the highest use property as the appellant said. mr. murphy should have the same opportunity. >> i have one more question for mr. santos. i am looking at the site plan began and at the -- i am looking at the site plan again. different elevations are a 12 light window. are they operable? in that middle layer or the whole thing. >> ok, thank you. >> i would make the following. i would ask for a continuance for one month. they are in their structural addendum process. i will not let this drag out forever. the issue of the windows is gone. i am not prepared to support the taking of a significant setback across this property. i'm wondering if they can associate some level of access, whether it is utilities zero whether it is cutting openings through their own wall to provide that access. this would reduce the financial impact and not impact the project significantly. let's see if they can come forth with anything. >> an alternative might be achieved by continuing this matter would be that perhaps the project sponsor might say that it would b

the highest use property as the appellant said. mr. murphy should have the same opportunity. >> i have one more question for mr. santos. i am looking at the site plan began and at the -- i am looking at the site plan again. different elevations are a 12 light window. are they operable? in that middle layer or the whole thing. >> ok, thank you. >> i would make the following. i would ask for a continuance for one month. they are in their structural addendum process. i will not let this drag out forever. the issue of the windows is gone

we are going to hear from the appellant. >> good evening. i am the appellant in the case. i would like to thank the board for granting this appeal. i requested this appeal because i was disgusted someone put an antenna outside my bedroom window without providing notice. i was particularly sensitive, because i just invested my life savings in little hone in san francisco. i wanted to make it clear that they make a number of arguments. i quickly learned the argument does not hold water, because you will need to point out they were ignorant of the true state of facts. this must be satisfied. she was fully aware of the plan and aware of the ordinance of references it. the index indicated planning department to review was not required. she could have identified this mistake. she also makes an argument of the california streamlining act puree. this argument does not make sense, because the fact we are here today means there is still a permit now pending at the very sight. i do not know how they could apply for that permit when this one is still pending. fact remains the same, bu

are there any other speakers on behalf of the appellant? as i said, i would like to take a 15-minute recess so that our colleagues can go down to the celebration, and, colleagues, why do we not start again at why do we not start again at 6:00? president chiu: welcome back to the board of supervisors meeting. if we can turn over to the planning department. >> i am joined by the environmental coordinator. she was the project manager on the 2009 project. we are here today to discuss the appeal of the environmental impact report of the house and elements. in this document, there is the current proposal for this plan element. the draft environmental impact report was published on june 30, 2010, and the eir was certified unanimously by the planning commission on march 24, 2011. the housing element is part of the general plan, and it is required under state law to meet certain standards for its content. a major part of those standards of the city has to demonstrate that it has the capacity me to be assigned regional housing needs, which in the cas

i'm an attorney for appellants. and appellant megan would like to speak for about three minutes on the impacts of this project and then i will get back here and talk to you about ceqa. >> my name is megan shael and i live 07 feetaway, directly across the street from the brickyard at 1792 union street. i've lived there for 22 years, maybe going on 23 now. and during that time, there's always been a bar across the street at the same location that the brickyard is in now. we've -- at least i've never had a problem with noise there previously. but unfortunately, the way that the project is proposed to be constituted right now for the brickyard -- ok. can you hear me better? sorry about that. do i need to repeat? or am i ok? so anyway, the way the project is proposed right now at the brickyard is they have taken off the front of the building which was the front wall of the building. it was a glass wall. and are creating an elevated deck which is about i think 5 1/2 to six feet above ground level. and you'll see in pictur

if he is not the appellant, he

the appellant is incorrect in that the city did not use something for this. they analyzed the potential for new development, and the department disagrees with the appellant claims that the eir does not analyze growth attributable. regarding the other issues raised by the appellant, the memoranda transmitted to the board on may 2 explains the changes to the 2009 housing element and explains that the draft provisions do not increase the severity of the environmental impact analyzed in the eir. the changes are minor and would not have -- there is a response document which fully addresses these changes on pages 265 and 267. with respect to the alternative analysis, the eir analyzed at an equal level of detail both of the housing elements. the eir also includes three alternatives. one is a continuation of the 1990 resident policy. the second is a reduced alternative, which is the 2004 housing element without the court computed policies, and a third is the 2009 housing element with additional policies that are towards achieving a higher percentage. as it says in th

