materials. this was the thursday before the hearing that was the last day to submit those materials. i told him to contact the executive director and the board of appeals to get clarification on what the sport had required. also at the last hearing, due to research from the appellant, we were able to find out that they were going to try to do certain things under the addenda, outputing two 8-foot wide rush doors with a 20-foot curb cuts as opposed to what was approved. there was also a plant their wanted to submit that would braid around the rear of the house -- grade around the rear of the house and definitely would change what we had approved. i said to them at the last hearing that they could not make these changes under the addenda. i am not aware of the current state of the addenda and what steps is that are at this point. i did inform the department of

public works about the concerns we had. it was on an application with the wider sidewalk that the appellate found the sidewalk. i told them definitely not to issue any permit that did not match what we had an -- had originally approved. that is all i have to say on this matter. commissioner garcia: if we a grant the appeal -- if we grant the appeal and overturned the permit, and as the year and a day applied? >> would not be able to apply for the same project until one year has elapsed. president peterson: i have one question about language access in your office. do you have competent people who speak in multiple languages at your office? >> we do. we have multan lingual phone numbers as well. you can call and request information in your native tongue. we would have someone return

that call to them. president peterson: thank you. >> mr. kornfield, do you have anything to add? and is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: well, commissioners, i thought we were very specific what we needed at this meeting and the information was not provided. the situation is the following right now. if you look at the site permits, it is almost exactly the same as the 311. it shows that the things that were mentioned in the various

letters -- it was also very similar to the set that was initially approved by the homeowner's association. two major issues there. one was whether the rear of the building was a retaining wall and therefore had no windows and therefore there was no grading beyond that point up to the next street. secondly, as mr. sanchez indicated, the sides of the garage. what we asked for last time was also some idea of the proposed typography of the grading the permit holder wanted to do and to establish their for an elevation to this building that then would establish the height

of the building with respect to the site. that was not provided to us. we have two choices. one is to revoke the permit. the second is to approve the permit as is with the understanding both the planning and building departments need to review in the addenda that have applied to get and not see if it matches up against the approved site permit. if we were to do that, i would condition the permit in the following way. that is that the finished elevation of the ground floor be established no higher than 395 or 396 based on the survey that we saw. commissioner garcia: what you

are proposing would take care of the issue with the garage, the curb cut, and degrading to the rear. all that would have to conform to the original plans. commissioner fung: correct. commissioner garcia: can we ask that no addenda be applied for? i do not think we can. commissioner fung: the addendum are not appealable to us. >> i know. you would understand this, being an architect. i am worried about after it leaves here if they go and apply for an addenda, is there a possibility they would get that and might end up with a garage wider than has been approved, a curb cut whiter than has been approved, a back door because there has been re-grading? vice president goh: we heard from planning the only reason they knew about it was because of dpw.

president peterson: the appellant told us. vice president goh: so we would not necessarily even know, and even dbi or planning would not. commissioner fung: i think we have asked both departments to be sensitive to tracking this through and making sure the addenda correlate to the site permit. president peterson: i would defer to the planning department on this, but if the board were to modify this permit and grant it on the condition that the driveway can only be a certain amount, would the department be able to later grant and addenda allowing the driveway to differ from what the board has limited it to under this permit? >> scott sanchez. the building department is the first step in the process. they will receive the addendum from the project architect and then will decide if there are changes that need to be reviewed

by planning. that is the first step in the process. definitely our department would not want to approve anything, even without the board conditioning it. we believe it should be built as per the site plan. this was the result of a discretionary review application as well. the board making findings and conditions would only strengthen that. commissioner garcia: just to review, the issues have to do with the grading, the width of the garage, the width of the curb cut, and the height. >> i understand it to be the width of the garage door, the width of the curb cut, the grading, and the overall height. president peterson: what about the back door? >> that resulted from the grating. it would not allow them to have the back door, which would be

accessed from a plea room on the ground level. -- that resulted from the rading. -- grading. it would not allow them to have the back door, which would be accessed from a play room on the ground level. president peterson: thank you. are those the conditions, then? commissioner fung: yes. just to make sure it is quite clear, we would condition the permit so that the four items are specifically noted and the 2007 height permit is the basis for all future addenda. i would add a fifth one, which is that the finished elevation of the ground floor would be somewhere around 395 or 396 based on what i saw in the survey.

vice president goh: i will likely support a motion with those conditions. and it is troubling to me that a project sponsore would go againt a really direct very clear request. i mean, probably not troubling enough for me to say "deny this permit and prevent people from building for over a year," but almost that troubling. >> so, is there a motion?

