diligence of presenting the complaints of the 311 and the systems of the company that have the complained filed against them and you know yelp is a good tool as well, the companies should be required to submit a statement in response to any appeal as well as the relevant code they intend to rye rely on and the statements at least from the workers that were there and or at least the workers that were present during any kind of a questionable thing, but the end result is the burden is placed on the individual, not the property owner, not dpw, not the company to report all of these things to 311, sfpd. dpw the department of urban service and it gets sloped around and i would ask you that.

take that into consideration. >> any other public comment under this item? >> >> good evening, my name is brian and i am a attorney that appears in front of this board from time-to-time. i was originally slated to appear on-line 7 which miss gold fine announced was withdrawn from the calendar and just on behalf of my client to show up and express my dissatisfaction this this process and how it has affected the permit holders here. i think that you are familiar with this case, and very briefly, we were schedule to come back today for the third time on a single appeal. and there have been no less than 6 or 7 appeals this year from the same group of appellants. we have taken the position that

these are frivolous done with mal intent and to harass and that has not gone over well. they have spent ridiculous amounts of money and i think that last week the permit holder spent $75,000 in permit fees along. and they are saying that the appellants had taken dr and on this property. and concerning the same permit that we are here and would have been here today on the appeal, but the dr was supposed to take place in june and the city staff had to scrutinize the plans and the meeting were held with the permit holders and the requesters and the planning department ultimately recommended that the city not take the discretionary review and hours before the hearing, these requesters withdrew their request. and that allowed them to then appeal the same permits and that is what we have been doing for the last few months and that started in october. last week, we tried to put an end to it and get the special

revisions and the permit so that they could not be appealed and we could complete this job and there was support for that and we were asked to come back today. >> they took advantage of this procedure and withdrew their appeal just before 4:00 today. this was not the result of a settlement agreement and we have made no deal with the other side, this is just their tactic. and so prevented you from doing what we should have gotten last week, and we now will have to go in, and you ply for permit which they will have the ability to appeal and i will not be surprise if they withdraw that appeal or withdraw it before they have to appear before the board again. on behalf of my client, it is just a dissatisfaction for how he and his wife have been treated through this out this is hes and the resistance that we have had from the board to recognize what we are saying and i believe that we have

documented repeatedly and what should be taken when reviewing the filings and four sets of attorneys, and three sets of consultants and appeal and appeal and they are based on safety and clearly i think that it was apparent last week that we are not talking about safety issues. i hope that in the future, some kind of procedures can be done to weed out the frivolous filedings or abuse of the process. thank you for your time. >> thank you, is there any other public comment on this item? >> please step forward. good evening, commissioners vice president lazarus, and president hwang, and i am steve and i am a regular here unfortunately. and i am the owner of 68 procidio with my wife. and as my attorney just addressed this you, there is one other thing that i wanted to point out to you. and that is as of last night,

the appellant contacted my attorney through his attorney, and said, you know, if you would only get rid of your fire escape, we would be willing to drop our appeal tonight. and so, i find this very disturbing, okay? and appalling that an entire campaign was mounted for the last 13 weeks and for actually a year all around safety. and now, all of a sudden, the neighbor wants us to get rid of our fire escape. i mean, it is, the hypocracy is unbelievable these people should be made an example of and i realize that the board does not have the jurisdiction to do that, and my passion of dealing with the year of this and the cost of this and the emotional stress of having to do this. and so i will only say that to you to put a perspective on this. and why i am frustrated in

support of what my attorney just said is the game that is being played here is by withdrawing this appeal tonight, as far as i know, and i am not an attorney, okay? i am just a home owner, and i am a simple guy. is that now, when we submit, okay? a revision, which has already been submitted to the board last week, okay? for the change of the doors, they could have an opportunity to appeal this again and we are back in it from this. and we have had enormous financial damages to this. i think that the board as smart as you are all, nothing is getting fooled by what is going on here and i am just sitting here saying, any way that we can get a conditional permit that is not appealable, based on the fact they got another week, last week to come up with this. and that is where i am coming from right now. and so with that, i ask the board to take that into consideration, and i ask you to make the judgment that i think that you do very well.

and i appreciate your time and efforts and i am sorry that we have to be back here again based on this, harassment and manipulation process. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you, is there any other comment under item 1. >> this is for items that are not on tonight's calendar. >> i would like to show this photo. i am a member of the park merced coalition. >> does this have to do with the appeals regarding the removal of the trees at park merced. >> this has to do with brotherhood way and nothing to do with that. it has brotherhood way has been 90 percent loved and last month

the person from harber way said that it was cut because of an accident in 2003. and in 2010 and certified in 2011 the eir for the project was approved and we feel that the eir has been violated, and there is i map in there showing that these trees on brotherhood way were to be kept and we have written a letter to planning and it has gone to code enforcement. we know that there is increased noise, wind and i suspect air quality change. and you should drive by brotherhood way and look at it. and if it were me, would i get a geologist to inspect the slope of the hill, personally, i think that in an earthquake or in the heavy rain the hill could slide and only one of these people, if they are found liable to be cited, for violations, we will want the hill replanted but we will see no reason why they love the

hill to begin with. so, that is my report. >> do you care to state your name for the record >> my name is cathy and i am the member of the park merdec action coalition. >> thank you. >> any other public under item number one? >> okay, seeing none, then we will move to item two, commissioners comments and questions. >> no. >> none and, then item three, commissioners is the adoption of the november 13, board minutes. >> any changes, >> no comment. >> i love to adopt the minutes. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? >> okay, seeing none, if you could call the roll please? >> on that motion from the president to adopt the november 13, 2013 minutes, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus.

>> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 5-0, and those minutes are adopted. >> okay, thank you, with the president's consent we are going to call out of order, 4 c 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 adequa