block my ability prior my conditions were discussed with mar gallagher on the first week when the appellant talked about their proposal the same petition which was attached as an exhibit to the brief i walked around the neighborhood and talked about the edition most were horrified they had to oppose the project without any information many have not reviewed the plans on the misrepresented the proposed edition was a 5 story house mar said that the edition will industry my neighborhoods rear yard she has nothing growing in her rear yard it will eliminate the fresh air i'm not sure how my edition do that and we didn't follow the proper notification because of my physical disabled we can't get both this home we spent $45,000 in property permits and still fighting for the site permit i expel it to grow to two hundred and thirty thousand more can be contributed to t to the drs appeal i'm hopefully, the board will agree with the agreement by the planning department and rdt 3 visits and the planning commission choose not to take dr and although, my wife to build a edition i'm going to give the rest

number of people that expressed the feed need for in keeping with the court yard and i think the appellant has started with a good idea i want to come down to the ground floor some variation is thereof it is possible to do so to my motions is that is being tried again she couldn't quantify anything because afraid of the 8 regulations so nothing happened no vote either way thank you >> okay. we can have rebuttal from the permit holder. >> tie permit holder i'm going to talk briefing about the magic of the sun that was addressed earlier this over here is north so starting a 1 o'clock in the afternoon appellants own building starts casting shadow on her backyard the sun comes and turns around and starts shining on the building from 1 o'clock in the afternoon all the way up to 6 or 7 or 8 o'clock there's direct sunlight it's dubious to say i'm casting shadowing after 1 o'clock the other thick i find interesting in all the drawings that mary gallagher showed you you she didn't show f this this the 55 percent itself cast a shadow on the rear yard of her neighborhood i'm going to yield the rest o

good commissioners good evening for your record mary gallagher working with the appellants michelle as a single mom that lives open the north side of subject property and also appellant the medical director for the cities nonprofits blood center and also a first time homeowner in the 6 hundred square feet units overlooking madam clerk, is there any further business before this commission? yard in the project site so we have a current view of the situation and the proposed building here we have an existing number one compiling rear yard cottage added to one hundred percent of the buildingable areas i'm going to walk through you through 5 areas i ask you to keep in mind those are intertwined the cumulative impact that relatives if the appeal the first issue is by far the most important the vast and scale noting it's height and depth and lot coverage it's simply two large the guidelines is 6 design principles formulating is quote so insure the building scale is xhafbl with surrounding building when considering the immediate context of a project how the proposed project relates to the adja

did not i reached out to appellant mayor prior to the meeting and asked her and showed her the planning and he was trying to i reached out and at that point only one person showed up. >> i meeting with the adjacent neighbors after the dr when mary gallagher got involved we held i will tell you specifically 2 hundred and 23 minutes over a 10 day period of phone call and the duration the phone call she didn't want to meet in person she said that's not the way to do business. >> thank you, very much. you've answered my questions. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning staff well, i think that commissioner wilson nailed it on this one during any presentation too i certainly don't want this to appear a slam dunk for the department are commission we had 3 discretionary review hearing and ultimately at the end the final motion to continue to work on the design that failed and the project moved in is a difficult one to deal with the excision has the same challenges we're having now going back briefly to code experience we believe in the department reviewed it he reviewed

the excessive building height and the respondents east building wall impostures over the appellants property by 3 inches this is the par put the planning department has never vested the issue this is in conflict the height method doing of the survey has conformed by planning and second the commissioners will recall that chief building inspector rearing done submitted a certificate covering the respondents building at the september 10th meeting applying that was built in pursuant to planned and in response to commissioner fung's there is no part of the baton rouge this not compliant it has a stairway on page one and the stairway leading to the roof from the unit below is on page 2 we asked mr. duffy and mr. rearing depends on absent to identify where in the 23 page original 28084 plans open file at the department of building inspection those items appear as well as the building they areability built on one hand without the permit and specifically on the original building plans is the warning that the permit is not valid outside the property lines yet this is the case appellant were n

fung to reduce the suspension from 25 days to 15 days on the basis that it is the appellant's first offense on that motion to reduce to fte days vice president is absent commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson. >> 32 thank you. the vote is 4 to zero the suspension is reduced to 15 days on that basis. >> calling item of for do i hear a motion to approve the minutes? vs. the appellant at sutter street protesting the roller-coaster tail of a noise variance from the mechanical exhaust system at the restaurant so on for hearing the appellant starts with 7 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners i'm the appellant in this case before i begin i wanted to introduce my team this is bruce of bonding care associates and eric i'd like to say a few words and i'm going to turn it over to mr. bonding care the noise has been impacting the quality of my life for 2 and a half years everyday from about 8:30 a.m. to 10:30 i here vikings inside my home it's physically and e motor vehicle i feel tense and agitated i come before you with a hope that the mitigation in my brief

