commissioner hwang: so how does the rectangle work? commissioner fung: commissioner hwang, if you take a rectangular cutout out of the permit holder on the triangle, it will make it bigger than what they are proposing to match, and that is what they would prefer. commissioner hwang: okay, and that would be slightly less than the 5 foot setback? commissioner fung: potentially. >> we would prefer the 5 foot setback, but we realize that has to be some compromise. that would be our compromise. >> the 5 foot setbacks would take up 65 square feet of the footprint. if they matched the light well, it would be a tunnel of fact. if they come back 5 feet and give us anything, square, rectangle, anything that gives light to those veterans, -- to those veterans, -- to those bedrooms. president peterson: let's hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, madame president, and members. i know it is late into the night. i am here to speak on behalf of the permit holders and the architect. at this point i will cut to the chase. i think we have had goo

commissioner hwang: thank you. commissioner garcia: i am sure you are aware the reason for my question was hopefully to avoid -- if this decision was avoidable to go against the appellant to avoid grounds for rehearing. in your opinion, have all the necessary papers that the appellant would need in order to proceed with this case -- in her hands? available to her? >> yes. i believe the appellate submitted in their brief, which was filed late on friday the ninth -- they send an e-mail to me on thursday morning at 9:47 a.m. requesting the file. i responded at 11:51 a.m. to tell them the file would be available for them to respond to their questions. that file was available for them. i have evidence they did come in and review the docket on july 12, monday july 12. that is what they have asked of me. this is an appeal that was filed several months ago. the first request and received, to my knowledge, was the state. commissioner garcia: thank you. president peterson: we will take public comment. are there members of th

hwang? >> aye. >> the vote is 2-3 so absent another motion, the department files. [inaudible] commissionter fung: i'll move and we'll see where this flies. that we overrule the department on the condition that two 24-inch box trees could be selected in consultation with the department be planted. vice president goh: i have a question i guess for the appellant . could you approach? how wide is your property? >> oh, i think it's 25 feet, the standard. commissioner hwang: is there a driveway? >> no. commissioner garcia: maybe you would want to phrase your motion, commissioner fung, to state that you move we accept dr. kantor's offer to put in two replacement trees? commissionter fung: i thought that's what i said. commissioner garcia: i apologize, i thought you said we require that. >> so there's another motion on the floor. we'll call that motion, mr. pacheco, when you're ready. commissioner hwang: may i amend the voluntary offer that the leak will be repaired? that i would -- we moo move -- t

commissioner hwang: got it. do you know what happened, based on your discussion, whether any attempts were made to get to this fourth column, a possible remedy? >> no, i do not believe so. in march of this year, sally's hands were both bandaged from surgery she had experienced. she was not in a position to be putting a lot of energy into resolving the problems that may occur with mr. wermer's remodel. she wants to correct situations that exist on her property. she now has an nov to act on. that is what she is trying to act on. commissioner hwang: thank you. president peterson: mr. kornfield? >> i have only to add that in exhibit a, where it is talking about the location on property in the description of property, this is not the assessment for the reported property description. this is a property description put together and signed by the property owners. it may or may not reflect the actual property line of these buildings. president peterson: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner

commissioner hwang: mr. kornfield, can you address the allegations and the photograph that say the buildings have been open to the elements? i think we have heard for 18 months. >> i have seen only the documents you have. hopefully the permit holder will resolve that, but i don't have any personal knowledge. commissioner hwang: your inspectors, with the address that situation if the skylights were open to the elements and the windows were in fact open? >> if that were to be the case, typically we would say you have to protect the property. we don't let people maintain a property open to the weather conditions. vice president goh: okay, thank you. >> thank you. president peterson: is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> hi, i'm elizabeth. my family owns 2512, which is next to 2513. this is my daughter. we are next to the subject house we are talking about. my family bought the house in 1986, and our parents have been living there since then. i come here tonight to tell you how shocke

