which is a rehearing request. it matter was continued on august 14th to allow the dpw process for a subdivision of the land to take place, and then to come back to the board. and my party has contacted me and informed me that the dpw had made a decision about the last foot and we agreed on this evening and that is why it is on the calendar tonight. and however, i learned just today, that the dpw has changed its mind about the lot split, and so there is some disagreement now about whether or not the matter should be heard this evening. and the president has agreed to allow the parties to discuss that with you tonight before we decide whether or not to hear the item. and president hwang i am wondering if the best thing to do first is to ask dpw to come forward and explain.

>> that is what i was thinking as well. >> we will have dpw come and explain today's reversal of the earlier decision about the split? >> good eving, my name is bruce and i am the city and county surveyer and i don't think that i have met any of you in the first time that i have been in front of you. this morning, i issued a rescinded my tentative approval of this project and the condition that no build statement go on the map. and in the interest, that not that this gets a second look, but i in retroexpect, i wanted planning and building to have the opportunity to make a development, determination, that i think is probably, inappropriate for me to make. >> i don't think that the board

has the background, that the parties have about the original decision. so maybe you if could explain what was decided first and then what the change was. >> in this original subdivision, this parcel in 1962 there is a line on or through the middle of the parcel that is labeled bsl, building set back line. the parcel map that was submitted to our department essentially splits the parcel along that line. with some minor variations. i made the determination that that was a intended to be a no build zone. and conditioned our approval on that and had the statement going on the map that this built could not been on and we were going to allow the subdivision but you could not do anything with the property. you could not build on it. >> and then as i understood, what you said that you are not qualified to make such a decision? >> such a determination, therefore you have rescinded

that? >> correct. >> and who do you believe is qualified? >> planning. >> and what is the basis for your authority in the first instance? you did make that initial determination? >> i am able in my position to make or put conditions on the map, where the dpw is essentially the lead agency. and in read visiting this and looking at the map being 50 years old and the possibility existing that the environment in the city, is different than it was 50 years ago. i look strictly at it and what happened in 1962 and i made an assumption on this line based on what the subdivision was in 1962 solely. and i was not thinking about current administration or

current planning issues or zoning issues. >> you took no, are you saying that you made a decision without consulting with any other bodies or entities? >> yes. >> and is that your normal practice? >> it is rare that i make a decision like this on a map. >> but you have done it before? >> yes. >> have you ever rescinded a position before? >> not in this. i have rescinded to approvals but not for a situation like this. >> and the correlary there was there were certain portions of the lots that were designated as open space. when you made the determination, initial determination that it was not buildable, were you determining

that it was designated as open space? >> no place on the map do i see the term open space. i saw this particular locating pattern in the subdivision and i saw the repeated building set back lines through the subdivision and my assumption was that the i intent was not to build on those areas, within those lots. >> okay. >> will you be issuing any documentation on this decision? >> i issued a letter to scott sanchez and to the developer, this morning. >> this morning? >> yes. >> this allows a process to... the process can begin again, and we will rerefer it to the planning department and they can weigh in on it and give it

a general plan approval or not. and then, if somebody wants to appeal, after there is another tentative decision, that the ability is to go before the board of supervisors at that time if they would like. >> any other questions? >> okay. so maybe we can hear from the planning next. >> sure. >> thank you. >> we can welcome back mr. sanchez previously. >> i gos that he has lost weight. >> >> on the crest line drive and maybe a little bit more background here and to research them and it is to be on a vacant portion of the parcel and it was submitted in 2009 and the planning department reviewed this and as part of

the project, they were also proposing to do a subdivision but the building permit moved separately of the subdivision, our department reviewed this and we found that there was significant neighborhood opposition and issues were raised and concerns are raised about the compatibility from the neighborhood and concerns that there was a condition of approval from the original subdivision that occurred as 50 years ago. and there is a belief that there was a condition of approval. the discretionary review and they decided not to take the staff recommendation and when the permit was reviewed they appealed this to you. i believe that the subdivision

was not submitted to a few days prior to that hearing and so, we want to have any view, and any determination from dpw when you first heard this item and voted 4-1 for deny the permit. that condition of approval was not a factor in the board's original decision on the matter but it was new information that was presented at the time of the rehearing request. the board voted to continue the matter to the call of the share to allow the subdivision process to be finalized and there was a compliance with the

planning code and we also we received word that they will rescind the approval of the map and we will be getting a new referral and there will be no condition imposed by dpw and asking us to take a look at whether or not there should be a condition and based upon our review of the building permit application and we did not find a condition of approval but we will review this again, and the appellants will have the ability to submit the materials to us if we have more information about whether they think it should be a condition of approval. and we will consider that in the review of the application but at this point, i would

assume that we will approve the subdivision application and what was issued by dpw will be appealed by any party within ten days. so that is where we are on this matter. my thought would be that maybe it is a good question to continue the hearing and that is what i suggested to the party when i found out about the decision because of the last hearing of the board they wanted finalty, before taking an action. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, when you mentioned the appeal within ten days, that is not appealable here. >> that is correct. it is the board of supervisors and so that issuance on september the 11th was appealed to the board of supervisors and the appeals to the board of supervisors. >> the permit holder wants to

