vice president goh: okay, thank you. commissioner fung: the photo that you showed that looked at the roof of those homes, from that point, the hill slopes up words, doesn't it? >> that was looking west, and little bit north? commissioner fung: yes, the open space slopes up from that, doesn't it? >> that was pretty much where i was standing, when i took that photo, it is the main flat zone, the open space slopes down, with the same slope the buildings are built on, adjacent to 1321. the open space goes to the side view of the house, as seen from the open space. it commissioner fung: thank you. president peterson: thank you. you have six minutes. >> thank you. i am the architect for 1321 de haro street. we have an exceptional property here. unique circumstances. the property is not like any other property in the area. that is landlocked with no street frontage. it's it's on a hill -- it sits on a hill. it is more like a backyard and it has a side yard facing an open space. this property does not fit the standard residentia

vice president goh: say that again? >> what we see in the plans here does show a setback from the side property line. what is currently there -- what was on the plans is a full two stories and extends past the rear wall of both of the adjacent properties. vice president goh: could you draw a line about where it is, and could you also tell me what year this sanborn map is? >> i am estimating with the lot lines approximately where that reporar wall would come out. these maps are generally considered accurate for the building footprint, but not for the lot lines. vice president goh: could you draw the lot line where it actually is? >> in this case it might be -- vice president goh: that is better. thank you. >> this is the accurate lot line. the sanborn maps -- the last there were updated for our records may be 1988. they are not updated regularly anymore. vice president goh: this is 1988? >> i would estimate the '90s. vice president goh: the line you drew is where the property is? >> that was one of the factors that led o

vice president goh: i see. the

vice president goh: i was waiting for you. i would like to hear about the permit history research investigation, and what other kinds of investigation one might undertake. >> laurence kornfield from the department of building inspection. there are many sources of documentation of construction in the city. the basic one that most people go to is the department of building inspection's microfilm office on the fourth floor, where we maintain records of permits going back to 1906. we have a fairly comprehensive collection of all permits, whether they were completed or expired or otherwise acted upon. it is true that occasionally

vice president goh: any revisions? commissioner garcia: there is more process that are going to have to go through. we are just trying to save them one step, which would be to come back here so that a missing commissioner could vote. vice president goh: i thought we were saving the appeal for the revision. a revision of dividing these two permits would be appealable? president peterson: i do not think a revision is going to get to the end result necessary. i think another permit me to get -- needs to get requested. if the board wants to allow part of the project to move forward, it needs to conditions permit by removing the scope of work for one of the two structures, and a second permit would need to be applied for for the other structure. commissioner fung: mr. kornfield understand what i am saying. my idea of a revision is not to create two permits all of this. it is to reduce the scope of work on one permit, which means you could reduce it to the point of -- >> alone to go forward. allowing it -- allowing it to go

commissioner fung: aye. >> > go > goh? jurisdiction is upheld. >> we could call item five, or i am wondering if you might want to either call that or item seven, because we have the department of public works sitting. >> i think we should go with five. >> if people could clear the item quietly, please. >> 5a? >> a and b. >> 5a and 5, appeal numbers 10084, 10085. for both appeals, 1321 de haro street. it is the protest of the granting on july 20, 2010, to bedrock structures l l c a rear yard variance. this public hearing was held and closed october 6, 2010. for further consideration today, both matters will continued to allow time for the variance holder and the zoning administrator to submit additional documents pursuant to the board's comments. president peterson: i want to make sure that everybody who needs to be here is here. i see the attorneys are here. i know the architect is here. ok, great. we're going to give each appellant three minutes, and we will give the permit holder six minutes. >> thank you, i am here on b

vice president goh: did you also see sheet rock? >> we saw some of sheet rock and a very rear portion that look like it had been done hastily, recently, and it was over an older wood in some cases. vice president goh: okay, thank you. president peterson: mr. gladstone, there was mention of two complaints being filed. could you walk me through that history? >> i will turn that over to the architect. >> there is a whole string of complaints. there was one complaint when the owner bought the property that was about an illegal dwelling unit. the inspector walked through it and cited a little plumbing and a kitchen that was not set up. there was also some a little plumbing installed in the rear, on the lower portion, and there was an illegal property line window on the south side of the building. that was the first complaint that we became aware of, just as the owners were buying the property. president peterson: and when did you buy that property? >> would close on that september 18, 2009. >> that was the first complete. there was anoth

vice president goh: any revisions? commissioner garcia: there is more process that are going to have to go through. we are just trying to save them one step, which would be to come one step, which would be to come back here so that a missing