commissioner hwang: thank you. nothing further. commissioner garcia: i will start, because i think mr. hallinan jr., and i mean that respectfully, suggested that the brief they had submitted dealt with the issues, first of the deadline, january 21, 2009 deadline, whether that had been breached and whether the zoning administrator had acted properly when he later -- and all of this has been confused by the fact we have had two letters of determination. it is unfortunate in happened, but it happened. iso i think the board is thoroughly dealt with the issue of whether the deadline had been met, the question about whether they could have -- tracked this. even though they had a threatening letter from public justice, they could have gone ahead and applied and not open their m.c.d. until that threat had been updated. then we got into the issue of even if they were still alive, because of these extraordinary circumstances, the government all action that was beyond their control, did abandonment happened? i think we went to that fairly and

commissioner hwang: oh, right. commissioner goh: because the medical meld they have to go back to the bottom of the waiting list. exempt for this pilot program where they could be sold. commissioner fung: yeah. president peterson: so, commissioners, shall we call the roll on this motion in commissioner garcia: i would like to amend that if president peterson would consider that. since this board can't impose a fine, unless i misunderstood, i thought an offer had been made to accept or offer this board a payment of $1,425. i don't know if i misheard that along with the motion by professor -- professor? -- president peterson that she would accept also the imposition, the acceptance of an offer to pay the $1,425 fine. president peterson: in addition to the revocation? >> commissioner garcia: right. i don't think we put a time limit on the revocation. a year? i'm sorry, on the suspension. president peterson: that sounds fine. >> there is a regents case where there was a 60-day suspension. i found the facts were more ee

it commissioner hwang: ms. wuerfel, i have a question about your attempt to communicate with the permit holder spree -- permit holders. in your brief, you have stated that you along with neighbors attended two meetings in 2007 with brand new plants and then the owners applied for a site permit in september, which is currently in the process of being withdrawn. in november, 2008, they moved out. have you had any communication with the property owners? >> no, since they put in their site plans in 2007, all of that was a shock to us. there has not been any communication. even when they moved out. commissioner hwang: what at times have you made, if at all? >> we are available any time. i don't knock on their door and say what are you doing with your plans? i expect them to send notice to the neighbors, and we have attended each and every invitation. but i don't that is appropriate for me to knock on the door and ask when they're getting around to their plans. commissioner hwang: okay, thank you. president peterson:

commissioner hwang: i understand. it's not me and the appellant gets everything day are asking. -- it does not mean the appellant gets everything they are asking for. commissioner fung: let me expand. during the course of both presentations, i was thinking about, on what basis are we going one way or another? in this particular instance, when it is fairly complicated, we are dependent upon the building department and its staff to be able to be the eyes and the arbiter of what is co- mandated. -- code-mandated. therefore, we are dependent upon them, and i think we would ask for their input into this process. which then means that it will probably be a descriptive process rather than a straight line process. because as they go through these things, other things would come up, other things that would require some type of arbiter, and that would beat the inspector. my point is i believe the department, of course, has responsibility for reviewing all construction to be in conformance. we could ask mr. kornfield to request

commissioner hwang: is that part of your record? >> yes, but i did not submit all the e-mails to you. commissioner hwang: so the request is documented? >> yes. it is all in writing. they did nothing. they say they do not even know today's hearing. president peterson: does that answer the question? commissioner hwang: it answers my question, thank you. president peterson: now we can go to your three minutes of the bottle. >> i believe the permit holder is the owner. she does not live there. she does not really know what is going on with the tenants. this architect for this project -- you really do not know what they are doing until today. we suppose you have a plan for me and you to review. nothing is presented. after 11 revisions you do not really know what they are doing. maybe you think it is ok, our rights being taken away, as long as the planning and building said the project was okay. at least you asked them to build a wall, a fire wall to protect our safety and privacy. one of the times in the previous denials by the city, the

commissioner garcia: commissioner hwang, did you want to go? commissioner hwang: my main concern here is the financial strain and the fact that these nov's were due to complaints. this is a family that is trying to fix their house. at the complaints of the appellant, notwithstanding the fact that it is really hard to tell exactly what this is going to look like, i think there should have been a different level of review on notice. but i am not inclined to continue. in fact, i am inclined to let the permit proceed. the economic issues are really pressing here. this was done because there were required to do them. the department has weighed in on them. i feel comfortable with that. commissioner garcia: i at first had thought that some of this was over the counter because there were life safety issues. i cannot claim to know enough or to have enough experience to know whether or not it is the regular the way these permits were issued. maybe it is unusual. it might even be a regular. i have no feeling about that. i was a little confused about what

