>> the appellant doesn't care. you have to come to the microphone, sorry. >> the only issue is that it would require additional time to be spent on the construction drawings. >> as far as the revision. >> exactly. >> unless it's done tonight. i don't think the appellant cares. i saw you shaking your head. so, again you need to speak in through the microphone, sorry. >> the shade expert that the permit holder hired showed with the glass it would cover the shade would be two or three hours per day. that's what we went over on may 3rd meeting with both architects. in fact, the architect asked him when they saw that i wasn't very happy with the shade because it was more than i was originally expecting. my guess was like an hour of shade with the penthouse there which is you know the sun is due west so it creates towards their shade area two or three hours and the architect requested to add glass instead and i said that is the glass, 2-3 hours per day. >> the question is should we condition the permit to have the glass

i thought the appel apt's house had the open base and not the deck being built on the other one. ~ appellant's giving them access into someone's home. >> it would be, it would be a little crowded up there, you know what i mean? they could apply for a permit for that, but they'd have to provide fire protection to the other property as well. so, you know, and privacy definitely would -- the code doesn't really address that as much as we care about fire protection. and, you know, the planning department are involved in roof deckses, although they're not 311, i'll even speak to that. >> i don't need to get into it any further. thank you. >> okay, we can take public comment now. step forward, please. >>> good evening. my name is [speaker not understood]. i'm the former resident tenant of the illegal unit. i lived there for 10 years. this property was rent to me by the family, a very traditional family in the bernal heights neighborhood. and the family was disintegrated, the property was just left, basically me and the tenant that lived downstairs would take care of it. i never knew it was illegal.

we'll start with the appellant for 7 minutes. >> hello, i'm the appellant. before we begin, i have a set of photos for each of the commissioners if you would like them or i can use the overhead if you prefer. >> i like visuals. i do. >> i do. >> i am protesting the owners plans that will block 2-3 hours per day of precious sunlight into rear of my house into "the master" bedroom, second bedroom and the owner is planning a one rear extension with a deck on top that the adversely affect the value of my property. it will block sunlight into my neighbors yard. please put together the three photos i gave you of the subject property to get a sense of the enormous size of this building. in the aerial photo i have provided you, you can see the location and how it's subjected on the property. notice the early afternoon shadows on the right side of the subject property where the shade covers half of my backyard and my neighbors yard. my guess is this photo was taken at 2 p.m.. you can see the sunlight is missing if the rear extension is built in the photo i shot. you

tonight and we will start with the appellant. you have 7 minutes. ~ >>> good evening, my name is cathy mckenna. i represent the retail [speaker not understood] market building a 4,000 square foot commercial use building on first and market street. i would like to oppose the permit that was -- that has been issued by dpw for a push cart to go in front of our building. the reason cited in the brief specifically, the competition to our current tenant that pay high rent serves about four retail tenants that serve food and drinks. i average the rent that they pay right now which is $6700 a month. they also pay operating expenses for us to maintain the building for them, keeping it clean in the exterior and interior. and that equals about $2600 a month. i'm not quite sure how much it is for a permit for a push cart, but it's probably a lot less than what our tenants are paying. some other concerns that we had is market street is really heavily congested and a push carton a sidewalk we feel would infringe on people's walking during the

anybody else to speak on behalf of the appellant? seeing none, we'll go to the presentation by the planning department. >> good afternoon, president chiu and members of the board, i am deborah dwyer with the planning department. we are available to answer your questions and addition staff from sfmta and the community investment and infrastructure agency are available for questions. i want to make some introductory comments, and then respond to as much of the comments that we have heard today as possible. initially i would like to remind the members of the board and the public that this agenda item is about the appeal of a final eir for the proposed 706 mission street, mexican museum and residential tower project, the planning commission certified the eir on march 21st, 2013. the board may affirmer reverse the action of the planning commission by a [phra-eurpblts/] vote majority vote. if the board reverses the certification, it will make specific findings and remand the final eir to the planning commission for further action consisten

