we're still in the appellants presentation. colleagues, any additional questions to the appellant. supervisor kim. okay. now are there any members of the public that wish to speak on the side of the appellant. please step up sir, >> i don't want to get too close to this problem issue. but i have an objection in time or by chances in response to this go, bad, trust, false, yes or no thing but to make a public judgment in the matter of civil justice >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon. i'm douglas. i wasn't planning on speaking on this item by this item is interesting in the sense that i feel that the appellant is at a noticeable disadvantage because most people not knowing it's going to be tough trying to figure out whether you're being voiced by the department of public works or when you deal with the city i think that's something that the appellant has stuck with and made a good expression on all of us lymph nodes to this back and forth and the appellant is correct to pose questions and since there was some sort of not complete clarity as to what should he was to

let me ask for the second appellant, if that individual's here. sir, do you know, is your neighbor here today? >> [inaudible]. >> okay, so again, just calling for anyone to represent the second appellant. supervisor breed? >> thank you. i just wanted to let the appellant know as well as my colleagues know, i at roll call will be introducing legislation to this particular hiccup in our tic process and also exploring the opportunity to address the issue of what the appellant of 124-5th avenue mentioned in terms of the deferral, so the deferral resolution is something that i'm going to be working on and will not be able to propose today, but today, i'm proposing legislation that will address the issue around the nexus and hardship, so i wanted to put that out there to my colleagues so that we are not continuing to bring appellants here without the ability to help and support them in any way possible, so i just wanted to let you all know that. >> thank you, supervisor breed, and i'm happy to help co-sponsor that. why don't we now hear from city staff

that's correct thanks for the clarification. >> appellant or permit holder. >> the appellant side. >> the appellant holders property. >> okay. so the privacy screen will be 6 photo in height and in place until the businessman both that's planted in the ground reaches equivalent height >> okay everyone do you have is a question. >> one question. >> sure. >> where do we go from here what happens now. >> the permit is approved with those conditions. >> we're good to go. >> assuming the motion passes there's a 10 day request position that can't be waived. that notice of decision will be sent to you as well the department of building permits but until that's listed you have to wait the 10 days and dbi will list of the suspension but first a call. >> so the motion is to uphold the permit on conditions the permit holder is to plant bamboo with the temporary screen at the 6 feet in height foogz the appellants property. correct? >> correct. >> correct. >> on that motion commissioner fong is absent (calling names) thank you. the vote is 4 to zero to uphold this permit with those conditions and

is the appellant here for the hearing? rem ask the city departments are you aware if the appellants are planning on participating today? why don't we hold up for one minute. colleagues why don't we suggest to see if we can continue on to additional business >> item 25 is the resolution to establish full quality and cost for the public interests. >> thank you, colleagues today, the resolution before us addresses the need for transparency. i want to thank supervisor chiu and supervisor chiu. at the it's important apparent than ever lack ever transparency let's people know where they can get health care for. when people need medication and so forth people are paying higher insurance and co-pay and premiums. we have why'd what we're paying for were one of the charters she's that prices have grown a dozen eggs would cost via dollars and a cartoon of erroneously would cost a lot. if trends continue the i've never seen out-of-pocket will average 50 percent of payrolls. so for all the money wore paying we're not getting healthier.

and appellants can use the 10 minutes and divide it up as you see fit. >> mr. president and members of the board. good afternoon -- i guess i should say good evening. this reminds me sitting back of eugene o'neill play, a long day's journey into tonight. we had mandarin and cantonese speakers who were here. i don't think they will be coming back, but mostly with business. they are opening their businesses, their restaurants. today was an election day, so they had a couple of them left to go vote. and so on one guy you may have seen the action here. one guy just got off the plane and passed out here over two hours ago. any how, i would like to present new and cogent arguments. arguments that rely on the law, the planning code and it may rely on basic science and physics. the wireless guidelines that are so much a part of the planning report are simply that. guidelines. the controlling document here is the planning code. something you board members control and legislate on. the relevant parts of the planning code that define this entire issue i would like to read