and we will start with the appellant. step forward. you have seven minutes. >> i do have this for everyone, please. oh, i am sorry. hi, i'm antoinette lama. hello? i'm antoinette lama, the store manager and co-owner of chuck's store at 24 cortland. i was -- i have for you a context of appeal. my documents that i put together. and with your permission, i'd like to submit them for you. there are some pictures on there. they're very basic, actually. >> you submit a brief? i'm looking. did you not submit a brief on your -- >> i did submit a brief but also was told when i came here to the appeal i could bring something else. and i have just a few pictures. >> you can make reference to them and put them on the overhead or if there's a motion to accept them as additional briefing, we can vote on it. >> ok. >> looks like a big stack to me. >> it's actually because there is one for each of you. ok. first, i want to make sure the city attorney, they did not deliver to me the response of the department of the health department as stipulated in th

but notwithstanding, i think the person who made the sale was representing the appellant, and the appellate should be held responsible -- the appellant should be held responsible for the action of his agent. therefore, we felt the 25 days was appropriate and the department would respectfully ask the board to uphold the 25- day suspension. thank you. commissioner hwang: what is the maximum number of days you could have imposed? >> for a first offense, the most we're supposed to impose is at least 90 days' suspension. dph only recommend it to suspend the permit for only 25 days. commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president garci i know the way that dph normally approaches this, it would not matter if they worked with this operation or not, but to the best of your knowledge, was any attempt made to ascertain whether this gentleman actually worked for mmc? >> at the hearing, there was no way for the health department to verify that, except searching through their files to see if this person was on the payroll or not. that is contingent on the documents provided by dph if it went that far. i wo

colleagues, any questions to the appellant? o.k. seeing none at this time why don't -- supervisor wiener? commissioner wiener: thank you. thank you for your presentation today. i guess my question to you is, given what we know about what's happening in our region, that we do have a growing population, that we have had a major, major problem for decades with sprawl, people just moving further and further and further out and covering up green space with cement and having to drive and having no access to any kind of public transportation, and so we create more and more greenhouse gases and it's just a bad spiral and we see it all over the u.s. but we do see it in the bay area and given that san francisco, among other jurisdictions, is an urban area, that does compare to other places have good access to public transportation, and a lot of us do believe that it can be appropriate for san francisco, not just san francisco, for other parts of the bay area that we think it's important to plan for future population growth and we know that th

o president olague: we'll hear from the appellant at this time. >> sue hester. i wanted to speak on two issue, shad dose and transportation. i'll start with transportation. your response -- the response to my raising this issue is troubling because it goes back and says that you basically do your transportation analysis based on census data from 1990 and this is a little bit beyond that. and you haven't -- i am following up on comments made at the beginning of the hearing made by myself that you have a transportation methodology that is way out of whack with the real world. and you don't have good data on this and the response goes back to eastern neighborhoods e.i.r. as well. and this area of the mission has had substantial changes. it has had substantial changes in who lives there. they have had substantial changes in how the streets are used. there's a really big nighttime activity focus on valu valencia street. there are changing transportation patterns because of silicon valley buses. i think it's a bouwa limousine. i think that is the name you see. and the

and that the appellate longer assume their appeal. we should hear from any members of the public not represented by the appellate who proposed the project. we should give the opportunity for the project sponsor to state their position regarding this agreement. if necessary, we can opt to hear from planning. >> can we proceed in the fashion suggested? no objection. why don't i ask a representative if you can please step up to the microphone. >> we reach an agreement which has been put before you and we hope that you support a compromise. >> can we understand that the document that we have in front of us represent an agreement and you waive your opportunity to make any additional appeals to us? >> correct. >> are there any members of the public that wish to speak against the project and favor the appeal? can the project sponsor please step up to the microphone? >> good afternoon, but we are detects representing the project sponsor. >> does the document we have in front of us represent your agreement and the wave your ability to make any

i understand the appellate's frustration. it was a simple matter, and we made this clear through our communication. you can remove a boiler, but you need a permit to remove the boiler. we will do the physical inspection to make sure the cross connection has been eliminated and the gas lines are secure, and we will update the complaint. simple as that. going beyond that, to install a new source of heat, particularly gas heaters and water heaters, we need additional permits for the new equipment. as of date, i have no permit indicating that they are installing any of those acquitted. i have no inspection history of any physical inspection for any plumbing or heating devices. all i have is a permit would says replaced damages from fire. that permit is long since expired. >> so if i go to the online side and look at the history, there will be no permit for either a new heating system or a removal of the old one? >> based on the staff report given to me that i have in front of you here today, that is my understanding. there is no

