mr. sanchez brought up.the height of the fence was measured not on the base of the deck but from the grade level. i will show you on the overhead. i am raising my arm. the tape measure goes all the way down to grade. this is a close-up. there is the top of the measurement. as far as the -- president peterson: what does that mean? >> there is a shadow there. there are 8 inches down there. it goes up. as far as the permit is concerned, we are learning as we go. when we hired an architect to do the drawings and while the permit for us, it was our fall for not looking at the permit more clearly and really describing what was actually going on. that was our fault for not following up with our architect. commissioner garcia: let me ask you -- i am not going to require this, but it seems so far that your neighbor is willing to bear some expense to get some of her sunlight back. and if you were to take -- let us decide that latticework is 3 feet. i have no idea what height that led to start is. if she were to pay to

mr. sanchez that this is a self-createed hardship. the building went up that the hughes are in, in 1975. the hughes did not even reach high school in 1975. there is no self-imposed hardship here. their adding a floor in no way affected this lot split approved or denied. i've never seen in the last five years when the city has been enforcing its policy, i've never seen a variance denied because of a parking reason. the parking is not there now for the manabats. they couldn't be. they would have to raze and destroy an historic building. they are -- it is only 1100 to 1150 square feet. maybe it could have another 100 or 200 even though variances may not be required in the future for them. i don't understand the talk about monster homes and worries from the neighbors. thank you very much. >> commissioners. the matter is submitted. >> i will go first, i guess. i guess the first thing i want to talk about is an irony operating here. i am wondering what i am missing. it is the same thing i felt when i read the papers. if they were to go thro

mr. sanchez, you have rebuttal. >> i want to provide a better answer for the affordability finding. there is an exemption from the discretionary review hearing. this is something that would be more than 80% of the cost on a combined land and structure. with that, it was not able to meet the finding. >> what about the rental value? >> it would have to be the value on the property. >> we have had in this for you have to walk through a bathing facility and this is an interesting one. >> you have to walk to the bathroom and get to the kitchen. things like this would clearly be an edition. i think it is difficult for us to make the findings. >> and looks like this door, rather than going into the hallway, it would be to the left. >> this has been very well defined for ability criteria that they reinvented one here based and not upon income. >> the reason that this was put in here, i was not directly involved in. i believe that these were clearly not affordable. if you are demolishing a single- family dwelling and the value exceeds 1.3 million, you are exempt from the mandatory process. t

mr. sanchez. before you sit down, i understand the chronology to be that the permit was issued in october of 2009 and far -- and in between was the time when the jurisdiction request came and, at the know what communications take place with respect to a jurisdiction request of the project that your department has approved? >> could you repeat a question? >> the you learn that a project has a jurisdiction request filed on it prior to the issuance of -- >> if we would to learn that there had been a jurisdiction request -- we don't get any official notice that says we must suspend or take action. >> we do send copies of the filings to individuals. >> what do you do? >> this does not require us to suspend or stop the action on a permit. people are committed to complete the work. >> in this case, did you have any knowledge of the jurisdiction request? >> i would have to look at the date. >> september 2nd was when this was submitted. i don't know at which point you would have gotten a notice but this wa

mr. sanchez wanted to dispute this, let's not cause someone to be evicted in order to not allow a dwelling unit merger. this is a point that can be argued. this really does not apply. we spoke about an overly narrow interpretation. i would consider giving the facts around to the tenant. this would be an overly narrow interpretation. if we decide we can have that, this has to do with the owner occupied, this can be great. the fact that this doesn't have efficiency, i would not to be someone occupying the lower unit given the way that you are entering the building. if that is not going into the asset column, this does not belong in a liability:. i don't think that there are too many people out there who would consider $4,000 affordable. let's assume that the tenant moves out of here and the banks continue to live there under better circumstances in that they have any two-unit building which they could legally do. i think a very reasonable compromise has to do with the fact that at some future date we would leave open the possibility that this could be a unit and could be achieved by the appl

mr. sanchez and explain the procedures. after a year, you could make the same application. he did not hear any reasons. he heard in 1993 that the addition of a single story of what caused -- would cause too much of a shadow. how could a 40-foot building not cause more of a shadow on the open space? this causes that much more additional shadow. the house next door has the exact same access as the recess. they do not have a garage. they parked at the end of de harol. they were, -- de haro. there are clear. they do not want access. they did not even one pedestrian access. the amount of misinformation you are provided is stunning. it is hard to encapsulate it all. this is not a pop-out. the current building has a rear yard. the building that was approved it was a small shed. they would have had to have gotten a variance just for that shed. the five findings that were made are crystal clear that no rear yard variance was appropriate. the visual impacts alone are detrimental to the neighbors in the open space, -- and the open space, which is a neighbor. you have three plans comin