the idea that the appellants need to see this. is what. there's a letter from ron tom that says there's a new letter of egress. i'm concerned we're continuing this for another month it started last december. they said their concerns were - >> i would like you to stop arguing. okay. the copies i have >> for november 8th the letter? >> i've got it. >> thank you. >> i've got one question so the plans you handed to us is there any changes as minute as from anything they've had prior. >> no, because they've previously had copies 80 that shows the changes of the windows. >> so increase no changes. >> don't those plans reflect the changes in the egress. >> well, it removes the need for the second needs of egress. >> the plan is changed. >> i'll let the architect speak to that are. >> the change is a change before we met in october the plans that were submitted to you and the people appealing it's the same plan showing the sliding glass doors it only has a dash line here the numbers indicate that we're less than 2 hundred and 50 feet from the furt

the third point i would like to cover is the appellant raised the concern that the appellant would affect resources and this issue is a subject of multiple historic preservation commission hearings and was evaluated by department staff and an historic preservation memo and the memo is probation -- proximate to the historical resources. therefore the project would not have a significant effect on the architectural resources. the appellant asserts that it's mitigated circumstances be prepared only if substantial chance have occurred with with respect to projects that have major in the m d. such must involve the discovery of the substantially more severe in the environmental effects. the appellants have not provided the effects beyond those that were identified in the mitigated nag dak. the transit line and entrance changes in park circumstances. further ceqa couples to is not required. regarding noise, the appellant raises concerns about the noise analysis. the md is entirely adequate on these points and considers the impact on the existing noise on this project as well as the noise on the

the appellants have brought up a number of issues. the gas leak issue we're not aware of this issue until she brought it up in her appeal. we're concerned about this gas leak issue. the appellant mentioned the fact that our architect and members of the architect board and this is because we want to be involved and serve our community. since the appellants have brought that up the parking club the board on above the board contacted the pg&e and the response is pg&e plans to replace the piping in '90 fourteen. 2014 >> we tried to address all the issues such as a common fence we don't want want to destroy the common sentence that we hired a contractor to assess the construction. and wind 250u7b8 effect. the structural engineer assessed that wyoming not be an issue and i found a report to the planning commission the windows say structures under one hundred feet would not create a wind effect. on the issue of light and a airy want to call your attention to let's see if i can find it. if i c if i c if i can draushgz. the pitch is 45 rescue

the idea that the appellants need to see this. is what. there's a letter from ron tom that says there's a new letter of egress. i'm concerned we're continuing this for another month it started last december. they said their concerns were - >> i would like you to stop arguing. okay. the copies i have >> for november 8th the letter? >> i've got it. >> thank you. >> i've got one question

we have the appellant who would like to provide a rebuttal? >> i'm not sure about whether any person would be evicted from their and whether that affect our condominium conversion or not. i have been a social activist for the past 8 years working with different human organizations and the last thing i want to hear that someone was evicted from my house and now i'm taking over. as the gentleman said people with aids might have been evicted from that area. or people with needs like us, people with aids, people of color, low income people. i'm trying to point across, my point is that we are basically a disadvantaged group, all of these groups that have been mentioned here legally disadvantaged. financially, in a very precarious situation. i am constantly every month, almost every week. the fact that i own a home doesn't mean that i'm rich. whatsoever. you can look at my bank statements. i own a home like i said because i won a settlement and thankfully i'm able to have a roof over my head in this wheelchair. i'm just hoping that i, i don't know a

is there anyone here representing the appellant? i think that the appellant was saying that they might not attend. are is there someone here? >> i saw mr. leavitt earlier. >> maybe we should wait until he is in the room if he is not here now. but i am sorry to have brought you here for this, but, i don't think that the board can act on this case tonight without four voting members available. >> do you know mr. leavitt? can you see if he is in..., there he is. >> super. >> mr. leavitt, thank you for stepping back in the room. i was just explaining that with one commissioner who needs to recuse himself and one absent we do not have the four members available to vote to condition the permit with revised plans and i was suggesting that the board consider a rescheduling as a housekeeping item at this time. so, if either of the parties disagree with my assessment of the situation, i would ask you to step forward now, otherwise, we will suggest the new hearing date for this. okay, mr. leavitt? >> thank you, michael leavitt. so, i will be t