you wish to speak to the appellants. robert longer, samantha wolf, toshira johnson, neal bardeck, brian webster. anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of the appellants, please step up. >> lawrence rosenfeld, 15-year resident of the inner sunset. on monday, april 18, at the at&t team came out to survey three sites in the inner sunset. the process consisted of asking us where we would like the boxes and telling us the reasons they were not satisfactory locations. for example, the challenges of trenching where there are many tracks. but nothing was said about how the fiber cable gets down the street. i am concerned that the city mandated 18 inch setbacks from the curb will be a problem for people trying to get children out of car seats or disabled persons into wheelchairs' or onto crutches. in a neighborhood that is short on parking, if there is a box that is blocking egress to your vehicle, you are in a world of hurt. there are enough issues like the parking set back that i think need to be handled from a central point of

and we see and we heard from appellant that d.p.h. enforcement attempts had been made numerous times, approximate 20 to 25 in the past three years an average of six times a year. could that be right? >> at this location? >> yes. >> i doubt it. the police department does not have -- we have i don't know how many thousands of shops. >> i know we heard that from you before so i was curious about this. ok. thank you. >> dr. ocho, this is the first time i've heard of the employee actually going to some type of a hearing. >> the hearing he's referring to is the citation the department just went to the hall of justice for the hearing for the citation because he's required that they appear. >> so every employee that has been on every case here also attends a hearing in addition to the owner of the store? >> yes, commission. >> and that is separate from the issue of the permit holder. >> i have another question on the subject that president goh raised on the enforcement efforts. does the department or would it be local police station that woul

but it concerns me to hear the appellant taking the position is. i think it is unfortunate because i know the appellant has brought many people here, who have taken time out of the middle of their day and have potentially wasted their time if this is somehow an invalid hearing. i am disappointed to hear that are taking that position, but that is what i just heard. that is the concern i have now. president chiu: let me suggest the following may -- falling way to move forward to this. are there any of us to believe we should re-much as this hearing and hold another hearing? -- re-notice this hearing and hold another hearing? we could vote on that. we could end this hearing now and what does it again for the future. but at this point, the 11 of us to believe this has been noticed properly. let us put that on the record. a future court can decide based on any appeal of this case the weather the brown act was violated. i suggest that as a possible way for us to move forward. supervisor campos: let me say that i do not believe that we should re-much as t

. >> i am an architect, but i am here as a friend and neighbor of the appellants, and before i speak about this appeal, i want to talk about the context stereo -- the context. it is a unique area. we have a specific planning code. we have small homes and small lots and narrow streets. the typical lot size where i live is 25 by 70. that is 1750 square feet, and that is the size of most floor plans in other neighborhoods, so we already have small lots, and we have many substandard sell- offs -- lots in the neighborhood, so the map i want to show you is this one, and this is the property, and you can see the subject property. there is the property across the street, and there is another property here, so what is compelling to mae is this demonstrate they allowed the property owner to slip a lot, and it has been my observation -- to split the lot, and it has been my observation you grant the same rights to everyone equally, and i think this is compelling, that they are sandwiched between two properties. the end result -- the other thing that is a difference is that all the neighbors supp

we will hear from members of the public that support the appellants. ma'am, first speaker. >> in the years since and entertainment permits and planning department hearings, i also learned that the process is not done on an even playing field. >> especially in this economy. this is painfully clear to me at the january 20 planning commission hearing regarding brickyard. while neighbors hand delivered 100 letters and petitions from residents who live within a two-block radius, the brickyard offered only a list of names. probably a sign -- still the commissioners unanimously approved the permit for an elevated deck and five folding doors. with unenforceable conditions that are naive if not disingenuous. like a formula for how many of the folding doors can be open at different times of the day. it was an insult to the neighbors. so i'm here to ask you to uphold the union street controls. they're designed to protect the adjacent residents' livability. the noise generated by patrons on an elevated deck into a large -- with opening doors onto a large bar, rest

