is all right. thank you. >> mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, the planning department. given the lateness of the hour i will try to be as brief as possible. this project does have a long history it was before this board before, and there were revisions of the board had adopted and there was a special condition's permit that was approved and the departments worked with the executive director to insure that the board's conditions were successfully implemented and during the course of that appeal process we did find and i think that it correctly pointed out by the appellant inconsistentcy in the addenda and the approval and the things that had changed and we tried our best to catch of the issues and one of the things that we did not recognize at the time that this was not a level lot

as depicted on the plans this is a laterally sloping lot and so the project was constructed and the appellant pointed out to the department that the building was higher than was being shown on the plans. so we promptly suspended the building permit and reviewed the matter and found that it was a combination of the laterally sloping lot and plus the misrepresentation of the adjacent property and that is why we got to the number that we did. but that being said, the building was actually being built according to plans, it was the correct height. so the over all height of the structure we had the building department measure this several time it was correct it was the representation and the relationship to the adjacent properties. so i made a decision to do a neighborhood notification on this revision permit to correct the relationship and also more importantly i think that the lateral slope of the lot and the view was filed on that and

we had a planning commission hearing and the commission did up hold the project revised and taking into consideration appropriately the context. so just wanted to clarify that the available for any questions. >> could you refresh our memory as to the conditions we imposed? >> i was hoping that you would. >> one was related. >> i am much older than you. >> one was actually related to the height and we actually did specifically call out the height that was on the plans which was an incorrect data. >> yeah. >> and i think that we have corrected everything now and these revised plans. >> it appears that was the case. but, if you could also and i'm looking at the orientation of this site verses mr. linn's home. and it appears to me that the

site is in a way northwest direction from mr. linn's house. >> if i could put on the overhead, a parcel map that was included this is part of the packet that we gave to the commission and it should be in your materials. so you are correct, it is i would say, west to northwest, it is very much to the west, but very slightly to the north this is just a little bit of the compass area here and the west and corresponding up to be on the plans and so the relationship, the appellant's property is here and the subject property is here. so it is located to the west but also slightly to the north. >> and it also is down hill as well. >> it also appears that then

the pockets of sunlight to mr. linn's house would occur in the late afternoon and the sun is at a relatively low point with respect to the horizon. >> i would agree, late afternoon and in the summer months and also you are pointing out that the subject property does have no variances granted for us and so they do have a complying rear yard and the appellant also has one and so separating the two properties would be the rear yards, and the co-complying rear yards of the properties and so it is as fairly good distance between the building walls of the two buildings. and there is i believe, two complying rear yards. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? nothing. >> is there any public comment?

please step forward. >> president hwang how many minutes? >> good evening, my name is mark and i am a neighbor at 15 san lorenzo. i am here to comment on the project and basically say that i am against what they are proposing to do here and this roof line seems to be out of hand with the rest of the roof lines in the road. as far as the code compliant as far as i am concerned there is not much of a rear yard it is somewhere in the neighborhood of ten feet and i know that it is an unconforming lot. but we have lived there for many, many years and i used to run in that lot as a kid. and we had no problem with the actual project being done, but there is just in the way that it was put forth and the way that it was built and right now it is a bliet because we have young children and animals and there are holes and open fences and things where kids could get in. so i feel like it has been

neglected and i feel that this should be scrutinized at this point heavily because of the history. and like i said, i know mr. linn very well and i don't know the type of person that would raise... (inaudible) and i have never seen him up in arms. but when stuff like this happens we have to be diligent and also have to understand when i stand behind his house and i look at that roof line and i know that it is not even depleted, it is below its intended height, there is a lot of (inaudible) and light and air lost for him. i think that this needs to be reviewed and i would suggest strongly that we consider the original height which was oddly enough incorrect, way off. and just to try to compromise here and get the project done because it is a bliet in the

neighborhood. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? >> i just wanted to mention that i don't remember receiving a 311 notification for the revision on the new established roof height. i know that is probably not really an issue at this point. but, it just seems like everything around the project seems to be a little strange. thank you. >> thank you, any other public comment? >> okay, seeing none we will start with rebuttal. mr. linn, you have three minutes. >> keep this pretty short. i don't have a lot of rebuttal to say, i pretty much covered everything. as far as flat roofs in the neighborhood i don't have photographic evidence but there are many. i drove around saint francis woods because this may come up with the board. there is probably around 20 in our neighborhood.

and only 5 that have flat roofs and they get up peeked a lill bit and then flat and from the street this appear to be peaked. >> the trees from the aerial shot you cannot get height out of that. we have never really had anything blocking or anything like that. and this is a photograph, this is a photograph from the other board showing, showing this house and now if you look at 1337's roof it is not steeply peaked. this is on a temporary frame just to hold up the tarp. this roof will be taller than what is depicted here with the blue tarp. and that is the shot that i was showing that shows the pacific ocean in the background. clearly this is west of me.

that is all. >> mr. linn, you are saying that the house behind the blue tarp is yours? >> no. just taken from... >> from your house? >> i see. >> it is confusing, saint fra* francis would law the lines around and there are very few straight lines. >> thank you. >> any rebuttal? >> i am just here today just in hopes to bring a close to this issue because it has been ongoing for several years. you know, working with the city departments personally, i live in southern california, and so, i drove up here this morning and i know that it is late for us all.

