or appellant representative. the floor is yours, not to exceed 5 minutes. >> it's not the 3-story, it's the part and parcel. we're not asking for density reduction. just a bedroom. a 3-bedroom unit is not unreasonable. shadow studies were generated that showed impact. where increased shadow impact is minimal. if we can get the overhead back on, please. not the computer, the overhead. 40 feet is permitted, but that doesn't mean it should be granted. the pattern of transition from 4 to 3 to 2 is clear. this is not about what zoning we live in. we're at an edge and we need to be cognizant of that. the photos they showed are from the next block over and are cropped in an advantagous matter. the mitigations imposed were not a gift. they were recognitions that the design has oversights and not considered it properly. design is objective. although it may conform to the zoning units, not to the constraints. we need to are consider this project. -- reconsider this project. >> you are yielding the rest of your time? go ahe

or the appellant representative. please note if you are here to speak on either the 218-27th avenue appeal, this will be the time to do so, specifically for these appeals. we will open up this hearing, and seeing no names on the roster, if the first appellant could come forward, and you will have 7.5-minutes unless you can specify whether or not the two appeals are from the same individual. excuse me, the two presentations will be the same person. >> yes. good afternoon, madam president, members of the board. we can hadid have advanced not where we would have a consolidated hearing, where 15 minutes would be allotted -- >> president breed: so we will start your time, and you can proceed with your presentation. >> okay. great. thank you. thank you. my name's robia crisp. i'm with the law firm of hanson bridgett, and i'm here on behalf of the appellants. they join me here along with their architectural consultant, randy popp, and we will be hearing from them later in this presentation. the -- property line of the proje

we've conducted studies on the appellant ease property. this diagram shows existing proposed conditions at 9:00 a.m. at three different times of year. there's sets showing existing and proposes. this is 9:00 a.m. in the spring, existing proposed 9:00 a.m. in the summer, and 9:00 a.m. in the winter. there's a worst case scenario, this is the addition and this is the appellant's house, and there's no shadows created on his property. also, here's a photo taken at the roof of the proposed project, and as you can see, in this area, there's a lot of buildings at the height of the proposed addition, so there's already blockage horizontally at this level. the appellant claims that the midblock character will be adversely impacted by the proposed project. the proposed project is compatible with the existing midblock configuration. there's this site plan, you look at the rear yard, we are -- there is no horizontal addition. the existing setback is 33'9". the required set back is 25 feet, and we're well within what's required. also, if you look at th

that the appellant owns? >> i'm not sure what the distance is, but more than 75 feet. >> 80, 90, 100? >> i think it's a lot more. it's around the corner. i'm not exactly sure how far away. >> it was mentioned in regards to propane tanks. businesses are allowed to have exposed propane tanks. so why does a food truck allowed it have a appropriapropane tank? >> we permit the location. health test reviews and categorizes the type of food facility. so they have categories 1-5. i think 1 is premade foods and 5 is cooking. and the fire department reviews -- >> maybe it's a question for the fire department. >> i would say so. >> okay. thank you. >> can i see a show of hands of who here is planning to speak under public comment on this item? okay. if you go step forward, please. >> welcome. >> i own a subway and 7-eleven. since 2011 i and my fellow brick and mortar restaurants have been appearing before the board time and again time and again. and i'm sure that everybody knows that we have a genuine concern. why is th

i know the appellant brought up structural concerns. i've seen a lot worse than this, so i'm not worried about it, but they would be warned to tread carefully when they are excavating for the slab, and obviously, the building inspector's going to be involved in that process for the inspections. apart from that, i didn't see anything else. we did have some active complaints a couple of years ago. they were subsequently closed. that was in 2015, in november . the complainant was the appellant as well, and it was about a structure built in the rear yard with the permits, and we found that the structure was just a greenhouse, and we closed the complaint. >> inspector duffy, looking at the brief on exhibit 2, where there's a picture of the properties from the rear, the street looks like it's slope down, so if that was the case, the foundation footings could not be matched up, so maybe the drawing is incorrect? >> maybe possibly. >> yeah, maybe maybe her drawing is more correct, because looking at the back, it looks like there is some sloping

