kwong, in his papers, the appellant, mr. ooper, raised the issue, or maybe it was a neighbor, but whenever, in had to do with the fact that this neighborhood, as i am sure most neighborhoods would be desirous to have an underground wiring, for the wires in their neighborhood. the fact that this equipment on these polls, is that in any way prejudice the ability? >> absolutely -- actually not. as was stated, they are a utility company. it is subject to all regulations pertaining to undergrounding, then they must remove it and have the undergrounded. president garcia: could it be said that this is a great disadvantage, and even if the neighborhood is willing to raise the money, but we cannot let you because there is a necessity for this equipment, and we would have nowhere else to put it? >> there would be no bearing in determination by the city on what districts should be undergrounded. that is correct. president garcia: thank you. ? president garcia: just two people? three people? speak now or forever hold your peace. tw minut

i would like to ask up representatives of the appellant. i understand the first presenter for the appellants will be our former city attorney will be the former city attorney, and it is good to see you. you may begin. >> thank you, president chu. in san francisco resident. we thank you for hearing these appeals. we believe that pahang -- we believe that the waterfront is at stake. we will show you with this appeal is all about. >> what you are about to see is professional video, prepared for the planning department to show what the project would actually look like, from the waterfront. it was included in the final comment responses. here we are, in front of the building, walking along the embarcadero. the tower is the golden gate with apartments. 70 feet in the fraud -- in the front, and it requires extraordinary bonuses. a 200% increase in the bulk of the building. a football field across. so developers can build 134 luxury condominiums, and this tower in the back would be 80 feet higher than the old embarcadero. this is what it looks like

i would like to ask up representatives of the appellant. i understand the first presenter for the appellants will be our former city attorney will be the former city attorney,

ruan hear from the appellate. please step forward. you will have seven minutes. >> you have to pull the microphone down to yourself. >> good evening. my name is maria cartagena and i am here for the resolution about my appeal. >> did you have any comments to make about the penalty? >> yes, because i have to pay nine times for the violation. i have to pay nine times. if you can remove the penalty for me. >> y de want us to reduce the penalty? -- why do you want us to reduce the penalty? >> when i bought the house, it had a bathroom downstairs. this is the reason i bought it because we live up and down. this happened because my kids laughed -- left and i rent the apartment downstairs. i do not have any idea. >> you save this worked happen before you bought the house? >> yes. >> anything else? thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners, the department received a complaint on the 10th of january 2011. mold is on clothing. we issued a notice of violation from housing inspection. then we have the first notice of violation, some correspondence

the comment from the applicant -- i mean, the appellant. as it relates to as fedex. they can be addressed in this -- as the relates to esthetics. they can be addressed in the future. planning will need to evaluate and make findings of this facility upon renewal. when they renew under article 25. planning might impose additional conditions. we do not know that at this point. moving forward, it is possible. as it relates to the confusion, it appears the letter dated august 25, 2010 refers to one antenna. at some point, between august to january, unchanged from one antenna to to antennas. -- a change from one antenna to two antennas. the second case was also appropriate. that is where the confusion lies. right now, the permits were issued under administrative code. upon renewal, up one falls under article 25, there'll be additional reviews from the plant -- from the planning department given that it is in a residential zone. unless they change equipment, the health department has reviewed and determined that it is correct and appropriate. it has satisfied the fcc regulat

i agree with the appellant, it does not look appealing compared to the ones on the web site. why does it have to look like this? >> because it is a utility pole attachment. when you attach to a utility pole, you use a certain type of configuration to meet the coverage objective. they are very low powered as well, but a different frequency. it covers in a different way. when you attach to street lights, which is the allowance and francisco, you have to fabricate the antenna in a different way. when we see transformers -- >> she showed us this equipment attached to label. >> of the picture was a street light that was fabricated securely with an antenna to be part of one unit as a new pole into the public right-of-way rather than attaching to an existing pool. -- pole. it's not allowed in san francisco. anything else? president garcia: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. in our brief, we stated that there were some sort of argument stating as it relates to the notification of these facilities, it was applied prior to the adoption. it would require me to process the spermi

one last point, the appellant has expressed numerous concerns about the eir not addressing whether or not support is obligated to provide parking to them. that is not an eir issue. that is a legal issue. what is the parking supply? what is the parking demands? is there a surplus? who benefits from the parking? that is important but not eir issues. they address the particular issues. >> they have to lay out the regulatory regimes that impact these projects. everything we are doing right now are regulatory questions that impact these projects, and the fact they did not disclose the city's obligations under this agreement seems problematic. >> the eir is obligated to talk about the approval process. this is a contract issue. it is not indicated in the approval. it is a contract issue. they agree this is a legal issue for the parties to work out but not an er issue. >> thank you for your presentation. give one question but was raised i found intriguing was the relevance of prior eirs. we were talking about the 1970's, which was a long time ago. i have a question. what is the resonance of