speak? >> i am here on behalf of the permit holder tonight and i would echo mr. sanchez's comments and remind the board that how or why it continued this case, back in july and immediately prior to the hearing, i think that the day before the hearing we received a letter or an e-mail stating that he thought that there would be a no build condition on the subdivision until the map had been approved or denied in the final form. and because that is very

clearly material there was no hearing date schedule and the idea was that we would, that we would wait until the subdivision map was final and that any appeal relating to the subdivision map would be resolved by the board of supervisors and then we will come back here on at peel for the building permit and when he issued his tentative subdivision map approval in september, we then agreed that we would come back here for this hearing, that the matter would be resolved and if you heard from mr. sanchez and mr. stores both, and there is not a further process related to the subdivision map and i think

that everybody agrees that process will land in front of the board of supervisors and so we just encourage you to continue the matter again, so that we have the opportunity to get the subdivision map approved to get an answer from the board of supervisors and the planning department on a no build continue before we are back in front of you >> how long do you think that this process will take? >> we are prepared to refile the application tomorrow and it will be for them to tell us how the city typically takes to process. and two months on top of that for an appeal. could i hear mr. sanchez what your time estimate is? >> generally, these matters can

be dealt with fairly promptly and i mean that this is a simple referral from the department of public works i would want to add abundance of caution and take the materials and the history related to the case i would not want to approve it as soon as we got it, would i want to take a second look at the materials because it seems to be the condition of a approval was this the slline a condition of approval and we don't have any evidence at this point to show that the dsl is a condition of approval that was approved by any particular body. to me in my mind that is critical in making a decision on the subdivision, is this a condition of approval. was this approved in 1962 when they approved the subdivision and we don't have any evidence that shows that that is the case but i would like to take a look at the records to see if

we don't have any evidence that supports that. looking at more information and so i would hope to have an action on this by the middle of, within a month i would say, by the middle of december and then i think that once we get it back to dpw the turn around is quick >> we can here from the appellants now. >> >> good evening members of the board and staff, i'm donald bait man, the co-chair of the east side alliance and i will skip through some of what i have prepared here because you heard smufp of the history already. for what mr. sanchez said about pro-approved the building set back it was the board of supervisors in 1962 who approved the subdivision map that contained the building set back lines. in terms of additional history about who required it, i think

in july you heard from robert pass more and we heard from robert in order to reduce the density at the time, and the city worked with the developer to require these open spaces which row vied the views across the bay and the streets and the lower twin peaks and the solid walls the building permit application was applied for in 2009 and the permit holder not apply for a subdivision although they proposed to subdivide and dfrl apply until this year. and i believe that was a

tactical move on their part because in 99, they applied for subdivision first and then failed with the subdivision for other reasons and building set back lines but i think that it was tactical to issue on the day of the hearing to say that you can't build there where is the building set back lines and set the rules and delineate the open green spaces for the september 11th, the issue that says the same thing we will subdivide but you can't build there and he pondered it for another two and a half nights before this morning. we were stunned to say the least because we found out about this, this afternoon. and the board, gave discretion to continue the rehearing request, pending the subdivision out come and we have a subdivision out come two

and a half months later, the city turns out and which decisions can we rely on? and in this matter. and well, therefore, i would ask that you not continue this matter, and we are hearing the request itself and we believe that you should continue to hear that matter, and take a vote, thank you. >> thank you. >> oh, i am sorry, i have a question. if we were to continue it, is there any prejudice to your side? >> a lot of sleepless nights and to continue for the processes. >> do you have an interest in all departments reviewing this thoroughly? >> i am not sure what you mean. >> well, you heard mr. sanchez say that he wants more time to look at it closely and to see

what the intent was in 1962 and review all of the historical documents, don't you have a interest in that type of a review? >> i think that we do. and i would agree that kind of close look that the building set lines will allow you to process as a whole. yes. >> even though, it is clear who approved them, the board of supervisors. >> okay, thank you. >> so commissioners we need to take the public comment, could i see a show of hands of how many people plan to speak on public comment on this item? >> okay. we can take it, whoever wants to start. >> and i thought that you were a paid consultant associated with this, so you cannot speak under public comment. >> i'm tim the executive director of the san francisco

action coalition and on behalf of our organization, we are engaged in the advocacy for creation of well designed and well located housing at all levels of portbility in san francisco. we don't normally do projects this size but it seemed like a good one and adopting the landscape and the maintenance plan we endorsed it. >> our organization is concerned about the city housing afederable crisis, you can't get away from it. it does not let us alone, the policis that we are adopting has consequences and we are concerned about the threat that it poses to the city. we are failing to produce adequate levels of housing at all levels of portbility that pushes the demand father out into the neighborhoods, according to the planning director, 80 percent of the city's development is taking place on 20 percent of the land

and that raises serious issue abouts the fairness and now the density is distributed in the city, it is imperative that we start to think more creatively about how the land is used and we believe that this is a good project and if the city is serious about addressing this crisis, and that we face in our housing supply, we are going to have to figure out a way to adopt and build, many, many, many more, projects, of this type, and it is thoughtful and there is a full of the type that we need. and we believe that strongly that turning down this project hurts the interest of the city, and we believe that approving projects like this, that take it and take the advantage creatively of the available land is strongly in the interest of san francisco. >> thank you.

