after a modest expansion, it was smaller than the appellants house -- appellant's house. there are solar systems which include solar panels, the addition of new trees, and rain water cisterns. there is a low impact design. 799 square feet. the permit holder submitted to the appellant and the city about making it suitable for a single family. san francisco architect ian murray made a comment. the appellant has presented no objective evidence, other than her own desire it. there were the neighborhood groups. the appellate argues that the permit holder after 4.5 years of work in favor of the residential design team's recommendation to build a separate two-story structure. the permit holder used a model to demonstrate the effect it would have on the appellant, which was talked about by commissioner moore. commissioner moore: architect ian murphy, she will, indeed, it continue to enjoy it freestanding home. i would support your motion and asked that we approve it. -- and ask that we approve it. >> this is kind of the reverse of what we usually see. neighbors want it smaller. >

effectively, the appellants do not understand the municipal code. each of the clients as well as the other child care-related entities cited by them do not qualify under the applicable statute. section 1789.50 is qualified, and let me read it directly into the record. the public to private, profit, or nonprofit use, including -- excluding hospitals or medical centers, which meets the provisions of section 3045. that refers to items that qualify on the master plan. it does not cover any of the institutions referred to by the appellant. again, the concerns raised by the appellant regarding child safety, regarding holistic resale, regarding any of the other allegations being made, or specifically addressed in considered by the commissioners. -- were specifically addressed and considered by the commissioners. as you can see in the packet submitted to you during the appeal, this is simply a building permit appeal. as part of the discretionary review process, a bunch are placed in front of the mcd before they can operate. each of these hurdles was address

i represent the appellant, diane rosen. we are here to discuss an issue, and realize that the hour is late, and i appreciate your time and consideration in this matter. the issue is that it was down the this project was inappropriate come out of scale, and out of touch with the neighborhood, recommended that discretionary review be taken in modifications be made. the commission ruled against that, and we find ourselves here today. the main issue on appeal as outlined in the brief is that this project provides a massive and bulky addition to the mid- block open space, and because of that, it is very of touch and out of scale with the neighborhood. if we can look at the overhead, there are some submissions that are part of the respondent's brief, where you can see that the impact is exactly what the residential team found, a very massive, bulky structure being added to the mid-block open space. now, the commission found that there was no pattern in the open space, and that seems to be the way that the point on which the commi

i think there is a significant compromise given to the appellant. i do not think there is a formula for what makes good residential buildings. i am not sure that the department is perfect 100% of the time. i do not think it would propose that anyway. in this instance, i support i think what has occurred in a fairly long process that has created some compromises. i think it has created an interesting building. president peterson: i tend to concur with commissioner fung. appellant's council talked about compatibility with neighboring buildings. it is similar in scale to her own building. i took issue with ideas about a licensed contractor. it was a relief to hear from mr. pierce and his representation of the licensed contractor who would be utilized. it is a fairly modest project. i see that there is no mid-block open space and other requirements. i too would be inclined to reject the appeal. i know we have the two permits to address. commissioner garcia: i would agree with president peterson and commissioner fung:. what was originally asked for by th

is it true that your client's property is 35% smaller than the appellant's? >> to be candid with you, i have not done a side-by-side percentage measurement. currently, the existing permit holder's home is smaller, for sure. we can see that in the pictures. i do not know if it is 35% smaller. president peterson: thank you. that is it. thank you. now we can hear from the permit holders. you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> my name is muriel maffre. commissioner garcia: i am sorry to interrupt, but move the microphone. >> ben pierce and i are not developers. we are artists in san francisco residents. i have worked here for more than 20 years and have lived in the presidio 15 years. we have demonstrated care and willingness in our approach to reach out to the community and work with the development. we came to the planning commission and all the members agreed except one. why did we go to the planning department and the community experts the planning commissioners were unanimous in recommending the balance nature of the project. they commend our effort to maint