but i really do want to comply and our family does want to comply with everything that the city requires of us. and i know that there are other neighbors that were not able to make it today. but i do want to see this project finished and the sooner the better because at this time, as you can see, we were not able to continue building because of the suspension of the permit. so the project as is, leaves it open to vandalism and you know, issues that we just want to resolve at this time and i mean, we actually sent 311 notification to the radius, and if there is a issue as to why a neighboring property did not receive the notification i am not able to answer that. for almost an year since they issued the complaint we did send the 311 notifications and we have complied with all of the other requests from dbi and the planning commission.

and we went through the process of the discretionary review. and we are here today, we waited several months to be heard, so, my parents, you know, they bought this property with their life savings and i know that we have all... people at all and throughout this year, we have been paying, heavy, heavy interest and basically dipped into, you know, (inaudible) the circumstance that here today that i hope that you can sympathize with and we just really want to bring the close to this situation once and for all. so, if there is, you know, any protocol, if there is any questions, you know, if there is anything that i can do at this point to resolve this issue we would really like to do that today. thank you. >> hold on i have a question. >> yes. >> have you guys had an open dialogue with the appellant at

this point and how many times have you guys met trying to resolve this? >> actually, i met peter i actually personally went to his house when i believe that when i was in college. so like maybe 8 or 9 years ago. >> you have not had any recent. when the project started to being built after that initial meeting he also would actually continue to call, because he would, i don't know if he would go on to the property himself or to determine where the line is. where in the instance where we did meet and he came out and tom, i forget his last name but he is a building inspect or and he basically came out and he had to complain about some sort of dispreptcy with a line and he was arguing over something

like an inch. so i think that basically i mean, showed me that, no matter what type of a process or what possessions that we have made and what notifications and no matter what we did to work with the building department and the appellant would he have been or would he have stopped. i don't know if this is just a gradual animosity throughout the years. >> i don't think that we need to go too much further in this direction. if there was a way to do anything with the appellant, as far as working together and coming to a compromise, it would have been back then when, you know, trying to get a compromise to get to this hearing today. >> is your family planning, is this going to be your residence? >> yes. >> this is actually my parents dream home. i lived in saint francis and i

was named after san francisco and to live in saint francis woods and it has actually become a little bit of a nightmare. >> thank you. >> and any departmental rebuttal? >> no. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> well commissioners, you know that this is probably i think that the fourth or fifth hearing on this case. some of you have not seen it, but the, and there were in the original documentation quite a bit of discreptcies. i thought that we had resolved most of them. i have been aware that the height was off by that much and you showed me how originally the house was larger. the department has accepted the change, the permit holder was

forced to go through a revision and therefore open a way for the additional appeals. and the department, however, is satisfied that they have now done it accurately as far as what the height of the building was that was being constructed and i am prepared to accept that. >> and i move to up hold the permit that it conforms with the permits that in terms of the over all building plan. >> on the basis that it conforms to the approved plans, as it relates to the building height? >> that is correct. >> okay.

>> we have a motion then. and commissioner fung. to up hold this permit on the basis that it conforms to the approved plans as it relates to the building height. >> yes. >> on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. >> the vote is 5-0, the permit is upheld on that basis. >> and there is no further business before the board. >> the meeting is adjourned.

>> good morning. today is wednesday, march 20th, 2013. this is the meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president clinch? >> here. >> commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner mar? >> here. >> commissioner mccray? >> present. >> commissioner walker? >> present. >> and commissioner mccarthy and melgar are excused. ~ and we have a quorum. the next item is item b, the oath. will all persons that may be giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand? do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? >> yes. >> thank you. you may be seated. item c, approval of minutes, discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for the

meeting held on november 21st, 2012. there is a motion to approve the minutes. >> move to approve. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> any opposed? is there any public comment on the minutes? the minutes are approved. the next items are continued appeals for order of abatement. the cases, case no. case no. 6773, 1316 - 22 mariposa street has been continued and the continuance has been granted for 30 days. is there any public comment? >> can we hear from staff?

>> i'm sorry? >> can we hear from staff? >> let's take one at a time. let's do the continued appeal, 67 73, what happened -- >> well, they -- well, go ahead. >> i received correspondence from the -- from richard thomas requesting an additional 30 days due to illness and the fact that his lawyer was out of town. speaking with the city attorney, and sonya, and i did call president clinch yesterday to ask his permission if he agreed with the department staff. he, according to the city attorney, president clinch and myself, we decide it had was best if we gave mr. thomas an additional 30 days due to the codes. >> i understand that last month

the appellant asked for a continuance and submitted a letter saying that he was not available or his engineer was on vacation or something like that. so, did he submit a letter this time? >> yes, we have an additional letter from mr. thomas requesting it. >> it was in the packet -- >> was it in our package? i thought that was the one for last month. >> no, there's two letters in there. there is one in the beginning. >> i have a question. i would like to know what the building code allows around continuances. >> the building code allows one continuance for 60 days. i gave him one continuance for 30 days. but there's other things other than the building code, there's past practices. >> yes, did you want to answer the -- >> i just have a question on procedure. i'm a bit confused here. who is granting the continuance, you or the staff? >> right, we are being asked to continue this.

