again, it should have been the appellant and if i were the appellant and this was the situation, i would have a record. i would have memorialized the fact that if you have not done it with telephone calls, and e- mail, please meet with me. the first would have gone out immediately the next day. the continuous record of that i tried very hard to negotiate with the permit holder and it came to nothing. now we have he shall it -- he said, she said. this is obviously a poisonous relationship. i will be very reluctant to impose some reconsideration of the buildings or the permit holder given that unfortunately for the appellant, he is of the property line and it is the permit holders right to have the project that he has proposed. >> are there other comments or a motion? >> i think that everyone is struggling with the settlement negotiation but i am probably more inclined to agree with the vice president garcia on this, unfortunately. i reckon my brain to see if there is a way to fix this that we would be making significant adjustments to a permit already granted and a project about which we

as the appellants noted, we have received several

the appellant lost both hearings by unanimous decision. the project conditions agreed to during the discretionary review process are adequate to address any noise and safety concerns that may have. no. 4, contrary to the accusations and misinformation presented by appellants, my clients have acted only in good faith and obeyed every directive given to them by the city to bring their building permit into compliance. the appellants argue that the plan does not meet the plan and is unprecedented but they fail to provide any argument or evidence that modifications to the project will not adequately protect them from possible disturbances. the appellants claim that because there are no other elevated outdoor activity alamance this project should not be approved. the entire menu is an elevated 5 feet above union street. what may be true that no other venue is elevated, this is not a reasonable basis for overturning the decision. both the planning commission and the board of supervisors entertained a full briefing and hearing on the concerns abou

i think the appellants miexed up the requirements. chapter 1 is very clear that when an appeal is pending, when it has been filed, no further action can be taken. there were actions taken during the 20-day appeal period. there were actions that were taken in advance of an appeal being followed. this occurs all of the time in san francisco. we did receive an appeal. it was properly filed. after that, i believe there was one of land use committee hearing. there is nothing that prohibits the conduct of public hearings or informational hearings that the appeal has been filed. the only limitation is that the body who is conducting the hearing cannot take any action on the item. i think the appellants directly stated that. there was no action taken yesterday. there was a hearing on the development agreement. there was no action taken on the land use agreement. we forward it to the full board without recommendation. that is just a procedural matter to begin -- bring it before the full board today. >> any further questions on this issue? if n

the appellant is contradicted by the planning commission's motion. the project reached the conclusion that it is on balance, including the urban design development. it's important to understand that consistency with the general plan requires an overview of the whole plan. the general plan provide a number of public policy goals and at any one time they maicon conflict with each other. decision makers should review all the pertinent policies and then decide whether the plan is on balance in whole consistent with the general plan. the planning commission also considered the transportation, the housing, and the community facilities element. it is important to explore the project in relation to immediate neighbors and in relation to urban design, but let's ensure we're using more than a myopic lens. let's review it relative to the larger community and other policy goals. i'd like to draw your attention to some of those neglected by the appellant. transportation objectsive two. the city should use the transportation system to guide development. in this ca

also, the project sponsor paid $7.5000 to the appellant. if i could address the water intrusion issue -- the project sponsor paid $7,500 to the appellant. they came on to the appellant's building and said of the new wall over it. -- set up the new wall over it. it is a construction defects. -- defect. so at this stage the roof collapsed, the water membrane came off between the two buildings, and the water got between the buildings, and that is when the problem showed up. it would have showed up every way -- showed up anyway because the membrane -- both parties agree to water-proofed between the two buildings when the building at 1138 page street is complete. that will resolve that issue. i would say this. as far as the roof collapsing, it is an insurance issue. they are working to resolve this, and that will get solved as it goes along, so i think the key here is that all of the proper permits are in place tonight, and i would ask you to uphold the permits of the construction could be complete, and agree to water-proofed between the buildin

it is not part of the appellants appeal. this is not a discretionary review hearing, so the question is whether those issues that are going to be adjudicated in some civil venue, not here. i think a permit in terms of what it normally contributes zero to what has been approved is still violenalid. >> i understand why an appellant would consider the percentages submitted as white suspect, but who -- submitted was suspect your your -- as suspect. however, despite the information about the calculation, that was done by planning. i feel more persuaded of everything done by planning is acceptable. >> i want to take a different tactic and follow up on the comments of the property may be on sound. -- unsound. there's another process for review, and i do not know if there is a process to take it to a further staff review, but i i think with the safety concerns raised by the appellant, it should be addressed under that mechanism is possible to regard -- if possible. >> if it turns out to be on sound -- unsound, but does not serve the

