as a decision making for the denial of appeals more the motion appeals number 813 dash 11. the planning commission number and the architecture plan has been made available by the board of appeals and the public and it is part of the record the board has considered the record as a whole including the finding and motions and all written and oral information by the planning department and other experts and the administrative files for the project. accident board of appeals finds it's adequate for the use as a decision making body and denies the appeal and incorporates the sequa vthsd contained in the motions. by with this reference there to as so forth in this motion having reviewed the record the board of appeals denies the appeal protesting the issuance of the application on the basis this the project has gone through excessive review and that board acceptance the conditions for the project >> i know that's my word. >> okay. thank you. >> if you could call roll, please. >> motion than from commissioner fong to deny the appeal on the basis it's code immigrant i compliant and

track, 47% of hospital denials are appealed. and quote almost 70% of these appeals are overturned. is that incorrect? >> i can't really speak to their data, sir. what we know -- we track the data of course very closely internally our numbers would not agree with that. if you look at the first level of appeal for part a. we see about a 5% appeal rate. >> if i could interject. there's a problem here. why is it that if you've got enough money to go to the third appeal with the a.l.j., if you could hold out that long, if you're not a single provider, if you're a big hospital if you can hold out if you go to the a.l.j. you've got a 60 to 70% chance of winning. why wouldn't everyone just go to that ooch pale process if they can afford it? so the question i have is, why the discrepancy? what do you know about the a.l.j. system that allows for such huge swings in the determination? >> what we looked at again is prior to the backlog but i think it's still relevant we looked at the a.l.j.'s and at the time found a 56% overturn rate. this is 2010 data for the prior level the qualified indepen

and this 309 authorizations was also appealed to the board of appealed. board of appeals also upheld this authorization on july 31st of last year. finally, the subdivisions were not properly analyzed under c-e-q-a. they argue several mitigation measures are not enforceable and a lower project would be [speaker not understood] with lesser impacts. as with other actions the e-i-r was certified by the commission and the e-i-r was appealed. the board upheld the e-i-r and deemed its analysis and disclosure to be adequate including the mitigation measures. importantly, since this appeal, the planning department has received no new information that would alter the analysis or conclusion in the e-i-r. in addition, none of the arguments raised by the appellant are new. the appellant has sued the city and they are currently litigating their c-e-q-a claims in superior court. appellants argue the economic information presented in the eps report is proposed certification information that requires the production of supplemental or subsequent e-i-r. this is not the case

patterson was going to withdraw the appeal because of the olympic threat earlier this year by ms. ledbetter and suddenly we got the word that they received complaints and itself dbi received complaints and it's been closed as a car ambulance he has contracts with triple a and so forth. with that said i'm at a loss to understand what the neighborhood p are concerned about no complaints to the city or many macy's or made to the tenant that there was somehow hard effects from the spray booth additional now the spray booth is unknown operational and complaints when no activity going on only basically for parker that's for tow damaged cars arrest then the fire sprinkler permit is appealed. it's hard to imagine that if, in fact, the concern the repair the operation you'll royal one of the key permits to assure the safety the sprinkler had been operational the strishlg was operational and the inspections was done so again, i'm at a loss if i had known all this i might have prepared defendant's guilt differently they've thumped their nose at the process i appreciate what under patterson's

i think what we're seeing is there's about six, most of the appeals from rac is are not appeals. most of the rac decisions are not appeals. according to our decision about 6% of the rac decision are appealed. once those are reach higher levels, about half of those are overturned. so that maybe can help reconcile some of those issues. where the 72% comes into play where we looked at the third level of appeals, the alj level. they overturn about 72% of hospitals claims. that would include both races and other issues than just the in patient. >> just to be clear, about 7%, six or 7%, depend hog is talking about that number, somewhere in that range of those decisions that are made by rac are appealed and of those that are appealed in this case of part a hospitals, 72% of those prevail? correct? >> overturned. >> alj level. >> ajl level. that makes a lot more since. there is lot of disparity between 6% and 70%. that helps me understand how, where those numbers are coming from. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you miss black. i'm now confused of the appeals proces