we will start with the appellant, mr. cincotta. you have seven minutes. >> hello, my name is david cincotta. i am here on behalf of the family. as i mentioned in my brief, i will not try to cover everything, but he bought the property at 1864 in 1868. this was for his entire family to live, at three of his daughters. the first thing i want to say is that i am only going to talk about this permits and the safety issues with regard to this permit. i am not going to talk about another lawsuit. it is true that they did file a lawsuit against my client. this case has nothing to do with this one. nothing that happens in that case will affect that permit. they are totally unrelated. the only issue i am here talking about is safety issues. because i am not in the practice of filing spurious appeals, before i file this appeal i contacted the building inspection and talk to the inspector to find out what was going to happen with this permit. a conversation i had was not reassuring. it was his understanding that the work had already been done

seeing none, why don't we move to the final rebuttal by the appellant? you have up to six minutes to be divided as you see fit. >> thank you. good evening. i am still here representing the ferry building. let me address the eir. it is an informational document. the eir remains inadequate, inaccurate, and incomplete. i will not repeat the point i made earlier. there were some things that the public said that came to remind me that there are some very important issues that were not well-addressed in the eir. the northeastern waterfront study is cited liberally as a basis for recommendations and decisions. as if it were, in fact, a regulatory document. for example, it is the reason for narrowing drum st. this stands in stark contrast to what the city has been arguing in another lawsuit, which is filed by the telegraph hill dwellers, among others. it is the northeastern embarcadero study, not regulatory, has no force, is merely suggestive. that is contrary to the manner in which the planning department and planning commission have treated the northeastern and

the appellate court is just another type of jury, right? the supreme court is a very different kind of jury because the supreme court, and having only had one case before them, i learned very quickly that president -- precedent is not as important as the justices, who will decide what the law is. they will change what the lot is if they get a majority of their sisters and brothers to go along with it. to have a jury made up of diverse cultural views and understanding only makes us a stronger society. so i think -- i personally think it is a good thing. i do not think you ever separate your life from what you do. your personal experiences -- some of the personal experiences i talked about tonight shaped my life, and i think they are important parts of the decision- making process in may, that they did not overwhelm -- but they do not overwhelm the legal obligations i have in the case. >> i am going to ask a different kind of question, which is -- do you see the difference between the idea of a constitutional democracy, which is a term you hav

that was always -- had always been and will always be open to the appellant. >> that would require an inspection. >> in terms of what kind of partners -- we can get into the specifics of what we're looking for. >> not necessarily right now. there is no time limit their like it would be for building permit if one was to come back with the same project, they would be prohibited from applying within the 1-year time frame? >> not that i'm aware of. >> ok. president hwang: thank you. we will take public comment. is there any member of the public would like to speak? employes and others who are affiliated with the parties should not speak at this time. >> commissioner, i am chairman of the [inaudible] association. former police and park commissioner. asking you today to consider to grant a rehearing. there are enough evidence to prove that mr. lei has completed the violation. he did try to call the inspector to come down to meet inspection but could not get him. but left a message in chinese. mr. lei because of a language problem when down to the abatement conference on february 10 -- kory

i want to get a sense of where the appellant falls. >> in my 12 years, this is my first time appearing here, so i pride myself in getting something turned around. that i am here speaking for myself, the success rate would be very high, short of this case today. >> year history here go back to 2010, but there is history in this case before that? gosh yes. >> let me interrupt you. if you want to go sit in the back with your friend at translate all of this so that he understands, that is more than acceptable. give him one second to get settled. >> the problems, you know, the serious problems and high risk problems are documented as far back as 2007 when inspectors before me road the same violations and the same issues we are seeing over and over again. they are corrected, otherwise they wouldn't be doing -- hoping that we have a partner that has not gotten at the conference, showman there are steps that the permit can be revoked. we have to assume that someone gets it, and after that, a lot of it is in their court and next time. to answer your question specifically, 2007 is when i started

the appellant contends the increase height is inappropriate and this will set a standard for future locations. i would like to point out a height change proposal is for a limited area. that area does not front directly on to the embarcadero, so they locate the tallest portion set against existing buildings and the golden gateway center immediately southwest and to the west of the site. goothe residential building woud be lower than the height limit. this would be a new open space, so there is a transition so that if is sympathetic to the residential buildings along the embarcadero, fulfilling the needs of the heights of the financial district down to the waterfront. and we do not believe it would set a precedent for height increases along the waterfront. any other would be evaluated separately on its own merits considering the character. this site is unique and located at the edge of downtown, in addition to the neighboring buildings with a high of 500 feet. the second requirement is that it needs and planning codes. youwithin global district theres a maximum horizontal dimension of 105 feet