>> let's do august 10. >> is the appellant ok with august 10? >> for the august 10 hearing, and the permit holders submit a would be due thursday, july 28, and the appellant would be due thursday, august 4. >> and then august 10. >> are you clear what is the board is asking you to do? >> i would like some further instructions. >> my feeling is that with the door that is always open, and noise has to a state superior region would escape. good the suggestion would be the -- some noise would escape. i would want to have someone to say that it should dampen the noise so as to satisfy the neighbors that it might be a reasonable accommodation of mitigation, so if a better idea develops, you are not barred from offering a better idea. >> are we trying to address going up to the second and third floors, or is that street shuffle also? -- street level also? >> wherever it travels. >> the issue is not so directional. i would and that you need to start with a bases. it leads into their recommendations as to how that is as mitigated. >> i would like to add

we represent appellants. we are here today because the permit holder applied for and was issued a permit in 2010 pursuant to unit remodeling. under the law, the family had a legal right to approve a permit within 15 days. however, the permit holder waited five minutes to notify, and on may 2011, was served with a notice to vacate. it was only after a bout of the family found out about the december, a 2010 permit to install a three-car garage and make additions for kitchen remodeling. the permit holder claims that the proposed project is necessary for structural integrity, where the family has currently lived since 1986. a permit holder obtained a permit in 2010 in order to make repairs to the exterior and a basement foundation. the family had a legal right to file an appeal. the permit holder failed to notify the family. the family was denied a legal right to appeal common and they now face the possibility of permanent displacement your year of the permit holder is not acting in good faith. he never discussed

vice president garcia: was the appellant's time up? if you have anything to add, please go ahead. >> that is all. i want to comply, but i cannot afford. i am unemployed and i have a daughter who is a senior. i cannot afford it right now. or if i could have -- well, i cannot. so to reduce from nine times to two times, that would be great. i understand the violation. i just want to -- commissioner fung: thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> i suppose the first question i was going to ask, is it ok to appeal the probably on the filed a permit? i was thought any should permit that we appeal to pummel the on. but we don't have a permit yet. we have an application that has gone through. i think they may have found out what the penalty is going to be, but the permit has not been issued. >> we have always allowed people on building permits to appeal prior to issuance for electrical and plumbing. for safety issues, you have to pay the penalty first, but historically, we have always allowed it pre-issuance. commissioner fung: i think before you

the appellant may reapply for this permit. commissioner peterson: provided section 311 notices obtained. -- notice is obtained. and there is nothing i can do about fees? are there nov penalties paid? >> that is different. >> what is the one-year thing you are talking about? vice president garcia: under normal circumstances if we uphold the department, you are barred for one year for replying for the same project. we are waiting that ban on you. >> on that motion from commissioner peterson -- commissioner fung: aye. >> the president is absent. vice president garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the boat is -- vote is 4-0. >> will move on to our last item, item nine, brett poffenbarger versus the zoning administrator, appealing a letter of determination dated march 30, 2011, regarding whether a news their penthouse and roof deck may be constructed and the permit height of a glass wind screen wall and skylights at the subject property. we'll start with the appellant or his agent. you have seven minutes. >> thank you. i would

it has to do with, appellants council -- the appellant's counsel has received an n.o.v. your client will not grant access? what is the reason? >> the n.o.v. that was issued to the appellant was due to our original construction -- due to a regional construction defects -- due to our original -- due to original construction defects. i had a conversation. the wall is in place. you do not have to destroy the wall. and then after they fix or whatever they do -- and my client does not have a problem in terms of cooperating with them as long as there is a very strict time limit where they have to perform the work so they cannot stretch it out, one year, two years, when my client is not even halfway finished. and that would allow them access to their exterior wall, which is behind our clients and exterior wall -- are climate -- our client's exterior wall. i will go to the structural defect, construction defects. what well have been -- what happened, and i was there, when they built their building, everything that was below the roofline of my client's building have building paper