mr. sanchez indicated, the sides of the garage. what we asked for last time was also some idea of the proposed typography of the grading the permit holder wanted to do and to establish their for an elevation to this building that then would establish the height of the building with respect to the site. that was not provided to us. we have two choices. one is to revoke the permit. the second is to approve the permit as is with the understanding both the planning and building departments need to review in the addenda that have applied to get and not see if it matches up against the approved site permit. if we were to do that, i would condition the permit in the following way. that is that the finished elevation of the ground floor be established no higher than 395 or 396 based on the survey that we saw. commissioner garcia: what you are proposing would take care of the issue with the garage, the curb cut, and degrading to the rear. all that would have to conform to the original plans. commissioner fung: correct. commissioner garcia:

mr. sanchez, how was this permit issued? >> this was an over the counter which came in in may of this year. commissioner garcia: this was mentioned during the jurisdictional hearing. apparently, the police have weighed in on this and are opposed to this. do you feel it is necessary, i guess? issues like this get some more vetting? >> i understand the concern, and after the jurisdiction request, i did meet with the appellant, and this is a concern that should go to the board of supervisors, and there was a concern that the board of supervisors would be empowered to enact a moratorium on pharmacy-type uses within the district, and to my knowledge, there have been no efforts to enact such a moratorium or to have those controls, but right now, and the planning code, the pharmacy is a principally permitted use and would be allowed in this location. commissioner garcia: an sud? but they could enact an interim moratorium -- >> they could enact an intra moratorium -- note an interim moratorium -- they could enact an interim moratori

mr. sanchez, i do have a question. i am not clear how we could take this project when there is a complete parking variance application that your department is looking at here. we need to think about them altogether. >> 5 believe what would be proper is for the sport to have before them the plans that would be exhibit a to this letter and what provide the required parking. if they do want to pursue an alternative in the future, then that is what we have informed the project sponsor of. this is a new scheme that has been proposed by the project sponsor. by the time we have the hearing in june, they were going to provide the parking. i would ask you to explain why they may be seeking in the future modification of the project. this would have parking at the front. we have not heard any variance on a parking variance. fifth any such hearings were to occur, -- if any such hearing were to occur, they would have to show why they could not granted in the front. >> and wonder the if data means we should just go home. but the and

mr. sanchez and a question for mr. cornfield -- kornfield. private these are not protected. public views are. i am sure that was taken into consideration when the permit was reviewed by planning. >> under section 1 01 0.1, which was derived from prop them, dues from public rights of way would not be impeded. i am not aware of any blocking of the public view. this is the first i have heard of it. i have not had any opportunity to investigate this claim or to review that. commissioner garcia: i will ask the same question for mr. kornfield. it seems like most of the issues raised by dr. kravitz have to do with nonconformance to a permit and not why he did not file in time, except for the notice issue, which has been addressed. if there questor fort jurisdiction 0-- requestor for jurisdiction did not do that, there are other options than the board of appeals, correct? >> the department of building inspection could verify that it is what on the building plan -- what is on the building plan. >> so there is a question of whether planning should have in the first place granted the p

mr. sanchez has provided me with some information to respond to your question. yah hoo says -- yahoo says marble dust is not poisonous if interested. it is calcium carbonate, like the white powder you find on chewing gum. it is granite dust which is the cause of silicosis and other problems. commissioner fung: the miracles of technology. commissioner garcia: he probably knew that already and was just looking for confirmation from whatever source he went to. president peterson: when do you plan to sign off? >> i am not in the inspection section of our department. but the electrical inspector will have to contact the building inspection division and confirmed they have resolved whatever this issue is. there is a little interdepartmental coordination. commissioner garcia: it would seem to me that the following options are available. section 2909, noise limits in residential areas, is relatively clear they have to be below 45 decibels is someone was operating in the evening. if someone was to operate during the day, it still has to be lower than 55. there is a possi

mr. sanchez? thank you. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department's staff. this is a complex case. i have brought diego sanchez, a staff planner. i think the permit holder has done an excellent job in outlining the design considerations. i would like to focus on the process. the building permit application -- that building permit was submitted in april 2008. subsequently, this variance application was submitted in may 2008. it went out for a neighborhood notification. it was heard before the planning commission on october 15, 2009. the planning commission did approve it with a six-one vote. commissioner olague was opposed. there was a condition that parking not be at the rear of the building. that was the planning commission action. after that hearing -- at that hearing, the zoning administrator granted the variance that is before you today. after that hearing, they did submit revisions that included a garage at the front of the property. this was the subject of a variance hearing in june. during this time, after the notification went out and before the hear

mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez, planning department. there is no notification for the stop work order request. the jurisdiction request was going to be prepared and issued. that is all i have at on this. >> is to any public comment? commissioners, the matter is before you. >> i would move upon the fact that no notice required that we not grant jurisdiction in this case. >> any other commissioner comments? >> also that this comports with applicable codes. corks on that motion to deny the jurisdiction request -- >> on that motion to deny the jurisdiction request -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> jurisdiction is denied. >> please call the next item.

