we'll do that, starting with the appellant. this is in specific reference to the proposal, 97 minutes of testimony. -- not the 7 minutes of testimony. >> and karen smith, i understand the question is if i would like the permit application to remove or withdraw the location at high street -- at california street. they are withdrawing those locations. >> are you in support of the proposal that the permit be upheld with those two locations being stricken? gosh yes. >> and the other addresses will go forward. nearly 2600 mission -- there is no appeal there. the only appeals are for these two addresses. >> is one permit, the entire permanent was appealed. >> of the way the ordinance was written, one permit can be -- one applicant can file for a permanent has multiple address locations. in this case, there are two addresses under this one permit that is being withdrawn and i agree with that. >> of the appellant for a p.o. #11-114. would you step forward? speaking to the microphone. >> my name is john glenn robinson, and i agree to dro

finally, the appellants will have up to three minutes for a rebuttal. supervisor kim, as the supervisor in whose district this is located, opening comments? why don't we hear from the appellant? >> good afternoon. my name is christine griffith. i am, an attorney here in san francisco. i am representing kss enterprises, the owner of the w hotel in san francisco, the appellant in this case. we challenge the certification of the eir that was adopted by the planning commission to support the expansion of the museum of modern art. although my client support this project in general, they have concerns about the environmental review that was performed, and the process for the product approval. that is the subject of our appeal. we have submitted letters and appeared at all the hearings on the project. you have all the information in front of you in your packets. we are asking today that you send the eir back to planning for revisions to fill in gaps in its original analysis. we have attempted to work with members from the moma to resolve some of the issues rais

the appellant makes no such case. mr. malek provides no evidence any errors were made by the zoning administrator, and he makes no argument but abuse or indiscretion occurred. with the zoning district allows three units, this is legal- nonconformity. most parcels are less dense and contain one or two family homes. this one is difficult to finance or to sell at a price reflecting its true value. more stringent lending rules are in place and reduce the pool of qualified buyers. this is not attributable to the owners. i want to point out a of building was moved there in 1949 from a lot condemned on vermont street to make way for the 101 freeway. it predated the requirements currently required, so the owners but applied for this says variances do not meet requirements for lot size, and the property line also triggers some technical variances for rear yard and usable open space. these conditions meet on the lot. goonote timely appellants in brf was submitted, but he mentioned three bullet points but we address in our response.

we will start with the appellate for appeal #103. president garcia: before we begin, you did not say how everyone gets seven minutes. >> the time is at the board's discretion. she has indicated she would allow them 14 minutes for testimony and six minutes of rebuttal. that time could be adjusted as necessary. vice president garcia: if some of kellan before you has stated most of the fact or the evidence, if you would want us to consider, would you consider not repeating that and not feel compelled to take your entire seven minutes. if it gets too repetitive, we might lose track of the points you're trying to make. thank you. >> good evening. on behalf of the owners and property managers of the location of this. what is particularly striking about this permit is the fact that it is a discretionary permit which is appealable to the board. and yet they fit -- they failed to exercise discretion. that allows the permit holder to fill out the form, pay the fees, and even though a protest hearing was held with all of the objections you're g

including the relatively thin your information presented by the appellants. >> they did not have the report from the expert hired from the appellants around some of the technical issues that they raise? >> that is correct. >> did the commission have some of the information that at&t has on its website regarding coverage? was this something presented the last time this came before the board? we went on the website for at&t and at least what is marketed by at&t to potential customers shows that coverage in the area is pretty adequate. -- was that information presented at or adequate in the presentation? >> it was not. again, besides the general statement that they found this to be necessary, there is nothing specific from an evidentiary standpoint beyond that? >> beyond the materials that i discussed presented by at&t, that was the gist of it. >> let me ask you a couple of questions. it was the issue of the alternative location. was there any analysis of that issue by the commission in terms of the relevance as to whether or not this was necessary? >> they did not discuss it at that he

