appeal.ng administrator could have ruled that he'll take that dr appeal he won't schedule the hearing before the commission, he'll acknowledge the appeal that there is a right to a hearing, but he won't schedule it pending your decision on the neighbor's request for you to rule that noza extension should have been givenu$: to my client at all. there was no reason why the zoning administrator couldn't have started that 311 process the day2njyafter the appeal by the neighbor was made. and then, if you had1n%( f decision, as you really did last month, that the neighbor's appeal was in error, and that mr. sanchez had made the right decision we would already have had a 30 day 311 period and a request for a hearing. and after the hearing you had a month ago, there would have been time to have an actual planning commission hearing before the n mt of the extension period, again which was 30 days after your last hearing. once again, the 3111 could have gone out when the neighbor made the appeal, she c

that was not appealed in 2008 and cannot be the subject of appeal now. the third they're requesting that the board reconsider the planning board's conditional use findings in 2005. they ask you to revisit the wisdom of this project. that decision in 2005 was appealed to the board of supervisors and only within 30 days. neither of those things happened. the conditional use permit is now before you and nor could it be before the board of supervisors. we are requesting that you focus solely on what is before you. what is the zoning administrator abused his discretion of october of last year and determining we didn't abandon the permit for the continuous use of three years. as the litany of the permits we obtained, the other actions we obtained and the documentation in our brief demonstrates there is no period of lapse of that permit of the use much less a three year lapse. the evidence is overwhelming that the zoning administrator didn't abuse his discretion and looked at the facts and we didn't abandon the project and the use didn't lapse and that the proj

on january 9, the court of appeal denied the petition for rehearing.ne of the causes of action that the superior court -- the trial court agreed with the city was, in the second amended complaint, they sought a court order, compellin_j@/ the city to issuea demolition permit. we argued that in san francisco, demolition permits, like all permits, are discretionary and a court cannot compel the city or the commission or the department of -- inspection to exercise its discretion in any way. the project sponsor and the property owner also filed a petition for a writ of mandate in the california court of appeal in november of 2011, contending that the trial court was wrong, and that the court should have compelled the city to issue the demolition permit. that petition for writ of mandate was denied by the mandate was denied by the california court of appeal43 according to the california court of appeal's website, they will be issuing a -- which will send the city's case back to the trial court. i'm happy to entertain any@%( [d questions about the court decis

appeal no. 12-105,106, 107, and 108. josh bleecher synder and also dennis stewart versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval. these are appeal protests the issuance on august 20 2012 to brendan fox of a permit to demolish a building, two story single-family dwelling with 1083-square-feet of ground floor area and also protesting the issuance on august 20, 2012 to brendan fox of a permit to erect a building, four-story, two-unit building with 1413-square-feet of ground floor area. these were alluded time to submit code-compliant revised plans and the hearings were held on october 17th an again december 12th, 2012. with the president's afreedom what i would recommend is that we hear from the project sponsor first and give each party three minutes to present their cases. >> that makes sense. >> good evening commissioners lou, the project sponsor. purpose of the continuance was to allow us to redraw the drawings to make sure they were code-compliant. we offered to reduce the height and

the other churches and schools did not appeal the court of appeal and dismissed that appeal in 201270 later in 2007 is there was a permit issued for tree removal and this board upheld that permit. mr. lagos and another neighbor filed a second writ petition in 2007. that was denied in 2008 and no appeal to that denial. >> so neither of the lawsuits dealt with anything relating to the lapse in use condition? >> that's correct. >> okay. thank you. >> counselor, i have several questions. back to the question i asked the zoning administrator. your chronology was quite detailed. it shows mostly end dates as to when you procured certainly types of approvals. can you flush out that period of time what activities were taking place between 08 and 11? there were only one item in that time frame that was an actual approval which was the arts commission approval. tell us what activities took place during that time that justifies your contention there was no lapse? >> there was engineering work -- >> flush it out a little bit. >> i can my client come up who was in the trenches during the work but t

the board voted three-one-one and to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the basis of the appeal the appellant fully disclosed his conviction history at the time he applied for the permit and there is no proof in in in the rord of any conviction. i want to make sure mr. johnson is here. are you here? you're going to speak on his behalf? thank you. mr. coggan is going first and then you will have your chance. >> good evening commissioners. i am william coggan from the police department and we are prepared to submit what we filed in this issue. thank you. >> okay. now we will hear from mr. johnson's representative. you will have three minutes. okay. >> good evening board. my name is henry johnson junior -- >> raise the microphone up if it's more comfortable. >> thank you. i am here on behalf of henry johnson of no sense toe and bay bridge towing. i am 22 year's old and work two jobs. i do security at embassy suites and work at victoria secret. i also take a few college courses part time. my younger brcialght is here today and he is 18 year's old. he works for ups. he also has a ful

the appeal, and strike the permit. uphold the department. sorry. based on what was presented. >> i agree. are you making that a motion? >> yes. >> i will second that motion. >> the motion then to deny the appeal and uphold the department? >> yes. >> so on that motion from the president to deny this appeal, up hold the denial. and it was on the basis of the testimony presented? >> on the record. >> by mr. kwong. >> thank you. >> i think i would prefer it's on the basis of the department's analysis. >> i will take that amendment to my motion. i will accept. >> so again, on that motion from the president to uphold this denial. on the basis of the dpw's analysis. on that motion, commisioner fung? >> aye. >> and commissioner hurtado is absent. vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4-0, with denial is upheld on that basis. >> we'll call item no. 9, appeal no. 12-101,shumei fang doing business as ceo health club, inc., versus department of public health, appealing a 90-da