i'm working with the appellant on this case. i spent time on bernal heights and i'm familiar with the location. i actually went up there at site and was talking with people at the area. almost everyone i talked to, they didn't realize there were something like 63 antenac up there and my understanding is a lot of them don't have the permits they're supposed to have. i urge you to vote yes on seekwa, especially. and as far as the issue of meeting fcc requirements, they haven't done an adequate study to show that and this was brought up before. there must be an unambiguous identification of all the existing end points for the planned point-to-point transmission. the intended intersection and ongoing alignment for each

i am here on behalf of the appellant. the genesis of the comments of it being too bulky and massive and out of character for the neighborhood are not ours. they started at the residential design team, who reviewed this project, and i want to make it clear that there was no connection between the d.r. request and the residential design team review. these were two independent things. and, in fact, ms. rosen did not even know that residential design team has looked at this project and made the findings that they did until shortly before the hearing, so there is no connection between those two things. ms. rosen did not call upon that wa. this independent team found this was out of character, massive, bulky, and the other reasons that are attached to our brief. let me leave the board with this. that is the opening to the residential design guidelines. the question at the outset is why do we have presidential guidelines. in short, it is to maintain the visual interest of and never hurt. it is important that the design of new bu

the appellants could still appeal. commissioner fung: it is

the action requested by the appellant is appeal of the order of abatement issued september 10, 2010 and assessment of cost be waived. we will first hear from the department. >> the procedure is we will hear from the department first, and then the appellant. then we take questions, comments, or bottle from the department and then appellant. >> ok, you have seven minutes. >> good morning. i am the chief plumbing inspector for san francisco dbi. in the case of 32 peralta avenue we have fees of $2,018 for the complaint due to the fact of manhours, staff hours, hearings pertaining to the complaint. a full of teetit when all the wl recently, september 22, 2010, the correction for obtained. the hearing -- we had a hearing office. the officer of the chief villain inspector. his recommendations were to have tended to apply for a plumbing permits and 14 days to complete work. that was on april 28, 2009. this work did not commence until recently september. during that time, not only were my man hours used up in investigating and in the clerical staff, but the department of public works store opera

of -- of the appellant organizations or the owner of one of those appellant organizations or the owner or agent of a permit holder, you are not allowed to speak under public comment. your time to speak would be of the party wants to share their time with you. at first speaker? also, it will help us preparing the minutes if you could provide us with a speaker card. if you don't have one filled out already, we ask you to wait until after you are done speaking to fill it out and give it to the clark. -- the clerk. president peterson: i know we had a tradition of allowing supervisors to testify. >> i don't know if there has been a request or not. supervisor chu, if you would like to speak? if you don't mind, sir, we will let the supervisor speak first. thank you very much. >> thank you very much for hearing this appeal. i think the appellants brought a lot of points to the fore, but wanted to fundamentally talk about a few things. i think the questions are very relevant with regard to the planning department report. it was fundamentally flawed, as we were referred to. they cited a code tha

my name is terry mill, i'm representing the appellant in this project. i'm a citizen of bernal heights and have lived in bernal for decades. i moved there smartly after the first microwave towers were put on top of the hill and moved there several years before the neighborhood rallied to make the top of the hill a city park. we're appealing the planning commission july 1, 2010, categorrical examination for the bernal heights project from environmental review under the california environmental quality act. we believe the planning commission erred in exempting this project under seekwa and we previously provided the board with detailed written discussion of why. first, i would like to clarify why the project is unique and distinguishable from other licensed wireless carriers that do business in san francisco like at&t and verizon. these other carriers utilize antenna based station facilities to transmit and receive signals to and from their customers' wireless devices, just as clear wire plans to do. however, these other carriers typically connect their ba

the appellants have already announced they will request d.r. on that, which is adding a full bath to a half bath and full kitchen to have kitchen. my clients can and wish to move into this home as soon as the interrupted phase 1 work approved by planning can commence. but if you roll the rear yard variance is needed, work to complete phase one will continue to be on hold probably another six, nine months, and later i will explain why so many months. what that means is during those months, my clients will be paying two sets of mortgage, property tax, insurance, and maintenance. the allegations of work potentially expand beyond what the permits showed have absolutely no merit. the existing conditions behind these are very old homes and cannot be predicted until uncovered in the field. when uncovered, they often trigger changes and the scope of work. the contractor then decides with the building inspector whether to immediately seek revision or whether to wait until more unexpected conditions reveal themselves, and then do one big revision. this p

