commissioner fung: is there a motion? president garcia: we are waiting for you to make a motion, and then we will attack you. commissioner fung: we wind up looking at compromises. and i agree. i thought that some of the comments, perhaps -- given the approach, i would make the following motion -- to grant the appeal, but to uphold the permit, with the following conditions. that the grill be relocated to the center of the building at some point adjacent to the penthouse wall and that the north rail and the south real -- excuse me. let me restate that. that the north rail be moved 1.5 feet, and that the south will be moved 1.5 feet. >> just for the length of the rail fronting the light well? commissioner fung: that is correct. >> just to be clear, the grill you are moving -- what would that be? commissioner fung: that would be the east wall of the penthouse. >> in the section between the door and the south? president garcia: that is assuming the grill gets plumbed. would we get any approval if it were -- commissioner fung:

commissioner fung: 4.2%. president garcia: i would like to see a combination of you take pain -- you would be paying less. some of the pain would be absorbed because i think some of the warping at 4.2% is less than the warping at 10%. >> we did do that at 11 clement. we are cutting into 11 clement, or we would have to to put a ramp inside. commissioner hillis: 11 clement is the one that has been combined. >> correct. commissioner hillis: that was what i was expecting to see, based on commissioner comments in the last meeting -- some combination of looking at both the warping and interior modifications, and even doing away with the 11 clement -- to see if we can come up with a way to avoid the split sidewalk and the gate solution. >> so, the biggest issue is, i think, having the level landings. once you have to cut into the store, you end up having to have a level landing inside the door, and some sort of a slope up. so there is a fair amount of cost is involved in doing that part of it. commissioner hillis: i

commissioner fung: are you finished? >> yes. also note that if you look at the photos -- should i put this here? this is the neighbor that just spoke. this right here is the end of his house. he does not have a light well. that is the back of his house. also note the existing her putt on both our neighbors are 30 inches tall. -- the existing parapet on both our neighbors are 30 inches tall. this is the view from our roof, which will not be building an illegal back on. that is not a light well. that is his front yard. commissioner hillis: you have a light well? >> we have a light well, but they do not. commissioner hillis: is it on the property where his building is? or is it on open space? >> it is right here. commissioner hillis: what is on the other side of your light well? >> his building. the back of his building lined up right in the center of the light well. it has a roof that slopes down. by the time you get to our second level, he has fully enclosed our light well. commissioner hillis: so his issue with the rail on the b

commissioner fung: i am sorry. go ahead. you indicated there were 2 the vote openings, but when i look at the window,-- were two openings, but when i look at the window, i see there. >> i was not able to get copies of dbi's files. commissioner fung: i am talking about the brief. we do not have these drawings. >> the store is the exit door. this is a utility window. this is the mechanical room. commissioner fung: the floor plan shows -- the plan. it shows three -- >> i am not certain. there is a lot of confusion in this process because of the difference between what is shown in the plans for the variance application and for the building permit. perhaps the permit holder's council can clarify what the confusion is on that. what we are told is that this door is a critical emergency exit, and this is a window. apologies for the confusion. commissioner hillis: do you have a ground floor plan of both or either of these buildings? it is hard to understand where these doors are. it could apply to the ground floor plan to see if ther

commissioner fung: one last question. based on your experience, if the design introduced planters adjacent to the doorways, would that assist, similar to the way -- i know that is a minor encroachment. >>

commissioner fung: regarding the rating on this as a resource? >> nothing that would trigger historic preservation or commission review. not a landmark building. it is a resource. we have identified it as a resource. in terms of additional review, the hspc would not trigger that. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, we will move into a bottle. we will start with michelle. >> i just have a couple of quick things. i will read from the code about the eggs a garage. "exits shop pastor kitchens, storage rooms or spaces used for similar purposes, like a garage. " it is not that i have a problem or do not think that some part of the fire wall is not necessary. if you think of the future permit, they are building this directly abutting 2323. i agree that a fire wall or two should be required. my question is the wall as part of this permit. it does not appear to ever be part of the future where the two buildings might kiss. this wall, as drawn, opens into a courtyard of approximately 10-foot with. it serves no purpose, even for their future expans

commissioner fung: i am in concurrence with that. president garcia: i would move that we deny the request for jurisdiction. >> please call the roll. >> we have a motion from president garcia to deny this jurisdiction request. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the boat is 4-0. this jurisdiction request is denied. >> we will call item no. 5 now. ruth levy inverses the department of public works bureau of st. use and mapping. this is protesting the issuance on december 22, 2010 of a minor sidewalk encroachment permit. the public hearing was held on february 8, 2012 and is on for further consideration today. the matter was continue to allow time for the permit holder to pursue other proposals and allow additional briefing. is the department here? great, thank you. i would think we will start with the permit holder, since they were the one to provide additional information. we will give them three minutes, is that right, president garcia? president garcia: please. >> president garcia and membe