that concludes our report >> thank you. >> are you the appellant, sir? >> yes. >> i have here, the work that is started and actually the property that is up for sale, and i was explaining to, i guess that the other inspections and was that how the control to you know, take out the money and to do other necessary things, and but what i did do was give and i talked with some contractors, that have walked me down there on december 27th i believe, and after christmas, and i did get, some of the signatures and some of the others, i guess the people that needed to be signed. and addressed. and i get the signatures. and there is another one. and so, in the process of it still, and i am kind of like, going back and forth. and 400 mccallister and my mother passed away in 2000 and i think that the original complaint was anonymous and recently passed away after the complaint was made and it had nothing to do with me. but, basically it was just like a complaint and i guess my mother did not understand what was going on, she passed away in 2000 and i actually went do

is under anyone representing the appellant? >> oh, two in a row. >> we can hear from the representative. >> dan with rose. i'm here on behalf of kilroy that is developing a 24 office story building on mission street >> before you continue do you know anything about the appellant representatives whereabouts. >> no. nothing. >> not showing up. i prepared a presentation but in the interest of our time i'll hold my comments since anybody's is here >> and you've not heard anything from mr. hesitating take care today. >> there was an e-mail about her having trouble downloading the calendar. >> uh-huh. >> we were off for a holiday monday and i haven't heard since. >> so commissioners do you want to - how would you like to a move forward. >> we can take public comment. >> i don't know if you wanted to hear from - >> if you have something to say we'd welcome comment. >> just in case corey department staff i've not heard from the appellant all week so i'm not aware of her whereabouts. all i say is the one issue raised was brought up at t

in the correspondence between the appellant and the city, the appellants case does not challenge the finding of the nexus study per say. the condominium conversion and the need for the affordable housing cost are not being challenged in the particular appeal. as stated earlier converting from tic to condominium creates the requirement for the impact fee regardless of whether the future condominium is sold or not. the nexus talks about both the impact of the conversion, but it doesn't hinge on whether the conversion actually happens today or tomorrow. in fact, the delayed conversion is actually more impactful to the affordable housing. the fee was established below the amount justified by the nexus. the fee is $20,000 per unit. there was fee relief provided to tic owners who previously participated in the lottery. there is a 20 percent to 80 percent reduction per unit. this particular unit received a reduction from $20,000 to 8,000 per unit, a 60 percent reduction in fee. there is a deferral process that is allowed for owners under 120 percent needing income, there is an eligible expe

and is there anyone here that on on behalf of the appellant? okay. i think they were here at the last meeting and acknowledged their agreement. i assume there's any public comment. so then the matter is submitted xhirgsz. we have a motion? >> at the appeal perhaps to uphold the permit based on the rise plans. >> okay. thank you. and do we have a date of those plans? i think i have it here >> yeah. our stamp is october 16th but the architect date is october 17th. >> so why don't we say the date the architect has on october 17th. >> to uphold the permit of october 17th for the plan stated. on that motion from the vice president to uphold the plans (calling names) thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this permit t is upheld with revised plans >> thank you. >> so we're on item 6 steven green walls vs. the department of inspection at the presidio avenue to steve of an allegation permit new windows of family room and new fire pit in the a resubmittal of 101876 due to 0 plus or minus 10 day neighborhood that was not sent out. commissioners you held a hearing it

. >> and planter boxes to be included along the appellants property; is that right. >> yeah. i'd like to hear from the permit holder if you're understanding what it is i'm doing i want to make sure your understanding. yes, please >> the planning department is this growing bamboo or a businessman both type screen. >> planets. >> i'm sorry i've seen those bamboo skroenz like a fence. >> but i thought you wanted to planters attached. >> only along the fence line. >> i didn't hear the word mraerpts i'm sorry. i wanted you to understand what it is i'm trying to propose through a motion >> i do. i guess my question what we're going for if you don't mind putting up. if you look at right here the actual plant. so we would want to plant bamboo so it's able to go over the whole fence or put it in planters on the deck and of course, >> planters on the decks. >> excellent. is this going to be me to change the planned >> yes. >> the planting is not on the did he know we'll put the language in the dbi plans and they'll see it at the completion of the deck. >> the planter boxes are on the d

heard clearly from the appellant, so i'm available for any questions and that concludes my remarks. >> colleagues, any questions to city staff? thank you for that brief presentation. why don't we now hear from member of the public that wish to speak in support of the fees. seeing none, why don't we now hear for the one individual who was here representing himself as an appellant, sir, do you wish to provide any final rebuttal? to the gentleman from apartment number 5? is that a no? okay, so there is no rebuttal. and with that, colleagues, unless there are any final questions at this time, this hearing has been held and is filed. this matter is now in the andover the board, supervisor farrell? >> thank you, president chiu. and i want to thank dpw for going through this process and for the appellant for coming forward in my district, just more than anything, i think to continue this consistency sake, understand that this is not going to be a winning vote, but i think to me, this is the law of unintended consequences, again, we have someone who's in a more dire economic situation and in