we can hear from the appellants then. >> good evening, commissioners and staff i'm donald abatement the chairman which the east side alliance on april 20, 2012, they issued a map for the subdivision this has a condition of approval that allowed the lot split but no building for the escaping and small business persons this is based on the restrictions on the building set back lines contained on the original san francisco map approved by the planning commission and board of supervisors in 1962 any appeal of the conditional lot split issued in april falls under the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors no appeal of the subdivision conditional approval was filed by the permit holder within the 10 day filing window that's not closed with the board of supervisors board of supervisors does not accept late appeals that board does not allow jurisdiction to the conditional approval was final even if this board grants the rehearing or if in the hearing the board rules in favor the new legislation under the substitution decision will still stand as a result any further consideration of that matt

as abuse the city processes and waste the cities resources i ask you to approve that project the appellants appeal should be denied vote numbing to uphold the permit thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is kirk scott i live on ashbury i'm asking you ask asking you to deny the appeal and let the project go forward i believe this project represents a great deal of change both in terms of addressing light and privacy there are side set back on the north and setting a side set back and rear yard there's now this quite generous inverted wedding cake that will allow a great deal of light and air into the appellants yards and i think that the main impact existed in the project existed with the house was built at the rear portion of the lot the privacy impacts have also been there and the shading the project will to the propose a height go they're basically filling in a streetscape i urge you to deny the appeal and let the project move forward and hope to welcome tie and molly to the neighborhood soon thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> h

board requests you turn off the cell phones and pager please carry on conversation in the halfway appellants and department representatives have 7 minutes to present their cases and 3 minutes for rebuttal participant affiliated must complete their opinion and to assist the board members of the public are asked not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the appointed pens are available on the left side of the pronounced customer staefgs survey forms on the left side of the podium if you need questions answered please speak to the board staff or call the board office tomorrow morning located pats 1650 anyone o on mission street broadcast live on sfgovtv cable 78 and dvds are available for purchase indirectly in sfgovtv thank you for your attention typed we'll conduct our swearing in process if you intend to testify and give your testimony weight mrrnd please note that any anybody of the public may speak without submitting a card under the sunshine ordinance. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole tr

proposed for their alternative that has a c shaped building that itself is not compiling with the appellants interpretation that central courtyard as noted further it states thatarea- it's something that the commission struggled with there should be changes to the project deferring opinions that was continued for several hearings for the sponsor to work with the department some changes were proposed and ultimately at the place planning commission hamburger no concession on the direction to move forward and because of that any failure will result in the project no discretionary review was taken and the project move forward that's the brief summary of the project as i say to the excision i think you already know even if a project is code compliant the board of appeals are will have the discretion do make the changes the excision choose not to make changes some reason proposed by itself project sponsor but didn't go to the extent that the appellant wanted to have i'm available for questions. >> have you confirmed that the two or three changes that did project sponsor made after the dr hearing w

this quite generous inverted wedding cake that will allow a great deal of light and air into the appellants yards and i think that the main impact existed in the project existed with the house was built at the rear portion of the lot the privacy impacts have also been there and the shading the project will to the propose a height go they're basically filling in a streetscape i urge you to deny the appeal and let the project move forward and hope to welcome tie and molly to the neighborhood soon thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please >> hi good evening my name is barn i live at 1092 the front unit of building next to tie and michelles building my bedroom faces across the court yard to say i'm a visible person this is an assault this is my home by no means i've north envelope met those people inns i'm sure you're very nice people the appellants i don't have a vendetta i'd rather be finishing up my work as you saw in the picture there is a significant impact on the sun shining into my bedroom i've worked hard to afford my the home in san francisco what could have been a reasonably resol