if it comes back to us then will there be public comment or just the appellant? you're required to give the public the opportunity to commit. i apologize there were a lot of things filed after 5 o'clock but for 677 - okay one of them had an order of abatement. and the time mooinz has expired so are you saying that then you're wanting to continue the other maturate but uphold this matter because you see them as linked >> basically i can't separate it so we want to go back and take a look at it and staff put together their estimation of what the costs would be to the person then we can make a more educated decision. as the commissioner said i'm afraid to make a decision on this item >> i wanted to make sure i understood. >> deputy director. >> if i can make a request for the property owner to provide a water plan. i want an accurate record to review to see if the water hook up will tell you how many units and how many toilets and water closets. it's fairly accurate. >> i just want to say the appellant still has time for rebuttal if they can come up and talk and add

i'm the appellant, hi. with 345 bank street, and i'm here related to the deck at 349 bank street that was built without permit. i'm going to talk about the errors -- i'm required to talk about the errors made by the planning due to errors made by planning dealing with the permit process and talk about the negative impacts it imposes on myself and neighbors and the attempts we've made to reach resolution. first i'd like to say thank you to the planning department, they were very helpful in helping me to understand the complex process and i totally under the large amount of paperwork that was involved with this. therefore, i know how easy it must have been to overlook some of it. but in this case that is what happened, some of it was overlooked and the permit was issued without the block notice review and that permit was suspended rather than revoked. that had a material effect on how i'm required to present tonight and it also was -- the review was necessary for the reasons that i'll discuss in the next slid

have you seen the conditions the appellant submitted? >>> not until it was just handed to us tonight. >> so, you haven't had a chance to read these? >>> no. >> that's fine. i just wanted to know if you had an opinion about what's in them. not yet. that's fine. thank you. >> i have a question for ms. workman. ms. workman? what kind of tenant is your client envisioning potentially renting the space? >>> well, we actually have gene coe here who is the broker who can talk to you more specifically about that. but they are looking for a

case item number 2 case 6775481 ministry the appellant action requested by appellant the appellant has requested that to 6 additional months work cited. >> members of the board chief housing inspector this was a case that was continued from the appeal board. we have 29 tourists and 49 residential. in the staff report that you received on page 3 you have a data entry there we did a reinspection and you have the information so far as the housing inspectors observations and i want to update that for you. we went out there yesterday and what we're seeing is there's substantial progress being made but none of the existing residents have been move forward into any of the new rooms but they have a plan - a spreadsheet they'll speak about in a few moments. this has been a year as of late saturd t the notice of violation was issued and we have approximately instead of 2 hundred and fourteen we have 80 violations that have been done and it's still not itself case. that's the certain to us. and while we're very happy you can see from the photos what we're going to get as a result is completely di

if we can ask the appellant if they can file their c u application within 10 days. >> can the appellant file within 10 days? i think we can do an agreement that they can file within a 10 day period. we have a scheduling period which can take two weeks but i would wave that and they can submit it to me. if they fail to submit within the ten days they can file a rehearing request. >> okay. i think it works either way. i don't -- >> i believe i have a motion on the floor. >> yeah, he has a motion. just wanted some discussion. >> understood. >> call the roll? >> we have a motion from commissioner fong to continue this matter to june 19th. that's to allow time for the appellant to file for a conditional use authorization. on that motion to continue, 3 votes are needed. president wong, no, ton, yes, lapis zarus. the matter is continued to june 19th. >> meeting is adjourned. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>everyone to san francisco's planning commission regular hearing for thursday, may 2nd, 2013. please be advised that the mm

