vice president goh: have there been any conversations with the appellate or the landlord -- appellant or the landlord by putting in skylights? >> we have not had contact, other than the notifications that went out to the building owner. we did do the preliminary notification. we have not had any contact with them. and as far as installing the skylights, etc., we have not discussed that, and i do not know that that is necessarily something that we had really wanted to approach. vice president goh: it would be a small price to pay to not have to appear in front of us, i would think. thank you. commissioner garcia: what you're up here, would you look at appellant's exhibit c. i guess the first question is, do you agree with this rendition, that it describes where the deck would be, outside those windows? >> i am not certain. exhibit c. i have a black and white copy. commissioner garcia: do you need a copy? >> i believe that is, in fact, fairly correct. commissioner garcia: could you put that on the overhead? >> sure. it may be much harder to read. it is a black and white copy, so -- comm

the appellant had raised some issues about the processing. we can answer any more questions that the board has, and that concludes my presentation. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> i see no public to have public comment, but do we have any public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. >> kristen lyons. i want to address the light and shadow study. i have not had a chance to take a look at it prior. one thing that has been presented in the images, the shadow that is being cast from the existing structure is at a time of year when the sun is rising in the southeast, and that shadow has always been there since i have lived there, so i have known about that. what is proposed addition will do, if you look at exhibit c -- what is proposed -- what this proposed addition will do, all of the light that comes through those two windows will be totally blocked from the structure and at that height, so wrote in the majority of the year, when it. so in the majority of the year, when the sun is rising in the east -- so in the majority of the ye

>> let's assume there is one appellant and one permit holder. there may be two or three appellants. if the each one decisionmaker to see it from their point of view, they have the opportunity. probably, they will not. they get together and decide. what is the one place the decision makers should be visiting to the point of view of the neighborhood. but that is what i was getting at. president peterson: sorry. let's say that someone goes to the site. >> anyone can walk by a site, drive by a site, and many do, and that is not what i am talking about. i am talking about a schedule decided it isn't -- piped -- i am talking about a schedule will decide to visit. -- a scheduled site visit. animosity in issues of fairness. -- and issues of fairness. commissioner hwang: you want both sides, the appellant and the project sponsor, to have notice of that in an opportunity to go to the other side? >> no, i am not suggesting. to have the right to go to the other side's side. commissioner hwang: you just want them to have notice? >> that the commissioner is coming out to see one side, and if they

however, this was toward the very first presentation, and so the appellant had multiple opportunities to correct that. their presentation, which followed dollars in that case, we went first to it -- which followed ours in that case, we went first and may as the appellant spoke after us. and then later on in rebuttal. i think they had every opportunity to address and clarify that. second, in regards to other variances, that was the argument put forward by the appellant that night. that they were created differently from other variances. to show a new voting of the variants that have been improved -- approved of april of 2010, this hearing was set at september. they could have presented all of this. i don't think there is any new information here. additionally, i understand the appellant's concerns about being able to maintain the property and, yes, we want them to maintain the property. the option is the combining process. each of the units is bunner/occupied for a set time, they can bypass the lottery -- if each of the units is owner occupied for a set time, they can bypass the lotter

we will hear from the appellant, who will have 10 minutes. we will then take public comment from members of the public who wish to speak. we will then hear from the planning department, who will have 10 minutes to describe the grounds. we will then hear from the party of interest. each speaker shall have up to two minutes to present, and the appellant will have three minutes for a rebuttal. any objection to proceeding this way? the you have in the opening comments? >> i do not have any comments. we look forward to hearing from the various parties. >> my wife should be here, but she is feeling ill at the moment. we are affected the most by this permit to carry good our family has long term concerns about what is happening as a result of this permit. i am also seeking four other house and -- speaking for other households that are affected. the attorney previously argued that the permit is a redundant set it covers all important issues of the main permit. he also argues of the permit does not need an exemption at all, but planning gave it an exe

commissioner garcia: did you apply -- supplied this to the appellant? this was not to hearing oral presentation at the last minute that was also due to the appellant. commissioner hwang: do you have the copies right now with you? can you give one to the appellant? he has already read into the thing. commissioner fung: you also mentioned the location? >> yes, and after looking at all of the locations, we decided that none of the locations was suitable, so we decided to locate the compressor unit in the existing garage, in the corner, and that is the corner that is furthest from any of the neighbors. that is at the corner of benton and andover. vice president goh: -- commissioner garcia: how is that different? >> it was the ground window. it was to the opposite side of the building. and, again, it is going to be enclosed in the closets, acoustically insulated, and hopefully reduce to 60 decibels or less, which is about the december reading without the compressor reading, and as far as the schedule, originally, we have the schedule for the weekdays to be b

