>> good evening and welcome to the march 14, 2012 meeting of the board of appeals. the presiding officer is michael garcia of. joining him is commissioner chris nifong. we are joined by christina, who will provide any legal advice. i am the executive director. tonight we are also joined by representatives from the city departments who have cases before the board. and we have scott sanchez. he is also representing the planning commission and joseph

duffy. if you could go over the meeting guidelines and to conduct the swearing in process. >> the board request you turn off all phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in a hallway. appellants, molders, and representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for robot of the reagan people must conclude within the seven minutes and three minutes. people who not affiliated have up to 3 minutes to speak. members of the public who wish to speak are asked not required to present a speaker cards or business card when you come up to speak. speaker cards and pens are available. the board also welcomes comments

and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction forms as well. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please into board staff during the break or after the meeting or call the office tomorrow morning aboard office is located at 1650 mission street. this is broadcast live on san francisco government television, cable channel 78, and the bees are available for purchase directly from sfgtv. we will conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony wait, please stand and raise your right hand, and say i do. please note any member of the public may speak without taking

this oath pursuant to the rights of the sunshine ordinance under the codes. the solomon swear the testimony you are about to give -- do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. >> we have an item dealing with the alteration permit at 1753 d street. we can move to that date. >> so move. >> is there any public comment on that motion? c. non, if you could call roll please -- seeing non, if you

could call roll please. g[roll-call] the vote is 5-0. that matter is continued to march 21. >> i will call item 5 a and 5b. they will be heard together. agai skip the minutes and other things. i am too eager. let's move to item number one, which is public comment. is there anyone who would wish to speak on an item that is not in the calendar? simenon, we move to item number

two, commissioners comments. -- seeing none, we move to item #2. >> i will not be here for business travel. >> is there any public comment on this item. item for are the minutes from february. >> si no comments, i move for the adoption of those theories good -- of those. >> if you could call role on that one year ago and -- on that one. [calling votes] >> the vote is 5-0. those are adopted.

twice i will call item no. 5. protesting this issuance, a permit to alter a building with double pane windows but were installed without permits. five of the windows face the side. replacement was done to improve energy of efficiency, so because this is a joint appeal, we will give each region of one of the appellants is not here region one of the appellant is not here. if you will step forward. you have seven minutes to speak.

he was not intending to speak, so commissioners, i think we should proceed. >> the subject matter is going to be heard next thursday at the planning commission, so i would like to out for a continuance so they have the chance to review this matter and make a decision. >> we will go into details, and then we will hear from the party as to whether or not they object to a continuance. >> planning is going to read your the standards of window replacement and the guidelines to determine appropriateness of the windows installed a few years ago into my building, and we are going to determine the appropriateness, and we have neighbors coming to speak as well. >> is this not ready for a

hearing today? >> there was a procedural hickock -- hiccup. there was a request for notification but was not acted on. the permit was issued and appealed, and that means the permit was in the board's times fiction and the planning department and jurisdiction has no more authority and could not act on insectt. yes, there was a misstep on the planning department's side, and mr. sanchez is here to speak to that, but it has been appealed, and it is before you. >> if i may, when i came to the

department on monday the 23rd, at that time the permit had been issued, and i went immediately to the board of appeals in order to preserve my rights. iri am no longer pursuing the appeal. >> you are withdrawing your appeal today? you have avail yourself of this process, and now you want to avail yourself of a parallel processing? >> it is a subordinate to

process. gooprice what is the reason youo not want to have the hearing today. we have not established the appropriateness of the windows before the planning commission. i did not think you would want to hear this case today. it did not seem like you would want to get in front of the planning commission, so i did not plan to present today. >> you want to withdraw your appeal? >> i came to ask for a continuance. >> let's hear from all the sides. >> a permit has been issued by the planning department. >> the permit has been issued, and the windows have been installed. it goes beyond just a permit having been issued.

are we going to hear from the permit holder or the department. >> this is on the issue of a continuance. >> he requested this hearing. he has had until february 1 to request this. he has had since february 1 to request a rescheduling. it has been planned. all three groups are familiar with this case. i think this is a simple and straightforward case, and the sooner we can get this hearing done, the sooner we can move on.

