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 letter is granted.

it doesn't mean it could be worded that way. that could be requested and we may accept a bbn that requested that, but the language states we receive notification when we receive certain permits to notify those parties that we received this application. that application did not mention anything about using the bbn to be made aware of any specific decisions on a projebt and as was referenced we don't have a variance tracking system online. there is no public space where someone with track when a variance decision letter is issued. they would have either have to request a copy of it ahead of time or once it is issued contact the department and request a copy. so in terms of notification

following the code that was literally applied but the planner agreed to send a copy of the decision letter to the requester and that didn't happen until much after the appeal period. i'll available for any questions you may have. >> is that common practice for your staff to provide that level of service? >> for variance decisions, absolutely. again, we do it standard at the variance hearings through a form that anyone who shows up can sign and provide their contact information and request to receive a written copy or e-mail copy of the decision letter once it's issued. again, whenever it's a join hearing with the planning commission it's a different room layout, it's separate, we don't have that same method and in those situations if someone wants a copy of it they need to request it from

the department either beforehand or once it's been issued. >> with that sign up sheet is there an expectation of timing? >> yes. the expectation is when the letter is mailed out to the applicant and published and issued it will go out to everyone who requested. that's the only opportunity for somebody to know that has been issued and be able to avail themselves of the appeal period if they choose to do so. >> the problem with nap is the zoning administrator doesn't give his destigs. decision. .

>> and they've said there's going to be another trial for the building appeal so all those neighbors are willing to come down here and say that they're for the project so anyhow, that's all i have to say. >> any other public comment. commission, the matter the before you.

>> i've made this comment multiple generations, zoning administrators here that a variant sometimes has a greater impack than certain permits and why is there an ability to be able to find those easily enough. the same is true of letters of determination . unless you know something specific to be able to look for it you can't find it. it's not known. unfortunately that's not what the planning department does. i'm inclined not to grant jurisdiction on the basis

that planning staff does not have to provide that level of service in terms of ongoing communication. >> i agree to a certain -- you know there is no commitment but when they actually e-mail and give a commitment, i think there's a certain amount of expectation they set in regards to that. if someone promises you they're going to call you and let you know -- >> non logically i would agree with that. >> is there a motion? >> it's too bad because each one -- and, you know, the fact that there may be an appeal on the building has nothing to

do with it. people are deserving to appeal or not. do you want to say something mr. tigue? >> very quickly. we post letters of determination on our website. we don't post variance of decision letters. i don't know why exactly. i can speak with the building administrator and we can report back to you as to why we don't get -- >> it doesn't have to be a major i.t. projoekt. we can sepd send it out to those on the original notice. >> a bbn would not have helped in this situation, correct? >> no, not necessarily. >> an issue for me is an expectation was created but there was no requirement.

i guess i'm a little confused about this e-mail. as i read it there are two questions. will you also be sending the notice, to which mr. smith responds yes. second question, we would also like the notice from the permanent issue. aren't they one in the same? >> i believe it's two second requests. >> right. he doesn't answer the second request. >> no we're talking about the first. >> with respect to the variance. >> do you have another comment mr. tigue. >> i should have worn my purple tie. i have reviewed the e-mail chain and if my recollection is correct michael smith stated that he would notify them when the decision letter

was issued and also informed them that the planning department does not issue the building permit, that dbi does that and they have their own noticing and own system and he referred them to dbi for tracking and determining when the building permit was issued.

you have in the past sort of considered a very similar issue with at&t permits and i believe exercised the discretion to grant jurisdiction because the department caused -- >> right, thank you. >> and we also got taken to court in boston. -- and lost. >> you were taken to court and lost at trial court level where the law didn't require notice to be given but you distinguished that case. [inaudible] hearing before

you where there was evidence that the department had caused and you relied on that. you've gone down this road before and you have been able to decide that discretion. >> i'm going to make a motion to grant the jurisdiction request on the basis that department inadvertently caused the appellant not be able to file on a timely manner. >> we are a motion from commissioner honda to grant this jurisdiction request. three or four votes are needed. >> commissioner fung. >> i. >> president lazarus. >> i. >> commissioner wilson. >> i. >> thank you. the vote is four to zero. jurisdiction is granted. the requesters now have a five day appeal period to appeal this variance and this appeal period end this coming monday. thank you.

>> we're going to take a very short break. >> welcome back to the december 17 meeting on san francisco board of appeals. we are on item 10. the subject property is at 1614 noe street. the requester asked that the board take jurisdiction over applicant holder which was issued on august 26 2014 and the jurisdiction request is filed at the board office on

december 1 2014. the permit holder is steven fouler and the project