on the appellant side of the property. that i'm not sure what the height is there any limits from planning or dbi >> is this to be attached to the deck. >> not necessarily as decided by the permit holder. i don't know all the specification of the layout but the planting to go high enough >> but not attached to the deck sort of that thing. >> it's up to you if i want it to be attached. >> all right. commissioners, i think it would be better if we were attached to the railing of the deck from a building point of view. >> thank you for that and height wise. >> 6 feet from the walking surface of the deck. >> okay. >> it's high enough for more people. >> the suggestions from inspector duffey i'll agree. >> and bamboo is quickly growing. >> and planter boxes to be included along the appellants property; is that right. >> yeah. i'd like to hear from the permit holder if you're understanding what it is i'm doing i want to make sure your understanding. yes, please >> the planning department is this growing bamboo or a businessman b

i wanted to add certain information from the rebuttal from the appellant. for appeal number 1 3-120,, we must remember that gonzalez drive faces two frontages, the front of the house faces the drive and however the back of the house faces brotherhood way and that is why the permit of what was addressed to this property, the frontage is identified under the permit as on brotherhood way. so if there was a suggestion that there was and planted a seed and that was not the case for the applicant or the department and we are obligated to provide obviously a location and if it means as a property address with a frontage on the back side, which is on a specific street, we will document it correctly as part of the permit. and again, in this case, there is a lot, this really is nothing that the department can't add at this point for the information that is being provided. and i am here to answer any additional questions that you may have. >> go ahead. >> who can we get clarification on regarding the flagger? >> i mean, so that we don't continue to see this case again

at the conclusion of last week's hearing, the department of public works contacted the appellant and offered to her the deferral process. there is -- and dpw has been in contact with her. there is a check that dpw has to refund the fee at this point and then i'll collect it until the map is ready to be reported. she's not picked up the check yet. >> so, we're waiting for her to make arrangements with dpw to pick up the check. >> okay, so my understanding is that this has been resolved in a way that the appellant has found satisfactory? >> i believe so. we did contact her to ask if she wanted to continue this appeal before the board of supervisors or whether the fee deferral was satisfactory, and she did not respond one way or the other. >> okay, i understand, is the appellant here? if you want to please step up and let us know your perspective of the appeal. we wanted to provide a little time for you to speak to our city departments. >> thank you so much and thank you for your prompt giving us a refund in order to -- what i would like the request is that in order to -- it would be mo

are misstatements by the appellant and the permit to the arbor well. and on september 6, 2013, and the occupantcy permit, the allegation that we were stone wall and did not provide him information and he was able to appeal the permit on september 9th. and with a start date by all of the september 10, it does not appear that there was attempt to stone wall in this case or that we received a request from the appellant and we provided him with the copies of the information. and if i may, provide the overhead for me? >> and zoom a little bit to see the whole entire permit? >> as you can see, the appellant requested a location of 41704, gonzalez however, the permit itself, clearly states that the closure was on brotherhood way, this information was provided to the appellant specifically. the information again was for the work from 9-10 to 9-20, six clock in the morning and 6:00 in the afternoon. the suggestion that brotherhood way was 150 yards away is correct, however you have to remember that lot fronts both gon sal les and the unimproved portion of the b

the appellant would be harmed and shhh e would be the very person. i this i the rational might be, if this was intended to help someone and they are a member of this group, why not an abate the fee and use that as justification for saying we are helping the very person by an abating this fee, but the fee was intended to help. >> thank you, next speaker. >> my name is joseph armenia. i'm one of the cohost with christina and i have been living above her close to 6 years. christina's life is not an easy one. when i first read this, i'm the one doing most of the accounting. we kind of misread what the waiver condition was. when you read it you put it together. we were very positive about it. it was later on that it was pointed out that the legal bases, the nexus. it was it doesn't look too good now. i find it very hard for a city like san francisco especially how progressive and wanting to help those in need will make somebody like christina pay $8,000 which she has used inform are a multiple of other things. i find it very hard that we are doing that to