if anyone who represents the appellants would like to address the board on items other than the eir, you do have another opportunity. >> this really offered fair alternatives. this is always a dilemma with the incrementally valuations, how do you take a proposed project and then it cannot show the alternatives so that the decision makers can make a proper decision? there are no drawings in the environmental impact report and no proper explanation of a historical preservation of rented. i don't want to sound like a preservationist because i'm not a preservationist but i think that here we can make an addition, we can add the 59% square footage. we can add the safety requirements, we can at the sensibilities, the new computers, all of those uses. the question is, are we getting the best possible design and do you see that? you have a very handsome existing modern building of the high point of modernism which was functionalism so that you could see the books that you were reading, city could join around the tables and so there would be a cozy atmosphere. the new design, which would take

this is the appellant's property. you can see there is quite a recess already between the buildings. the rear of building walls are a southern-facing exposures. i would not think this would have a great addition to shut up, especially considering the shadows in the photo. the existing building already extends in such a nature. that already casts a shadow on the appellate of property. i do not think there would be net new addition of shadowed by the project. -- of shadow by the project. commissioner fung: those shadows look like it is early afternoon already. thank you for your ipad. vice president garcia: do you charge the city when you use your ipad to help us out? >> the matter is submitted. president goh: commissioners? commissioner fung: i will start. i think it would -- just to summarize my view, because my questions are all geared that way, i would assume and it is probably correct that the portion of the appellant's building where there are no setbacks in her building probably have no windows. at the point wher

the appeal has not changed. >> the date for the appellants in brief came and went. i did leave a message, but he did not return my phone call. >> is it submitted? >> it is submitted a raider reduce submitted. >> i think the department has -- it is submitted. >> i think the department has a compelling case. >> do we have a comment? >> if you would stay in the basis for the violations set for in the decision. >> i would agree with that. >> is there a motion? >> i believe when we just made a motion. >> for march 14. good >> we will send a letter to the appellant explaining he can always apply for a hearing requests. call the roll please. >> with the understanding that a hearing might not been granted to rigger -- granted the motion is to hold this one-year revocation. the motion is to uphold the suspension on the basis of the quarter. good parts in those states a 1- yr rev vacation, -- >> it does say there is a revocation, but is it automatically reinstated after one year? do we need to worry about that language, or are we safe to ignore it? >> i am looking at the actu

so i disagree with the appellants on that point. that said, i do think that going forward we need to consider how this is being interpreted. to me, the way that it is written in the code does suggest that we are following the wrong interpretation. the reason i say that is that if you look at the way in which the code is written, at that subsection it basically references two things. it says that while the appeal is pending, until the eir is recertified, the city shall not carry out -- and then it says "or consider" -- the subject of the eir on appeal. to me, that language suggests there is a difference between carrying out approval and considering approval. the way the city attorney's office is interpreting the word consider -- it applies that definition only to the instance when the approval is actually carried out. the text suggests there is a difference, that there are two possible scenarios. from my reading of this, the word consider is broader than just boating on something or carrying it out. -- voting on something or carrying

in terms of handling -- president chiu: are you representing the appellant? >> i represent the city and county of san francisco. president chiu: if you can just hang on for a second, the appellants have an opportunity to provide 15 minutes and we can hear from you after that. we're almost there. on behalf of the friends of a better north beach library and playground, you have time to a number of your colleagues. we will start the 15 minute clock again. >> before we start, i would like to add the statement that we object to the consolidation of the hearing with the other three hearings. of the reasons set forth in the process and the record, we object to each of the items before you today. appellants urge the board to reject it, to decline and rezone the try and go into decline the vacation of the street. i will focus on the open space issue. i had this video prepared from the board of supervisors hearing to initiate the eminent domain proceedings. the discussion shows the intent to acquire the triangle specifically for open space and the playground. the actio

yeah appellants also allege that this is -- does not meet ceqa requirements. it suggests the eir should be considered not a project level eir because they're insufficient details about the project. as stated need for a more subscription appears to be a misunderstanding of the height limits. both of these features of the project provide some possibilities for infrastructure that both are well defined and fully analyzed in the eir with regard to the impact. the appellants also raised concerns that there are new public safety issues regarding impacts on trouble following certification. it however, the issues and effects are not new information. president chiu: thank you. colleagues, any questions to planning? supervisor avalos? supervisor avalos: thank you for your presentation. the project level eir, but it appears to more of a different eir, can you go into more detail about your response? >> we were able to analyze the project as a project level eir. enough information for us to be able to determine what those impacts would be. the dda provides enough informat

