner garcia: -- >> in tier 3, and people can

if you can call the first appeals. >> , 1 a and b, the appellant and the first the appeale isdwin hardy, and the second appeal is is antonio massa and fred bullock. the substance of both the appeals is an order for a tree removal permit of two trees. >> we will start with mr. harding or his representative and you have seven minutes. please step forward. -- we will start with mr. hardy. >> good evening, commissioners, i am ed hardy. i am appealing the agreement which allows for the removal of two trees to the south of me. last friday morning, the day after i delivered the reply, i went to the street outside of my house and moved it across the street for street cleaning and discovered a heavy gauge nail in my tire. this appeal is not intended as a fight with a neighbor. we encourage and support his request for a new garage. we are seeking a win-win situation. the bureau of urban forestry previously denied the request to remove the trees. and we request a compromise which allows him to build his garage and for the neighborhood to retain both trees plus an additional parking place. a well-k

we should extend a courtesy of service by granting this appeal. we need to take care of our citizens. it was really out side of her scope when the former owner dropped on her this item. so there are process cheese, but the category is we should be rational and practical. something like this is fairly minor. commissioner murphy: i would agree with commissioner hechanova. i think ms. fong did everything right and she is getting slapped on the wrist here -- at least that is the intenst. at the time, too bad for the owner -- i do not particularly like that. i am sure there was some staff time spent on this. maybe too much time. that is not for me to say. that is just my humble opinion. commissioner lee: i think that this is unfortunate that this situation rises but i do not think our department did anything wrong. completely waving the fee would be admitting that we did something wrong. maybe there could be a compromise, maybe a midpoint? how about 50% of what the fee was and then suggest that the owner seek remediation or something with the previous

on behalf of the board of appeals and the planning department. to repeat the process seems unreasonable. i, too, had permits we wanted to make. i have lived a nightmare people are their families through periods and -- their families through. i urge you to reaffirm the approval of the building and revision. thank you. >> i and my teacher. i have taught for the last 10 years, and i want to reiterate what an amazing teacher she is not just to our staff and families, but to the entire community at large. she is a mentor to all who come through. they speak to her when they have a problem, and she is one of few teachers who actually live in a community. i always see my kids. i see the families in the street. it is critical. living in the community has allowed her to do that. when she waters of plants and takes care of everything, they are so vital in the communities. i watched the emotional strain, the financial strain of. i find this process very daunting, that the appeals have stopped families from moving into their home for minor revisions, and i ur

the relocation appeals board is currently handling appeals from the transbay terminal from the central subway. we will soon hear appeals from treasure island. the appeals mandated by state and federal law, and it is very important that we have a quorum to hear these appeals, which are coming at us very quickly. i had the opportunity to work with mr. kim, and he brings great expertise to this field. his background in public service and finance and real estate is outstanding, so i urge you to consider the appointments. >> -- supervisor campos: how many members of the board are there? and how many vacancies are we talking about? what would be needed to get a quorum? >> there are five members that are required. current time, we have two that have been approved by this committee. two before you know, and one that as a holdover, so we do have a quorum, i believe. >> you would have -- supervisor campos: you would have a quorum of three? >> we do need three, but we do need insurance if a member cannot attend and is not able to hear the appeal. we are required to hear an appeal within 60 days.

this is the fourth permit they have appealed to you. and it interim before this, they appealed to the board of supervisors, 11-0 decision last time at this hearing. we had 30 supporters last time, only 10 of them spoke. i think there are five here tonight. the important thing is i have not heard any additional evidence i have heard rhee arguing the same case, and that is not grounds for rehearing. second, if you hear from the sotos, that x neighbors, they need to explain why that testimony from their former neighbors were offered last time, and that is another criteria for whether this is worth rehearing. let me also point out that there has been a bunch of inconsistent statements in writing from the castillos and the most recent is there a letter attached to the recent brief, which indicates they're talking about a rear porch, where as in previous letters they were talking about a rear room, laundry room. that and all the other inconsistencies, i ask you to take into account the credibility of people that you hear, and i also think he

so, while you have an appeal right everybody in san francisco also has an appeal right and the appealan be of any action or permit. so you need a lot of permits when you open a restaurant. every one of the permits is appealable. and what that means from my point of view is that the top thing you that must do is have a team that includes all of our professional help but your team should include your neighborhood, too. if you are not working with your neighborhood. if they are not with you, you will not have a successful operation. you will be stopped and stymied and held up even if tea not an appeal you will find that your people will be complaining about the noise or the smell or the sound. even if it's not truly a significant direct impact they are unhappy and feel a need to have a remedy. because they are unhappy. you really have to take into consideration neighbors. what do you think about that? >> absolutely. getting out and doing leg work before you start construction to let everybody know what's going on especially if you go through a cu change where may be it was not set up ter

the prmentee exercised appeal and that was -- the permitee exercised appeal. and i re150e6ed in -- received are writing that be rescheduled for february 22nd. me said yes to that request based on the venue being closed. this is no liquor license on the premises, however, the entertainment -- and extended hours permit are still valid. that's why we're we're entertaining this appeal and -- it will be an pell in front of you, as -- an appeal in front of you as a commission. can only take limit questions on any content of that. that concludes my report. and -- hand it over. >> i have two questions for you in your report. on the neighbor's summit. who is putting together the agenda for the summit, how are we going to move forward on that? >> well, i -- i'm working with both of our neighbor representatives on the commission, commissioner meko and perez in terms of what the content will be? this is going to be shorter in time and length than the others. so we're still in the process of envisioning how we're going it -- to manage the time that we have so if you have i

that's an appeal in a hardship. >> and there are many appeal boards in the city. the board of examiners and the abatement appeals board. yes , sir. >> regarding hardship on an entry way where you have [inaudible] and the [inaudible]. >> you know, the question is, if there are utilities in the way and you can't put a handicap ramp is is that a reasonable hardship. i bet the answer is no. these appeals go to the access appeals commission under the department of building inspection. normally there is a way of solving that problem. there are very few cases i have seen where disabled access is waived. i can't think of a single one and i have been doing this for many years. there is always a solution and i don't think any appeals board will say it's too expensive. it's too much an important part of the way we live these days to wave it. no board will wave it. call me and i can help solve it. there are always a way to solve a problem. thank you very much for coming. we will stick around if you have questions. thanks again. [applause] there is really, only one boy... one

the current appointee to the board of appeals do not meet these requirements. the current appointees stated they do lack the knowledge and relied on the planning and building staff. this is not a venue that allows the people to challenge the building department and does not protect the people's rights through due process. these plays the city in precarious position. the longer you allow this to exist, the greater the chances the city will be a target. there are people who have recently suffered, and you should afford them some resolution. thank you. >> are there any other members of the public who wish to speak on behalf of the appellant, seeing none, you have the chance to speak. >> i am the manager of legislative affairs. with me is the man whose female was the basis for what is before you today. in the packet, you will find a detailed history of the application, appeals, and permits off the property. the case before you is not an appeal of the project. that has expired, and the work has commenced. the appeal is about a secret determination to document to wor