on appeal against a demolition and the appellant talked about the virile refugee agreed with the appellant we had concerns of the accuracy of the review the board to the call of the chair it should be on the docket. the permit holder subsequentially filed a new application in march of 2010 we were working on the zoning that came effective in the last couple of years and performed the environmental review on march 6 and mitigated a declaration for the environmental review for the project and on marine 12 the permit applications were filed two demolition two buildings to be demolished the jurisdiction request only concerns one jurisdiction demolition so not all permits are subject of the jurisdiction request. at least i believe. following that the issuance of the negative declaration mitigated the appellant filled the appeal of the environmental determination. and it also during the time the building application section 312 last summer for thirty days no discretionary review authorization requests the planning commission heard the appeal in october and unanimously denied the appeal subsequen

i appreciate that the fact that the appellants brought this up, and i would encourage the appellants -- and i would encourage the appellants as well as the people who are on the other side of this issue to work together on reforming this agency because i think that there is a lot of common ground irrespective of how you feel about the underlying issue. but based on how i see the law, i will be voting against the appeal even though, like i said, i think that some very important issues were raised. thank you. >> supervisor wiener. >> thank you, mr. president. i just, i just need to -- i appreciate supervisor campos' perspective. i don't think that the struggles that we've seen with the mta and with muni have anything to do with transparency or lack thereof. i think the mta -- it's an imperfect agency like any large agency, but it is quite transparent in many ways. the struggles that this agency has are because, let's really be real about this, because of political decisions that are made in this building by elected officials including the board of supervisors and including the mayor, a

. >> colleagues, any questions to the appellant? let me ask if there are members of the public that wish to speak in support of the appellant? >>>♪ sometimes you start feeling lost and so city lowly then you'll find the mass is on your mind because you can't tell where you're at when you don't have a map sometimes you can only think of one thing and it brings though all the lines you'll find 'cow you can't tell where you're at without a city parcel map ♪ >> next speaker. >>> tom gilberti. the president said a couple of -- like to say that this -- everything is on the table. and in this casey would like to see a planning commission that goes to somebody and say, we can't make enough money building 100 yards up in the sky in san francisco and, so, we need to go 200 feet higher in order to make money. i would like to see the planning commission say to that developer, since you can't make money at 350 feet, we don't think you should handle this job at all and go to the owner of the property and say, excuse me, we recommend that you find

as noted i heard both the appellant and from the appellant and at&t and i ask honestly say the brief was clear and concise subjected statement were said there was a box walk between at&t and the appellant. that the northwest corner of caesar chavez and gerrero it was destruction between the representatives of at&t and the appellant. that based on the objection urging the public hearing at&t's representative at the hearing stated for the record that that site doesn't satisfy at&t's technical replacement of the surface mount preempt in the northwest corner. the appellant suggested a possible alternative location in the immediate area that was one of the reasons why the department and hearing officer held the hearing open for an additional 20 days so attica evaluate that 0 block of gerrero street to see if there's alternatives in the immediate facility that was based on suggestions that the areas in the immediate area during the hearing i did go back and listens listen to the hearing one the intents to it look at the site and at&t reevaluated it and reidentified no other locations that

seeing none, we will take rebuttal from the appellant. you have three minutes of rebuttal, yes, if you care to use it. you have three more minutes to speak. >>> i just wanted to reiterate that at no point in time has an inspector come in yet or these changes to be made. >> yes. >>> i still request that you deny on the premise that until that happens, it's hearsay. when an inspector comes in and tells us to make changes, we'll make the changes. but it hasn't happened yet. [speaker not understood]. >> just for clarification, who are the inhabitants of the unit? do you have -- a roommate? >>> yes. she lives upstairs. [inaudible]. >> are there two units? >>> two units, four tenants. >> but the one you are living in is the one in question. >>> she's here to corroborate. there was a claim i was lying and she's here to corroborate. they've been trying to evict her. we agree once i'm gone they'll raise her rent, kick her out and have to evict her because it will be a single-family. >> thank you. there is rebuttal time for the permit holder. mr. r