>> next speaker please step forward. >> we were wondering what rabbit they would pull out of their hat but we never guessed that they would get the whole approval canceled. what is going on here, they could have appealed to the board of supervisors in september. why didn't they? does anybody ask them why didn't they appeal? and all of a sudden there is a question of whether the bsls were part of the original subdivision that is what is in the recorder's office. who do you think put the dotted lines there? >> second of all, they did not have it until we gave it to them. we sent it to storage and dpw and we sent it to planning. they never even have it. they don't look at anything. and then all of a sudden it does not go the way that the powerful in the planning process and this is what you get. this is really discouraging. >> do you want to state your

name for the record? >> nancy oryan. >> and is there any other public comment? >> okay, commissioners the matter is yours. >> so just to understand this procedurely, you have a question, before you vote whether you want to continue this, what you would be continuing, is the rehearing request, okay? you already made the underlying decision to deny the permit for the reasons stated on the calendar and i am happy to read them to you if you like. and so the question is do you want to question the rehearing request or do you want to proceed with the deciding of the rehearing request, you have already held a hearing on that. >> well, i will start. i would not feel at all comfortable hearing this at this juncture. if we continued it in the hopes that this issue would be resolved and it clearly has not been. so i would be much more comfortable with continuing to

continuance. >> i think that is appropriate. >> yes. >> okay. >> do you have a question or further comment? >> i agree with my fellow commissioners. >> okay. >> i will move to continue this to the call of the chair. >> and that is to wait until the lot split issue is resolved? >> that is correct. >> or the city's process. >> or all of the city processes. >> okay. >> do you want any briefing when it comes back to you, as i said the rehearing request has been briefed and heard and normally it will come back to you with nothing, but you know, it would need something. >> given the time frame. they should be allowed both sides should be allowed the full briefing. >> as per, our departmental standards. >> okay, so briefing it for a rehearing request. >> okay. >> then the motion, go ahead. >> and we have a motion from

commissioner fung to continue this rehearing request to the call of the chair to await the further subdivision issue to be resolved and the additional briefing is load and the rehearing request is that the six pages per party. and on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> and commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> lazarus? >> aye. >> and honda. >> aye. the vote is 5-0 and this is request is continued to the call of the chair. >> we will go back to item 4 a which is another rehearing request, 2801 leavenworth street, the board received a letter from shasha lewis, requesting rehearing of appeal

13-085, decided on october 23, 2013, at that time the board voted 4-0-1 with president hwang ab accident to up hold the denial of the mobile food facility permit on the basis of lack of evidence of continuous operation during the required period. this is mobile food permit number 13 mff-0082. and i believe that president hwang has had an opportunity to review the proceeding? >> i did review it on the video and i reviewed the materials as wem. >> okay. >> and so we will begin with miss lewis who has three minutes to present her case. >> thank you the appeal board for allowing me to be here and i will deliver to my case.

>> i am refuting that i never operated that mr. hwang stated on record and even though he never investigated my operations themselves and dpw provide solely on the work associations interpretation. of whether i am operating or not. and i also want to show that the position to my permit has always been just the word association, and using their associates and mr. hwang to under mine and revoke my permit unfairly, the manifest in justice is that after three years of operating and trying to operate and paying for all of the fees in san francisco, my permit is thrown out of the door for no fault of my own and over a lie which is i have never been operating. there puts me into poverty for no reason and it allows this work association to combat, and to have an anti-trust and anti-business activities against me and my business and i consider them business

bullies, they try to really under mine my business and my integrity and i think that it is wrong. first of all, this here, and this is a letter that i received from the dpw. and it says that i received the initial and i followed my initial application on april 29th, and on january 30th, they received from the association, to revoke my permit. and so the work association wrote a letter to the dpw and in their letter, they stated that we would like to make you aware that since 2012, that we not witnessed it and since july 29th that they did see me

operating and which completely revokes and it is not my paper it is theirs that the notion that they did not see me at all. and this is from the real estate manager and also, here is my 2012, equipment for there. i have one that i operated there as well. and the fisherman wharf association, with dpw, just wants to make sure that i am not there operating, not because of any areason, but their own. and i say that this is what they sent me, after i was approved the first time. and these are cases that they launched against me as i am trying to operate my business and these are dated like this one is 8-22-12. and so these are the things that i have had to deal with,

and in order to start my little push cart and so i think that it is unfair and i also submitted to you that i am a queen of my industry. and that we were here trying to assist the young women and girls from being brutalized in the area and get the business through... >> thank you. >> we can hear from the department now. >> the department want to reemphasize that the department did receive a request from the merchant association and neighborhoods saying that they were not and they do notify miss lewis to