probably were drawn in a map 60 or 50 years ago should they be sacred considering i'm not part of the dynamic process of change within the city when those lines were set to show there was going to be some kind of small business as a justification of putting a 6 hundred unit development onion 17 acres of the slopes of twin peaks so i would propose that this stays open to, you know, to revi review. >> you have a few seconds. >> sir. >> yes. >> you can use your 12

seconds. >> i said what i said. >> what do you want the board to do you, we want to resee the set lines as non-appealable we want to take the issue to the planning commission that's the proper organism to the site on planning and development in the city we think that this is been a very unjust everybody in planning that says it's great but unfortunately you can't why not can't you hear but all over the city they're the reviews of zoning and changes in height and zoning and so forth but this one seems to be sacred that's part of your case. >> let me get to the point you

have a subdivision that's been depraved with a permit that's been determined that no building maybe allowed on the site. >> right. >> this board didn't have the ability to reverse the supervisorial approval to you. >> i'm not an attorney i don't know the legal aspects of this. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you okay. we can hear from the appellants then. >> good evening, commissioners and staff i'm donald abatement the chairman which the east side alliance on april 20, 2012, they

issued a map for the subdivision this has a condition of approval that allowed the lot split but no building for the escaping and small business persons this is based on the restrictions on the building set back lines contained on the original san francisco map approved by the planning commission and board of supervisors in 1962 any appeal of the conditional lot split issued in april falls under the jurisdiction of the board of supervisors no appeal of the subdivision conditional approval was filed by the permit holder within the 10 day filing window that's not closed with the board of supervisors board of supervisors does not accept late appeals that board

does not allow jurisdiction to the conditional approval was final even if this board grants the rehearing or if in the hearing the board rules in favor the new legislation under the substitution decision will still stand as a result any further consideration of that matter in a new hearing by this board is effectively renewed and the hearing requests falls short of a new hearing under the boards rules we've certainly harder no arraign under the boards rules it will be changed the boards hearing to deny the permit does not create a regular thank you taking or molester just justice

by the way, they have to right to rebuild the green area in addition the protected covenant by the permit holder and the hearing request are not new facts and would have been provided at the old hearing as submitted to the deputy on july 25th, 2013, with its subdivision application for all of those reasons the boards decision on july 17, 2013, to deny the permit is consistent with the city's surveysors the lot split and the 92 no building restrictions on was subject small business for the zoning administrators letter dated april 27, 2014, that concludes this brief thank you.

>> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening commissioner hurtado and members of the board i'll be brief this matter has been before the board several times before but the new facts some are not that new last year after the board took action to deny the permit the department of public works orientated a tentative map of approval 9 set back line open the 1962 subdivision prevented the building and subject to that action the department of public works with drew it was accurate for the other departments to look at the application and it

was subsequentially refiled we reviewed the historic records that were difficult to relocate more than 50 years ago the planning commission acts were not noted in the action no specific come a time to go back to so it took research to go back and find the minutes from the commission hearing and going back additional looking hearing by hearing to find the hearing and able to piece together the history that information lead me to condition the approval with reiterating what the department of public works had found the first time around no development under the terms of the subdivision that was issued in april 30th of this year by the department of public works at the bottom of that letter it notes there's a 10 day appeal period to the board of supervisors and no appeal filed i'll note that the previous

decision that the department of public works issued in 2013 what have been appealed to the board of supervisors and no appeal was made at the time and noted i think in the hearings we've had last fall that decision was not filed and it was passed to the board of supervisors and they're the appropriate appeal body for hearing subdivision matters so with that, i'm available for questions the board may have thank you. >> thank you any public comment on that item? seeing none, then commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners the not being an attorney but being a someone involved in the planning profession the i don't think my opinion as to exactly what was

allowed or not allowed has been clearly defined i'm still of the opinion that the covenant and the maps that were produced for us for our review did not clearly state the, in fact, the designation of the green zone, however, that's not the primary issue it was in the primary hearing this case may go on to other venues, however, what is before us then whether the rehearing is called for not

necessarily on the specific criteria but in terms of the fact as far as this board is concerned that the issue is moved and i would not support a new hearing. >> okay. so i'd move to deny the hearing request okay. thank you. >> on the basis that well, it's mute and in addition there's no error or on the part of the c y city. >> we have a motion from the vice president to deny this rehearing request on that motion commissioner fung president is absent commissioner honda. >> thank you

