president garcia: thank you. i'm not sure that was her intent. i think she was talking up ranting jurisdiction on 156. and the appellant would have an opportunity on that anyway because there will be notification on the new permits. ibacks item she was talking about 145. >> she stipulated 145. >> 145 was brussels. >> 156. 156 is a moot point, but it is still unclear to me if they -- if it is still active president garcia: i think it is expired. >> i do not understand why is even before us if it is expired. commissioner fung: permit #145 located at 644 morse street was an approved permit. what happened was that next g is stipulating that they agreed to jurisdictional request for that is a vacation. the other location is 145, which is at 43 bustles -- 43 brussels. that expired because they failed to renew in a timely manner. it will have to go three reapplication process, which will undergo article 25. i'm not sure what the commissioner's decision is on this given that the permit has expired. it is invalid. preside

president garcia: 2 minutes. director goldstein: the president has said it two minutes. >> my name is linda. i live in the hall next to the one that the equipment installed in front of. i want to echo my neighbors sentiment that this is definitely not wanted in our neighborhood. this is a very residential area where there is an elementary school half a block away. there are young children walking by every day. the fact that we were not notified and we were not able to appeal in a proper time frame because we were not notified in the original -- at the original point. we would like to respectfully urge you to allow us to do so. director goldstein: if you would not mind filling out a speaker cards. >> sure. president garcia: miss ernst, would you come up to the microphone, please? it certainly makes the decision for the board easier if you stipulate to granting jurisdiction on the first one. but i do not think you are accurate when you state that this board has in every case when a 11.09b is ruled that we have gran

president garcia: how much would you propose? commissioner fung: i would say probably a foot, foot and a half. commissioner hillis: i guess my only issue on that would be that the light well adjacent to the double doors -- i get the point that it starts to impede into this 2 foot 10 area. would you be able to set that back? would you be able to set that back? i do not know if we can do that. they need the space for egress. commissioner fung: we can ask the building department. i am not sure i agree with her interpretation, to see that as the required egress. >> i did hear that comment. the the 6 inches, when we are talking clear with -- 36 inches seems narrow. 36 inches, in this case, is usually ok. that is from what i remember. i would go between the post and the corner wall. it looks like it has got plenty of room, if that is what we are talking about. commissioner fung: if the door shifts, it probably improves that. >> we do not need the double leaf. i do see one other issue with regards to it. the door swings over the step. t

president garcia: is that very burdensome? i am not sure how i am going to vote on this. >> i have to pull the railing in and maybe it is 6 inches. i do not know how much that helps the light come through. president garcia: thank you. >> nothing on the south rail? commissioner fung: 1.5. >> the motion is to grant this appeal, uphold the permit, with the following conditions -- that the gas grill be relocated to the west wall of the penthouse, that the real to the north be reduced up to 1 foot 6 inches or less, up to the point where legal egress can be maintained, and that the south rail be moved the same 1 foot 6 inches. commissioner fung: for the portion that is adjacent to the light well. >> adjacent to both like wells? -- light wells? commissioner fung: yes. >> we need four votes for these conditions to stick. president garcia: before i will vote, if i may make a comment -- look how many people came here this evening because of this. if ever you are involved in some project again, invite the people to your house so they can

president garcia: thank you. >> good afternoon, president garcia and members of the board. we are working with the project sponsor in the response to this appeal. you heard from ms. shaw yesterday. she recently got into this case but there is a lot of history. on february 7, the appellate filed a lawsuit about an easement that they do not have property -- on our property that they do not have it jurisdiction over. they do not have a prescriptive easement and we will prove that in court. up to the time they file the lawsuit today, they could have gone to court for an injunction, which would have included you having to hear this hearing. an injunction would be the probability of proving the prescriptive easement. at had six or seven weeks to do that and they have not done it. on february 3, the permit was issued an the categorical exemption was issued and i think is probably very relevant to show you that categorical exemption. here it is. there is the front page. if you take a look, by the way, the planner is elizabeth wattey, a very capable and experienced environmental pla