it's on our agenda. >> thank you. >> actually, the way it transpired was the appellant requested continuances of all three matters that are on the agenda. and according to the rule 7.10 that we had discussed earlier, the -- not the building code, but the rules that apply to the building appeals board, is my understanding, it says that if the secretary -- if there's no objection from the department and the secretary has the approval of the president, the secretary of the board can continue the matters. my understanding is that the secretary contacted the president yesterday and he agreed. and according to mr. sweeney, there was no objection from the department. so, according to the rules, the continuance can be granted. and we discussed the fact that the building code section 105 a.2 says that there should be one continuance for 60 days,

but in light of the stated reasons, the fact that the first continuance was for 30 days and there being some ambiguity based on the fact that people are -- have routinely been granted more than one continuance, it would be best -- it was my advice consistent with the rules and the practices of this board that the continuance could be granted if the secretary and the president agreed and there was no objection from the department. that was my advice. i didn't advise whether or not to grant it, just the rules as i understood them. >> right, i had not experienced that once it's on the agenda and we get it, usually it's the decision of the commission to do it. i mean, i just -- i mean, i think that we need to -- my concern is this is languaged on forever that the first letter was basically one set of excuses.

the next letter is another set of excuses. and i would like to draw a line as to when we resolve this case. so, i mean, i would like input from the commissioners on -- >> well, i think since -- i would like to draw the line, it too, so to speak. but since the discussion here sounds like we authorized one continuance for 60 days, and we gave one continuance for 30 days so we can actually grant another 30 days and that's it. can we do that? >> like i said, there was -- there is some ambiguity because the rules that apply to the ab, which is the rule 7.10 says if there is a written request to the secretary and the secretary has the approval of the president and there's no objection from the department, then the continuance can be granted by the secretary. if the department objects, then the rule 7.10 says that then the appellant has to come before the board and request the continuance.

so, again, i'm not advising whether or not it should have been granted, but i was just explaining -- okay. >> okay. so, since it was granted, let's say -- >> yes. >> -- is it for 30 days and that's it, right? not 60 days, it was 30 days from now. >> that was my understanding, mr. sweeney notified the appel -- appellant that he was granted a 30-day continuance. >> yeah, i think this has been languaged in, too. the other problem with this hearing is that there's more than one issue. there were four issues, i think, that was going to be coming before this commission. so, what i would like to do is just to let the appellant know that we're going to hear it in 30 days. so, if somebody is sick, if somebody is not available, he should find somebody else to represent him. but for whatever reason, we're going to hear it, all these four cases, in 30 days whether

he's here or not, or whether any of his representatives are here or not. so, he better get it together and have somebody here. that's what i would like to do. >> >> could i also say i'm concerned that if we notice that something is on the calendar, if there is any public that's here in response to it, you know, that's one of the reasons why we shouldn't just take it off the agenda prior to the hearing because i want to make sure that we're in compliance with our brown act and, you know, all of the notifications that we do. so, i mean, my preference when we're talking about the rules in the future is that we address that, that if it's noticed to the public, that there might be a different handling of the appeal or a continuance. and if the continuance is requested before the actual noticing goes out, just -- >> i think that there would be a lot of benefits to making --

amending the rules and making these things clear. i want to be cautious about discussing what those amendments might be now because amending the rules was not a noticed item. so, just -- but i -- but what i propose to do is to circulate some possible solutions to what i think are some of the ambiguities. again, based on -- because you have to be cautious about proceeding consistently with respect to each person that comes in front of the board. so, that was my caution also yesterday. >> yes. >> but i do think it would be a good idea to put it on the agenda for some possible amendmentses to the rules. >> and we put that on our abatement appeals agenda? >> that's correct. >> okay. >> that would be great. thank you. did you have a comment --

>> clarification if i may through the chair. and that is we want to afford this appellant the same respect and due process he as any other appellant that comes before you. i just want to clarify that. this is a city attorney case, and that while 60 days seems to be appropriate on the basis of your determination, we do have a continuing staff, the department has a continuing concern about the issues at this particular building. and if this went beyond a 60-day period, we would not agree to that. >> so, does it require a motion, what commissioner mar was describing? >> no, because mr. sweeney -- again, with your approval, yesterday, granted the appellant's continuance. my reading of the rules, he can proceed that way. i just wanted to point out that this is -- because there was no objection from the department, so, if there's an objection from the department, then it

has to come before the board. as the rules are currently written. >> got it. >> thank you. >> just one question, mr. chair. this continuance requested an "and" and the "and" is the production of documents. what kind of work load is that? who is to produce them? how is that -- or does that go with the continuance, or is that denied? >> it probably goes with the continuance, what documents he's requesting i'm not sure. this case has been going since the first notice of violations for months and months and months. he's had plenty of time to get any documents that he should desire. so, the ball is in his court. we're waiting for him to tell us exactly what he wants from us.