i'm the appellant in this case. i want to comment on item 3, the protest of the findings mentioned of the supporting power equipment installed across the street from my home at 156 27th avenue. i found is a little bit rent. our appeal was granted because the department did not review the impact of the equipment installed on a protected block. when the planning department reviews a wireless permit publication, i assume they would review the totality of the equipment installed to determine the impact. 863 41st offers a good example case. i have their conditions of approval on the overhead here. this document shows that the planning department's conditions of approval, they required a flush mount design, they requested a match, and neither of these were met. they also required sf 0, 2, and 3. this is the document that the planning department referenced, the detailed drawings of the equipment that nextg is -- intended to install. if you go to page 3 of this document, nextg clearly advise the equipment they intend to ins

the appellant is who we hear from at this time. >> is the appellant year for the appeal? if you appeal, then yes. >> i am appealing the environmental, right? i of told to of the three variances. i uphold and agree with the variances, we talked to the residence and you will know why. i would very much like to defer that if you would like. if you can vote against it, that would be great. if you would like to know why, i can really give you have in the street reasons if you would speak for the part of it. the other part is finished. >> if you are appealing the preliminary negative declaration, now is your opportunity to present why you are appealing it. we're looking for your case as to why you feel the entire environmental impact report is necessary. >> i stand before you allow the appealing to your higher sense of right. i ask each of you -- however, i don't know if you could approve it and have one exception for a focused traffic study. i know if that is possible, but that is our only problem, the traffic study. the intersection is dangerous. you have the package in front

the amendment also requires that the office of enforcement of for the appellant an opportunity to meet and confer with in the first 30 days of asking for an appeal, and so we are hoping that that will help expedite an agreement between the appellant and the department so there would not be any need to hire a hearing officer to go through a very laborious, linthicum and sometimes expensive hearing process. -- linthicum and sometimes expensive hearing process -- lengthy. should there not be any agreement, and then the comptroller would have the responsibility to appoint a hearing officer. which we currently do. the amendment also gives us a little bit more latitude for appointing the hearing officer and allows the hearing officer to be either someone or an attorney with experience in construction law. we pay the rent board for that work. and then, finally, it establishes guidelines for the hearing officer process come on and the hearing officer must conduct a fair and impartial hearing and establishes that it is the appellant's responsibility by proving with a preponderance of evidence t

the appellant has had his license for 26 years. he has never suffered one citation, which speaks volumes for his commitment. he did on one occasion half and an employee -- have and employees of some cigarettes to an undercover police officer -- an employee sell some cigarette to an undercover police officer. i have represented this family for 21 years. this is pro bono. they cannot afford a presentation. two families subsist in the store. the household are the principal employees. they have spent many hours selling items out small profits. the one feature is the coast treasure island as many people from torus countries. people show up with licenses and passports from various countries. the store has all of the posters, including this one, which you may recognize. they have rather a effective training routine with employees, but the person who did the selling in this incident was the son of the owner who was visiting and did not benefit from the typical training the store has. in 26 years of operation, he has never suffered no citat

i represent the appellant. if there is a problem with that, then -- commissioner hwang: you are representing the lawyer? >> no, the lawyer was representing the organization, and i am a member of the organization, san francisco citizens against building permit fraud. i am representing them. president goh: this is a little unusual. commissioner fung: commissioners, i think if he says he is representing them, we should go with that. commissioner hwang: it says eric krebs. >> we usually let people appear. there is no board rule to prohibit that. if there was evidence brought forward that suggests that he did not have authorization to represent the appellants, the board could reopen the case at a rehearing, but there is nothing in the board rule, but i do not believe there is anything pitt that would prohibit it. -- anything that would prohibit it. commissioner peterson: it says eric krebs, and then it says bad it is the san francisco citizens against building permit from, as if they are representing themselves. com

the action requested by the appellant, the appellant has requested more time to comply and wants reduction of the investigation fee imposed for work without probable permit. the department will have seven minutes to present its case. then the appellant will have seven minutes. there will be discussion and then at the end we'll have three-minute rebuttals. >> good morning, commissioners. allen davidson, department of owners inspection. illegal use of the occupation with a store at the ground -- occupancs with a store at the ground floor. it has a ground floor fronting howard and the second floor has been illegally converted into residence of two dwelling units established without proper permit. this stems from the city attorney task force inspection which was initiated following the reform from the san francisco police department. -- referral of the san francisco police department. a dwelling on the howard street side consisting of two bedrooms and one kitchen and the rear occupied approximately 2/3 of the second floor consisting of five bedrooms, one kitchen, one full bath and a separate t