and despite appellant's a sr.tionseses, appel apt's due process rights were not violated during the 20123 planning commission hearing. it asserts the project with respect to parking had not been adequately analyzed in the smmd and raises concerns about a loss of availability of on street parking in the project site vicinity. at discussing [speaker not understood], the project will result in a shortfall generating parking demand of 8 spaces and long-term demand of 16 spaces based on the planning department's analysis impact guidelines for review. it will not result in shortfall that will create hazardous conditions [speaker not understood] bicycle or pedestrian, or proposed park, parking demand [speaker not understood] and parking spaces within the reasonable distance of the project vicinity. the appellant has presented no substantial evidence demonstrating further -- the potential is parking shortfall would result in a significant transportation impact. the potential parctiontioning shortfall that may result is generally considered to be [speaker not understood] rather than the physical

so, i will be voting with the appellants. i expect i'll be voting in the minute art. >> before we continue on, i did want to give appellants an opportunity to do final rebuttal. you have up to three minutes. >> thank you l. i'll just make a couple quick points ~. briefly, the san francisco bicycle coalition had sent a message supporting the appeal to the board of supervisors. please check your e-mails. with regard to the legal arguments that have been presented by the other side, i'd like to address two things. one is that, yes, the statutory exemptions, the question is are they properly invoked. the statutory exemption has specific readings which i'll read from. [speaker not understood] an exemption under this statutory exemption is claimed, setting forth with specificity, [speaker not understood], which is the exemption code that we're looking at. and the question there is have the agencies done so? well, attachment a says it has an itemized list that is being exempt. the attachment a to the budget coffers only revenue sour

i appreciate the appellants' arguments, but i believe that this, that

respondent agreed immediately and appellant did not dough -- do so and this causes delay. the boards final motion for the reasonable balance on the interest. the trees aren't going to be removed until the advertisement hearing -- title hearing from the planning commission. appellants request to delay this removal until issuance of the site permit would burden the permit holders. a site permit isn't a planning entitlement but rather issued by the dbi until they reach the entitlement. before that is issued the developers will need to conduct a routine for such activities at the site and will include drilling and water table testing that hazard to do with geological and soil testing. those activities are going to be done in the areas where these trees and basis are located. also the trees represent as we discussed the on going liability to the owners here that they are potentially hazardous which is above the base of the ground and because they have heavy limbs over the road and sidewalk and they are prone to failure in the future. also, mr. williams in his brief alleged the

i have enormous respect for the appellants in this case. i work with them all regularly on our joint quest to adequately fund public transportation system and have smart transportation as a policy in san francisco, which is sometimes a challenge. but as you know and as you stated, this is a c-e-q-a appeal and there are times when c-e-q-a appeals come to this board and arguments are made on the merits or people think it's about the merits of the issue, sunday meter good or is it bad. of course that is not the issue before the board. the voters in 1999 took that power away from the board of supervisors and gave it to the mta board of directors and, so, that question about the merits of sunday meters is in the hands of the mta board of directors and we all can agree or disagree with the decisions that they make. so, i think it's really important just to emphasize that for the public. and, so, my question for you is what is the correct level of c-e-q-a review or c-e-q-a documents for this decision by the mta board of directors to eliminate sund

i'm tom lippe, i represent the appellants.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 board has already seen. this board has an opportunity to make a different decision on a number of those issues. there are also a few new issues. first of all, the vesting map, you can't approve that unless the other map is approved first because the vesting map a tents to subdivide a parcel that doesn't exist yet. and that's in the previous number on the project number is 4, 79 69. a second issue that's new is that if the e-i-r which is in litigation at this moment on the approval issue last summer is found to be inadequate under c-e-q-a, this neir that you would be basing the decision to approve these parcel maps would als

if the appellant is not here then we'll precede was we typically do with the appellant not being here any members of the public wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? any city staffers and the parties may speak. seeing none, if any of the public wishes to speak on behalf of seeing none. the appellant is not here with that this hearing is heard and finally. it's in the hands of the board i want to adapt item 53 and 54 >> seconded by supervisor breed. colleagues let's take roll call >> supervisor chiu. supervisor cohen. supervisor farrell. supervisor kim. supervisor mar. supervisor tang. supervisor wiener. supervisor yee. supervisor avalos. supervisor breed. supervisor campos. there are 11 i's. the motion is approved item 55 and 56. the board of supervisors will convene a public hearing to consider objections to a report of assessment costs the subject of the resolution contained in item 56 for the repair of blight prospers through the sidewalk abatement program >> let's here from our dpw staffer. >> i'm robert quan with the dictionary and the repairs made and invoiced by city for th

