questions. >> what do you mean by separators? >> i'm sorry. >> you used the term semiray tors. semiray tors. separators. what do you mean by that? >> there are these boards that we can see in the front and back. there's a board in between the two concrete foundations. >> board or styrofoam. >> not styrofoam. i would defer to inspector duffy on this, but something's there. we don't know exactly what it is and how far it goes. >> now we can hear from the appellants. >> good eveninging commissioners. we have come a long way and my client is willing together put an end to this thing.

we [inaudible] the survey so that make sure that nothing is go over the [inaudible]. so you all have a merry christmas and happy new year. >> thank you john. >> mr. tigue. >> good evening president lazarus and commissioners, corey tigue for planning department. we feel like this project was

approved appropriately by planning department. sounds like the proposed changes between the two parties would, if anything, result in a smaller project overall so wouldn't trigger any additional notification requirements and i don't think we have any issues for the compromise that's been reached. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> any public comment? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. mr. duffy, commissioners are you willing to entertain him again? >> yes. >> as long as he entertains that. >> sorry commissioners for the time. just one point of clarification, i heard mr. calvin there saying that the -- it would take the walls down prior to any -- the addendum being issued. you can't start the work until the addenda has to be issued before you take the walls down so we won't know what the foundation is until the a

ddenda is issued. >> well you can have multiple addenda. >> they could do something but the structure is usually on the first addenda. >> i don't know if it's set up like that, but we could make see. we could work on the addenda details. we could do a demolition addenda, that could be an idea. thank you commissioner fung. >> thank you for your help. >> thank you. >> timically it's an evaluation of the foundation. if they want to keep that foundation we want to make sure it's code compliant. that's what we want. >> i want to make sure these plans you submitted reflect the ideas of the department and have been reviewed by building inspection.

>> yes, we've circulated before the meeting both with mr. lau, mr. duffy and mr. lee. >> mr. lau you're nodding your head so you agree. >> i believe that the commissioners are in in agreement and the appropriate motion would be to grant the appeal and to condition -- it's actually a site permit -- to condition is site permit on the new drawings provided, dated -- >> today's date i think. >> december 17.

and to allow the building department to review the foundation for code compliance upon completion of demolition . did i miss anything? >> and on the basis of the agreement -- that is on the agreement of the parties? >> that is unusual, but yes. >> okay. >> we have a motion to

withhold this permit with adoption of revised plans. a further condition that the dbi review the subject foundation for code compliance upon completion of the demolition and this motion is on the basis of an agreement between the parties. on that motion to up hold with revised plans and further conditions, president lazarus. >> i. >> commissioner honda. >> i. >> commissioner wilson? >> i. >> thank you. the vote is 4 to zero. this appeal is upheld with further revised plans and conditions. >> moving on to item 7. the subject property is at 958 geary street. the zoning administrator decided december 19, 2014. at that time upon motion of

commissioner fung the board voted three to one to one with commissioner honda decenting and one vacancy to up hold the [inaudible] discretion. the letter of determination is regarding whether a medical cannabis dispensary may be reestablished at the retail space at the subject's property and we'll start with mr. papas who has three minutes. could we switch the mic? >> good evening commissioners and secretary and the attorney . on the screen i have some reasoning for [inaudible]

request. i'll just quote here -- i get quoted a lot of stuff last week, a month ago. a hearing request only in extraordinary cases to prevent manifest injustice. that is what's occurring to divinity tree at the moment. i don't have new circumstances, but i'd like you to review the circumstances we discussed last time and i'll list them after i state the injustice. you know, last time was kind of a popularity contest, kind of a referendum. that's not what i wanted and i think the facts got lost somewhere in that.

why did i present the planning e-mails. i presented the planning e-mails from january to march and they were just about word for word what was said. i don't understand why planning made me go through two months of this if they knew the 18 months closure period had already ended. that's another [inaudible] of the 18 month closure administration. i reviewed the last statements of the last hearing in 18

months of discussions, that included divinity tree was made aware of the 18 month closure dates are important. that's part of what public health did was offer consideration and before i submitted this time showed there were four other dispensary received later closure dates and these [inaudible] should be offered and that's my last point that dph offers consideration and i feel planning should too. >> thank you. you've exceeded your time. ? is there anyone here representing the property owner? seeing none, then mr. tigue.

