or the appellant representative. please note if you are here to speak on either the 218-27th avenue appeal, this will be the time to do so, specifically for these appeals. we will open up this hearing, and seeing no names on the roster, if the first appellant could come forward, and you will have 7.5-minutes unless you can specify whether or not the two appeals are from the same individual. excuse me, the two presentations will be the same person. >> yes. good afternoon, madam president, members of the board. we can hadid have advanced not where we would have a consolidated hearing, where 15 minutes would be allotted -- >> president breed: so we will start your time, and you can proceed with your presentation. >> okay. great. thank you. thank you. my name's robia crisp. i'm with the law firm of hanson bridgett, and i'm here on behalf of the appellants. they join me here along with their architectural consultant, randy popp, and we will be hearing from them later in this presentation. the -- property line of the proje

we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes to present your case. >> good evening commissioners. thank you for taking the time to review this matter. there's a lot of details and facts and history behind this. but i'm representing the appellant uptown market and abdulbasit al-hubuishy. instead of going over the history of this within the seven minutes, i am going to break it down to four core issues that have led up to this appeal. the first being the failure to provide by client with any records which created the basis for the audits relied upon by city officials in alleging unpaid wages. if i can direct your attention to exhibits a and b of the declaration. this is all that was provided to my client in alleging unpaid wages. so is this an audit done on the city's own accord. and when he requested the, any further evidence on the basis that they were relied upon, he was denied. he repeatedly did so. and to this day, we have no idea what the -- where these calculations come from and, in fact, we have two,

and then, the appellants -- appellant wants to develop the property.and i -- i see us or our future peers sitting here having a conversation with the neighborhood -- somebody in the neighborhood appeals the dismemberment of a parking lot for the purpose of -- of building that -- that future structure. that's the thing that bugs me the most. that's -- that's where i see the biggest problem. >> and just to clarify further, you know, the letter didn't address the potential temporary use or the future development of the property, really. it really just looked at the question of is the existing parking lot, can it basically continue as a legal nonconforming parking lot. some of the other information about its temporary use, future development provide context for the request, but the letter itself didn't address those specific issues. >> i think the appellants are asking for five years. >> yeah. >> so -- so i recognize that the letter doesn't address that, but i would like you to give me some thoughts on that. if the five years passes by, if there's a shorta

or appellant representative. the floor is yours, not to exceed 5 minutes. >> it's not the 3-story, it's the part and parcel. we're not asking for density reduction. just a bedroom. a 3-bedroom unit is not unreasonable. shadow studies were generated that showed impact. where increased shadow impact is minimal. if we can get the overhead back on, please. not the computer, the overhead. 40 feet is permitted, but that doesn't mean it should be granted. the pattern of transition from 4 to 3 to 2 is clear. this is not about what zoning we live in. we're at an edge and we need to be cognizant of that. the photos they showed are from the next block over and are cropped in an advantagous matter. the mitigations imposed were not a gift. they were recognitions that the design has oversights and not considered it properly. design is objective. although it may conform to the zoning units, not to the constraints. we need to are consider this project. -- reconsider this project. >> you are yielding the rest of your time? go ahe

appellant's request. they made two requests. first, we agreed to white paint or light-colored finish. and, second, we can confirm there are no side yard decks on the plans now. let me know introduce michael levitt, project plans and shadow studies. before doing so, i would like to submit a total of 56 letters of support from richmond district and citywide. i have those letters here. >> thank you. we'll collect those. >> good afternoon. i'm michael levitt, levitt architecture. picking up where steve left off regarding neighborhood context, please take a look at this analysis of the immediate area surrounding the project. this is in your packets as well on page 7. our project has been described as massive, monolithic and out of character with its neighbors as an anomaly in an area dominated by smaller buildings. the facts don't bear this out. the diagram indicates in red the 4th stories of a large number of existing buildings in both the contiguous and surrounding blocks. the vast majority of these buildings contain four stories t

i have been saying that from the word go to the appellant. obviously, he's concerned for his own property and the safety. we get that. we always get that at dbi. we try to relay that at all times. we're able to go out there, means and methods, proposal from mr. santos on how this work will get done so this doesn't impact the neighbor. mr. bleskovich is obviously on the other side. he's welcome to be there as well, just to make sure the work is done properly. i would probably at this point be asking that the permit is upheld as well for the purposes of getting this under a safe condition resolved with the good and review by dbi on the inspection process and preconstruction. >> president honda: just for the neighbors to hear, the wall height is gonna be the same as it was prior. did you get a chance to look at that? >> i'm just going by what you were told as well. i assume it was. >> president honda: i imagine it is. >> looks like it is. >> president honda: okay. thank you, inspector duffy. >> i'd give them my business card tonight. i'm willing

seeing none we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> i'm the appellant's son. i wanted to start by saying good evening everyone. they were saying it was compliant with all the building department but i says on their website the type of building couldn't be visible from the street which the picture showed it was visible from the street. so that would not be in compliance. the owner came up here and described the number of bedrooms set by an illegal number that was not part of any plans or legal number. i think this represents more than a remodel. this is more than doubling the size of the existing home. many of our neighbors are elderly, who are not able to make it. a couple neighbors were able to file comments with you guys. these are people who have lived there for 40 years or more. who have described the neighborhood in one in which families grow up, grow fruit trees in their back yards and have open areas where everybody can barbecue and talk across yards. i think building this would cut off the yard an cut off a sense of that community, not to mention takin