commissioner hwang: ms. short, i'd like to hear replanting of more, not the baby trees but do you ever have replantings with more mature trees and is that an effective sort of alternative? >> we do. and generally, there is some evidence that younger trees will establish more quickly than larger trees when -- and the larger the tree, the more root system you need to be able to transplant so your transplant success, particularly if you're digging up a tree can go down the larger it is because you're less likely to get the full root system. having said that, planting larger boxed trees that have been grown in containers has been successful and we will often require it at our hearings if there's a particularly large tree that's being removed and especially if there's a neighborhood concern that they're losing that benefit and that tree. so it is certainly possible to put in larger box sizes. they would require a little bit more additional water and care to ensure that they don't go into transplant shock. but whe

commissioner hwang: this is clear. i would definitely denied the appeal. vice president goh: i would agree. to have this come back, it is difficult. however, i was looking forward to hearing about this from commissioner front note -- commissioner fung, so we will hold off. commissioner fung: do you want me to sound like a cricket? i did want to raise a few technical points to make sure that we are fully cognizant of what the implications are. a korea it is defined as utilization of some type of material to create positive drainage, and it is usually set at different elevations. whereas, as was also mentioned by mr. kornfield, the other is a same size. this is where this provides the appropriate "-- . angle within the limits of its capabilities. but it took me a little while to figure out that this was the case. what happened is that they added all of the roof drains, and that is a long way to drape across. the roof framing -- a long way to drain across. the gable. the problem is is if you go back into the actual definition of what either party said, the ap

commissioner hwang: i do have one question. up said one of the three arguments for the position you all are are taking is that the m.t.a. never reached out to you and put anything on the table. did you go to them and put anything on the table? >> yes. we went to them four or five different times during the course of this and yes. we had discussions. and they were unwilling to discuss anything other than rev okation of -- rev okation of at least the color scheme. commissioner hwang: did you talk penalties with them? >> we did not get into -- um, i'm not sure. and i'm not -- you know, i'm also sort of, i guess in the back of my mind very aware of restrictions about talking about settlement talks because -- commissioner hwang: right. i wasn't talking about numbers but just what was on the table. generalities. it sounds like rev okation was but not necessarily penalties. >> right. that's true. president peterson: is there anybody here who would like to speak under public comment? please step forward. you can line up there against t

commissioner hwang: i think while it's not well liked here is a competitive nature and not the issue we're supposed to be addressing today and whether there was proper notice and whether you came as quickly as you could to address the situation. i think it is very confusing about the letter determination on april 8. i don't know how anybody interested in the city is supposed to guess if it's going to impact their particular neighborhood, and i agree with your frustration. my only problem, though, is you're certainly aware the shop is coming to the fillmore street and should you come to the board then, i would have been a bit more sympathetic to the tardy of notice. so i think i would only support an opening of the jurisdiction if it were done on an expedited basis because i do think you're now putting athleta at a disadvantage. they are allowed to rely on these deadlines and we're now into late july, now two months you've known about this. this is where i'm coming down with this. commissioner garcia: i agree more with president peterson than the comments made by the other commissione

commissioner hwang aye. the boat is 421. president peterson: we have no further business this evening. we are adjourned. . >> forgot no. 2. silver is nothing. there is no having made it and so we beat foreman. i love the competition. . >> american made has really taken it on themselves to green american cities. >> we have a new organizer for the city and county of san francisco. oh, mayor as well. yeah, that's part of the job description. yeah, mayor of san francisco. >> the city is extremely concerned about the emission of green house gasses and making san francisco a sustainable city. >> we need to find other ways to create energy without harm to the environment and this is one source. >> we have over 2 megawatts of solar on various city buildings. we are looking at tidal power and we're beginning to look at geothermal power. >> we're on the roof of the moscone center of san francisco and we have 2500 panels that power the center. >> here we are using real energy, energy from the sun, free energy from the sun coming in rig

tanya pettersson and joining her is joining vice-president goh, commissioner fung and commissioner hwang. we have some representatives from city departments such as the deputy director of building inspection. also the acting zoning administrator representing the planning commission and planning department. please go over the ft meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board request that you turn off all phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the permit holders and respondents have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must complete their comments within the seven minute time period. members of the public for not affiliated have up to three minutes each. to assist the board, members of the public who wish to speak on a particular item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to forward -- to board staff. we also welcome your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction forms on the left part of the podium. if you have questions about