the appellant is sheila murphy. dba is trabacco ristorante. and 107 is john isaacs, dba as ziggy's burgers. 109 is dba portico restaurant. 112 is carlos aguilar. these are -- the addresses are, protesting the issuance granted. the permit number is -- all nine matters were heard and are on for further continuation. the permit holder was to seek certificate of sanitation for the second street vacation. i am going to give the parties a chance to speak of the wish on that item in particular. starting with the permit holder. two minutes each. the subject is limited to the introduction of new evidence with respect to the certificate of sanitation. >> i did review the issue and read the recorded transcript. i am prepared to listen to today and rule. >> good evening. i submitted a bathroom form. with bk industries. i submitted the bathroom form for this location. i wanted to say that we did not intentionally withholding. it was not my intention to waste your time by having you have to postpone until now. we thought there were separate so we knew we had

commissioner lee: no question with the appellant. no? i have nothing to report other than we filed for the permit a couple days after this hearing in november. commissioner murphy: so isn't planning now? you did not receive the permit? >> yes, we received the permit. commissioner walker: do you want a continuation? >> yes, until we get the permit. commissioner murphy: does anyone know how long this would take? >> we could consider treating both cases similarly, if that is ok with you. commissioner walker: 90 days? commissioner murphy: i am not sure if that is enough, talking about planning. commissioner walker: maybe they could come back in 90 days to let us know. commissioner murphy: second. >> roll-call vote. is the public comment on this item? thank you. we can continue with the vote on the motion. [roll call] the motion carried unanimously. item e. new appeals to orders and abatement. 6755, 336 pear street. seven minutes for the department to speak, seven minutes from the appellant. rebuttal then public comments. >> members of the boa

the appellant has not presented substantial elements to the contrary. appellate clem's this is not accurate because the final expansion design may differ from these dramatic design analyzed in the eir. proposed height, masson, square footage, location, and open space access matched those described and analyzed in the eir. the level of the project description the tilt is typical of eir's prepared in san francisco. the staff considers its sufficient to understand the physical attributes of the proposed museum expansion. the appellate claims that the expense would -- the effect of the east-facing windows of the hotel would be considerable. the question is whether this would adversely affect cnet resources. the eir analyzes the affect on views from a public vantage points, such as your balbuena -- yerba buena gardens. it would not significantly alter public views. the eir discloses the potential for the project to be visible from nearby buildings such as the w hotel. the eir did not find this significant. the client claims that we did not analyze transporta

supervisor wiener: i have a question for the appellants. i think it was more of what you were addressing in terms of capacity and coverage. if you were watching, i offered a conditional opinion that the board adopted which was having an outside expert evaluate the coverage and rely confidentially on at&t's underlying data so we are not being anecdotal about it. i just wanted to raise that. at the end of the last hearing last week, the appellants expressed that they were grateful for that. they would actually get an answer to their question. i am serious to know the appellant response to that and if that would be an appropriate condition here. >> we would be happy to have an independent person. we would like to get a couple of assurances that the expert was independent. that he would not be influenced by the industry. this is a difficult situation. i also want to make sure that if you are looking at old facts, we are a little concerned with the clinic. the director had not been approached as to procedures. sometimes they haveup to 60 people a

i am with the appellants in both consolidated appeals. that would be the golden gate audubon society, waterfront watch, telegraph hill dwellers, and the sierra club. i am not going to use my full 15 minutes. the eir is large. the commentary i have submitted is quite voluminous. i am not planning to try to go through all the details of why we think the eir is defective under ceqa. the amount to highlight a couple of important issues. but also important to the city from the standpoint of legal vulnerability. the first i want to talk about is whether this eir is defined in its own terms as a project eir or program eir. this is an area of the law that is so dense i am not going to try to go through all the legal aspects, but it is very important. when you have a long-term program that is going to have individual projects submitted pursuant to it at a later time, which we have here, ceqa provides a specific mechanism for doing an eir. the consequences of choosing a program eir for the long term development rights granted to the authority here i