with that, the appellant or appellant's attorney. you have 7 minutes to present your case. >>> thank you. good evening. my name is alex merchant. i am the attorney for appellant jason fisher. mr. fisher is the tenant in the property. the property is a single-family home that has an unpermitted bedroom that was added to the bottom floor. i don't know when it was added. its was added prior to mr. fisher's tenancy. he moved in in approximately 2003. at the time he occupied one of the bedrooms in the upper floors. in 2007, with the owner's permission, he moved into the bedroom in the bottom floor. the owner had full knowledge that mr. fisher was occupying this room. he had full knowledge in 2003 when the tenants moved into the property that they were going to be occupying this room. that's contrary to the -- mr. santiago's statement, the statement in opposition to this appeal says he had no idea that mr. fisher was moving into this room and that mr. fisher converted it himself. that's simply not true. if this permit is issued, mr. fisher

. >> i think the issues were addressed by the appellant in this case. with respect to the changes of the name and the color or branding of the product and the signage i think that's the language. i think i would say that is not the failure to engage and the desire to get around the position it's a big problem and subsequential issue, however, i think that the occur ventilation of a process in place we found that was formula retail. it's something we should and can stand by simply trying to get around that through a signage change shouldn't stand i disagree >> okay. i think technically i don't think the zoning administrator record technically. but i don't feel like i have enough information as to the contrary criteria to make a determination about formula retail i agree with commissioner fung that perhaps those are concerns that are valid but not technically part of the legislation as it stands or of the formula retail statute regulation as it now stands there's legislation preponderance of the evidence maybe to clarify or expand that but we have to look

when they went up the wall the leaning of the building meant they suddenly had a problem >> the appellantsuilding. >> yes. possibly that's one of the photographs i can see that on top of the trim in san francisco there's a settlement this lean. when you allow for the frame at the bottom as you go up urge to go build it out of the plump or hit the lean of the building. i'm not sure how they started off on the wrong 2009 foot's there was the issue of a lot of the buildings in san francisco are flashed off each other where you have a picture tatdz wall sometimes, it's not to code but stops a lot of like rain and water problems getting in so that flashing was caught from working at dbi we encourage i know planning don't is the preapplication stuff meeting with people and neighbors talking if you're going to build a building having the discussion with the neighbors is also good something is going to leak if you don't take care of that that's common courtesy dbi didn't want to get involved but certainly the neighbors. all of those things happened now we're stuck with complaints filed with dbi an

let me ask if there are members of the public that wish to speak in support of the appellant. please step up. >>> good afternoon, board of supervisors. rose hillson, member jordan park [speaker not understood], member coalition san francisco neighborhoods. i sent you an e-mail earlier at 1:05 p.m. today and it includes a letter, i have 12 copies here for distribution if you'd like in case the e-mail is kind of not transmitted well. i would like to say the following thing. earlier in this meeting you did pass and adopt a resolution for the 2009 housing element. and what i wanted to say is it's the first reading only. however, i wanted to add a statement that could be put in the ordinance to quantify or to clarify what happened at the board of supervisors' land use committee meeting in terms of the neighborhood character that a lot of our constituents and many of your districts are concerned with. and, so, i want to make sure that item -- on page 3 of that document, the ordinance that was attached to file number 1404 14 that you earlier passed, on june 9, 2014 by motion no. xxxx