mr. sanchez. if it would be anything to have 24 units including four bathrooms and more than half of it is 50 feet away and this is somewhat ridiculous. this is asking for trouble. i would like to ask minter sanchez with corridors which are three by 4 foot wide, you have people rushing towards those bathrooms, what kind of safety hazards to you cause when you have people standing in that corridor waiting. i find the distribution of necessity somewhat -- why not you or rooms with better distributed amenities. the committee rooms are barely 110 square feet with 20-25: units per floor. we head a visit a month ago which provided a simple matter and kitchen within a small unit and i would expect that we are raising the standard for a new sro. what is provided is substantial. have we talked to the fire marshal about this? >> thank you. you have made some excellent points regarding the current units. they are taking the existing guest room layout and converting those. that is in the edition. in regards t

mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez, planning department. there is no notification for the stop work order request. the jurisdiction request was going to be prepared and issued. that is all i have at on this. >> is to any public comment? commissioners, the matter is before you. >> i would move upon the fact that no notice required that we not grant jurisdiction in this case. >> any other commissioner comments? >> also that this comports with applicable codes. corks on that motion to deny the jurisdiction request -- >> on that motion to deny the jurisdiction request -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> jurisdiction is denied. >> please call the next item. >> appeal number 10-088, the state bar of california versus the apartment building inspection. the property is at 120 howard street. this is protesting issuance to broadway partners a permit to alter a building. the hearing was held in closed session last week. this is for further consideration. the time was to allow for pellets to review the data. >> we are joined again this evenin

mr. sanchez's distinguishes of the other variances in the pact. the addition is already 40 feet high. of the two parking places, one was meant to be for the house in the rear, and the concern that there could be additional buildable area to the smaller house in the back are all important considerations. this idea that con do conversion could be circumvented by doing the lot split, i find that very troubling. i think the rules we have in place for con do conversion are there for a reason. we heard various people complaining about how many hoops it takes to do that with a two-unit property. those hoops are there for a reason as well. i would hate to see us use this lot split to circumvent those rules. the notion that $20,000 has been spent so far on this lot split, we heard from the tenant that the things that needed to be repaired were siding, roof repair and landscaping. commissioner garcia said $20,000 would go a lock way towards making those repairs. we hear sometimes about the foundation or the building is sliding down the hill. that made me think about that money may be better spe

mr. sanchez. if it would be anything to have 24 units including four bathrooms and more than half of it is 50 feet away and this is somewhat ridiculous. this is asking for trouble. i would like to ask minter sanchez with corridors which are three by 4 foot wide, you have people rushing towards those bathrooms, what kind of safety hazards to you cause when you have people standing in that corridor waiting. i find the distribution of necessity somewhat -- why not you or rooms with better distributed amenities. the committee rooms are barely 110 square feet with 20-25: units per floor.

mr. sanchez has said. i think that this is sensitive and sent back on both the front and rear of this small-scale and i am prepared to uphold this permit. >> my comments would have been exactly the same. it seems as though the same issues, i agree with this. the shadow has been dealt with, the orientation is that there was never a need for a steady and there is very little need for an impact given the orientation of the houses and therefore on the sustainability issue, this is a modest addition. this complies with the planning code and with the general plan and is consistent with the residential design guidelines and i intent to uphold the permit. >> i think that this is pretty straightforward. i would echo the other comments of my fellow commissioners. there is not here -- enough here to work with for the appeal and i would uphold the permit. >> i would tend to agree. i've suggested and i would have liked to have seen maybe some averaging of the setbacks. that was not done public has the appellants proper

mr. sanchez, what are the procedures around rescinding these? >> in this case, it was seen by mental officer which issued the determination that the category should be rescinded and that should be for two reasons. first, the permit holder was seeking to have this withdrawn from the department of inspection. there is also concerns the department had over the accuracy of the plans. for those reasons, we recommended the categorical exemption. >> is able to be appealed? >> not to my knowledge. >> thank you. >> any other commissioners? >> august 11th, 2010, a member of the public alleged that a building permits had been improperly canceled and the board of appeals did have jurisdiction over the matter. i asked the executive director to follow up and we received the letter that the building permit had been improperly canceled and the board of appeals has jurisdiction and the building permit has been reinstated. >> is any public comment on this item? we will move on to item number 3 which is the adoption of minutes. before you for discussion and possib