burns thank you for clarifying the california court of appeal or are the appellants talked about thewo cases could you comment on those two cases and their relevance. >> the two cases they've cited in their papers it would be improper for the city to rely on those cases the river case i building is i don't have the full title it's the san francisco superior court kinds under the law we're kuar in little rock sequa looking at the sequa guidelines what they say and what any appellant level published opinion say and that's the intoirt of the sequa law that we consider. this case is a trial court decision it's not considered law for sequa purposes and related on a federal case that's also a federal trial case that come out of the federal trial court a couple of years the climate case in 2011 i believe. and the district you court case was analyzing the effects of lake tahoe under the financial environmental act and the environmental impact that case concerned the but yes, sir. without getting the proper permit they were going to regulate the both yes, sir. . the 9th circuit court of appea

turn to the issues raised by appellants the appellant first of all, has not provided a fair agreement for for seeable impacts under sequa. the appellant insinuated information one or more the following they came from a source of non-credentials and don't address the impact of the project itself and they contained erroneous suggestions they don't support a fair argument. the displacement points are - sequa only considers the physical impacts. many important concerns are raised but no one is caused by the pilot program. it's speculative to i doubt it any of the shuttles to the impacts as they relate to the proposal there are no physical impacts related to the proposed pilot program about the evidence supported doesn't show it and the analysis concludes that the isn't it true reservations for this 18 month project is not sixth for the impacts. the class of intimidation is applicable to exemption and the appellant has stated that class 6 is only limited to projects. there is absolutely no basis for to assertion. sequa only limits class six-hundred to limit mass critical resources and, in

so we'll start with the appellant >> excuse me. i have a conflict recuse me, please. >> so you have 7 minutes to present our case. >> before my time spoke i believe you spoke to commissioner lazarus about a continuance she e-mailed me and everyone two members but not the former appellants can't make it by 515 to jean and another person can't be here. so juan was coming from a water commission in sacramento and flying out later this evening and jean had another meeting i had 10 e-mails from ms. gold's steno to ask if it could be rescheduled so i thought one thing would cancel but not everything. it's important to my community that they provide comments it's not all my story yeah. i humbly request if they can't be here >> ma'am, is there a reason why this is move forward up. >> yes. a request by a permit holder for an accomodation. so if the board wants to entertain at that motion to continue that or else we'll precede >> i think we should leave it as the regular meeting and whoever is available we'll take the testimony. >> may i mak

appellant? >> yes. >> so then i'll suggest you have the permit holders submit their brief at least two weeks in advance. >> who's the motion maker. >> commissioner honda. >> commissioner honda okay. and this is a continuance to july 16th correct? a public hearing has been held and it continuance 80 is to allow time the permit holder rec and park to work with the appellant on the acknowledgement of the prior historic structure pursue additional briefing is loud and 5 pages per party one thursday prior. on p that motion to continue. commissioner fung. tauft. commissioner lazarus. this matter is continued until you july 16th. thank you >> okay. thank you. item 6 has already been heard item 7 alice vs. the department of public works and this is on post street protesting the issuance of the kevin of an alteration permit we'll start with the appellants agent >> can you disclose our prior. >> so we're both realtors i've had a transaction in the past i can hear this case. >> good evening, everyone i'm m

the permit appellant during the project will need to contact the neighboring contractors to bring their foundation down to the level of the bottom of the building that's to be constructed. they're supposed to give actually under section 3307 of the san francisco building code i think it's 32 of the civil code prior to excavation for the determination of the depth of the foundation. that's a good question i what sure if they knew already they weren't going to be above it they could have done investigation obviously that's what's happened but prior to it if you found out prior to excavation you stop immediately and it happens all the time >> any public comment on that item? you have your rubble 3 minutes. >> can i load the power point to show the pictures? thank you. and so the sequa case - i'm sorry. can i have full screen? definitely not a mac. well right there that's the master right there. i'll be at this one that's the master orientation and the historic commission resource commission found the building that's protected under sequa so the maurnd finding of the significance it's plast