brief because the acoustic wasn't available at the time they submitted the appellant brief. >> okay. that's fine. >>> i can submit this? >> sure. >> [speaker not understood]. >> yeah, have you given it to -- >> and to d-b-i. >> are you indicating that you are in agreement now with the permit if these conditions are added? is that what you're saying? >>> yes, we would be. >> have you raised them with the permit holder? >>> shall i start now? >> have you brought this to the attention -- is this the first time they're seeing this? >>> yes. >> why is that? >>> because we weren't able to get to any agreement before now. >> so, you put this together after your -- >>> we put it together since we've seen their information. >> how much time has passed? >>> we got it on the second of may. >>> what happened is that the conditions are based on the findings of the acoustical report that was included in their brief. it was a comprehensive acoustical report. we are asking to repeal before we submitted our brief. we never got it until the day after we submitted our brief. >> okay. ~ i'm just asking

have you seen the conditions the appellant submitted? >>> not until it was just handed to us tonight. >> so, you haven't had a chance to read these? >>no. >> that's fine. i just wanted to know if you had an opinion about what's in them. not yet. that's fine. thank you. >> i have a question for ms. workman. ms. workman? what kind of tenant is your client envisioning potentially renting the space? >>> well, we actually have gene coe here who is the broker who can talk to you more specifically about that. but they are looking for a very i think conventional office tenant for that space. is that okay if gene responds? >>> just a couple examples. the tenants that we're looking for are creative tenants, office tenants, but, you know, they can be technology, they can be architects. they can be designers. but they're not particularly noisy tenants. they're the same tenants as any other tenants in any other office building. >> what might be the likely size of the work force in that place? >>> probably between, you know, 50 to 70 people. >> i don'

and we will start with the appellant. attorney, brandt holly. >> good afternoon, i am representing for the appeal and the planning commission granted discretion review in this mat and her made a condition that we are going to discuss which has not been fulfilled because of inadequate site plan and starting just a little bit father back, is that going

the appellant states that the eir's deficient, et cetera. this alternative was not required to be analyzed since it would not eliminate the cumulative shadow impacts identified. >> excuse me, could i ask a quick question about that. jessie square is not a prop k park? >> no, it is not. >> so i understand the point if you looked at an alternative that wouldn't shadow union square, but not shadow jessie square, but union square is supposed to be protected from shadows; right? >> i am saying that the considerations under section 295 actually are separate from the ceqa considerations. >> right, i understand that and i'm not talking about ceqa considerations, but i'm really simply talking about the impact of prop k and the implications on union square. and if you are suggesting there is a way to mitigate the shadows on union square, which are required under prop k. they are not required for jessie square and i'm not sure why that part of the analysis is relevant. >> we need to look at all public open space for ceqa purposes and that is what we di

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 there's no conflict in my participating in tonight's deliberations. thank you. >> good evening, i am susan r

and we'll have a number of questions for both appellants and planning department. we will move forward with the proceeding. >> thank you, supervisor kim with that i will ask representatives of one of the two appellants to step up and again, you have up to 20 minutes, mr. lippe, will you use ten minutes? >> ten minutes for my client and ten minutes for the other. >> why don't you proceed. >> thank you, board of supervisors my name is top lippe. and i am here for a group of appellants including the 765 residential owners association, the friends ever yerba buena and five individuals, paul wornick, matthew schoenberg, joe fang and margaret collins. i have written quite a bit of material on the appeal and i'm not going to try to summarize all of that within this limited time. i will try to hit high points and crystalize what i think are the critical issues for the board in thinking about the problem with the eir and its function to disclose to the project the environmental impacts to the public and those that are significant and those less that significant and for thos