>> i do not want to direct not the testimony you might give or what you might say, but there was some talk about not giving a meeting tonight, and then you were contacted, and you came back with some reasons i found to be someone a compelling. if you would share some of the content with this board so they can decide whether to continue this, i would appreciate it. >> it was a phone call. ms. gold scene called me and said she was having some reservations. she knew i had been on hold as soon as i found out there was an issue, i went to the city and

requested a permit. they showed up 30 minutes before my final inspection requesting an appeal. i would have liked to have this a lot sooner, but it has been drawn out. this whole situation has been so freaky i am staying with a friend. i do not think it is ok for me to be home right now. i have been having a lot of anxiety, and the sooner we can get this over with common the less resources we can ways. >> who is andrew pearce? >> our next-door neighbor. >> does anyone have any questions for the permit holder?

>> first, i apologize because some of the confusion has been caused by an oversight made by our department. on january 20, an application was filed to legalize the windows. there are olefin windows. they were installed in november of 2007 almost five years ago. they blocked the notation on the property, which is a request someone has made to block a permit made by the planning department your your -- planning department. we have somebody bring in a letter saying they have seen plans. otherwise they would have known

a to file thus discretionary review requests. we suspended the project permit. we have a suspension ourselves because the process was not followed. we did the process to give the lower neighbor the ability to exercise his rights. good i told him he could appeal straight to the permit and avoid a hearing. he chose to do both. it is a unique circumstance of we were not able to schedule a hearing any sooner than next week. that is set for next week, who

survived is the fact is here. i can speak to the merits of the case if you would like, but i want to address about from first -- address the background first. >> was there are hearing on this matter? >> there was no hearing at the historic preservation commission. internally, staff did discuss this. they did meet and discuss, and the department has no problem with the proposal before you during your -- before you. >> they approved a permit? >> and provided comments to the window replacement was appropriate, because those were concerns raised by the appellants. >> i do not know what relevance it would have, but there is a staff recommendation as to whether or not they should take

the dr? >> it will be issued tomorrow, but i can tell you the preliminary recommendation is up the commission not take a preliminary review and allow it to proceed as it has already been built. gooaxe of the commission were to follow the recommendations from staff about discretionary review, it is possible there would be no process? >> we would have to the hearing next week. the dr requester would have the ability to present its arguments, but it does have to present that case to the commission, and in order for changes to happen they would have to take discretionary review and recommend specific changes.

what we are most concerned about are the windows on the facades of the face of public rights of way, so those are really what is at question here, but we have reviewed that and found it to be compliant with our guidelines. gooaxe is there a procedural problem in the of the planning department has issued a suspension? it would not be cured by any action from this board? >> that is correct. if you were to take action tonight government are suspension would still be in place. we would release that based on the outcome of next week. if the commission chooses not to take discretionary review, then we would release the suspension and they could move forward. guerdofax would that be appeala?

>> that is correct. it would be the determination of the zoning administrator and therefore appealable by the sword -- by this board. >> i have a question for the permit holder. i am trying to understand the time line. i think mr. sanchez said the permit was requested on january 19 or january 20. >> it was january 20. i received an over-the-counter permit within a couple hours. >> you did this and responnce? but i did it in response to a letter. >> you attempted to comply. >> the next question is the you know whether or not he was aware

they attempted to comply and democrats are believed he must have found out -- to comply? >> i believe it was the same day. you can see the permits has been applied for or approved, and given that he did not receive it, but as the only way i can imagine he would have known, because first thing the very next day he showed up and requested the appeal, so it was canceled. i went in friday the 20 if, got a permanent, scheduled first thing monday morning, said monday he was there requesting the appeal.