. >> did that work for you and how about the appellant court gin 25th? >> (inaudible). >> yes. we'll madam director we'll talk about the briefing schedule. >> any additional documents submitted will be due thursday prior to the hearing and, of course, to summit to not only the board but to the appellant and each other; right? on the same day. >> okay. >> okay. >> any other verifications. >> unless you want to put a page limit. >> mr. pacheco. >> we have to continue this motivator until june 22nd - 25th excuse me. the public hearing has been held to allow time for the public holder to summit the graphics of the alternative sites. >> if the predicament holder and the department as or a department okay. or a dpw and those inhabits are due one thursday prior to the hearing. commissioner fung. commissioner hurtado the president is absent. commissioner honda thank you the vote is 4 to zero it's continued until june 25th thank you >> we're going to take >> welcome to the wednesday, june 11, 2014, of the san francisco board of appeals. item no. 7 has been withdrawn appeal number next r

i'm carol i'm one of the appellants of the appeal. we are asking that the building permit granted to the gentleman be suspended or revoked because the permit didn't encompass the encroachment and doesn't identify the problems. first, we building that the encroachment is one of a quarter inches not thee quarters of on inch which is the correction we have a boundary survey it shows a one and quarter inch encroachment. additionally the picture space between the two buildings there was a two inch space is gone it's been consumed your that looking at over 3 inches of encroachment. second there are other serious violations we have that were caused by the flying permit that are the elimination of the separation one way or the other wall and the fire separation ignoring property lines separation and building over the property and nailing their wall to our wall and adding dead and live loads to our walls the new third store is too close to our chimney we're required to modify our home and the elevation plans were not submitted to the city it s

thank you. >> is the appellant here? would you mind coming up? >> i bought the home in september of 82 because i used to drive along the great highway and i always admire closeness to the ocean and i have continually lived at the same home in september of '82. so it was a total surprise that someone from the neighborhood filed a complaint that i wasn't living there. our neighbor next door told us about the development of [inaudible] below our house so my wife and i went to the planning department here in the '80s and also in the early '90s to save [inaudible] as open land. so we finally made it. we spent endless hours at the hearing of the planning committee and we also work with then commissioner sue [inaudible] and other people in the neighborhood. dean marcus was the director at that time and mr. john wood was the secretary of the planning committee. and with the help from above, from god, i say we finally were able to save parcel forever. our nightmare began because a trail was built at the west end of the property of my home. then in 2013 th

. >> any other member of the public wish to speak in support of the appellants? okay, at this time why don't we now hear from the department. >> thank you, supervisors. john ram, planning director. i will briefly just make a few comments and turn it over to staff to talk about the specifics of the appeal. we're here today to ask you to reject this current appeal on the e-i-r for the housing element and to readopt the 2009 housing element to remedy the lawsuits by san franciscans for livable neighborhoods, an association of neighborhood groups who challenged both the 2004 and 2009 housing element e-i-r and the adoption of the '09 element in san francisco superior court. your actions today to reject the appeal will allow the adoption of the 2009 element and allow many projects and programs to move forward. briefly the housing element is a required element of the city's plan. general plan elements to remind us all are high-level policy documents and guides. they are not regulatory actions for specific projects. we use the housing element as a city family directing d

was conducted and the appellant filed a discretionary review permit on that application it's my understanding think the dr requester the materials he stated his opposition to the roof-deck and proposed elimination i quote the elimination felt roof-deck is for cold temperatures and because of noise and partying and fire pits that could further block light the planning commission concerned those arguments and took discretionary review they asked for the property line be secured to provide privacy. >> what's the date. >> january 30th was 2013 i'm sorry. >> 12 and january 24th of analyzing was the dr holding and the building permit was subsequentially otherwise on july 8, 2013, that was a complaint a building inspector went out and the building permit was filed it was approved by our staff that reviewed it and the dr decision said it come forward and the proposed changes to the roof-deck didn'ty my new notification every change requires a revision but that didn't require a new notice and this permit was issued on february 21st before this board. i did not see a 2010 permit on file i don't know wh