and then, the appellants -- appellant wants to develop the property.and i -- i see us or our future peers sitting here having a conversation with the neighborhood -- somebody in the neighborhood appeals the dismemberment of a parking lot for the purpose of -- of building that -- that future structure. that's the thing that bugs me the most. that's -- that's where i see the biggest problem. >> and just to clarify further, you know, the letter didn't address the potential temporary use or the future development of the property, really. it really just looked at the question of is the existing parking lot, can it basically continue as a legal nonconforming parking lot. some of the other information about its temporary use, future development provide context for the request, but the letter itself didn't address those specific issues. >> i think the appellants are asking for five years. >> yeah. >> so -- so i recognize that the letter doesn't address that, but i would like you to give me some thoughts on that. if the five years passes by, if there's a shorta

the appellant is incorrect. again, the project would not remove travel lanes and know -- no reduction of pathways would occur. it is not leading to an unusual circumstance. the appellant brought up parking and these are social issues while they're concerning they're not seeking appeal. further the remove of two underutilized commercial loading zones would not be considered an unusual circumstance so a class 1 exemption was determined to be the properly level of review. other issues have been addressed and our responses the appellant claims the current project compliend combine combined with the other project -- thus we've addressed the other concerns in our responses. for the reason stated in our appeal responses and statements made at the hearing. the determination complies with the requirements of class 1 categorical exemption is the appropriate environmental review determination. the appellant has not provided substantial evidence to refute the conclusion of the department. therefore i urge you to uphold the

the appellants raise two issues. one they felt it was not a cooperative process that included the presidio heights neighborhood association in the process and i want to take you back for a minute and say that this truly has been a cooperative process in terms of coming up with that well designed facility that we had. san francisco here exercises its proprietary rights with respect to this design, so three years ago, we began working on a design with the san francisco public utility commission fore them to approve this design in order tfor it t be leased to verizon wireless. it went through ceqa review, and the board, and the board threw out a design to keep this design. this design was thought to fit into the context of san francisco and to meet those -- to match those poles that they currently are attached to, and that is the cooperative process that began several years ago and then continues with article 25, wherein this situation, presidio heights neighbors received a notice, and they did protest in a timely matte

up to ten minutes for the presentation by the appellant or appellant representative and up to two minutes for speaker in support of the appeal and ten minutes for a presentation from the planning commission and ten minutes for the project sponsor or representative and ten minutes for opposition and up to three minutes for a rebut -- rebuttal. we'll open up the hearing. supervisor farrell. >> supervisor farrell: thank you, this parcel sin district two. supervisor peskin and i spoke beforehand before bringing the appeal forward and he dealt with signatures we had an interest in so i wanted to and we discussed it beforehand and he wanted to highlight some issues he had with the process itself. so here we are. i will turn it over to supervisor peskin. >> supervisor breed: supervisor peskin. >> supervisor peskin: thank you, madam president, major leagues. without pre judging the pre judging the use i want to thank the individuals to affixed their signatures to allow it to happen and for supervisor farrell for being gracious though it was in his district to allowing the hearing go forth. regard

ho returned to texas joining a top law firm and specializing in appellate litigation. he then served as the solicitor general of texas succeeding our colleague senator ted cruz. it was while he was serving in that role that he won the supreme court best brief award for the national -- from the national association of attorneys general. he went on to earn the award two more times. after his time in state government, mr. ho returned to his private practice firm and currently serves as the cochair of its appellate and constitutional law group. he's presented oral arguments in state and federal courts around the country, including the supreme court. it's clear that mr. ho possesses impressive crew den shalls with the experience necessary to excel on the fifth circuit. he also earned the praise of prominent democrats who believe he'll make an excellent addition to the federal court. ron kirk, the obama administration's trade representative and the former mayor of dallas supported mr. ho's nomination to the judiciary committee. he wrote, jim possesses the temperament, integr

thank you, inspector. >> appellant? >> i'm the designer, expediter for the project, and this is the owner. on february 16th, fire damage, the next day the tenant was vacant and left the property. so, since that, the day of the fire, all the tenant left. so actually vacant since that day. so on, on may 30th, there was a permit pulled to repair the damage for the sheetrock, to try to repair some of the damage and hired during the process in late march, draft plans and measurement and design to work with the planning department to get a plan submitted and june there was a permit submitted by us to comply to the notice of violation. early july there was a hearing, i was there with the owners. the case was continued. was never heard, it was continued for 30 days and since then i've been working with the planning department to provide photos of the site, assessment of the site to make sure that there were no tenants involved in the -- the tenant was left and then the sites, all the stucco, exterior of the property, three unit