president garcia: president garcia: we have got to lead this out of the wilderness. commissioner hillis: normally, when there is a revision permits, is that appealable? >> normally. and this one would have been as well. normally, when a matter has been before the board, as you alluded to before -- president garcia: we created that complexity. when the parties came before us, they said they would remove the roof deck. we told them they need a revision. i will not add any comment. commissioner hillis: i would support of holding the original permit but removing the roof deck, the water heater from the roof, and any modifications to the skylight, which i do not think was part of the original permit. commissioner fung: it is. the original says replace and resize the skylights. commissioner hillis: i would say we remove that from the original permit. commissioner fung: i think there is some rationale for that. this could be a civil case given some of their disagreements. if we remove the skylight, it removes one issue would be a deterrent -- which would be determined by th

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 reason is they provide a hazard to the safety of one of the residence in terms of nuts dropped from the tree that make it difficult to work on the street. the present a hazard in terms of the fact that there are trucks that travel on that street and have on occasion made contact with the branches, and possibly with the trunk. therefore, because of those safety reasons, we are overturning the department. >> the motion is to grant this appeal, overruled the denial, and issue the permit, on condition the replacement be either two 36 inch box trees, three 24 inch box trees, or two 24 inch box trees. the size and the species are up to the department of urban forestry. commissioner fung: aye. v

president garcia: sa

president garcia: this is the bedroom? >> that is my sequence. >> we have three minutes of rebuttal now for the permit holder. if you have anything more. commissioner fung: this is from the permit? >> we do not have any notes that say we are going to burn food on the roof. what we do have is a picture of a gas grill with a lid on it. and notes about how far that has to be from the property line to ventilate properly. most of these gas grills have these hoods on them. i do not understand how that is when to affect these rooms. privacy wise, we are standing even further away from the railing the new would be. and it sounds like the bedroom is the point of concern for privacy. unless you are going to stand on top of the grill, how are you going to see into this room? we are not putting a deck on the back of that roof. the plans that she references for the resale of the home -- they did not show a deck on the back of the roof. they showed how you could add a roof deck exactly where i am adding this roof deck. the only intent o

president garcia: reduce or eliminate? commissioner fung: i do not think he will be able to eliminate it. president garcia: can there be a combination where a burden is borne within the building to get the walked down to what is accepted by the city. what is it? 5%? 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

president garcia: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the permit is upheld with all those conditions and that finding. thank you. >> we can move on to item eight, appealed number 12-005. the property is at 2754 through 2756 beckers street, protesting the issuance to kevin robinson and jake vink a permit to alter a building -- wide in a garage door, reconfigure walls at back of a garage, electrical upgrade for condo conversion, new insulated windows at sides and rear, remodeled kitchen and bath, add new bath, and refurbish existing penthouse. we'll start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, members of the board. my name is jeff -- is geoff wood. hopefully, we have an easier appealed to figure out here. the permit holder wants to do mostly a lot of interior work, which we do not have any real objection to. "we are concerned about is the -- what we are concerned about is the plan for the roof deck. by way of introduction, we did try to meet with the permit holder before finding the appea

president garcia: i think it would be as simple as calling the board, if it turned out you needed extra time. >> i want to make it clear to everyone involved in this case that you also need to provide copies of your material to other parties at the same time provide them to the board. >> thank you. >> we need a motion. commissioner fung: i am going to move to continue this case to may 9. >> with the additional briefing as described. >> on that motion -- and again, it is to allow time for the permit holder to pursue other proposals. president garcia: aue/ -- aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the boat is -- vote is 4-0. >> ribble colorado item 6, reuter versus the department of public -- we will call item 6, roy versus the department of public works, appealing the denial of a permit to remove and replace two trees. we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> i wanted to make a request to change the order slightly. we had clearly mistakenly had the impression we w