this is incorrect from the paperworks the appellant put in, which is exhibit h. the lee's applied for a separate permit by a separate engineer. they had a separate contract with him, which i brought if anybody wants a copy. all you have to do is go online to see that permit was completed sure yet anybody can go online. it shows it was signed off may 21, 1990, was when the fire safety permit was completed if you walk through the dates in the other permits, this is when the entire final review and inspection were given. if you look at the job card for the main permit, exhibit b, submitted by the appellate, the last page of exhibit b, which is the job inspection card. that tells you exactly what happened the day by day. these seven items are enumerated. the fireplace is not in yet. that is where the appeal stops. it skips over the next entry which says that items one and threw six were ok. he checked off six of the items. it ignores the fact that in many 1990 -- may 1990, there was a walk through. that is what happens on every job. the inspector comes with his list o

is there any question to the appellants? i will ask you, one question, based on the last slide, where you talk about the fact that the final e a i l r -- the final e.i.r. does not expand. this was simply a year and a half ago when we actually had a project that was being considered within 84-foot height limit, that did not destroy all of the recreation space, using about half of this. can you talk about how the of contents were analyzed? >> there was at least one alternative which was placed there, which would have preserved and amount of the existing space, resulting in some construction of housing, that would not have been as intense as desired, but this would have reduced the visual effect and it would have reduced some of the other traffic and air quality affects. this was rejected, and it was rejected because we did not see that this would be satisfactory to the developer, as this is described as unfeasible. >> one last follow-up, in the defects you refer to, you say that this ignores the rise in sea levels and there is

if they get a conviction you better believe based on this ruling from the appellate court we will seehis go to the united states supreme court. back in the day, as i like to say when i was prosecuting, you could use those statements, excited utterance, if you told your girlfriend, my husband beats me if i turned up dead, he did it and the friend used to be able to testify about that. then the supreme court came down with crawford versus washington said no more of that. because it violates the defendant's right to cross-examine the person saying it. they're dead, right? so, the illinois appellate court, the prosecutor went to the legislature, give us permission to use hearsay in the case, they said yes, what we might see, it might stand, we might see an exception carved out of domestic violence murders. if you kill the victim you get a benefit from the fact they are not around to testify. >> they he can sexhumed the bod died in 2004, they ruled it accidental drowning. >> they are going to look, let's face it this won't be a lot left, they will reexamine the skull and see was there some

the board's rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and department representatives have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three-minute periods. members of the public not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes each to address the board. the number of bottles. to assist the board any accurate preparations of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak our past, but not required, to submit a speaker cards when you come up to the podium. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium. if you have questions please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting. the board of this is located at 1650 mission st., room 0304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco and government television. dvd's are available directly from sfgtv. we will

why don't we go back to public comment on behalf of the appellants? >> good evening, supervisors. my husband and i have been san francisco resident since 1994. the boats operate small businesses in the city. we -- we both operate small businesses in the city. we both realize that change is inevitable. the 8 washington street represents the wrong kind of change. it destroys a vibrant, existing community. there was no initiation fee when i joined the gateway. my husband and i love the fact that be regularly meet new friends at the gateway. gateway is unlike any other kennedy center were i have spent time. -- unlike any other community center where i have spent time. it is a place where i can spend time your children and elderly alike. it is a gem in the crown of san francisco. the washington street project is not a community center. not a space for family tennis. not an adequate space for a recreational meeting place. i urge you to reject the 8 washington street project. thank you. >> good evening. i am an attorney and business owner in san francisco. i am a member of golden gate clu

we will start with the appellant. the appellant will be speaking through a translator. if you could please give them 14 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. he is the proprietor of the restaurant. i am this friend and i and his translator. i have no financial connection. once in a while, i do each in his restaurant. that is about it. my name is richard. >> ok. >> greetings to the commissioners and the department of public health and everybody else. the pest control came in today. he wanted to cement the report -- submit the report from the past company. earlier, i gave a copy of this report to the health department. can you take this? we wanted to submit the report. president garcia: the you have it already? >> just today. >> they gave a copy of the department -- to the compartmedepartment earlier tod. [talking over each other] president garcia: you are free to summarize its contents if you like. >> we would refer to the department, which gave them a report. president garcia: let me explain the problem, and we can stop the clock for a second. if we are not able to pay