and, finally, up to 3 minutes for rebuttal by the appellant or appellant representative. colleagues, if there is no objection to proceeding in this way, we'll open up this hearing. supervisor farrell? >> supervisor farrell: before we get into the appeal presentations, i want to flag for everybody that we're hearing the ceqa appeal while there are three d.r.s pending. it's unusual and i don't think i've seen it. we're here because it was approved by the notices pending. >> president breed: seeing no other names on the roster, we'll start with the 10-minute presentation by the appellant or appellant representative. >> thank you, ma'am. i'm richard drury, representing phillip kauffman, owner of the directly adjacent property 2421 green street. i'd like to use the overheads here, so i -- thank you. this appeal concerns a proposal to expand the property of 2417 green street from the existing 4,100 square foot residence to a 6,000 square foot residence on a 2,500 square foot lot. this will be double 2.5 area ratio. this will not create an additional housing unit. it will take o

thank you, inspector. >> appellant? >> i'm the designer, expediter for the project, and this is the owner. on february 16th, fire damage, the next day the tenant was vacant and left the property. so, since that, the day of the fire, all the tenant left. so actually vacant since that day. so on, on may 30th, there was a permit pulled to repair the damage for the sheetrock, to try to repair some of the damage and hired during the process in late march, draft plans and measurement and design to work with the planning department to get a plan submitted and june there was a permit submitted by us to comply to the notice of violation. early july there was a hearing, i was there with the owners. the case was continued. was never heard, it was continued for 30 days and since then i've been working with the planning department to provide photos of the site, assessment of the site to make sure that there were no tenants involved in the -- the tenant was left and then the sites, all the stucco, exterior of the property, three unit

the appellant has not provided any evidence to the contrary. a preservation consultant submitted a letter yesterday advocating for additional review, but that letter, while they discussed the historic character of the home, do not identify any impacts under ceqa to the home. the appellant in the letter discussed the possibility of the properties being included in the historic district, but planning has studied this previously and concluded that the property should not be included in the district. we're also aware of the recent publicity and public concern about the demolition of historic resources and building permit violations. we want to assure the board that that's not the case here. we have taken every measure to proceed with care and in accordance with all codes and regulations. the villainization of mr. durkin that has occurred here today is inappropriate and inaccurate. he's here and he's willing to answer each and every question the board may have about project construction. with respect to the recent complaint filed consideration the f

representing the appellant, and john kellan representing the appellant. we are on the brink for signing the agreement, so thank you for getting there. >> there is only our third extension, please. thank you. >> okay. so on that motion to reschedule to january 17th. [ roll call. ] >> okay. thank you very much, so we'll move that item to next week. then, the next housekeeping items has to do with appeals 8 a and 8 b, 17-161 and 17-169, those have been withdrawn in the last half hour, so those items will not be heard tonight. >> interesting. >> okay. so your evenings have just changed a bit. >> dramatically. >> so we're going to move back to the regular calendar then. item number one is general public comment. this is for anyone here who would like to address the board that's within the board's subject matter jurisdiction but not on tonight's calendar, so is there any general comment? okay. seeing none, item 2 is commissioner comments and questions. anything else, commissioners? >> sure. one of the convenient opportunities that was going to present itself fo

item number 8 is a rehearing request, the subject property of 259 avila treat, the appellant, patrickmulligan is requesting a rehearing. we decided november 15, 2017, at that time the board voted 5-0 to deny the appeal at that time that the permit was properly issued. mr. mulligan, you have three minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon -- or good evening, president honda and commissioners. everybody now agrees that the one update from my presentation before -- everybody agrees that the house was rented in 1992 to '93. i have a couple of questions that you might think about. what is the -- >> i'm sorry. i can't hear you. >> could you raise the mic, sir. >> raise it? >> yeah. you're kind of a tall guy. >> what is the legal basis that planning sites requiring evidence, that actual physical residency is the sole determining factor for occupancy in san francisco. my second question is about the permit holder install the bathroom and shower, etcetera after they bought the building in 1993? the whole structure at 259 avila was rented in 1992-93 era. there by, the san francisco rent stablizatio

so how many -- >> appellant. >> appellant.how many appellants are you -- >> i'm representing just one, really, richard yanowitch. the leppla family wasn't able to be here. >> okay. so three minutes. >> when the board determined that the penthouse, the top fourth floor should be removed, we were under the impression that they would remove the top floor, and we would work together on designing the deck. that's not what happened. they used the opportunity to increase the height of the building 2.5 building, so the overall bulk, the shadows, the views blocked is now much large. they say they didn't raise the floor, but they increased the height of the thing. the top of the guardrail on the new deck is the same height that the penthouse was, so you know in all the years i've done this, i've never seen someone ordered to take a floor off and come back with a building that's the same height. the board said there's no four story buildings in sea cliff, but here we are with the exact same four story building, just calling it a three st

we'll hear from the appaeople appellant, mr. anyarin. and this is if we are going to rehear the case. >> i'm going to try to speak by myself and if i have anything technical word that i don't understand, there's a person here to help me. >> okay. >> good evening. please reconsider this case. bringing more evidence than already provided to you in my last piece. and also witnesses that can give more clarifications of a full track being part of the buildings. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the department. >> good evening. brent cohen, representing public works. i believe most of the information or all the information was presented at the last hearing. so as you stated, i guess, it would be up to you whether the voting was something to consider. >> is there any public comment on the issue of the rehearing request? step forward. >> welcome back. >> hi. mark brennan. i object to the rehearing request. one, it's been adjudicated. it's been under consideration for over a year. december 5, 2016, we received notice of inte