president garcia: you talk about the flue. that could be -- that could not be removed because it is serving -- >> the furnace and hot water heaters. president garcia: very difficult. but could it be rerouted? >> i believe so. president garcia: that is not of itself prohibitive? >> we could move it. president garcia: i am not sure i understand with your point about the reason for the wall is within 10 feet of a new staircase being built at the permit holder's property, and if that staircase would be moved in some direction -- what would the distance be that would have to be moved to obviate the need for this wall? >> about 3 feet. it would line up with the rest of the stair. this particular portion only serves the deck to the third floor. the stair in their design moves to the west, in line with a spot that would not affect the windows of 2323. i am not sure why the stair takes the job. i am hoping to find out from the architect. president garcia: for the wall to be built, that would obviously cover the door you indicated at th

president garcia: could you please give your name. >> i am ryan soriano on behalf of the permit holder of. we addressed in the brief that this appeal has not, as the president suggested, focus on any issues of a practical matter that affect this project's impact on the neighbor. this is an urban setting. people have the right to do construction projects and the city has a procedure for making sure that things are done in a reasonable manner in and protect the rights of the german border as well as others who neighbor of the permit holders project a. everybody in san francisco deals with the noise and annoyance of a nearby construction projects. it is a temporary thing and there are procedures to make sure it is not unduly burdensome. this appeal does not focus on that. it focuses mostly on a roof deck, which is not going to happen. and then it focuses on the lot numbers. he had just to be clear, any concerns on the roof deck are moved. -- are moot. he attempted to put a sinister spin on our attention t

president garcia: nor do i. but i do wish we had the entire scope of the product in front of us rather than this piece. i do not really think this is a spite wall but part of a future project. i guess it is more about that easement than it is about the wall. at any rate, i moved that we all hold the permit and deny the appeal. based on the fact that this wall is code complianct and no evidence was presented to cause us to overturn the permit. >> we have a motion from the president to deny this appeal, of all the permit on the basis that it is code compliance and no evidence was presented to cause the board to overturn. on that motion -- commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. the vote is 4-0. this permit is upheld on that basis. thank you. >> good morning, everybody. i am the manager -- we will kick it off first with a message from our cities librarian. the director of the san francisco library system. [applause] >> thank you. this is fantastic. good morning to everybody. i a

president garcia: please. >> president garcia and members of the board, i am the permit applicants. we prepared an alternative design for a worked sidewalk as per the board's request and provided a split level sidewalk previously submitted to you. we submitted the drawing to the department of public works on february 21 for their review. the drawing -- i am showing a drawing now of a proposed design for a worked sidewalk. -- a warped sidewalk. there is a five-inch step at each of the store entrances, hear, hear, and here. -- here, here, and here. this step was lowered from 9 inches to 5 inches. at 11 comment street, there would be a four-inch round inside of the store as well as a landing at the store entrance to. my clients have advised me that they prefer the proposed warped sidewalk option because of the members concerns and their own tents concerns. i have prepared cost estimates, as you requested. both for the split level sidewalk and for the warped sidewalk. as you can see, the cost differential is fairly minimal. it also explains the sources we had for the estimates. there is

president garcia: why does that require a variants? >> because the property encroach on the existing rear yard. there are no pending building permits at this time. this is the most recent building permit. this is the only pending case for entitlement that we have at this time. there would be another building permit that would be required in order to implement the variants that was filed. 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 n

president garcia: those are the last hours we had. thank you. >> [inaudible] president garcia: it might be the other microphone? >> in this specific case, it was very telling. it is starting to make sense. what happened was, the individual that initially started the process left. that was one of those situations where things were less well documented. as were we to investigation and follow-up on this. one of the challenges that we continue to face is that this came at the beginning of the program. it started in march, when the notice that we sent out was in june of the same year that was almost immediately at the time of the application. we contacted the police department, and they knew specifically what the intent was. the language that was in the new legislation came directly from the police. again, as it relates to ours, there were objections as it relates to the hours of operation. we contacted the police department, the continued to say that it was not appropriate. in the meantime, we did the notificationte that next step, d have