president garcia: i respect the appellant for her devotion to this tree. we made the comment last week that no matter how much someone loves a tree, a particular tree or the cities in the city, i don't think that their caring for a tree would ever be greater than that of ms. short's. i think it is unfortunate this tree has to come down but i don't think we've been given any information that would cause us to think that shouldn't come down, and barring any of the other comments, i would move that we uphold the department and deny the appeal. >> president garcia, is that on the basis of the d.p.w. order? president garcia: exactly. thank you. vice president hwang: i think when president garcia stated is consistent with how i would view it, and i agree. i would state for the record that i think the testimony of ms. short is sufficient and compelling in terms of persuading me this is a tree that shouldn't -- that should be removed. commissioner goh: i agree as well. and also thank and spreesht the appellant for her care and concern about this tree and i feel sim

the economy has a lot to do with it. we have heard from one appellant owner that all of the money is made in 1.5 hours. i believe that. it makes sense in this economy. if we were in a fleshy economy, maybe it would be different. maybe there would be enough to go around. i agree with my fellow commissioners that those issues are worth considering. maybe by ceqa, maybe by the dpw hearing officer. the system is set up so that person has some discretion. i believe that person should exercise that discretion. we are able to review. we are able to do that tonight. i agree with my fellow commissioners. is there a motion? >> may i ask a procedural question? president goh: absolutely. >> there are three sites that are listed with this permit a. two are subject to appeal. one is not. i am curious as to whether this action would affect the third address or if we could proceed with the third address and have the permits authorized for that. and have the matters authorized -- the matter is subject to appeal authorized for your process. >> you could sever the third l

president garcia: i don't understand, this gentleman, the appellant, mr. ascarrunz has two permit with, one for 28 and one for 2300 block of mission. so one at 24th and mission and one at 19th and mission. is he in the same -- first of all, is that correct? >> my understanding based upon the description, this peddler's permit was authorized to be on the sidewalk. president garcia: i understand. but does he have two locations, it's a simple question. >> yes. president garcia: one is at 24th and one is at 19th? >> the department has no knowledge of that. let me try to explain this. president garcia: don't do that. what i'm trying to determine is might be in trouble, also, with his -- if he does indeed have a permit at 24th and mission, it's not before us. >> he had a police department permit for 19th and mission which is the 2300 block. that permit under the law doesn't exist anymore. president garcia: i understand that. >> that's the denial before you now. president garcia: i understand that. but what i'm asking is, it's come up tonight he might have a secon

they're always appears to be some confusion, and i will talk to the appellant of this hearing. the notification process is placed on the website for clarity. anyone who wishes to know the information, typically once we provide an e-mail address, we provide notification. as well as anything the department has. there is nothing in the permit. is limited. we had a public hearing on this. it was a evaluated and is determined there was little impact to local merchants. it appears the appellant is more concerned about the quality of life as to the cleanliness, which the department will start addressing moving forward. we believe they have processed this appropriately. >> the permit process is the same as for a food truck now? >> it is the same. >> it is safe to assume they did not consider this to be a proliferation of those types of operations? >> that is correct. we are required to notify businesses within 100 feet, which these mobile businesses would be notified also. >> none of them chose to appeal? >> that is correct. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good evening,

it has to do with the pushcart at the entrance to the appellant building, and if is well separated. i do not see that as an issue, so i moved we deny the appeal based on the things just stated, that i did not find a basis to overturn or to give it a year to see what happens. >> i agree with that. there is a motion on the table. >> we have a motion to deny this appeal and uphold the permit. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. this permit is upheld. >> we are going to take a short break. >> item number 8. jay moses v. the dpw. protesting the issuance on october 27, 2011.