what is the use of giving a notice of appeal after everything is said and done? the second issue is i believe due to radius services mistake, the whole block was missed floatfication area and that is because radio services calculates notice the block using the assessor's block as opposed to what is stated in the public works code, which is the mid-point of the block face. can i just go to this overhead real quickly? okay. so where the x is where expresso subito did the 300' radius, but where the little star is the actual block face. so all the businesses down here were not notified and one business that dpw testified to was 101 2nd street and no one from that building received notice. the second point is that dpw testified if starbucks objected we most likely would have denied the parent and we have on record that starbucks did object to the permit. they have not withdrawn their objection and the fact that they are not taking an active part in this appeal does not mean they did not object to the permit. third, dpw has been misapplying the 300' radius. the order s

community revised plans were submitted to the board of appeals on january 10, 2013. the date on the revision set is january 7th,2013 and these comply with the planning code and i'm available. >> i'm sorry they do comply? >> they do comply. that is correct. thank you. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner i reviewed the drawings and they reflect what i remember of the proposed changes at that point in time and i'm prepared to move to uphold the permit and condition it on the documentation that has been provided to reflect the changes. is that the appropriate -- >> it sounds like what you want to do is grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition that it is revised, to reflect the changes. and i would ask just that plan set be noted by date. submitted to the board, which is january 10, 2013. >> okay. so moved. >> i'm inclined to move in that direction -- to go in that direction as well based on the testimony of the zoning administrator that it's code compliant. >> the motion has been made if you cou

received the appeal on january 4. we of course don't have any issues with this; wanted to grant tentative approval. >> terms of the board emily rogers, but slate of affairs for the planning department. you have the written material submitted. no reason why the subdivision should not be approved. the changes are minor. the changes to the location of the retaining wall, and the reduction to the footprint. these matters are not pertinent to the subdivision. there matters a concerned the building permit and should be appealed if that is a concern. second the written materials the appellant cited the change of ownership and is not a matter of the subdivision. the location and design of the housing is not related to the subdivision. the subdivision is where the lot line should be. the design of the location of the housing -- when the planning department reviews the subdivision application we asked the question is this project consistent with the general plan? in this case both the commission and the department, the answer w

i'm going to make a motion on this appeal. i am going to move that we deny the appeal on the basis that the 311 notice was not expired and that it was properly issued. >> madam director, if we want to codify this we should condition, shouldn't we? >> well, -- >> that voluntarily agreements between the parties which then means that you take the appeal and with hold the permits with conditions. >> i think my preference is they work it out on their own. >> i'm sorry. just the two options. >> i think i would like to proceed that way. >> okay. >> we have i motion then from commissioner hurtado to deny this appeal, up hold the permit on the basis that section 311 notice has not expired and was properly issued. >> and that the permit was pressurely issued; right? >> yes. >> not the 311. >> not the 311. 311 notice doesn't expire and this permit was properly issued. on that motion with that basis vice president fung. >> aye. >> president hwang is absent. commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is four-zero

we did want to appeal the commission decision. but as you know, it is very difficult to appeal a conditional use permit. i was told that i would be able to appeal the building permit if i was unhappy with it. then i did, but when i saw problems, that was denied because you cannot appeal a building permit granted under a conditional use permit. so, what that means is that the applicant has been allowed to continue to work without further neighborhood input. to that end i hired a private engineer, pat buscovich who i have paid extensively to i'd have to say baby-sit this project through the process. in the process we found a number of inconsistencies with the foundation, with this and that. they've been addressed all except for the five story issue and the issue of them now abutting right up against my house and my downhill neighbor and i have several neighbors supporting me in this. i'm not the only person frustrated, but i am the person we have sent to speak. right now they have a eight-foot fill retaining wall. you're only allowe

>> welcome to the board of appeals meeting for january 16th, 20 . i have been notified that the interpreter is stuck in traffic and we'll have to move on to another case. i would like to see a show of hands for item no. 11, appeal no. 12-142, 2nd street merchants, versus department of public works bureau of street-use and mapping. and:00 no. 12, appeal no. 12-142, paawan kothari, doing business as the chai cart. >> anyone here for that item? >> perhaps they are out in the hall. >> let's give them a minute. president hwang, which case would you like to begin with? >> item 12. is anyone here for item no. 12, the chai cart? i guess we'll go with item no. 11. >> item no. 11, appeal no. 12-142, 2nd street merchants versus dpt of public works bureau of street-use and mapping. this is protesting the issuance on september 28th, 2012 to expresso subito llc mobile food facility sale of espresso drinks. this matter is on for rehearing today. this public hearing was held and closed on november 14th 2012 and at that time a motion to uphold the subject mobile foo

. >> january 9, 2013 of the san francisco board of appeals. we are now calling item eight. appellants listed. the subject property is at 800 brotherhood way. protesting a letter of determination octobered 26, 2012 and that the conditional use authorization under motion 17022 with a residential planning unit development at the subject property is still valid. we will start with the appellant and you have seven minutes sir. >> well, don't start keeping time yet. i note that there's still only four members of the board present, and i infer from that that the presiding officer won't be here. that being the case because we need everybody to hear the presentation. i would like to ask that this be be over to your next meeting so that all five members can be present. >> you know that our rules state that if the missing member cannot affect the vote then we will take a continuance ourselves. >> i understand that, but there is a difference between a presentation by an appellant body, and this is an appellant body without question, and trying to do it in a reit rittive manner, and thi