. >> my answer as to this appeal the department of public works found we've applied with the order and we're obligated to fund a location on private property. >> so what do you do when you are looking for private property you're interested in acquiring our space. >> i apologize for being board is at&t sends outs easement letters to homeowners in the neighborhood. i apologize for not having >> as the public has said some people have received notification and i live within a surface mount and have not received either but i want to know have you an example of what you send out to the neighborhood with you. >> none of that was the basis of the dnld so no. perhaps the city will be able to answer your question better than i >> commissioners as part of the little package they have to produce letters they've reached attest the public in those cases. if i can find this is part of the check list requirement if i may have the overhead this is the gesture form letter that at&t provides to the public for certain property owners as it relates to an easement >> okay. >> and as part of this they gives

so for those 3 group appeals the vice president 0 denies the appeals for the permits were appropriating denied sxhun. commissioner hwang commissioner president lazarus. and commissioner honda >> okay. so that motions passes 4 to zero. >> i'd like to take a 5 minute break. >> okay. we're going to take a 5 minute break. >> we're going returning and we're calling four cases. at the 1335 mission street and mr. george you have 3 minutes to present our case. >> so i'll be brief so the hearing officer found that on december 4th, 2012, at&t submitted it's police station there wasn't a hearing scheduled for more than a year until january the 6 of 2014. i have taken looking at the status it says a local entity shall approve or deny an application within 60 days of ref the completed application i respect if you disagree with the hearing commissioners. there was an alternative site identified on mission street rather than hold the hearing open and request that at&t do an additional? as the recommendation hearing officer was to deny the application and ordered the applicant to cooperate with the par

good evening and welcome to the wednesday, may 7, 2014, meeting of san francisco board of appeals we have daurl honda and our vice president will be absent this evening to my left is a deputy city attorney and at the controls is the boards legal process clerk. i'm king cynthia goldstein we're joined by representatives scott sanchez is representing the particular time planning department and planning commission and the building inspector representing building inspectors the board where these requests you turn off on prvk. appellants and permit holder each have 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal people must be of must include there's comments within the period and please speak into the end of the microphone to uh-huh. >> the board buried asked but not required to present a speaker card the board welcomes our cards and suggestion there are customer satisfaction forms the boards scheduled if you need to speak to the board or call to find out the scheduled. this meeting is broadcast live observe sfgovtv cable channel 78 and rebroadcasting on xaenl 26 dvds are avail

only the authority to grant the appeal or deny the appeal or grant the appeal with conditions but remand is not an option but the request continues to be made by not something the board can accommodate. >> i'll move to deny the appeal on the base it was appropriate. >> okay. on that motion from commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda >> okay. that motion carries. on to item 14 this is again at&t california vs. the public works on balboa street on the excavation permit to evade in the public right-of-way for a surface mounted facility. mr. johnson >> so i'm going to be endeavoring to be brief. so again, there's more than 2 hundred days between the date it at&t filed it's implemented application and the date of the denial. as with many permits i've previous argued at&t had a box walk and there were other locations and the base of the denial if there's more preferable locations at&t was asked to start the process over again. i want to ask mr. blackman come up and make a few comments about the relationship between the 60 day issue between the box walks and th

this is one of most interesting appeals but i represent a group of 25 neighbors that live around the green street garbage that's an automobile body garage only for parking. it's for a new water system and heat detect our we suspect something is being done the plans for example, don't show the spray boothd that's been heat by neighborhood we actually decided to withdraw the appeal no since fighting over nothing about the appellant attorney said this permit is used to entitle the spraying. i was national fy naturally shocked the permit holder cancelled the meeting. on a related note i'm told the dbi inspectors can't getting get into the garage. this appeal is simply this permit is for a fire sprinkler monitoring system that has two restrictions the first is a fire permitted sprinkler and if the system is going to monitor the spray green booth neither have a permit the sprinkle system had a permit but the permit was cancelled. this permit depended on on the integration but those prerequisite systems don't exist. i directing your attention e direct your attention to the permit holders h.

we are seeing is, there is -- most of the appeals from rac or not appealed. most of the katie decisions are not appealed. according to our statistics about 6 percent of the rac decisions are appealed. no, once those reach a higher level, about half of those are overturned. that meet the how we can reconcile some of losing issues. with 72 percent comes into play is when we looked up the third level of appeal, the alj level. the overturned about 72 percent of hospital plans. so that would include rac and other issues than just the inpatient. >> just to be clear, six or 7 percent, depending upon who is talking, but somewhere in that range, of those decisions that are made by rac or appealed, and of those that are appealed, in this case, are part a hospital's 72 percent of those prepaid, correct? >> add the alj novel. >> okay. that makes a lot more sense. they're is a lot of disparity between 6% and 70%. that helps me to understand a little bit better with those numbers are coming from. thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you. i am out confused