. >> thank you project appellant. >> hello my name is david i'm here on behalf of the pacific rodman gun club i want to pointed out we think the department has done a good job in raising some issues we still feel that the negative declaration is inadequate you get some idea when you take a look at the negative declaration published was over 3 hundred pages long i've been doing this for almost over thirty years and not seen a negative so larger that's mass raiding when there should be an eir other thing in responses to our appeal the response is over thirty pages long it give us an idea this may be isn't studied as appropriately as it should be that's our concern one is the piecemeal issue if a developer said he wanted to study the 25 units but we will deal with the 2 thousand unit we'll do later you'll say that the peace male and female this site is only studying the soil order is to study the entire impacts on lake merced which is huge this site - this order, this remedial action plan isn't even studying hayes valley howe to clean up the impacts felt water this is piecemealing i'll

i'm shannon brown the appellant holders so the sketch below was addressed by the appellant but the original drawings had the footings open our property. >> so we have an adding inspectors for the footings according to our dbi so moving the stairs to the other side if you look at the drawings the stairs our only exit door is open the bottom so i bring plywood out and that's 5 feet in front of that door we evaluated that idea but it won't work for us that's why the stairwell is on the other side did he get a little bit more time since we've had issues. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, mr. duffy? >> commissioners on the this appeal when i reviewed the read the brief and saw language about a firewall the description was for a new deck i get into the plan in the package that was this afternoon and i looked at them and thought i better do a plan check when you build a new deck there's a requirement for firewalls they're not on the plan it was approved and the deck is not approved just this evening i've spoken to two senior plan checkers and there's a need for the firewalls they're required on

if the representative of the appellant, if you could please identify yourself. you have up to 10 minutes to describe the grounds for the appeal. >> thank you, mr. president, and honorable board. my name is alex weyand. i'm a real estate lawyer here in san francisco and i represent william bradley. i know it's late in the day and there is a little noise in the hallway, but i'd like mr. bradley to stand upright now and i'm going to introduce him to you because he's a member of this community and has been for many years. mr. bradley owns a property, a true owner of 639 peralta. he holds a ph.d. and he's known in the community as oba tashaka. he is a professor emeritus at san francisco state university. has been since '05. he was a professor since 192 and perhaps best recognized by the san francisco public library in the 2013 black literary festival in their notice as the person who led the san francisco civil rights movement and addressed such issues as economic apartheid and job discrimination. ~ 1972 that's my client, folks. and his problem today and what he's as

i think we have no reason to think that judges sitting on the appellate or the trial court's experience in a different incentives but we want to do more work on that. >> host: and the harvey lets look and suppose on the marriage case republican majority currently in the house of representatives, democratic president, democratic senate, marriage comes to the supreme court. >> guest: solo my answer to that is going to be in terms of probabilities exist that's kind of the world that i live in. and one of the interesting things about the evidence that i didn't mention before is the whole role of public opinion. one of the things that i was thinking as i was doing the work is say you find the supreme court is responsive to congress. maybe all that's happening is the public is driving them both. so in the case of marriage for example we know that it's actually quite striking how quickly public opinion on the subject of same-sex marriage has evolved over time and that's definitely pushing in the direction of the few think the court is responding to appellate opinion pushing in that direction o

. >> we can hear in the appellant. >> on the scheduling for . >> on whether or not this should be heard with both. >> i think we should hear them now with the process. >> state your name for the record, please. >> i'm steven mcdonald i represent the appellant george. >> okay. so that's your position we'll hear from the gentleman. >> is that the gentleman's attorney so we'll hear from mr. johnson. >> good evening, commissioners foster johnson for at&t at&t didn't have any objection to hearing this appeal this evening or continuing to a later date, however, i have a request when i'll explain one of the issues that was raised on the briefing the only evidence that the gentleman offered in jurisdiction request is hearsay the government codes specifically says the administrative bodies can't basis their evidence on hearsay it appears that is what the board did my request give the board to give a reason other than the record why the board thinks the rule didn't appeal or at&t is incorrect about the law i ask this because this case that will be appealed and it's only fair to the trial judge wh

seeping public comment we have rebuttal from the appellant. >> so thank you, again so i just want to say this remodel permit seems like it is fairly innocuous you put in new kitchen sink that was actually a large remodel that concluded the expansions of the leadership into the laundry area and removal of the laundry area into another area the permits from the 2005 actually list multiple permits one or more one was a exterior stair again, no permits required were meow not sure what the scope of the permits were without the planned if this is where i find myself what's in the scope and out of scope based on the two line descriptions you know i think we would agree with the zoning administrator fwerp talking about windows that were sliders we're talking about windows that were horizontal or different lights that are taped or sort of in between glass and more divided lights or the details in the building had insignificantly all of the evidence we love our neighborhood and love where we live we're 20-year residents and committed to making this area my home we know that a third of our neig