president hwang: i do have a question i did not ask of the appellants. grumpy's -- thinking. one of the points made by the permit holder's attorney is that grumpy's is a member of the golden gate restaurant association. is that true? >> i believe that is correct. president hwang: and we have received notice. >> actually, i misspoke. i do not know that they are a member or not, and i'm glad you asked the question, because the rules make it easy for you. there is no question here that they did not get notice, and they were required to be noticed, and the reason for that is while there may be many other ways to get notice -- president hwang: counsel, you are not answering the question, and you are making for their arguments. >> i do not know the answer. president hwang: the second question might be addressed by the answer you are given me -- giving me. i think you are going to the point that that is neither here nor there. that is not part of what we need to do today. was there actual notice by your client? >> there was no actual notice, and i think part of the reason is what you

this could go to superior court, but that is a costly position for the appellant. it is not the best argument for this body to take a matter on, but also in the past, w to superior court, they may have resulted in mta later ratifying a staff action. thank you. >> the citation you gave us to the san francisco charter. >> that is listed in respondent brief. san francisco charter section 4.1060. >> thank you. >> a couple of things -- go back over the point raised having to do with the fact that there is an avenue for someone to basically operates a color scheme under someone else's color scheme which the economic impact -- >> commissioner garcia, i do not know if i can give you a full economic breakdown. maybe i can paint a picture for you. there are some economic issues. a 1% -- a one-percent owner- operator has to pay a company to fly their colors. it is not their own company. they also have to pay for dispatch, but that would be true even if they were their own company. they're not able to take in additional medallions into their company. once you -- the more medall

we have plenty of folks that want to speak on behalf of the appellant. do we have the next speaker? >> i have been a member of the golden gate some clever over 20 years, and i just have a few comments and rhetorical questions about this project. how can anyone who lives in san francisco want a big, visual block between the water and our neighborhoods? they violate city code for whites. -- heights. how can any of the young schoolchildren possibly be for this project? 8 washington goes against the public trust concept of open space. a public trust land cannot be used for building residencies, apparently. the workers that came here today, can they get jobs just as well, and more long-term, sustainable employment with the asian neighborhood design plan? which is feasible, intelligent, and humane. why can the city give variances or conditional use permits for expensive condominiums? many of my artist friends can no longer afford to live in san francisco. this has been a great loss to our city. please vote no. [chime] president chiu: why don't we take a five minute recess, if the three in

we will start with the appellant, aged. >> good evening, commissioners. first, i would like to congratulate president hwang as the new president, and as i was not here for the last meeting, i want to thank president garcia for his many years of service on this board. from his first hearing, he was one of the most interesting and insightful commissioners and made this process better for his presence. the reason we are here on this matter tonight is basically a very small, very inexpensive dwelling units that would cost more than it is worth to be legalized through traditional channels. i met the owner, who is the second owner of this building. they have owned it since the early 1960's. i met the other at his job at lowe's, and we were talking about how we try to get a permit to remodel a dwelling unit and was told he could not get a permit because the house was listed as a single family and a store. he was instructed to get a 3r report, and the report came back with three addresses but still said facing all family plus store. i told him there was a reasonab

i think that the problems with a project that had been outlined by the appellants including the former city attorney point to the fact that this project cannot be needed. it cannot be desirable. i do not think this is the kind of housing that needs to be prioritized by the city. i say that with a heavy heart. i'm very mindful of the very compelling points that have been made by our friends in labor. at the end of the day, and it has to be the right project for the city. i do not believe bet this project can get to the point where it is going to be the right project. i am prepared to vote against it a night ther -- tonight. i do not see where we get to the requirements or will be met by this. i think we should act tonight. >> thank you. >> thank you. i would be supporting the motion to continue the conditional use. i have been very moved by a lot of testimony i have heard today from neighbors, partners, but it rarely from our partners and labor. it's i want to get there. i am close to being able to support this project. other afford to a discussion part of the early iran zoning on june

the appellant and others have raised the issue of 75 howard. does produce came to place subsequent to -- those projects came to place subsequent to the eir being published. it is not a new project. it is relocating across the street and down the block. traffic is already incorporated into the analysis. that project was a cart -- was a part of our current setting. 75 howard is further removed part of the background growth, which is included in the project impact analysis. on parking impacts, both of those projects are outside the study area. what happens to the parking there does not change the information or the analysis presented in the eir. it was not part of the survey area. the issue was raised with regard to the golden gateway eir from the 1970's. we did not address those in our eir and we did not believe that is relevant information. this eir is obligated to report on the impacts of this proposed project. the 8 washington street proposal on the current setting. the 1972 and 1960 -- 76 eirs were looking at a different setting. that informa