the report and exhibit b shows dollars a lot of work and the appellant knew that. this is an important document it's highly unlikely that a theater owner who purposed a building has adequate proving and she submitted it to the city and asked for her loans to be forgotten it clearly shows did appellant knew dlfs more to sound proving. the report explains why the marches have been able to operate in slight silence next to a late night restaurant and parking lot the restaurants have reported music and why the appellant turned down our mutilate offers to have sound like proofing done. on the matter of disclosures the appellant said the noise would cause more neighbors to complaint and file suit i have here an e-mail confirming that the march has received no complaints in the neighbors or anything else this contradicts that nearby residents will be bogged and they august that the restaurants and the residences are in nearby proximity. they pulled permits. the permits to sound proof the building this was done in the 80s dollars more people living there now. if the march

the appellants property it her. the lot stops her so he occupies almost the entire lot important sorry so he occupies almost the entire lot if we drug our building all the way to here we're going to block this neighbors and the other one to avoid that we can have up to a couple of thousand square feet he has a right so he can have that but he decided to have one hundred and 6 square feet area so have it for the building. so we believe that what the planning department approved was correct and within the code what was constructed was wrong so go back and do the construction according to what the planning department approved. thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the departments now, mr. t >> good evening corey from the planning department staff. there are several questions one were the plans that were submitted and approved and reviewed properly second with the plans accurate and third was the work consistent with the work that was approved under the permit. to tackle the first issue in terms of don't rememberers

the appellant said i'm sorry if i'm not getting that correct but under the sequa the the appellant is stating that's are relevant to this case that sequa was considered 0 and were silenced on the definition of whether or not there was activity to the baseline do you have a response to the assertion >> your legal advice the only case law that the board of supervisors can rely on to support the determination is that sequa is the body of law we need to rely on. so that's when - >> even when they consider sequa. >> right. >> i think that needs to be explained. if the tahoe resemble body needs the sequa and that's the case before the federal district court we considered that but why not been able to use their definition? there you two reasons first it's a trial court kinds when it was sent to the appellant court they reversed it >> they said it was arbitrary but they didn't say it was either okay or not okay they were silent on it they sent it back to the revokable body. the only reason i bring up the ethnic - 9 circuit court >> the reason the ethnic circuit court of appeals sequa law is t

the march sound proof will not be concerns and i'll do the appellant damages they want a rehearing a there's no hearing to reduce the fifth floor of the project and the cost of implementing it will render the project unfeasible and the next is is violates the california accountability act and they've failed to approve the overall city objects the board has asked for the fifth floor stairwells and elevators and including the mechanic sprirnlz this constitutes another sees of 50 thousands and it didn't include reappraisal or other stems i have examples here if you want to look at them. those added costs coupled with the size negative gaits the required b m r and it started out with two m r and down to 7780 square feet when it came before the board this transplants to two hundred and 66 market rate haurgz housing that was supposed to subsidize below market subsidizing by cutting the square feet of market rate square feet the board has pulled it and we still don't know what the fiscal year of the ground floor are commercial will be but add that to the cost of the redesign or the arbitrar

i'm not sure where it is in the appellants brief. the visual that was put on the overhead that you said was grossly out of pro/porbgs. portion. >> yeah. >> which i think was to toe shopped. can i get a reference to the exhibit if your brief of the visual that was put on the overhead? photoshopped. can i get a reference to the exhibit if your brief of the visual that was put on the overhead? or you can just put it on the overhead and talk about it. i'm looking at exhibit 8 in your brief. what's on the overhead right now? >> that was what the additional photograph. >> and then exhibit 8 is a box or is it the one underneath. >> what is in exhibit 8 is currently existing? >> correct. >> that currently exists. can i get at&t's -- i forgot your name, i'm sorry. >> teddy. >> you like me to leave that? >> yes. /tha*bg you. thank you. if you could address why this is grossly out of proportion? >> well, first of all it's not our box. and number two, it's taken about probably -- it's zoomed in. it's taken about a foot from -- i mean, it's their

the subsequent appellant so with the we got a complaint and there had been a couple of complaints so maybe the earlier complaints our departments so the dormers they got closed but the neighbor of the appellant came in and was adamant we took the complaint and subsequently issued on site i met with the inspector king he wanted some help you knew that was going to be at the board i went myself. we saw exceeding the scope the four don't rememberers have been constructed much larger and the main roof has been altered by 18 inches and the dorms are over sized and it's above the roofline to create headway and it was a exist 4 story building it was incorrect we noted that the permit is suspended by the board of appeals and no work can took place without being heard by the board of appeals. when you look at the permit it's add the four don't rememberers and one bath it obviously with you think that the permit holders represented they went away beyond the scope of this permit. if i can show photographs someone gave me photographs of what's existing tonight. if i can have the overhead i'm not

