even if the property was represented as a four unit if they looked at the report. i understand in 97 the home you bought was in the contract from the time you sold it and it was a crazy time. but it would be helpful if you had that original

>> scott sanchez planning department. i think it's confusing when it's not clear when they are presenting evidence. the permit which the appellant purported to say as three units when we signed it off as two units. the 1997, 3 r report with materials which showed this as being occupancy for three. they included this was three units because they didn't know what it meant. r 3 meant one or two units. i

think that's perhaps the only reason they chose to include this report which was probably the 3r report when they purchased the property in 1997. at the time they have owned in in 97, attached to that was a copy of the 1987 to two. the ml shows two units. the city has spent a year trying to resolve this. we've had a rehearing and significant resource are spent on this where it's very clear all along when the appellant knew from day one it was legally two units. the report from 1997 revert to two family dwelling. the significant

amount of staff time. we have had staff review and write the letter of determination, multiple appeal hearings and the appellant is unwilling to provide adequate information to the ford -- board and we find that extremely offensive. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners i had wanted to work with commissioner honda to try get the mls information he was looking on the overhead so you can all see it and it would be on the record. the way his computer s it's not possible. i know sometimes he brings his ipad to the meeting. it's important that everybody here see the same information. perhaps if you can work with the commissioner and let them know what the web address is. >> give him the ipad to play

with. is there any way to make

it bigger?

>> yeah. sorry. >> i understand. that's why the commissioner is presented to what you received. i'm definitely going to give you an opportunity to respond whatever it is here. >> we see it. those were the

comments. >> i think we've seen enough. why don't we leave that there and if anyone has questions, we can see it. >> counselor, have you seen this before? you've never seen an mls report? >> no. >> the reason why i ask is i asked you earlier. >> take your time. maybe we can take a quick break while you explore this information. okay? let's take a short break.

>> shrink it down so you can see it from the laptop.

>> i just want to hear your thoughts on what was presented on the computer? >> as a point of order i would object to this. i thought all evidence was supposed to have been submitted before this hearing. i don't think the commissioners are supposed to be gathering their own evidence. sorry. >> i would like to strike and i don't know if we have the order is here, but i would request that the board disregard what was presented and i don't believe i understand the

information. >> is there time for anymore comments? >> i want to point out there has been a lot of -- about my clients voracity. >> i'm going to allow time only as to the additional that no one had any notice of. >> the accusation that my client, there has been no testimony that he ever saw this. >> okay. thank you. commissioners, the matter is submitted. would anyone like to start? >> when we heard this case the first time and reviewed it, at that time, there was an element

of thought in my mind that when the pros was subdivided and the designation where the loss occurred. it didn't necessarily allow one to see the transference that is related to the property. so there was an element of understanding how perhaps the nsr did not then show up with respect to the particular lot, the other thing, however is that the preponderance of the evidence especially the that's now been further supported by looking at the actual drawings that

occurred with the cfc, i believe that the preponderance of the evidence shows that it was two units. >> anybody else? >> i would agree. at first i was sympathetic to the reliance issue but once we went through the timeline and were able to under the sequence of events, i am also of the opinion that it's a two unit building and that had evidenced and the notice of special restrictions and that is not void. it could have been discovered. it unfortunate that it wasn't discovered, but i do believe it was discoverable. and for those reasons i would also vote to uphold the zoning

administrator and i would like to say that i had information about the mls listing and it was relevant. >> i concur. >> i would echo the comments of my fellow commissioners and i have nothing different to add. >> i will move to deny the appeal and uphold the zoning. >> is that based on no error or abuse of discretion? >> that's correct. >> we have a motion from commissioner fong to uphold this letter of determination on the basis that the zoning administrator did not error or abuse his discretion. on that

motion president haung; thank you, the vote is 5-0. this is a rehearing. so no other rehearings are allowed into the boards rules and an order of decision order shall be released tomorrow. >> commissioners i would call items 7 a and 7 b. sf sf sf b

of the rear yard variance and off street parking pad located on the open area of the subject property which qualifies as the required rear yard. both parties are standing up so it looks like some settlement has been reached. >> yes. planning department. scott sanchez. we have gone over revisions of plans and those revision add a parking space and subsequent to the board and they have also added in a storage for trash cans that would be in the crawl space area and accessed from the driveway and they have been clarified to show there is a minimum of seven foot clearance of where these cars would go under the existing deck. had this proposal been presented at the time last year i would have

been inclined the grant the variance. i know it's now before the board of appeals. i just wanted to share my thoughts with the current provision as opposed and it would be inclined to over turn the denials based on the plans plans but the most recent revision was dated the 15th. >> may 15? >> what took so long. if this took -- >> my apologies to the board. there were some issues raised by the planner at the time. the owner went to someone he felt had a certain expertise in dealing with these issues. i

was uninvolved with the project. there was a hearing held. i think we were here once to reiterate this that the owner was in ireland dealing with a tragedy at the time. i had just gotten a letter. we had no idea that this was going on. so since then we've been trying to work with the planning department to bring a project that is acceptable to them. as a last hearing what it came down to was a one car parking for a one off street parking. scott felt it was not acceptable and after the last hearing we asked for a continuances and we did a study on it seeing it was possible and what we proposed today is a two car solution. the lot is wide. we feel fairly straight forward to get two cars into that. thank you. >> okay. thanks. >> i do have plans. i have larger plans. mr. sanchez asked

me to load those up. i brought them with me if anyone needs so thooe -- see them. >> okay. thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. just based on the briefing materials and of course always pending oral testimony, i wasn't originally convinced, however if there is a compromise that's been accepted with the department then i'm willing to go with them. >> i agree with you to have one substandard park. since they have come to an agreement that there is two parking spots and it's not substandard, i don't have a problem with it.

>> okay. we have a motion? >> the da knows that i'm not enamored with most of his motions. i move to overall the zoning administrators, it's not a determining. >> it's the denial of a permit. they are two different denials here. >> okay. so we need to address both the za denial and the building department denial. >> you will need findings for both. >> it could be on the basis of may 15th revised drawings. >> i will make it simpler. based upon the may 15th documents and the provision of two parking spaces versus the

one that was originally, we found that resolves the situation. >> so we have a motion from commissioner fong to grant both appeals, over rule both denials and issue the permit with documents state may 15, 2013. they have stamped may 16 for the record. you find the provision of two parking spaces resolves the concerns. okay. so