vice president goh: he is still looking. commissioner garcia: they are waiting on you. commissioner fung: i so move. are those conditions clear to you? >> it would be very helpful if they were restated. my understanding is that this motion is to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the conditions that the finished elevation of the ground floor be no higher than 396 feet, based on what is in the site survey. commissioner fung: 395 or 396, depending on their final grading. it was not easy to ascertain exactly where it is pending their detailed drawings. >> how would that final height be determined? commissioner fung: it would be up to the permit holder, but it

establishes a point from which the building will not extend beyond two stories from the upper side. >> to say that the ground floor shall be no higher than 395 or 396 feet? commissioner fung: the elevation is above sea level, so it is 395. >> sea level, ok. commissioner fung: that would be condition 1. condition to is that site permit drawings and dated 2007, i believe -- vice president goh: can we confirm which plans? >> what we would refer to as the site permit, which was issued on april 27, 2000 and six, is on

the overhead. -- 2006 is on the overhead. >> so the site permit drawings issued april 2006. commissioner fung: just to reiterate from that that the rear wall at the grade is a retaining wall and that there isbehind it. that is three. no. 4 is that the garage door is 12 feet in width and a curb cut of 10 feet. >> if you could repeat that? commissioner fung: grosz door

is 12 feet, as shown -- the garage door is 12 feet, as shown on the permits, with a curb cut of 10 feet. >> just to note again the date, we would want to refer to it as approved by the department of building inspection stamp, which has march 29, 2010. that would be the date the permit was issued and the date of the plans we would refer to. that is march 29, 2010. approved then by the department of building inspection. >> the site permits drawings approved by dbi would be the

basis for all future addenda. the garage door opening as shown on the site permit with a curb cut of 10 feet. i believe you're moving on to another item. commissioner fung: the other points i already talked about was the rear of the building. >> the rear wall is a retaining wall withbehind it. commissioner fung: and the finished floor on an elevation of 3952396. -- 395 to 396. vice president goh: i only heard four conditions and i thought he said five. where there for? -- were there four? commissioner fung: i did say five, but i think i was incorrect. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye.

president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> item 6 has been dismissed and will not be called this evening. shall we take a short break? >> we are ready to move on to item number 7. this regards the property at 3224 and half 22nd street. we will start with the

department. you have seven minutes. >> good morning, commissioners. 8 little background on this permit application. the application was submitted to the department on march 29th of 2010. as part of the permit, we received some code compliance information on march 26th. we did a notification on april 6th stating that there is a notice of intent to place tables and chairs at this property. we received two objections to the notice of intent.

we reviewed the information -- we provided a directing a hearing for june 30th. the department posted the surrounding mary fisk on june 14th. during the intervening time, we received objectives to the potential issuance of this permit. we held a hearing on june 30th forward this permit. the public showed up and provide it testimony. the applicant did not show up. we took the information that was provided to us and we provided.

the denial of permit was submitted to the department of public works. the department denied a permit application on july 14th. when we received the appeal from the merchant in this case.

we did not receive a notification. we did our due diligence trying to figure out what is going on. we believe that we have followed all of our procedures. we request that the board uphold the decision. >> i have a question. what are the rules about smoking and outdoor seating? >> if the denial is up held and

the business owner changes the business or cafe, are they prohibited from replying for a certain amount of time. >> typically this is a year. xdthis is under the same busines name and that the business merchant. this is still considered the same business. >> thank you. >> this has to do with the shared interests. do we know the salon as opposed to this table and chair or table and chairs? >> actually, one of the initial responses was from the business owner. there was some concern

regarding no smoking and the awareness. >> ok, thank you. >> ok, we can hear from the appellant now. >> one thing that was mentioned is that the course of business has changed. one of the main reasons is the concerns of the neighbors and another reason was the ruling prohibiting smoking in small shops. this happened about two months ago so we shut the business down. this has been going on for almost a month.

every business in this area, every cafe, they have tables and chairs outside. that has been my main concern. >> have you talked to your

neighbors? >> yes. >> the department of public works stated that the beauty salon. is that your understanding that they're opposed to putting tables and chairs. >> smoking outside. as long as there is no smoking inside and outside of the premises, this is not a concern. >> i think they also raised a concern about people congregating in the shared

entrance. >> the plan is that they will not obstruct the common interest. >> is this different from the cafe? >> they are different. this will be a cafe. we intended to start this month.

the inspectors looked at what is going on. >> the building inspectors can let us know. on the block, what other businesses have tables and chairs on the sidewalk. >> there's one on the corner. >> they have tables and chairs? >> yes, they have their downside. >> on the same side? >> yes.

>> is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> hello, i own an arts gallery several blocks away. i have some pictures, can i put them up here? i just want to show the outside seeing in the neighborhood. -- outside seating in the neighborhood.

this is a picture of the park which is something that the city just sanctioned to be put in on the street which is additional outside seating. this is now a little park. even though i live on 24th street, my home away from home is 22nd street. on moving to san francisco, what i really appreciated was the cafe culture. this particular block brings such diversity, i have met people there from around the world. we congregate to get there. we exchanged opinions and ideas. part of that is the flow of the outside as well as the inside in that area.

the proposed cafe will offer a as i understand it, turkish coffee. this is something you cannot get anywhere else. i would like to see this. this is no longer a smoke shop. this has been cut down. this is a tiny space. this is not economically viable. in the spirit of diversity and cooperation in, they have made plans to keep the congregation from the shared entrance to insure that there's not smoke bothering these people.

i have every confidence that they will continue this and i would like to see this permit granted. i would like to see the chairs and tables go out there. thank you for your time. >> good evening. i'm here to speak on behalf of the beauty shop. i'm a long-term client of these.