you are presenting on behalf of the appellant. you have up to 10 minutes, if you wish to keep speaking. >> i was having so much fun. [laughter] we also believe that atc is out of compliance on condition seven of the 2009 permit which reads, "prior to planning department approval of the building permit application, the project's sponsor shall submit a landscaping plan subject to approval by the zoning administrator prior to permit issuance. they shall apply landscaping per the approved plan. such landscaping plan, including species, shall include tree planting sufficient to screen the base tower and the building from distant use overtime. landscaping shall be maintained, and as trees reach maturity or die of disease they shall be replaced." atc has planted in the last year ti

the board's rules for presentation are as follows -- appellants, permit holders, and department responders each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rare bottle. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within those times. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board, nor bottles. to assist the board and the accurate proportion of minutes, members of the public to wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the lectern. a speaker card and pans are available on the left side of the podium and customer service satisfaction forms are on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about a rehearing or rules of a hearing scheduled, please speak to board staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1650 mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgtv cable channel 78, and dvd's of t

>> yes. >> we will hear from the appellate. >> my name is evelyn y. it. i am the owner and i have a tenant that is causing problems for me. always at work and calling the police, very destructive. he lived downstairs, under the stairs. he would go upstairs. i had to install cameras because he was destroying my property. one time i was working with an electrician and i left a letter on the front landing so that he could have access to the light fixture. when i got home a letter was not there. i asked him if he had seen the letter, he said that he did, it had disappeared. the reason that i hired the international game company to since i wrote -- install the gate for me, we knew what action had to be taken as far as permits.

>> yes. >> we will hear from the appellate. >> my name is evelyn y. it. i am the owner and i have a tenant that is causing problems for me. always at work and calling the police, very destructive. he lived downstairs, under the stairs. he would go upstairs. i had to install cameras because he was destroying my property. one time i was working with an electrician and i left a letter on the front landing so that he could have access to the light fixture. when i got home a letter was not there. i asked him if he had seen the letter, he said that he did, it had disappeared. the reason that i hired the international game company to since i wrote -- install the gate for me, we knew what action had to be taken as far as permits. the gate is now situated, and there is one in the front also, it does not have a letter on both sides. you have to walk up the steps and it opens on for landing. the gate in the back is situated the same way. i do not like having it, to me it looks like a prison. it was installed because i was advised by the police to do that. they said

>> yes. >> we will hear from the appellate. >> my name is evelyn y. it. i am the owner and i have a tenant that is causing problems for me. always at work and calling the police, very destructive. he lived downstairs, under the stairs. he would go upstairs. i had to install cameras because he was destroying my property. one time i was working with an electrician and i left a letter on the front landing

just to reiterate again, there are two issues that have been raised by the appellants -- whether or not the project is code complying. using their arguments would change how we review mcds in san francisco. if we were to consider child care facilities, which are a separate definition in the planning code -- and we do have many definitions in the planning code. it would be common to refer to one definition for one use and another for a different use. the important thing we look at is how we would process the application. the chapter facility we will process as a child care facility in planning code. we will not process it as something else. we will not process it as a social service. i think that is an important part to make. this is a code compliant project. we did review it against the requirements of the planning code for the 1,000 foot requirement. we did not find that there were any facilities with of the defis that are prohibited in the code. in reference to the error in the code, it is an error in the planning code, referring to a code section that does not exist. it was repeated

we can hear now from the appellant. thank you. >> good evening. i represent omar in this hearing. omar has been driving a taxi cab in san francisco for 15 years. he has a car that has been current and active since he obtained it 15 years ago. he is a gas and gate driver right now. he works for several permit holders, some of which testified