appellant. the appellant is commenting on e pole and he indicated that as wr developers of buildings and tecy that the neighborhood is open ad willing to accommodate a -- the reasonable development of new technologies. that would be an organized way a grid of these devices throughout presidio heights. i think what we're -- what i woe to -- and that requires proper g of the entire neighborhood, reae macro neighborhood and a plan st doesn't become health scelter. and defeat the purpose of what - what -- helter-skelter and makie haul their light stanchions arey the same. that;mb is why i think we shoult this and sustain the personalit- protect the personality of the neighborhood and push verizon tt together a plan with the neighbd association and the neighbors io sense. >> so what about the richmond dt or sunset district or excelsior district? should they mail out and reach o the district each time they pute up? >> that's where the character ad personality of this district is different than those a

are you one of the appellants or appellant representative for here to speak for public comment? >> i'm here in support of the appeal. >> supervisor breed: so we haven't called public comment yet so thank you. so is that the end of your presentation? >> i tried to make it as succinct as possible if you'd like know keep talking i'd be delighted to. >> supervisor breed: no, you're the first person to make us so happy by not using the entire time. with that, madame clerk, let's open it up to public comment. at this time for members of the public who want to speak in support of the appeal, please come forward, you'll have two minutes. if anyone is in support of the appeal, please line up to your right. first speaker. >> good afternoon, supervisor breed, members of the board of supervisors. i'm an architectural historian. i have to commend ms. courtney for a succinct explanation. i'm here to support the peel for the lot merger at 841 chestnut and appeal the destruction of the building. in the report of last june before it was demolished the building was a notable work by a master arch

so how many -- >> appellant. >> appellant.how many appellants are you -- >> i'm representing just one, really, richard yanowitch. the leppla family wasn't able to be here. >> okay. so three minutes. >> when the board determined that the penthouse, the top fourth floor should be removed, we were under the impression that they would remove the top floor, and we would work together on designing the deck. that's not what happened. they used the opportunity to increase the height of the building 2.5 building, so the overall bulk, the shadows, the views blocked is now much large. they say they didn't raise the floor, but they increased the height of the thing. the top of the guardrail on the new deck is the same height that the penthouse was, so you know in all the years i've done this, i've never seen someone ordered to take a floor off and come back with a building that's the same height. the board said there's no four story buildings in sea cliff, but here we are with the exact same four story building, just calling it a three st

this is the appellant's property, his wall, right here. this is the retaining wall on my property which held back the dirt, which he called the planter box, and there was a channel in between here which was filled with concrete, i believe, in 2010-2011 by his predecessor, who had the same leak that the appellant had last year. and i, unfortunately, allowed that neighbor to fill that channel with concrete. he claimed that that would stop his leak. and when inspector duffy came, the notice of violation was because we no longer had this air gap, so the original plan was to remove the concrete that had been poured by his predecessor. obviously, the appellant did not like that course of action. he wanted me to try to fix his leak. we finally decided to go ahead and remove the planter box. i asked inspector duffy to come back again and discussed to him the plan, and he confirmed, again, that it was considered landscaping and a permit was not required. when we started the work, the appellant -- i called -- you know, after we removed the dirt, ask

we'll hear from the appaeople appellant, mr. anyarin. and this is if we are going to rehear the case. >> i'm going to try to speak by myself and if i have anything technical word that i don't understand, there's a person here to help me. >> okay. >> good evening. please reconsider this case. bringing more evidence than already provided to you in my last piece. and also witnesses that can give more clarifications of a full track being part of the buildings. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the department. >> good evening. brent cohen, representing public works. i believe most of the information or all the information was presented at the last hearing. so as you stated, i guess, it would be up to you whether the voting was something to consider. >> is there any public comment on the issue of the rehearing request? step forward. >> welcome back. >> hi. mark brennan. i object to the rehearing request. one, it's been adjudicated. it's been under consideration for over a year. december 5, 2016, we received notice of inte

it didn't say, sold to the appellant. the other thing, what was the analysis behind the zoning to rm1? >> sure. so the appellant's current parcel, the one that he currently owns, is rm1 already, therefore, it would be most consistent to zone the two parcels he will be purchasing to the same zoning that he has on a neighboring property. i have a zoning map here if that helps. >> commissioner johnson: that's helpful. there's one in here, too. >> so rm1 zoning is consistent with this area, as you can see. >> commissioner johnson: so -- i see it. before this then, the zone public was sort of not really in keeping with a lot of the land in that area? >> the sf-puc parcel -- correct. it was zoned public, but i believe 20 years ago it was determined by the sf-puc not to use that land for whatever public purpose they had for it before. >> commissioner johnson: okay. i'm still -- i feel like -- and that's the analysis of the only options. i know in the case report, it sort of says that the staff looked at how else to achieve the g