i agree i believe the appellant and permit holder needs to come to the table table and the next time if this motion passes i guess we'll make the decision. >> any comments? i'm struggling here not because i'm new but i'm struggling with the issue before us and i be that council is right that dph what they did was within their discretion they see no public health concerns and it is so difficult to think of substituting any judgment for theirs i'm sympathetic i know it's difficult for the lady and the business owner but i'm struggling iowa our role is i can support a short continuance but i'll be very reluctant to do so i'm a little bit where you are which is like i'm willing to give the alternative to see if perhaps there's a solution that mitigate our concerns >> commissioner. >> i'll move we continue this for a short period of time and see whether the parties can come together on that that. >> commissioner fung the boards purposes next week is probably too short the following meeting is in question we may not have enough commissioners on the october 29th meeting and the meeting on t

the fact whether it's two separate buildings which is probably what the first desire is of the appellants vs. the connect our of some types of and a central courtyard the connect our will provide the linkage across the floors i'm guess that appears that the project sponsor wants to aggregate his private activity spaces around 1:00 particular floor and one location and that's his own personal desire i said that i don't see that the bathrooms in terms of their location or anything have anything go to do with the ada issues they could be located in turn of their placements it come down to me whether i accept to satisfy the neighbors concerns a large central courtyard that's 0 only thing that will satisfy them what side that do to the project sponsor and their property and i've made a decision in my mind i'm prepared to not force the central courtyard on the project spons sponsor. >> what about the recommendations that are listed on page 2 of the appellants. >> it didn't do anything. >> no, no fromlogically it to 55 feet. >> they want the 10 foot clearance to match the ceiling floor line of t

but that at the higher appellate level they didn't find that. is this at the supreme court to be decided once and for all? >> the supreme court then asked to reverse the you fifth circuit ruling. the district court blocked the law and the fifth circuit did not actually say that the circuit court decision was wrong in any way. they just blocked it because it was too close to the election, they said. but they felt that that might cause confusion. we actually think there is going to be greater confusion were trying to implement such a sweeping and sweeping law for the first time before a major federal election at this time. >> horace cooper, what are these laws for? >> well, the purpose of these laws are part of the legislature's responsibilities to see to it that the constitutional right that they have to layout the election rules are carried out in a way that brings confidence in the minds of the citizens of that community as well as the state legislature as well. blackhawks, whites,s browns, america supports this between 60 and 70%. >> what is t

i think we have no reason to think that judges sitting on the appellate or trial courts experience any different incentives but we would want to do more work on that. >> host: let's look and suppose on the gay marriage case. republican majority in the house of representative, democratic president and senate. gay marriage comes to the supreme court. >> guest: my answer to that is in terms of probability, right? because that is the world i live in. and one of the interesting things about the evidence sthat i didn't mention -- that -- is the role of public opinion. one of the things that i was thinking as i was doing the work was maybe, say you find the supreme court is responsive to congress. maybe all that is happening is public opinion is driving them both. so in the case of gay marriage, for example, we know that it is actually quite striking how quickly public opinion on the subject of same-sex marriage has evolved over time. and that is pushing in the direction of if you think that the court is replying to public opinion, pushing in the direction for the court to legalize same-sex m

and i am available for question, is there anyone here on behalf of the appellant? >> is there any public comment? commissioners, the matter is yours. >> well, commissioners i think that the letter from the appellant and i think that that completes the record and i am prepared to make a motion if there is no further comment. >> no i agree, and i am glad that it worked out for you folks. >> i move that regrant the appeal and up hold the permit with the modifications of the firewall. and that the notice requirement has been satisfied based upon the documentation from both adjacent neighbors. >> commissioner fung, do you find then that the permit that submitted with the second round of submitals just with this current packet is sufficient as a revision? >> yes, with the notice that the one section should reflect with the firewall presented in the elevation. >> was that correct? >> not to me. >> okay. >> i understand there was a question about the firewall going up high enough and i am concerned that if the plans needs to be revised in any way. >> we will use mr. sanche

this wasn't following the law presumably according to the appellate division. >> that's right. the de filipo case is important because you had someone who was acting wholly innocently. he was not committing an offense at all. as in this case you had someone who was acting wholly innocently and was not committing a violation of the law. and so in de filipo, there still was probable cause despite mistake of law. and that's all that we're saying. >> isn't there another difference between de filipo and this case? the court in de filipo talks about how there's a presumption of functionality for any statute and we don't want officers to go around questioning the constitutionality of statutes. but here that's not the case. here there's a statute and an officer is not supposed to read it as broadly as possible. and supposed to read it fairly. so there's no presumption that goes into effect. and there's no way in which we could say the same thing about de filipo is we don't want officers to inquire into this area. >> it is different, but we do want officers to enforce the law. we don't