are you employed by the appellant? ok. i am sorry to interrupt. go ahead. >> ok, anyway, the day that she'd since the initial yield that was used as an exhibit in her case, i had actually been over there, and we had been talking, and i had actually seen that work had started inside of the location, so for them to, whoever, to say that there is nothing going on there is completely false. i am sorry they spend so much money. they could have stopped at any time, including the money they used to buy out the heads of community boards when they thought this was just going to be based on community support. if they have spent more money than they wanted to, that is entirely their problem. they could have stopped at any time. commissioner hwang: what what did you witness being done? >> al she said, we went over and saw the initial counter wall in place. the counter wall that she pointed out in her exhibit. commissioner hwang: ok, do you know how long that had been up? >> i did not make a habit of looking in there, but when she noticed it that day, when she

we will begin with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening. i am here today along with a number of people who live on the 1300 block of mcallister street because the department of public works is planning to remove 14 of the street trees that are on the street right now. that is about half of the trees on the street. these are all mature chinese elm trees that are really critical to forming the character of the street. the trees are, as i said, mature. they have been there a long time. it is not typical in san francisco to have a block where you have such a nice canopy of trees. and they have been really important to the aesthetic quality of the street. they also -- it is a fairly noisy block because we are on a hill above the square. we have a lot of tour bus traffic. the trees to help with noise abatement and also some of the trapping of the diesel pollution. removing this many trees is really a big deal for the people who live on the block. i have a few photos of would like to show today. the first is -- i will set a couple of things. i am

first, the appellant is biased. second, the opponents said no way of knowing that the work was done by the contractors. in fact, it was done by a prior owner. the appellant states in her april 16 email, quote, "all of the old had been removed." the implication is that they did this on or before april 16, but in the exhibits, those pictures show that the space was an empty shell. there were no counters there, so any counters that were taken out or taken out by the previous tenant and certainly taken out before february 25. also, the palin states, quote, the perimeter wall had been sheetrock. again, if you look at the exhibit, with pictures taken on february 25, the perimeter walls had already been sheetrocked. president peterson: thank you. ms. morgan? >> good evening. i would just sort of get right to it here. the jurisdiction request are largely a group of emails i submitted with the jurisdiction requests that were sent as interoffice communication long prior to any knowledge on my part of what people process was,

commissioner hwang: i am very sympathetic to the appellant's position. i appreciate very much the shadows studies that were submitted, and they were very helpful to me -- the shadow studies that were submitted. the appellant is not convinced that it will have been minimal impact that is argued -- it will not have the minimal impact that is argued by the permit holder. but this will lead me towards denying the appeal. i think the proposed project is modest, as well, given what others and what you could have potentially done. vice president goh: i agree with what has been said. i do want to commend the talent for bringing the case forward. we do not see very many tenants -- i do want to commend the tenant for bringing the case forward. i do, like it has been said, which that your landlord had gotten involved, but i think that you may be could have negotiated something -- maybe could have negotiated something for your unit. i agree with the other commissioners that it does appear to be modest and accommodates the needs of the family and that building, and t

that was provided to the appellant? >> just today. we received it from planning last night. vice president goh: isn't this to be appealed to the board of supervisors? i see mr. sanchez nodding his head. >> i am not a ceqa expert, but probably. vice president goh: thanks. president peterson: and want to follow up on the heron. did your department look at which trees that had the impact of habitat loss? >> we did not look specifically at habitat loss. president peterson: is that not within your purview? is that some and you do not consider it? >> it is something we try to consider. i think in this case because of the condition of the trees, and there are still other trees on the block and other elements in the neighborhood, it is a little bit different than if you are looking at an impact habitat or when we do removals in areas that are more naturalistic areas. commisssioner fung: ms. short, is it the department intend to issue one contract for the replacement of all for trees? -- four trees? >> the replacement would be in house, but we would make all efforts to minimize any d

on page 19, line 15, under section 31.16, it says appellants may sign a letter of appeal or may have agents authorized in writing, and my understanding is the language are around authorization in writing does not refer to anything that is in the code. >> we had nothing to do with those changes. the additions of changes, so i do not have an issue. we have an occasion where someone has filed an appeal or has represented themselves as representing a property, and that is why it is written. but we have no issues with this, with what you're suggesting. i think it has the same meeting, same intent. supervisor alioto-pier: if i may, that request came specifically from the clerk's office, just because it can be very confusing for them, and this was their way of -- just so you know where it came from. supervisor mar: and then, on page 22, there is language that states the new language says the decision or determination made the final and may not be appealed again. that could apply to extensions, right? is it meant to apply new exemptions? >> without the other -- this is stated as a broad situ

that alternative seems to afford the appellant more light and air given that this is a north- facing exposure there so this would not be as much as a south- facing exposure. this would actually improve the situation. the appellant as noted that the light well which is similar to what was president -- was present in 1998, this is not the exact same. this will still provide improvements but it will be slightly different. i think that covers most of the issues that i wanted to address. this is a deeply sloping lot just from front to back. the adjacent properties to the east are significantly higher than the subject property. those of not be adversely impacted by this building which would be lower than all of these buildings because of the process. there are some issues that were raised about conditions of approval. i would be happy to answer any questions that you have. thank you. >> can you talk about those conditions? if one were to approve a permit with certain conditions and then work for to be started on that permit, you would think that those conditions would be needed to be uphel