. >> just what i don't understand is that alternative that's being raised by the appellant considered to be sort of a more preferred method. is that from your standpoint? >> if at&t is able to enter into some agreement with private property owner and placed this facility onto private property, we would not be in front of this body. >> right. it takes it out of your problem? >> that is correct. >> all right. so just private contracts separated out so that it would then not have to involve the city in this type of dispute. is that right. in terms of figuring out where the most appropriate placement would be for this type of smf. >> they most likely need a building permit for the connections and such. they might have to go through planning and building in this case. >> okay. that's helpful. thanks. >> thank you. >> mr. quan, on that question, i thought they needed this box in proximity to another box and they are connecting to it. wouldn't that still be under your jurisdiction? >> the statement from at&t is this secondary box needs to be within 300 feet of their primary box. so ultimatel

secondly, the appellants [speaker not understood]. the department responded to this concern in our submittal. mta adopted a resolution with written findings that fees, fares, rates and charges in attachment a are necessary to meet mta operating expenses including employee wages and benefits, or to purchase and lease essential supplies and material. the supplemental letter contends it is not specific enough to clearly indicate that the elimination of sunday meters was part of the budget. mta addressed this in a written response to the appeal and to reiterate, these findings satisfy the requirements for findings under c-e-q-a. the third concern, it does not itemize elimination of sunday parking and is thus inadequate. the department's response to this concern is that the findings made apply to the entire 2015-2016 operating and capital budget. attachment a, the revenue sources only. for sunday parking will not be listed, but with revenue sources because clearly no revenue is generated from the parking. even though sunday parking results

we'll hear from the appellants who will describe the grounds for the appeal. we will then hear public comment from individuals speaking on behalf of the appellants. each speaker will have up to two minutes. we'll then hear from the sfmta and the planning department who will have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for their determination that this project is exempt from environmental review. we'll then hear from individuals speaking on behalf of the project sponsor and each member of the public will have up to two minutes to present. finally the appellant will have up to three minutes for arguments and rebuttal. why don't we proceed to the appellants. >> good morning, mr. president, supervisors. my name is [speaker not understood], transit riders system and [speaker not understood]. thank you for hearing our appeal. i know that c-e-q-a issues are not always a favorite and that transit decision are always difficult, but i hope i can enlighten you as to some of the factors and reasons why we brought this appeal and why the decision to be overturned. i'll be

i also understand that supervisor wiener has recently sent a letter in support of the appellants. the castro open market benefit strict is a special ascertainment strict and extends from market street to omaha to castro down to 19 that includes the castro that includes parts of church and greener restraining order it's subject to both the california brown act and the california acts we take transparency they serial we said the portions of allowing time for the public to be heard the neighborhood association also take public comment very serial. i personally know that d t and s or a spend hours to thoroughly understand land issues to make sure their smart and well-thought-out we're all committed to prop g passed in 2007 allowing public comment and, in fact, district 8 heavily support that. we hear today to appeal the zoning administrators request are for the dpa regarding the property located on castro street. we respect the zoning administrator deliberations and his analysis of the formula retail ordinance and understand that the boyle's has the ability to allow the residents of s

i'm laura thomas one of the appellants. i have lived and worked in the castro for many years. and it's clear that this is moving an already existing pharmacy that's acknowledged this is a pharmacy that is, in fact, part of the chain and that merely the name is being changed and, you know, we're coming to us you to add common sense to this process it's clear merely changing a name shouldn't are sufficient to move out from under formula retail when all the finances are continuing to staying the same they're willing moving it around the corner but somehow that's a different entity we want a common sense ruling and a conditional use process so community members can be heard we understand from what they've said they want to be a good neighbor we invite them to go to the conditional use authorization a around and the advocacy around funding i work for the san francisco department of public health and part of that was advocating for increased fund for the hiv funds in the city we were up against opposition particularly from the aids health care foundation that he was proposing on mul

features i see here the planter box which provide some element of privacy i believe that's the appellants property is the property here which is to the west. and there's the set back there's the planters then the other elements here the barbecue the fire pit and seating >> and the bumper out didn't require any appendixes. >> that's correct. >> the permit holder has a document showing the stair going up like a little bit of a indistinct bump out for the barbecue area he use the timeframe 2012? is this the same set >> i don't see - let's see. so the location of the configuration of the stairs do appear to be the same on the permit that's on appeal as on the imprisonment permit that was approved the 2012 permit >> you indicated that is for january 2013. >> correct. >> i'm curious if you know this is the same drawing he's referencing he indicated the date of 2012 i can't remember and so those plans were prepared in 2012 and the notice was conducted in 2012 but the dr hearing was in 2013. >> so it could be the same set. >> there's a revision date on those of 9, 1, 2012 and i think what may hav