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 addresses jurisdictional issues. and, so, i will just pick up the discussion at page 8 where we raise the substantive issues that we have with the issuance of the permit. the first issue that we've raise is that the permit does not meet police code requirements. pursuant to the police code, the entertainment commission is not authorized to issue a place of entertainment permit in the following circumstances. first, notwithstanding mitigation, provided under the security plan, the building structure equipment cannot adequately accommodate the type of volume and vehicle and pedestrian traffic. the premises of the proposed operation has adequate safeguard to prevent among other things emissions of noise

and we will start with the appellant. attorney, brandt holly. >> good afternoon, i am representing for the appeal and the planning commission granted discretion review in this mat and her made a condition that we are going to discuss which has not been fulfilled because of inadequate site plan and starting just a little bit father back, is that going to show? >> you can see that may i point? no. that is not going to work, either. i am sorry >> overhead? please. >> well, you will see in the overhead a photo of the street and maybe you can tell me victor when it shows. >> there it is. >> there it is. >> it is a sloped street and at the top of the street is the home, the appellant's home at 601, and this picture is taken from the park across the street. and you can see right next is the current applicant and 615. and you can see that and the current home allows this ability of all of the other historic homes on the street. and it also the property also slopes down behind these homes down below. and the problem, there are a n

order of appellant action requested by appellant the appellant is requesting important time for work >> i'm representing richard thomas the owner. there are two appeals here relating to the same building. if i may i'd like to address one unit that's the one relating to appeal 6774. we filed papers yesterday. i apologize for not getting them sooner. the unit appears to be the sticking point for complete. the department contends that it's a commercial issue there's no evidence to the record that the two were ever connected. this building was constructed in 19 hundred. we have photographs taken yesterday that might clarify the relationship between the two units pr there is uncontested areas that could one day be connecting the buildings. it would be typically of what happened in 19 hundred. the departments position is that this unit was an accessory one time to the unit downstairs but the evidence is the separate unit was never connected in any means. we ask the board to receiver the order finding it was an accessory unit and an illegal unit. upon that took place i want to emphasis that

specifically about appellate matters. so, generally it's a majority vote for all other matters and commissioners. this would fall under the majority vote rule. >> so, it's not about discretion, but there is no guidance -- what factors? >> no, not what factors. when commissioners make decisions generally under the charter, it's majority rule. that's all that you would -- >> okay, thank you. >> anybody care to comment? i'll be bold. >> okay. >> i am inclined to take jurisdiction. there is a certain practical aspect to that, but i also feel that this is established as an adjudicatory body. there are processes in place. from having served on the port commission, my sense when i was on that commission was that that was a policy making body. i do not recall any appeals of any permits coming during the eight years that i was there, nor do i really believe that we were -- that we did have procedures in place to handle it. in fact, public testimony provided during the port commission is a very different beast than this commission'

in this case the appellant is arguing that there is no legal use. this is a ghost property of some sort that there was never a legal use of this property. they did receive a cfc for a retail store. if the argument is that somehow this was never legal, their concerns about other requirements in the planning code. there are slides in the planning code and particularly use sides in the north beach. did it ever have a legal use size. this is what you can prove in the north beach zoning district. the only legal use on the record is a legal use. that's how they advertise. >> okay. i better stop using non-conforming in my disclosures for now on. >> how does interpreting an illegal use. how does that work with this code intention? >> i think the issue is reading part one and two. the intent is saying that if you have a space that was last occupied by a basic sale or service, we don't want that converted to a bar or restaurant. >> it was never that that's why i'm having difficulty because it was never that. >> the only other legal use on that record, this is

the appellant has raised issues regarding interpretation of the section 317. i think that we did have a very in-depth, very thorough discussion about the requirements of section 317 at our march 20th hearing when the board chose not to grant the appeal on the subject permit. so, with that, i would respectfully request you deny the hearing request. it's been notice that the building up to the requirements up to what is allowed in the code and the appellant has raised concerns that they have -- during the course of the construction they may exceed that. as stated at the previous hearing, if there is a change in the scope of the permit, if more walls are demolished, we will have to review that and make a determination whether section 317 has been violated. so, the plans that are before you do comply with section 317 in the planning code. there has been no new information presented that disputes that fact and resetfully request you deny the hearing request and i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> mr. duffy, please, no? is there any public comment on this