on november 3, the board denied a request made by the appellant. in conjunction to the appeal before supervisors, the city attorney has determined the earlier permit is timely. for the reasons of both, the category complies with ceqa, and they recommend the board of polled environmental review and the 9 ceqa determination of -- and deny ceqa determination. goo>> why don't we hear from the party of interest element -- of interest? >> i would like to introduce a fine architect and next to me, and welcome to the new supervisors. we will be moving in once it is finished. this problem and -- probably but will be the first one approved by board members. when you finish hearing this case, you will have learned a great deal more about ceqa. he is a public -- she is a public school teacher, and her husband is a documentary filmmaker who can make this city such a wonderful and compassion that plays. they have indicated they planned several more, and they did not appeal to the board of appeals or the planning commission. the project stopped for about six mont

butler that the appellate would be here. here is what this looks like. you try to make everybody happy, but there are people on both sides, and we did what the planning commission required us to do. this is one that does the very least amount of harm to the livability of the unit, and is one that was proposed, which we will show you with mr. butler, and he got what he wanted, the light will the we are doing right now. a huge amount of time during the relocation. the planning commission in its judgment thought it would be better to put the big light well opposite that today, and we have. there is no negative impact, and the condition that we have created here will give them more or less at the same light impact as to property line windows that face another building. it is an extremely typical condition. it has been done for generations and is still done today. by the way, the light well the we are doing is open ended in the rear, unlike most light well as in san francisco, which are enclosed. it has the same set back as the one proposed a by mr. horvers,

ihe is giving legal advice to te appellant. commissioner goh was very interested in seeing one of the speakers photos, sang there waspre-permit work done. -- saying there was pre-permit work done. i would like an opportunity to address those. this is not credible evidence or grounds for revocation of a permit that is already granted. iis the board wishes to ask any questions, we have the real- estate agent who signed one of the declarations, and i have the landlord also a. i also have here bay drugs contractor, and i would like him to tell you -- well, the appellant also contended that a drug removed plumbing in violation of the plumbing code. the contractor will tell you what he did regarding the toilets. >> basically, what took toilets, simple site preparation, took the toilets to see what we were dealing with. set them aside, had the plumber come by to take another look, and put them back on again. it is standard procedure whenever you are starting a new job. that is it. >> thank you. >> i can only talk when invited to do so

i am inclined to overturn this permit, brigadoon not think this is a tenable situation for this appellant to live with a compressor, either directly under his window or in his garage. commissioner garcia: i am inclined to need to uphold or overturned but to continue. i think we made it very clear to the permit holder what this board wanted, and we cannot, at least, i cannot, maybe the other commissioners can, for the basis decide the merits of all of the complex issues involved in this particular case having to deal with this particular permit. i want to know exactly about the construction, how the installation is going to be achieved, exactly where it is going to be, and under what authority it can be in the garage, if that is going to be the place it is. all the issues having to deal with all of the permits, and some citations as to what is allowed or not allowed having to deal with noise, i feel that we have incomplete information. i would lead more towards overturning than upholding, but if neither party is willing to that, then i would join vice president goh in overturning, but i wo

will first hear from the appellant, who will have up to 10 minutes. the multi public comments from those speaking on behalf of the project. -- then we will take public comments from those speaking on behalf of the project. dpw will have up to 10 minutes for their brands to approve the parcel map. then, others will have time to speak on behalf of the real party of interest. finally, the appellant will have up to three minutes for a rebuttal. colleagues, and the objections to proceeding in this way? >> the parties have reached a verbal tentative agreement. we respectfully ask that this matter be continued for three weeks to allow it to be produced in writing. i am the petitioner. the parties agreed -- reached a tentative verbal agreement. request this matter be continued for three weeks in order to allow it to be reproduced in writing. president chiu: is there a representative of the real party of interest here today? a representative on the other side? >> they are gone. president chiu: did they provide everything in writing? supervisor elsbernd: i woul

comments of my fellow commissioners that i think that rear property is probably in excess, and that the appelants should avail -- may avail themselves of the other remaining processes. >> before someone makes a motion, i am going to make a comment to mr. morrow also. he would have had the right to come up here and ask yourself a continuance, you might have gotten it from the board. had we known what the circumstances were. i find it is unfortunate situation. but at any rate, does someone want to make a motion? >> i'm going to move to uphold the zoning administration variance decision. that he did not err and abuse his discretion. >> if you could call roll on that, please. >> it was not mr. sanchez. >> the motion is from commissioner fund to grant the variance and that he did not abuse his discretion. >> on that motion, with that basis, vice president go? >> no. >> commissioner garcia? >> aye. >> president peterson. >> aye. >> commissioner wang. >> aye. >> thank you. the granting of the variances is -- the vote is 4-1. the granting of the variances is upheld on that basis. >> the last item on the