maybe i can start while you are reading that what happens sometimes in those cases the appellants sometimes show up at the third floor of the dbi prior to going to the board of appeals where they're concerned about the ownerships of a permit we tell them you can go to the board of appeals interests an appeal process they showed up and i was on duty i ended up getting familiar with this because of my proximity and the discussion what the appellant the subsequent appellant so with the we got a complaint and there had been a couple of complaints so maybe the earlier complaints our departments so the dormers they got closed but the neighbor of the appellant came in and was adamant we took the complaint and subsequently issued on site i met with the inspector king he wanted some help you knew that was going to be at the board i went myself. we saw exceeding the scope the four don't rememberers have been constructed much larger and the main roof has been altered by 18 inches and the dorms are over sized and it's above the roofline to create headway and it was a exist 4 story building it was incor

i do want to talk about the boards rules in terms of the appellants request for a rehearing. on december 11th this board heard hours and hours of testimony and closed the hearing. in january we were only supposed to have a hearing on the fbltd to match the deliberations. the board came to its decision and that's how the appellants come port themselves they've applied themselves only to the findings that marched the deliberations. instead the project sponsor enrolling submitted new material on the merits claiming under the housing accountability act that some awful error of law was about to be made and the board feel for that. the project sponsor attorney assisting using that look at exhibit a all right. you're going that as marketing material the new hammer for developers that happens to be thirty years old and decided 7 cases none of which are applicable here. it's our opinion this is in excess of the jurisdiction and the denial of the public a fair process under the boards rules when the board accepted this new topic that no one had heard of before or discussed before or sa

jones be there were a number of reports submitted by the appellants expert reports and one of them was by someone rendering an expert opinion about air quality have you reviewed that report >> thank you scott wiener yes, i've reviewed the report and our in house air quality expert our decision is recognized recreationally and state wide when it comes to air quality we have expertise. this report had a number of assumptions that were built in that appeared to lead to conclusions that did not entirely accurately represent the impact of shuttles the city uses a model for the air quality analysis that takes air quality into account and the screen analysis in this report. we presented new screening data as a full model analysis to our own work but it was really a different approach to analyze. ours is done with the approval of the air quality management district. this way purports a 70 year explore to the shuttle buses but the project was at hand we were noovld is an 18 month project so you couldn't extrapolate 70 years of explore from a 18 month project. there was questions about the stops

we'll hear from the appellant and then we'll hear from the appellant and we'll hear from the planning department who have their grounds on this determination for this final review. finally from planning from project sponsor the transportation municipal agency and we'll hear from members of the public that support the mta and each speaker will have up to 10 minutes to speak and finally the appellants will have up to 3 minutes for rebuttal arguments. if there are any objections to proceeding in this way. why don't we hear from our appellant mr. drurey. >> thank you president chiu. my name is richard drurary representing appellant schwartz of the democratic club and the san francisco of league of voters on this matter. we are passing out an additional comment letter. i'm sorry for the lateness of this lett. it responds to two issues from yesterday. one to the budget legislative analyst which is absolutely critical to this matter which was by supervisor eric mar who is attending other issues with his daughter in disneyland. it's very important. it's spring break and he should be there. th

we'll start with the appellants, who have seven minutes. >> good evening board. thank you for hearing our appeal. my name is kevin rudich and i live at 4846 17th street. i'm accompanied by michael cruise who lives there with me as well, and steve and diane, who live at 4848 17th street. we are asking the board to deny at&t to be able to build their tier three wireless facility on a pole that is right in front of both of our houses. just to give you a brief background, this is in coal valley. we moved to coal valley for particular reasons. it's a nice residential neighborhood, treelined, lots of light and air and we've been there for ten years. i believe steve and diane have been there for 30 years and have had no issues until this particular point. so again, we'd ask the board not to grant at&t their application for the building of this tier three wireless facility. i've outlined -- in a brief that we filed, we've outlined the reasons for our arguments and i just want to point out a few of those at this point. as the board knows, tier three wireless is the bigges