h sfwloo for the appellant's situation, but unfortunate will the code language is clear and ambiguous about the 18th month abandonment. it treats that like a non conforming use. when we have a non conforming use we have the abandonment clause it's under the stipulation that space will be converted. the abandonment clausings have specific purposes and in this case it was very clear.

the appellant flexibility within their licensing, but unfortunately the way the code works that doesn't exist in this situation. i'm available for any questions you may have. i just want to make the point that the issue of manifesting injustice is not necessarily an issue relate ed to the interpretation of the code but will lead to the wisdom of the commission. thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i don't see any new information that would, for me, allow the granting or jurisdiction. >> i agree with my fellow

commissioner. although i voted in favor of the guarding the property owner, but we are here to determine whether a rehearing will happen and at this point i don't believe the threshold has been made for that to happen. >> move to deny the rehearing request. >> thank you. >> there's a motion on the floor from mr. fung to of to deny the hearing request. the vote the 4 to zero. the rehearing request is denied and a notice shall be released.

>> thank you. our next item is item 8, another rehearing request. the subject property is [inaudible] 6th a. avenue. the board received a letter from appellants with planning department approval decided november 19, 2014 at that time the board voted 4 to zero to 1 to up hold the basis that's code compliant rear edition of a third floor 72 square foot deck and we will hear from the requesters first. >> disclosure prior. i've retained the firm rubin for a separate matter. i feel i can hear this case with no bias or present.

prejudice. >> thank you. >> good evening. we're here tonight to give additional information to the board regarding extensive or costly attempted to negotiate with the project sponsors in good faith in order to myth mitigate some of the light into our home. the sponsors abruptly requested we give them modification ideas to address our concerns, but we were never given plans to study and refer to as had been promised in order to take informed suggestions. we then never had any response to the suggestions we had made as they left town for four month ts. we had great difficulty in obtained adequate plans in october. it was not until the night before we filed for dr in

november of 2014 that they were willing to meet with us. they were unwilling to make any modifications and unwilling to meet again. we received an abrupt e-mail requesting that our architect ts meet on short notice. they met on december 23 and she took detailed notes which indicated that the sponsors were willing to pull back the wall by 2 feet but they wanted to extend the master bedroom wall by 18 inches. the architect told that this was very helpful but it was a small bedroom that would m cause shadowing to our roof. she didn't leave him any copies of the hand drawnings she had shown them.

she had shown glen at their meeting. in addition they actually had out of the 18 uninches they suggested in exchange for pulling back the east wall. not one of our concerns had been addressed but we were determine today proceed and asked again to clarify and our revised modifications, which included only a 2 foot notch on one-half of. reduction of a prior request of all three floors. i'd like to conclude by p responding to commissioner wilson's question at the last hearing. she asked if any modification could be put into the plans in response to our concerns and there weren't. we are requested very modest

and reasonable modifications which only amount to 24 square feet of the 700 square foot expansion. if our neighbor intended to knee negotiate with us in good faith we're willing to innovate invite them back to the table. >> we'll hear from the permit holder. >> good eveninging. david silverman on behalf of the permit holder. the rules of the board require presentation of information that has arisen since the time of the last hearing in order to grant a rehearing. there was no such information introduced and we'd request that you deny the rehearing. thank you. >> mr. tigue, anything?

no? okay. any public comment. seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i personally did not hear anything that was new or different from the previous testimony and p i do not believe this request meets the requirements for the hearing. >> i'm of the same opinion. >> i agree and unfortunately from the last meeting that we had i know it's hard for you guys to go through this process, bull the ground for the threshold for rehearing was that any new information that would cause us to open up this. i have not seen any information that would cause to reopen this up. >> i'll move to deny the rehearing request on the basis that it doesn't meet the requirement of the board. >> thank you. chief, call testimony roll

please. >> we have a motion from the president to deany this rehearing request. commissioner fung. >> i. >> commissioner honda. a: i. >> commissioner wilson. >> i. >> the vote is four to zero. this hearing request is deanied and notice of decision will be released. we'll move on to item 9. the board received a little requesters asking that the board take jurisdiction over case number 2013.08231b which was granted by the zoning administrator. the project is to construct a two story horizontal addition

at the rear of the building. we'll start with the requesters. you have three minutes. >> thank you. good eveninging commissioners and madam president. my name is kate pool, this is my husband. we live with our two children at 1782 sanchez street, which is the down hill property to the adjacent property. we'd like to enable our neighbors to expand their living space, we'd like it done in a way that it won't shift the costs on to us. this the current plans don't achieve that because it would increase seismic risk to our home from their property.