vote is 3 to zero this rehearing t is denied and the notice of decision see issued. >> okay. the next item 10 has been withdrawn and so appeal 11 gary raw vs. the department of building inspection with the planning department disapproval for the prompts from 2220 sacramento street from an application associated with the variance case to reflect has built of a garbage door to resolve a notice of violation on june 8th the board voted to reschedule this to the call of the chair so a certificate of the appropriateness at the planning commission i'm curious

if there's anyone in the room representing the property owner or appellant in this case item number 11. >> madam director who requested this. >> this quarters case was on the to the call of the chair for 9 years i've been in contact with the appellant agent jeremy paul over the course of 5 years to get rectification of that he was not inclined to commissioner cranshaw withdraw this. >> he's not hear here. >> we provided a notice to the new owner if you want we can mare from mr. sanchez who is ready to speak. >> he looks at eager. >> when i was looking at my pack. >> i was just appointed.

>> scott sanchez we're doing a little bit of traveling you able to see the file some background it came in 2000 for the city landmark the permit was in 2002 with the addition of the garage that was limited within 16 feet during the course of construction i'll note that headline marks the review for the original review in 2000 was approved had a garage door without authorization they stand the garage door up to 18 street attempted at that legalize this it went to the advisors board they were going to have two

separate garage doors and the landmarks board they made a motion to accept the staffs represents but ultimately didn't accept the recommendation so there's no final action there the planning director at the time who was overseeing the sift of appropriateness issued a certificate of appropriateness for this which went back to the 15 foot garage door opening as previously states the c of a submitted a building permit with the 18 foot garage door it was did understand it was appealed and tendon to the charley from then commissioner sugaya to go back to the landmarks board that's not been solved i don't see the decisions that

authorizes the door of the width this was done without permit that so given those fangs i respectfully request the board denies this appeal that the denial of the permit for the 18 foot door will stand and we can go through the normal process and have them seek legal stun ution from 9 preservation commission in a various scenarios back to the original proposal or go back to what was a original powerful the 16 foot garage door. >> are you finished. >> so a question has the notice of violation been issued on the property at this point and a good question we've been waiting the outcome of this hearing. >> so the work is performed

would the benefit of permit. >> but they came in and i was not able to see in the records to see if there's a notice of violation by the planning staff we have a different group so some enforcement process has to start over i don't know if dbi has active forces i assume. >> well, maybe well left alone maybe. >> we want to wrap up and i appreciate the executive directors attention so get those resolved for the city and mr. sanchez two temporary things i wasn't quite sure what you meant by in the brief that was added to allow them to use the garage when was that. >> so. >> the two temporary things dune 80 down to the 16 foot

opening. >> there's a staff recommendations in the landmark hearing in 2004 we recommended that instead of the 18 garage door brake it up into with two and have a separation between the two donors. >> i remember that but allow them to temporarily use the doors i think about - >> there were two like pilars. >> i couldn't understand it. >> when i looked at the photos of the building i didn't measure them. >> they removed those two and you folks wanted to put it at least back. >> and i don't think that's been done. >> that's what my question ways. >> my understanding is the property is currently in

violation with a 18 foot garage door but once this is resolved tonight we move forward with our process and, in fact, if they've revised this over the course of the years we can remove the abatement. >> i think it's a 18 foot wide open feet but some temporary thing done to allow them to temporarily occupy and use the garage and nothing more permanent than temporary. >> nine years is temporary. >> we'll check if it's in inclines that will be addressed thank you. >> i did do that didn't i. >> my understanding there were temporary structures that were there and an inspector noticed

they're no longer there that's what t what the record reflects. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners, i didn't bring information i thought that was a planning issue but i looked at the ipod and the online tracking an active complaint with enforcement so as mr. sanchez said we can move forward and an order of abatement i did not have the details but i see it from 2003. >> those would have been held in abeyance. >> yeah. we can move forward and get the new owner to resolve it i okay is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted.