have to recourse but to deny the appeals in the aggregate because although he acknowledged there areommon legal arguments that apply to all of them we hadn't argued the record there's a possibility of one or more of the appeals were exceptional and didn't apply he recommended they be denied. i may have misunderstand our position but given my understanding of why the board decisions the first 9 we felt we were required to argue the appeal and there's a number of reasons, however, i made the statement and you have the right to have each case heard spril if you want that >> okay. if i want to proceed on that basis you have 10 minutes. >> so good evening commissioner president lazarus and the board foster johnson for at&t california and with me are my colleagues david miller, mark and teddy. of at&t. asia the department con seeds at&t has the statutory right interest install the equipment but law the departments discretion when and where it the extremely limited there are 4 limitations i'm going to discuss. first, the department can only deny encroachment construction in a way of saying

hearing not really knowing what the issues of the appeal are. the appeal itself is one sentence and it only took an half hour to do it ideally you'll submit a supplemental afterwards i couldn't understand the city commissions understanding is it a condo conversion so after hearing all this i don't know what this project is i'll be honest it's a little bit frustrating so maybe you could start from the beginning and is what exactly is being done >> it's a two lot subdivision. >> that i need more detail than that. >> your gone to end up with the applicant is going to end up with one lot with to buildings. >> they're trying to develop it. >> it's not required for the application. >> so mr. star looks like he wants to say something to the president. >> there the president aaron star planning department staff no place has been proposed but the intent to so build a single-family home on hickory street so the variance was for the existing was important lot size and rear yard and open space. so there's no proposal there's a pattern on the block where the

okay >> is there any further public comment. >> good evening board of appeals. i am - i live in >> i'm sorry can you speak into the microphone i can't hear you. >> i live in 8 avenue i'm emily. i'm against them from the building a tall building 3 stories high building because the building is only 2 stories high. i'm against them from building a big building standing all the way taller to the backyard. because it block our sunlight >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any further public comment. seeing none, we'll start our rebuttal ms. curry you have 3 minutes >> marry making video and his team indicated they've reduce the size of their project while that's try and the documentation within the city shows that it doesn't get to the core of the matter which is that this new project is an enormous building filing most of the lot. and when compared to the homes not only my home but the homes in this whole neighborhood it's just significantly larger and it when you look at out the windows that it will be blocking it will a wall it extends the full stent of my home

>> good evening and woman to the wednesday, may 14, 2014, meeting of san francisco board of appeals this preceding officer is board/19. >> joined that i commissioner fung and is commissioner honda and to my left is deputy city attorney ryan he'll provide the legal advice i'm cynthia and we're joined by the department that have cases before the bystander board and we have a representative of the planning board and the bureau managed 40 forty cents for the department of public works and representing the building inspection. two houses keeping items item 7 which the the appeal number a surveillance protest the parties have joinl requested this be rescheduled for july 2014 in order to allow the settlement term we need a vote to move it >> so moved. >> okay. thank you commissioner fung mr. packing check call the roll. on that motion to reschedule item 7 to july 16th. commissioner hwang. commissioner hurtado. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda thank you. the vote it 5 to zero it is rescheduled to july 16th interest similarly this item protesting the building permitted on ethel

after the appeal the hearing officer did understand on the basis that at&t did not full f fully comply that at&t work with the community the only finding in the record that he used to support that was at&t if provide the names of the attendee did he see prosecute the additional box walk that the department itself attended. and finally on 620 buchanan the hearing officer recommended the denial and work with the association to identify additional sites. i would simply point out under the order i posted up here the basis on which the hearing officer and director can make their decisions is extremely limited. there's no basis under the sshgsz m f order for any denials. the s m f order didn't containment the denial on the basis that the utility didn't provide all the names of the people that attended the box walk nor has the authority to order additional public outreach nor the discretion to deny the appeals or permit requests. the particular code do section in case the board wants to look at it is founded on page 8 under e-6 a there d. as to the 60 days ma'am, vice president again, i may h

conversation with the opposing counselor i didn't say we're going immediately where are you going the appeal she said this was being used to permit the spray booth that's shocking at that time, we ranged a meeting and they cancelled the meeting the day before. the litigation issues there's issues associated with this we don't meet to bring up but suffice is it important to the neighborhood our goal is simply sure those systems are up to code and permitted there is a fire issue so we want to make sure the systems are okay. >> commissioners quickly i have to agree with mr. duffey this is like a housekeeping issue there was a permit for the sprinkler system in the 4 and the appellant filed a request for the spray booth that was never implemented and the sprinkler system was not completed why has the fire department not inspected those either a fire of building inspector a long time a deeds they assume that's been permitted unless other information tells them otherwise so mr. jack does that and the sprinkler system is working and it's great but again, it's a housekeeping issue it never completed