commissioner hwang: i think while it's not well liked here is a competitive nature and not the issue we're supposed to be addressing today and whether there was proper notice and whether you came as quickly as you could to address the situation. i think it is very confusing about the letter determination on april 8. i don't know how anybody interested in the city is supposed to guess if it's going to impact their particular neighborhood, and i agree with your frustration. my only

commissioner hwang: no. >> there is no further business before the board this evening. vice president olague: we are having technical difficulty folks, so i apologize, once we resolve it we will start the meeting. clerk: good afternoon, this is the regular meeting of the san francisco planning commission for thursday july 22nd, 2010. prior to taking roll let me just make a couple of announcements. we ask that it's very important that you not engage in secondary discussions while in this room. if you feel the need to do so go outside with those discussions. they become extremely disruptive to the process, the whispers all of that take them outside please. also turn off your cell phones your pagers any electronic devices that may sound off during the proceedings. the commission will not tolerate disruptions of any sort including clapping yelling cheering, speaking out of order etc. roll call -- [ roll call ] clerk: and congratulations commissioners moore and suggest guy ya on your reappointment and swearing in today. [ roll call ] clerk: president miguel is absent today c

commissioner hwang: aye. >> it is overturned. president peterson: moving on to item 8. colorado that item, please. . call that timeimtem, please. >> the property is 2311 california st.. it protests the issuance on may 24, 2010 to alter a building. >> this is a representative of the appellant. >> good evening. i am here on behalf of paul wermer. i am here with the project architect. the contractor is also available to answer questions. this in my opinion is an extremely unique set of facts. it is one of those situations that certain things -- we have two adjoining buildings, where one building, ms. unterberger's building, get structural support from the other building. we did not know that intel the remodel. it was a perfect stone. it revealed that things ms. unterberger had done it -- her building is attached structurally to the upper level to paul and carol's house. this is about a permit for work that was issued without plans. dbi began -- there was much made by paul in his reply belief -- his reply brief. we believe the issue with the plans is what is appropriate in

commissioner hwang: is the house uninhabitable? >> pi clients are leaving -- are living in the house. they are watching the dishes -- washing the dishes in the bathroom. president peterson: mr. paul? >> thank you, president peterson. jeremy paul for sally unterberger. this is not an appeal of a faulty notice of violation. this is an appeal of a permit issued to comply with the notice of violation. that notice of violation does not talk about the plumbing intrusions at the lower bathroom. none of the light well issues that mr. kornfield was addressing are part of this notice of violation. we have a clear notice of violation. i did not have the detailed scope of work from the contractor because reading the note of violation it seems pretty clear to me the task list defines the specific things mentioned here. this building inspector knew exactly what he was citing and knew exactly what was needed to comply with this. they're very well may be other issues elsewhere in these houses. there is no question that there are. this is what thes

joining her is vice-president kendall goh, commissioner fung, commissioner garcia, and commissioner hwang. i am cynthia bold scheme, the board's executive director. we have some representatives from the various departments this evening. we have laurence kornfield, scott sanchez, acting zoning administrator, representing the planning department and planning commission. and jarvis murray is here representing the san francisco department of transportation. at this time, if you could please go over the boards leading guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all funds, beepers, and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, have seven minutes to present their cases, three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with the parties must include their comments in these times and members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, members of the publi

commissioner hwang: no. >> there is no further business before the board this evening. government television. >> good afternoon. everyone hear me all right? ok. i will try to talk loud, but sounds like the mikes are working. thanks for coming, everybody. welcome to the new great valencia street. i'm the director of public works in san francisco. it is a great honor to be here with you and all of the great folks we have around us. it is great to be here on a great day for the mission district, a great day for the ci city. the san francisco department of public works at the mayor's direction was able to secure $6.1 million, $5.3 million of which was federal funds, to make this project happen. i do want to acknowledge the u.s. department of transportation, the metropolitan transportation commission and county transportation authority for helping funnel that money from washington, d.c. right here to the streets of san francisco. as big and great as this new street is for san francisco -- and it is great -- it just yet another chapter in an ongoing narrative about our open s