. -- fung referred to. this is level two. eventually, this window, which is in a stairwell, will not be impacted. everything in this direction will remain. we are not touching those windows. they may have some fire issues and we will have to talk about protection, but we do not need to cover those windows. this is the third level. you can see that there is an office. there is a window here that opens into the entry area of the office and we are going to need to impact that window. there are two windows in the main area of the office. i have not been inside the property. i am accepting that the property is the way it is listed. in the main area, i assume there is a desk or a work area. we are not touching those windows. president garcia: nor will anyone know be affected to the left or right? >> that is correct. on this level, garrett, held me a little bit here. those windows will be impacted? right. there were some windows in the plan in 2003 that did not get built and those windows are not there. in effect, there will be no i

commissioner fung: you made two changes. one is the location of the water heater and one is the skylight. >> he just said it is in the attic. the original was supposed to be on the roof. the revised permit is not on the roof but in a different location inside the unit. commissioner hillis: we could revise the original permit to remove the roof deck, put the hot water heater in the unit, and make no rivet -- and take out any revisions. >> that is what my thought was. >> how would we address his desire to have skylights? >> that would require an application for a revised permit. >> mr. duffy. >> on the revision permit, i did not see the skylights. there was an existing skylight on the original permit and it was to be made bigger on the original permit. they did have an existing skylight before this all started, just to point it out. it is really unfortunate that we do not have the revision permits or plans in front of lust. i do not know why they are not here. i have not a clue that was approved. we are talking about something

commissioner fung: perhaps i am too much a traditionalist. this board has always preferred when there was a potential cat x appeal.

commissioner fung: do you want to hear from the property owners? president garcia: i think they are nodding vigorously. >> i am delighted to have the opportunity to work with ms. short and take her advice on what we should do. that would be fine with me. president garcia: i would move that we overturn the department and allow these trees to be removed, with the proviso that either three 24's, if there is enough room, replace these trees, or two 26's -- 36's. the final determination of what is best in terms of species and size rests with the department of public works and the bureau of urban forestry. >> a thank you said two 36 -- i think you said two 36's, but it was not certain that would be practical. president garcia: i know. i wanted to give ms. short the opportunity to agree or disagree with that. >> with the department of public works' discretion. could we leave open all three of those options? there could be two 24's? president garcia: yes. and i have to justify why the trees could be removed? is that the glare from the city attorney? the re

commissioner fung: most columnar trees are fast growers. >> true. i meant there would not the competition. we could get them on in there -- commissioner fung: i understand. president garcia: i have no objection. >> the consulting arborist. i am only here to contribute on a technical level for the replanting. we are prepared to do sidewalk landscaping. that is consistent with the property owner's desire. the 24 inch box i think would be more practical because of the cross slope, the steepness of that street. the soil rootball within the container has a level surface to it. we do not want to bury that down in order to create conformity to the cross slope. it would be harmful to the health of the tree. i would recommend that we go to a 24 inch box size, from a more practical standpoint. president garcia: do you think you could get three of those? >> i am certain two would fit. i am not certain about three. but i think if we had a smaller species -- i am not sure which species we would end up with. with a smaller species, there would be room for closer

commissioner fung: perhaps i am too much a traditionalist. this board has always preferred when there was a potential cat x appeal. president garcia: i guess i could make a difference. we need three votes in order to continue. my feeling is that, i know it is not a city policy, but the cat x issue has to do with state laws. not any thing with the city. it would be one thing, and i regret this, ms. shaw is new to the case, but it seems difficult moments before something is heard before this board, there is an abuse of this process. someone appeals it to the board of supervisors and it prolongs the process. i know what the tradition of this board is. i know what we normally do here. given the statements made by the zoning administrator as to the individuals who dealt with this at the planning level and the fact that category a was taken into consideration by two different people who are skilled in this particular area, i am going to not support a continuance so if someone who wants a continuance wants to make a motion, we will vote on that. >>

commissioner fung: before you vote, may i make a short statement? i am willing to go along with that vote, but the brief and what has been presented does not give me the issues i would normally consider to be pertinent to a jurisdiction request. president garcia: for the benefit of the requestor, it might pay to listen to that comment, because i would agree with that comment, but i'm going to vote yes on the motion. director goldstein: commissioners, shall i can sit -- continue with the roll call? vice-president hon-- vice presit hwang: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. is there a motion to request? commissioner hillis: i will motion to grant the permit. president garcia: how would you describe the different between as granting jurisdiction and not granting jurisdiction, and they would still have the opportunity to lay the file. which is simpler for the department and which is simpler for the requestor? or is there a difference at all? director goldstein: i think there's a difference a few grant jurisdiction over this expired

commissioner fung: miss the was, what is the size of your card? >> is about two and a half feet by 5 ft.. commissioner fung: and as i understand it, you are asking for 6:00 a.m. to 3:00 a.m.? >> i was asking for 24 hours, but at the beginning of the process, a dpw representative went to the police department and came back with a modified time, and i agreed with that. that was the time that was published in the noi and we went forward with it. but i had originally asked for 24 hours. in retrospect, we will probably not use all those hours, only because it is completely dead in the area. from that standpoint, the hours are not set in stone, but we did request 24 hours. and the police department on the 20th, prior to the noi, came back with the modified time. the dpw person talked to me about it and i agreed to modify my time, and we went forward. commissioner fung: the last question is, you indicated you had a considerable amount of expenditures for this. did you purchase the court already -- the cart already before you got the final permits? >> i h

>>commissioner fung: it is out, but not functioning? >> to my knowledge it is not functioning. >> if there are no other questions, i have a question. if we were to grant your permits with the other permits stay out? >> yes, and that is the case even for the wombat is missing the coaxial cable. we asked price for the an extension of that 1-year timeframe. -- we asked twice for the extension of the one-year timeframe. i think we needed an extension of something like five days. it was very minimal. but during the declining of the extension, he did say that we would be allowed to keep the installation up. even as it goes through the pre permitting process. -- epermitting process. correct and if we do not grant you -- commissioner hillis: and if we do not graduate on the permit 10wr-0145, then it will not be permanent? >> i do not know for sure if it is functional right now. everything has been going on completing that. pg&e has been a bit sluggish bring in that -- bringing that. i cannot recall if the jurisdiction request -- it is suspended