so again to try to make sure we're on the same page to grant the appeal and uphold the appeal 3 replacement trees and the pirate holder work with the departments on the location of the alleged itself third additional tree isn't that correct. >> thank you victor. >> the order specification the minimum of 60 inch box 60 inch box. >> that's correct. >> we have a motion to on the condition there are 3 replacement trees of a minimum 60 feet side and the kidnapping work on the placement of the third tree and commissioner fung. commissioner hwang. no commissioner hurtado. commissioner president lazarus. the vote is four to one the permit it upheld with those conditions. >> thank you. >> okay. so we've already voted to move item 7 and 8 now to item 4 which is the appeal janet curry vs. the city and county of san francisco protesting the issuance on march 12 to k f and development inc. to rereck a single-family dwelling with ground floor area. we'll start with the appellant 7 minutes >> commissioner president lazarus i'm jan curry on live on circle last year avenue adjacent to the subject property i

the appeals are without merit. the first division map enables the successor agency to transfer a parcel which conveys jesse square garage and mexican museum parcel to the project sponsor. this is a necessary step to enable the mexican museum become a reality. also, this is an action which you had already approvedment the appellants in our opinion are now trying to delay the project and actionses here today are without merit. as you just heard from your city staff the appeals do not raise a new issue not previously considered. it should be rejected by the city. this is a waste of your time and a waste of our time. please vote no on the a meal. we want to see the mexican museum built. thank you very much. [speaker not understood]. >> next speaker, please. >>> good afternoon, everybody. my name is juana [speaker not understood]. i am mexican and that is why i am here. i am [speaker not understood] to hear every time the mexican people or the mexican community wants to do something good, every time we can face people w

welcome to the san francisco board of appeals at the control is the boards legal assistant and our legal clerk i'm cynthia gold at the scene we're joined by the representatives for the board corey is the assistant zoning administer and rep the planning commission and planning department he's joined by joseph duffey representing the board of senior inspectors. at this point please go over is board meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests you turn off all electronic devises the rules the permittees and public has 7 minutes for cases and 7 minutes for reasonable doubt. members of the public not affiliated with the parties have 3 minutes but no rubbles and to sought the board the member of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked not required to submit is a speaker card they're on the left side of the presumed there are customer satisfaction survey forms phenomenon the left side of the podium if you have questions please speak to the board staff during the break or call the board office tomorrow morning it's on mission street room three to four.

. >> commissioners on the building permit that's under appeal is a typical sprinkler type of work it's a with the fire department plan check. there isn't building approval apart from our staff that processes the payments it's a process over 4 years and it's the fire department like a fire bring out but under a building permit application. on the face of it the permit look fines properly reviewed and issued. then we have the issue of the 94 permit for the installation of 0 false sprinkle system that permit got issued in 18994 and extraordinary in 19995 the planning department would have been the ones to sign off and the building department to sign off. the pollutant part working for the department of building inspection i'm surprised the fire department didn't catch the sprinkle system was never signed off so on the way to index this is to are you new the sprinkle system and go back and get the permit final also and probably move ahead and do the modifications. so that would take care of that. i think that's a 3 part thing and the issue of the spray bloating a complaint on january 22nd

first, to give the appel apt up to 10 minutes to present its case for the appeal. and then members of the public supporting the appeal can speak up to two minutes. that time the planning department will have 10 minutes to provide analysis of certifying the negative declaration. they will have 10 minutes [speaker not understood] following by the members of the public who may speak for up to 2 minutes. finally the appellant will have 3 minutes for rebuttal. unless there are any questions about this, i'd like to first acknowledge supervisor kim who is the district supervisor if you would like to make any opening comments. >> thank you. i just want to make brief comments about the project. colleagues, first of all, welcome to the board of supervisors meeting on district 6. i know the next three hearings are on properties in our district. this project is located in western south of market and includes combining two lots into one, demolishing a building and constructing a 15 unit building in a commercial space on the ground floor. no parking is included in the proposal a