>> go ahead. >> that we deny the appeal on the basis that this is - the city acted appropriate. >> they were in violation of the city directive. >> would you care to amend it. >> deny the appeal i uphold the denial appeal open the basis that the property owner was in violation and in violation yeah. >> what was the last part in violation of the city. >> directives. >> okay. >> so that's commissioner

honda's motion to uphold the denial of this permit application on the basis that the appellant was in violation of city directives on that motion to uphold the denial commissioner fung commissioner hurtado and the president is absent the vote is 3 to zero this denial t is upheld thank you okay. >> so item 12 continued to november 5th and the next appeal don and andy vs. the zoning administrator the property on 1957 the issuance of 2014 regarding whether or not a deck by an inclusive used to be divided equally between two

appellants appellants are not here is there anyone here for the beach street appeal okay no one here. >> i've never seen this happen. >> there was no briefing submitted either i know that the appellant had sought the services of a consultant they later didn't higher. >> should we deem it abandoned. >> i would say so they can request a rehearing if there's a valid reason they weren't here. >> let's deny the appeal or take it off calendar. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis. >> you want to ask for public comment. >> yes. any public comment on that item? okay. thank you

vice president. >> i'm sorry. i'll move to deny the appeal on the basis it seems like the parties have abandoned their interest. >> it's a va order so we might need a abuse finding. >> on the basis that there is no error or abuse of discretion. >> thank you victor. >> the motion from the vice president to uphold the letter of determination on the probation the zoning administrator did in the error or abuse his discretion. >> sorry to be lawyerly we didn't hear action so there's no evidence that's what i was going to clarify. >> on the basis there's no evidence. >> of error or abuse of discretionary.

>> or error or abuse of discretion by the zoning administrator my yes. >> on that motion to uphold it with that findings commissioner fung president is absent commissioner honda the vote is 3 to zero this letter of determination is upheld open that basis thank you. >> okay. thank you okay. the last item on calendar the appeal carl oil brown vs. the department of building inspection on hampton avenue for june 26th with the alteration permit for the main level for to the new doors and replace windows in kind and to remodel the existing bedroom and incorporate new hallways hear if

the appellant first. >> good evening my name is carl oil brown the appellant this is julia ask who is doing to be speaking for me, i'm requesting the relocation of a staircase mr. scott because of the third staircase it was one .5 feet away from my property is it far too close and ms. ask will speak for me. >> is that okay. >> i'm sorry can you state your name for the record. >> julie ask and ms. brown is asking for the relocation of the staircase it's close to the entrance to her kitchen and the second request for the field fire safety of the property given the proximity to the

structure to her home. >> i'm assuming you read the brief the first one t is privacy shields e she's elderly and handicapped and had a stroke and fears for her privacy and the safety she feels the closeness of the staircase will interfere with her privacy she spend a lot of time at home the second issue around her security the proposed staircase makes it easy for someone to jump on the property line the intrarps to her kitchen normally she keeps the window's open because of the tare flow to the home especially open warm days the roof is flat and to she is dealing with the proximity

she wouldn't be able to keep her doors open for safety reasons and concerned about the noise and finally, there's there's the issues the cross of the firewall and given how close the staircase is to her line there there's the issue of the are firewall and we were discussing the kitchen and scott and shawn on are open to a fireplace and a concern around the load of the deck that impacts the foundation and whether or not that's on her property anything i've missed. >> no. >> so we come back to the apps for the evaluation of the foundation whether or not it's on her property and the firewall and the second ask for the relocation of the staircase given her privacy and safety

one question you're welcome to questioning question it but the other folks agreed to put up the firewall but we'll let them speak. >> thank you for working that out in the halfway. >> any questions. >> not yet. >> maybe we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening my name is scott i'm the homeowner and my wife shannon we're also the permit holders i have drawings to help you guys understand the project while i talk so. >> overhead. >> maybe you can zoom in on that. >> like you're looking at it face it.

>> i'll point out some things during this process we tried to take our neighbors considerations take a look at it and trying to enjoy our open space we want to have a deck the biggest dispute is the staircase ms. brown thinks it, too close to her property i tried to draw the all of her dedicating deck and highway you'll notice her deck extends out 3 feet more than that be ours it is a modest design but the real dispute on the stairwell as wear walking down she's worried about security and about us looking into her windows first of all, you can't see there's some

lattice on top of her deck area so the only area we can have a glazing look out of the lattice on the steps this is higher and other details you'll notice there's a kind of grazing line of sight this is her living room and kitchen we don't know this is major concern but nevertheless, we know there's an issue of - >> excuse me. victor can you adjust that on our monitors here. >> good. >> thank you we went through provisions of our plans to accommodate her we didn't know she if not her light