if there's no other new public comment we'll start rebuttal with the appellant. you have 3 minutes >> hi david reconvene tenants a couple of things the police code doesn't allow denial it does allow denial for noise issues. put it on the screen. if the peaceful enjoyment of the neighborhood t is effected you can deny it. no one attended the hearing because no one economy about the hearing i'm surprised their bragging about this it's a complete disaster and this was not where the poster was put up and that's grounds for denial they'll not say where it was posted on a parking meter. the march 16th event you saw the video and heard the loud music it was a disaster people were yelling and that was permitted and their ignoring the rules. there's been noise issues and the police were sent there in 2012, the year they opened why this system is a failure in making n this known i can't defend the entertainment commission system we filed a complaint about the st. patrick's day event and they doesn't say anything about it believe me we've complained to the captain and the o

after the permit was issued. >> no, no, no there was additional information brought forgot by the appellant that required additional sort of analysis that was requested by the planning department so it wasn't until after the planning department looked at more into it they requested the hr e when we went through the planning process they didn't require that. >> so there was a cat addiction in place we issued. that's the subsequent of events >> i have one more question that plan shows the width of this building but your new modular building is at 12 feet something isn't it. you have two building types one is wireder than the other one the contrary mode that's 12 feet something but this one shows 8 photo >> that's right there's a privacy wall that's part of the new construction that extends out. >> the other way. >> well, a actually in both directions it didn't impact the use of the court. >> in addition we were trying to stay within the existing building footprint. >> i have a question during the meeting when the owner asked you whether it was a dpa building did you not think to research that

we'll start with the appellant please step forward. you have 7 manipulates to present your case >> hello good afternoon i'm david with the tenants association. if you can't hear me give me a thumbs-up this is a nearly 20-year-old organization and also among other things address noise issues that's what we do our building has 3 hundred and 20 apartments that faces the restaurant dribble and there's about 4 hundred tenants. as you can see on the gene many of the units are very close to region and appear if you look at the square windows that those are square windows 16 foods seniors and kids and looking directly down on region restaurant. here's a shot in one of the apartments. showing how close we are to region and that's where people and crowds congregate etc. you should know that our neighborhood is a very harm anyone's mix of restaurants and residential offices and retail we have a good rapport with the recuperates in the area and no 1 on the street has a current entertainment permit spent the entertainment commission we've not found

commissioner leaving for the conflict we'll only have 3 board members present i wanted to ask the appellant to have that matter continued so we'll have four board members here or have that hearing tonight with 3 board members. just fill out the picture. if there are 3 votes we'll automately hold it over >> step forward. >> at&t will leave this to the discretion of the board we'll be happy to have this appeal heard by the 3 members who aren't recused this evening and we'll be fine to come back, however, the board feels most appropriate. >> so i think we'll just leave it and precede with group two this is the 1205 i don't work street and 1201 york street and 79 lions street we'll start with the appellant with 5 minutes to address this group. >> thank you. i apologize i'm going to be repetitive. all the 3 appeals have the same fact scenario i'm going to go through the finding that the hearing officer made wards to york street. so at&t submitted it's application on april 5th the hearing was not scheduled for 7 most it occurred on september 13th which obviously violates the public's code require

i work with google and - >> excuse me, sir this is for people that are supporting the appellant there a there will be more presentations inform support of mta. >> i apologize. >> hi, i'm steve i am going to read a an exert how the other people transit. they have a budget of 35 mile it runs the shelter and averaging 16 hundred employees that ride everyday and it has many pickup locations and it has apps to track the shelter and for the tracking they agreed to have alternative transportation if 28 to 34 percent so they made an agreement as part of a deal it get their campus as you part of the program overlook r apple increased their shelters dedicated to a transit center and 45 foot coaches the goal is to keep the buses parked 3 minutes or less when there could be many shelters coming through. people have mentioned that would be really good to actually go out into the community and see the legal immaterial of the program. i wonder if you can get this on the monitor unfortunately but that's a apple bus it was turning on from val say and twouthd you can't see it basically, it went over th