and someone said well fill out a permit i went down and all of a sudden when they appealed the permit i was in the process of doing the permits as soon as i got the appeal i stopped so i want to be in compliance i had no idea that booth was not permitted i only wanted to do with the board i had to file that's a state agency but once i got the notice i stopped everything >> if not paint what's the fumes do you understand the fumes to be. >> the building a empty. >> you think someone is making up the fumes. >> if they smell. >> if not paint what fumes. >> i don't know what their smelling i painted inside this this and cleaned that up. >> you did paint but ♪ the spray paint >> no, that booth has been there the booth we're disagreeing i cleaned the filters i don't smell anything. >> okay got it. >> do you have - >> i have a question for mr. patterson. >> so as commissioner fung has stated i'm troubled with the fact you don't have a brief yet our professionals were able to do their homework. >> yes. we had decided to withdraw the appeal looking at this particular permit being a fire safety

i assume he will appeal. he does not appeal, i do appeal. the appeal process is three weeks long. is allowed to stay on campus, even though he is suspended until the fall. in his statement, he said it was consensual. i have to ask, why didn't you appeal? if you are so sure this is all a lie, you why didn't you appeal? that is baffling to me. he was still living on campus, attending classes until just before thanksgiving, when i was notified in person by the vice president that they would not grant my appeal based on past precedent. by then, i only have three weeks left in the semester. now, the panel recommended two years that he be suspended. what actually was the final decision? >> they make recommendations for the findings. the associate dean makes the final decision. he brought it down from two years to on year. when i appealed, i spoke about them. this peculiar i was not given any information. students are not told with the panel recommended. that is still a question of why i was given that information. i cited that in the appeal letter. they upheld the dean's decision and ad

to the board of appeals i've been a construction project manager my experience is capital for google and real estate manager and manager for design for cisco systems i've worked with a local contract and among them (calling names) i have reviewed the board of appeals approved conditions for the mixed use project at the 1058 van ness street and based on my experience on the scope of this project the time limit is fair and reasonable additionally i believe the increased hours that the developer is requesting is are based on issues of convenience and not practical feasibility. i agree with this issue and ask you to reconsider the hearing thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm lisa i'm the president of the liberate hill neighborhood association. i'll make that short there was a comment made that liberate hill residents have not been showing up at the hearings i'm here to tell you we're here alive and well, and clivently been coming we don't like what's been doing with the building please deny the appeal for the rehearing. the decision you made i

the project entitlements historic appeals and c-e-q-a appeals have already previously been heard by the board. this appeal relates to the subdivision map prepared by the department of public works. and i do watch to thank mr. storrs for the detailed report prior to the meeting. very helpful explaining how the subdivision is essential and novembering forward with the project as plaidction and why the decision worked the way they do on these various parcels. that being said i am looking forward to hearing from both parties on this appeal hearing. ~ moving forward >> with that, why don't we start now with a presentation by the appellant. >>> good afternoon, members of the board. i'm tom lippe, i represent the appellants. we are here now because the tentative subdivision maps, both the nonvesting ones, project 7 65 and the vesting map under project 79 70 were not approved last summer ~ when this board and other agencies of the city approved a whole bunch of approvals for the 706 mission street project. so, the planning zone agree on one point. those cited in support of this pa peel, the boa

the board of appeals met one appeal which is a rehearing of a building permit the commission approved the large authorization a few months ago it was upheld and the environmental review was upheld to the board of supervisors and this is the building permit which the board of appeals upheld but there was no new information so at the denied the hearing request and the approval t is final if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them >> commissioners that places you on item 10 the academy of art update. thank you commissioners scott from the planning department again wanted to provide an update of the reenforcement we provided information on january 13th we issued 22 notices of vision we issued a stay and told the penalty and appeal hearing for the notices of violation we underlined 14 points to be met by the academy in the environmental reported we made substantial progress over the years i'll detail that b in october of this year we provided significant transportation studies of the report and we had a meeting with the academy in december to outline a path forward but f didn'

. >> it's precisely the scenario donates presented by appeals. >> where show me the language. >> so if you go to page 8 and i'm going to ask you to look at number 4. i'm going to read this because i have to apologize i've been trying >> i can read it number 4 page 8 what's the language your relying on. >> at the conclusion of the hearing the hearing officer may keep the hearing open 20 days for other locations identified in the hearing. that's what happened >> that's may. >> the hearing officer may. >> has the discretion okay. thank you. >> i have a question dollars a reference in this group there will be two issues it took thirty days to notice the walk and if that notice needs to come from at&t that period of time is not contributing to expediting the permit and the schedule was inconvenient for people if you're talking about this why weren't they done after 5:00 p.m. after people get home from work or earlier in the morning. >> you have a two-part question commissioner president lazarus. >> why it takes thirty days up to notice the walk? to even notice the walk could it be set at a