. >> we can hear from the last appellant for appeal 11-112. >> me and my family have on the and operated in mexican restaurant for 23 years. and then clear the long list of the group that has been there. it is and the 300 radius. i like to talk about the restaurant at the brick and mortar building. i employ 15 people the play -- that i pay health insurance had salary that will increase on january 1. the monthly rent averages $13,000 a month. i would like to show you this article dated november 27, 2011 in which the owner of the tempest bar is quoted in saying that the lunch crowd is doubt about 75%. but when food trucks continued to the point of serious concern, this concerns me. a close family friend with a brick and mortar locations. the business was so good, he was making over $1 million a truck. he closed it because it was not beneficial to have those open. not only did affect me and my family, but the employees that i consider my family. we have been serving the financial district for a long time. on behalf of my restaurant, family, and customers, i would ask you to direct to the pu

president chiu: any other members of the public wish to speak on behalf of the appellants? a, at this time, why do we not hear a presentation from the planning department? -- ok. >> i would planning staff. victoria, jessica, rich, and the environmental consulting team. the i come before you is the repeal of the environmental impact report or eir for the proposed america's cup and the cruise terminal and northeast wharf project. the planning commission certified the project in 2011. the board may affirm or reverse the action of the planning commission by a majority vote of all members of the board, and the board shall a from the certification of the final eir if the board finds that the final eir is accurate and objective and that its conclusions are correct. it the board or worse as the planning commission's certification of the eir, it should remain in the final eir to the planning commission for further action consistent with the board fighting. the question at hand is the adequacy of the apartment document according to ceqa, not on the merit of the projects themselves. th

colleagues, any final questions to the appellate? ok. and colleagues, any final questions to any of the parties in today's hearing? seeing none, at this time, the hearing has been held and closed. colleagues, these matters are in the hands of the board. supervisor campos? supervisor campos: thank you very much, mr. president, and once again, i want to thank the parties, the appellate as well as at&t for their presentation and what i think has been a very interesting discussion. i think that -- i know that i speak for many of my colleagues when i say that it's been very difficult and at times frustrating to deal with these kinds of issues. and, you know, for me, one of the things that clearly stands out and not only this discussion relative to this property but different discussions, is that we, as a city, need to find a better way to deal with these issues. and i hope that we have an opportunity to do that because i do believe that it would be important for us to find a different strategy, a different approach, so that there is a more con

since then, there have been three separate appeal memos from the appellant, one on january 17, two yesterday, january 23, and as we receive the latest letter at the close of business, we have just submitted our response memo to the board. we also submitted responses to the dolphins and south and rowing club. -- the south end rowing club. i will not go through each and every one of them, but i will touch on a few that came up during testimony. aquatics park, the issue that the appellants raised is insufficient analysis of the impacts of the jumbotron in a aquatic park. there is concern about increased boat traffic in an aquatic park and the safety to swimmers in the cove. the staff has analyzed impacts on water quality, air quality, nor is, hazards, and recreation, and they are all covered in the eir -- air quality, nor is, hazards, and recreation. -- air quality, noise. sediment due to the type of moorings and the flashing in the cove, the use of fuel for generators must comply with requirements for secondary containment and spill prevention. the generators would only be used during events,

i want to thank the appellant. those permits were issued by the police department. we will be following the merchants themselves and reaffirmed that their requirements under public works , which include managing customers as well as cleanup requirements as established under loughnelaw. this is to be located across the street. let me provide a diagram. as you can see, the card was plays approximately two and a half feet away from the curved line. there is a seven-foot path awaw. and we will be directing the applicant to make sure they have aldina line that runs along the street to prevent blockage of the sidewalk. moving forward, we do understand the arguments. in this specific case, there is no blockage of the sidewalk. it satisfies our conditions. the merchants have a very limited menu. there were no objections except for this specific appellant. we did a evaluate it. we have informed the applicant there is a limited number of days they are allowed to operate, and they were given a 60-day window to inform us, which they did in providing the opportunity to do the ma