i would like to state that the appellate lives here, across the street. we do not share a property line. you can see there has been extensive development on the other lot, here. our proposal is to adjust the lot line at 90 degrees, to come into compliance more with the city code and better reflect the living "-- living conditions of the two structures. again, we are proposing to reorient the line. you can see a variance is required to reduce the size of the larger lot from 1800 sq. ft. to 1500 square feet. however, as a result of that, the smaller lot, the 906 square foot lot, becomes 1088 square feet. again, it comes closer to compliance. in summary, there is no physical expansion or changes proposed, no net loss being created. there are two lots and will be two lots. no legal parking spaces are limited. there are no detriments to the public welfare, as specified in the zoning administrator's decision letter. we met on february 23, at which time the zoning administrator approved the request with a restrictive condition that any future physical expansion

i understand the appellate's frustration. it was a simple matter, and we made this clear through our communication. you can remove a boiler, but you need a permit to remove the boiler. we will do the physical inspection to make sure the cross connection has been eliminated and the gas lines are secure, and we will update the complaint. simple as that. going beyond that, to install a new source of heat, particularly gas heaters and water heaters, we need additional permits for the new equipment. as of date, i have no permit indicating that they are installing any of those acquitted. i have no inspection history of any physical inspection for any plumbing or heating devices. all i have is a permit would says replaced damages from fire. that permit is long since expired. >> so if i go to the online side and look at the history, there will be no permit for either a new heating system or a removal of the old one? >> based on the staff report given to me that i have in front of you here today, that is my understanding. there is no

we will start with the appellant. or his agent. you have seven minutes. >> thank you, i am here to represent the appellant. 1354 york street. we have a notice of violation issued in 2007, april 5, for two windows replaced at the ground level at the front of the building. some stucco work on the front exterior was also in disrepair. a building permit was filed on may 12 of this year. the permit application number 2011-925, and has been signed off on june 14 of this year. in order to get this permit, we had to pay $1,800 penalty. for the notice of violation indicated on the panel day that there was $1,000 of work. -- on the penalty that there was $1,000 of work. this is a commercial building. i talk to the owner who purchased the property in 1979. he did not install these windows. these were installed prior to its purchase of the property. there was no report, no disclosure that anything had been done without a permit when he purchased the property. the other item that you should know is that he is an elderly, retired at, on a fixed

the appellant has had his license for 26 years. he has never suffered one citation, which speaks volumes for his commitment. he did on one occasion half and an employee -- have and employees of some cigarettes to an undercover police officer -- an employee sell some cigarette to an undercover police officer. i have represented this family for 21 years. this is pro bono. they cannot afford a presentation. two families subsist in the store. the household are the principal employees. they have spent many hours selling items out small profits. the one feature is the coast treasure island as many people from torus countries. people show up with licenses and passports from various countries. the store has all of the posters, including this one, which you may recognize. they have rather a effective training routine with employees, but the person who did the selling in this incident was the son of the owner who was visiting and did not benefit from the typical training the store has. in 26 years of operation, he has never suffered no citat

we will hear from members of the public that support the appellants. ma'am, first speaker. >> in the years since and entertainment permits and planning department hearings, i also learned that the process is not done on an even playing field. >> especially in this economy. this is painfully clear to me at the january 20 planning commission hearing regarding brickyard. while neighbors hand delivered 100 letters and petitions from residents who live within a two-block radius, the brickyard offered only a list of names. probably a sign -- still the commissioners unanimously approved the permit for an elevated deck and five folding doors. with unenforceable conditions that are naive if not disingenuous. like a formula for how many of the folding doors can be open at different times of the day. it was an insult to the neighbors. so i'm here to ask you to uphold the union street controls. they're designed to protect the adjacent residents' livability. the noise generated by patrons on an elevated deck into a large -- with opening doors onto a large bar, rest

. >> are there any members of the public that wish to speak on behalf of the appellant? why don't we move to the presentations? >> good afternoon. planning department staff. senior planner of the environmental planning division is here with me as well as emily rogers, the department of legislative affairs that will speak to the issues raised on the conditional use authorization after my presentation. the issues raised by the appellant in the may 17 appeal letter and subsequent on june 15 the middle to the board are related to an alleged three approval of the required completion of the environmental review process. the analysis of the orders and as a summarized today, they have been adequately addressed in the final eir. the appellant claims that the project has been preapproved by the completion of the environmental review. the appellant sites females between the mayor's office of housing and exhibits in six of the most recent board is so little. staff has reviewed these e-mail and will characterize the discussions that revolve around the project program. they had no inf