we think there are viable alternatives to allow them to expand to the extent they'd like to, and we're asking you to give us a chance today to pursue that approach through the variance. let me briefly explain why the city inadvertently caused us to miss that deadline. planning commission staff initiated a discretionary review of our neighbors request for a variance and other waivers from planning and building code requirements. we shared many of the codes raised by planning commission staff and work wd city planner to address those concerns. unfortunately the planning commission's decision in september in response so that staff initiated review did not address our concerns so

immediately following the commission's decision we notified city planner smith that we intended to appeal the variance and building permits issued in the wake of the planning commission's decision and asked how to receive timely notices of those to seek appeal. offered to notify us when that was issued. that e-mail exchange is attachment three to our request. mr. smith has been nothing but very helpful and courteous throughout this process, but due to the press of other business didn't forward the decision to us until december 20. that was already one month

past the appeal deadline for filing an appeal here. that's memorialized in that e-mail exchange, attachment three. it was the error of staff that caused us to miss the deadline and we filed this request on november 25. >> your time is up. >> oh, okay. thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the permit holders.

>> because of the brief time today we just wanted to ask mr. gladstone to speak on our behalf. >> they live in a one bedroom and the child lives with them in a one bedroom. the child's grandmother lived here and they've been wanted to expands for many years. the neighbors who are appealing tonight were there when that variance issued and didn't a pose it nor dpid that i had oppose the building permitish shubed that the time. they didn't complete the work because of the recession. they came back and were told they had to get a new variance. the commission decided 6-1 it was oppressive not to issue

the variance again because my clients now offered a much smaller building which was approved at the dr building. should we excuse that? well, fist first of all we do not believe that the appellants ever really wanted to appeal the various. variance. if you see here there is a september 29 letter from the appellant, who is an attorney, and who is being represented by ilene dick, a well known land use attorney. and in the letter he requested michael smith that you send us notice when the zoning administrator issues a decision on a variance. he doesn't say i need it by a certain dead liep. line. to the contrary he says we'd like a notice when the building issue is issued so we can file an appeal.

mr. smith clearly understood that the focus was on a building permit because he replied to say the next day, yes, i will forward you the variance decision once it is issued. he didn't say by a certain date or by the possible appeals date. then he goes on to focus on the buildsing permit. yes, dbi will issue the permit. you should contact dbi and monitor. there's no system for monitoring, which is not true. there's a b bn system which is well known. ilene dick and i do it all the time. they did not file a bbn notice. why not? it's a well known system. this is a bad precedent. you're asking people to create a system where they ask a planner to provide a notice that the planner is not required by law to provide. if planners start doing that

we create a whole rolling problem in the future where planners will be asked and they miss and now we have all kinds of new deadlines. thank you. >> thank you mr. tigue. >> we're not speaking to the variance here today. obviously to support that issued but to the issue of variance decision, it is correct that the planning code doesn't include any language about any specific requirement to notify anyone of the destigs other than the application however it is practice at variance hearings that are separate. sometimes variance cases are heard simultaneously with discretionary review at the planning commission meeting when they're held. we have a sign in sheet for

people specifically who are requesting to receive the decision letter at planning commission hearings. we do not have that sheet and in this situation, as is mentioned, the requester e-mailed the planner, requested a copy when it was issued. the planner said they'd do that. unfortunately they didn't do that to that request was not made even though that expectation was created. regarding the bbn, that is a service we provide. you can request any specific parcel in the city that you be notified when certain types of applications are filed. if you look at the language it is to be notified when an application the filed, not for providing notification when a decision