vice president goh: i had a question. if they have approved this, it must be correct, but i had the impression that the tenant was female. >> there was no disagreement to the gender of the tenant. commissioner fung: i think you were right. commissioner garcia: it was a male? i thought it was a female. president peterson: may be in the findings we can have it neutral. >> the name is confusing. it is a foreign name. president peterson: i will move to adopt the findings. is there any public comment on the findings? seeing none, please call the roll. >> the motion is to adopt with no changes. on that motion from the president to adopt those findings -- commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the vote is 5-0 to adopt those findings. >> before we move on to the next item, i would ask ms. young if you could step forward briefly. i want to make sure if those here who need translation services understand we have the headsets available. do you have them with you? if you

vice president goh: okay, thank you. vice president goh: -- commissioner hwang: mr. sanchez, in your reply, this submission, dated november 4, it references planning code section 790.116. you excerpt it here. anyway, right before the conclusion, you reference this multiple times, about the definition of personal service. do you have whole colt -- the whole code section? >> yeah, sure. this will take a second.

vice president goh: ok. commissioner fung: it was stating in here that one of your planners worked extensively with the permit holder. >> yes, as the project's sponsors indicated, it has been a process of 4.5 years. it was submitted in 2009, but there was an older variance decision, and i am a little unclear how the contact first began, whether it was a project review meeting or they first came to the department to discuss it, but it is common for members of the public to have a project review meeting, and that is when the first to engage with the department, and they will take the proposal and make changes based on department comment, and there was 2008. commissioner fung: prior, there were other levels of review it beside the single planner. >> yes, the design team has been in place for several years. we changed how it is used. it used to be voluntary. they would go to the residential design team and seek advice. usually, a planner works with their team later, and they would work with them to deal with the

vice president goh: okay, thank you. vice president goh: -- commissioner hwang: mr. sanchez, in your reply, this submission, dated november 4, it references planning code section 790.116. you excerpt it here. anyway, right before the conclusion, you reference this multiple times, about the definition of personal service. do you have whole colt -- the whole code section? >> yeah, sure. this will take a second. to have the overhead, please? the definition, personal service, retail use efinition, l service, retail use which provides services to the individual, including salons, cosmetic services, tattoo parlors, and health spas, or art, dance, exercise, martial arts, and music classes. that is where we felt both of those centers were both best classified under that section. tha commissioner hwang: okay, thk you. president peterson: as commissioner garcia mentioned, he had to leave the meeting. when it comes time to vote on this item, it commissioner garcia's vote would make a difference in the outcome of the item, the item will be continued to allow his participation in

vice president goh: that is not in front of us? >> correct, we do not currently have an application to have the second dwelling unit. it would be rate allowed under the rs-2 zoning district provided it met its -- provided it meets the code. vice president goh: okay, thank you. commissioner garcia: i was hoping you would go first. at any rate, i think would be a question of jurisdiction redundancy. the issue that will be raised in what is item 10 tonight, the revision permit, mr. soto will have the opportunity to address some of these issues. this couple has described there is page 2 to this project, having to do with adding another unit. at that time, there would be 311 notice and mr. soto would have an opportunity, possibility of a variance hearing. there would be opportunity there. even though he was not officially noticed, he was effectively noticed in that the plans that this couple used in order to redo this house, he has been privy to them, he has seen them, so i personally would be against granting jurisdiction. ]q see anyth

vice president goh: i have a question related to that. did the planning commission notice there was a reference to f? >> i do not believe the issue was raised. vice president goh: thank you. >> commissioners, if there are no further questions, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: i can start. usually, i am one of the commissioners who asks questions, but i did not in this particular instance for two reasons. one is i was curious enough to go back and look at the tape on the planning commission hearing. lucky for me, i was able to use the fast-forward button. i did not have to do the same thing that most participants would have gone through. again, reading the briefs and listening to the presentations there, i think the issues have stayed the same. they are quite wide. and in terms of where i would approach this, i think there is a certain focus that is impacting my own decision making on this particular case. and that is -- the focus is twofold. one is the specific code itself and how we interpret that, and whether i concur with th

vice president goh: i am not following. commissioner fung: they could file a revision to this one which would take off one of the buildings. vice president goh: that was your motion. commissioner fung: or they can submit to another process. but my motion was not going to carry. vice president goh: i think with all that said, i am disinclined to change my vote then. am i missing something? i may be. i am not feeling well, because it is very light. commissioner fung: it is about reducing part of the process for all of the people in this room, a -- including the appellant. their capability of appealing occurs on the second permit. vice president goh: i see. the appellants could still appeal. commissioner fung: it is your call. i am not telling you which way to go. what we are talking about is not making all these people come twice more. vice president goh: because we are missing commissioner hwang. that is the real reason we would have a continuance if i voted against you. with that said, i am sorry to be all over the board, a