mr. sanchez said the permit was requested on january 19 or january 20. >> it was january 20. i received an over-the-counter permit within a couple hours. >> you did this and responnce? but i did it in response to a letter. >> you attempted to comply. >> the next question is the you know whether or not he was aware they attempted to comply and democrats are believed he must have found out -- to comply? >> i believe it was the same day. you can see the permits has been applied for or approved, and given that he did not receive it, but as the only way i can imagine he would have known, because first thing the very next day he showed up and requested the appeal, so it was canceled. i went in friday the 20 if, got a permanent, scheduled first thing monday morning, said monday he was there requesting the appeal.

mr. sanchez? >> just to be brief, most of these issues are building and fire code issues and not planning issues. this is the fifth permit that has been issued on the subject property in the last year. most of those relate to interior work. one was subject to an appeal that was a permit to remove the front stairs. both planning and building have been involved in that and have worked to ensure with the property owner that the stairs were provided in the rear to provide access to the voting. there is also work on the garage level. in terms of the timing, i do not know what prompted this permit. as stated by the permit holder, the civil suit was filed on february 2 and this permit was filed on february 3 and about a week or two after that, the variance application was filed. the variants is still pending. i do not believe it has been scheduled. the earliest it could be heard is in april. that variants is to -- they wanted to remove the fire escape in front of the building, which would be an improveme

mr. sanchez, if lenders to do correctly, -- if i understood you correctly, the motion has already been made the motion affects what would be item no. 6 which is adding the embarcadero -- excuse me.

mr. sanchez is going to have to deal with that. what is in front of us is the row appeals. i am going to quote from some of the department material, because this is a ceqa issue. "pursuant to an initial study, and evaluates and discloses the effects of the proposed project, does not assess the merits of the project." section c summarizes the location surrounding zoning, and it does not assess the environmental effects of any future rezoning of the neighborhood, nor does it consider the projects code compliant or its assessment of environmental impact. it may be considered when consideration of whether to approve the project. all of the testimony i heard has to do with approval of the proposed project. that is not in front of us. what is in front of us is whether to go along with the emnd, or to require a full environmental report. i have read through the materials. i do not see where this item, a full report, is necessary, and required, or should be done during your -- should be done, and i think the argument should be considered in the zoning and by us if the project ever

mr. sanchez, for taking time to listen to us. i would like to continue in our rebuttal of the requirements. my rebuttal to requirement #5, granting were non is warranted will undermine the general plan and rules and regulations. owners should be able to depend on regular to where they have invested savings and lives. permitting non-conforming variances solely to profit an investor is unacceptable. the proposed development fails to meet the three priorities stated in the plan, claims that one home is silly. this project results in multimillion-dollar speculative homes and does nothing to promote affordable housing and construction two homes out of character with the neighborhood. applicant's request for a variance this and every other test. in particular, we noted that any so-called hardship was specifically created by the owner and investor himself when he purchased a property known w

mr. sanchez can come back to the board and save those preferences, but the board has jurisdiction over those preferences. >> this is my dilemma. i would not be here today have the process worked, so i am here today, this is hurting me to be here today. this would not have moved forward. and i would have a chance to appeal, but this step by would not have had to take, but i took it, thinking i needed to at the time, so this is how the lack of process has hurt me. >> how did you find out? >> we were on line, and it popped up. >> did you know you could avail yourself of this process? why did you choose to appeal here? >> i went in in august. >> after the permit was issued? rite aid o'clock monday morning. >> i came into the board of appeals, yes. >> my understanding is the dr process happens before a permit is issued. >> how could he ever dr? >> he could not. >> the you know how it operates? >> yes, but how would you have done it? >> how would the process have been followed? the day that it came in, we would have triggered the bbn, which would have been a phone call. we would have brought a let

mr. sanchez, if lenders to do correctly, -- if i understood you correctly, the motion has already been made the motion affects what would be item no. 6 which is adding the embarcadero -- excuse me. that has to do with the scenic street. >> staff is recommending that adding embarcadero to the scenic street and approve the mapping changes to a later date. you discussed the relative tax changes. consistent with the last action. -- you discussed the relative changes. commissioner miguel: had we not separated things down, if i had been only on this, we would have had these items as one item, basically. that is what we're doing. commissioner moore: do we have a map so we can see the map? we have that anywhere? it is in words? >> it is in words but it is along the embarcadero. commissioner wu: any other discussion? secretary, could you repeat the motion? >> mine understanding is that you would -- my understanding is you would pull out the embarcadero scenic sign area and task that today to be mapped. all other components of the mapping legislation that is before you would be continued. i am assumi

mr. sanchez? scott sanchez: i do not have much to add. the project is principally permitted and compliant. non-neighborhood notification is required. the appellant property is located to the south. given the location of the south, they would not feature any direct sunlight into that like well. -- light well. the deck is set back from the property line and matches with the light well. when they step back a few feet from the railing, he will not have a direct line into the adjacent property. the appellant has created concerns about privacy, about the potential impact of the grille. i did not even know if there is a requirement to show the gril ol on there. if it were someone to bring a charcoal grill onto the roof, i do not know that would need to be shown on any plan. these are items for the board to consider in your decision making tonight. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> i do not have much to add either. the real hyper code would be 42 inches high. -- the rail height per code would be 42 inches hi

mr. sanchez has the ability to issue a zoning administrator is determination erie we have a memo discussing having met with the zoning administrator, but he did not issue a determination. there was no appeal will document. we are here because there is no place else for us to be. >> i just wanted one question, and thank you. you kind of continued beyond the question i had asked. there is not a landmark building. this is not a landmark building. this is not a historic district. nothing about it would trigger a hpc review even today. i was there was somebody here from planning, but i think there's no question the planning department are comfortable with the original approval and the renewal permits is what it was. obviously, the hiccup happened, and it was addressed, and we are here today because of that. basically, i did not think there are any more comments today. i would like to make at this stage vote on this. commissioner walker: i would like to know how we go about saying that we do not have jurisdiction. i guess we would just -- because we are not the body to address the building code i

mr. sanchez, has that changed? scott sanchez: i believe the supervisor identified that as a phase to change. -- pahse two -- phase two change. >> if i could just make a clarifying statement -- i mistakenly called both 4 a and b. we have so far only addressed 4z. we will -- addressed 4a. we will address 4b when we conclude. president fong: is there any other public comment? commissioner miguel: mr. starr, a greatly appreciated your memo that came last night. in order to view it a little more succinctly, i am going to go through the memo and ask questions in that manner. on the transfer of development rights, i have no problem at all. i like the way it is going. on limited commercial use, you are using a date of january 1, 1960. what is the reason for that particular date? scott sanchez: maybe i can address that. as you know, we have gone through several major re-codes over the year. 1960 was one of those. we did a comprehensive survey, and a card shows use of the property. we have a good record for non conforming pr

mr. sanchez. i'm michelle, 20 belgrave. i just want to go over a couple of points that the representative made earlier. he talks about a pattern in our neighborhood. he is absolutely correct, there is a pattern, but it was not the one that he suggested about what size. what it is about is green space. he continually talks about what size, but never talks about density. the average density on our street is 0.5 house to lot. both of his projected projects would be 1.0-plus. i am also concerned about every time we have talked with them, the square footage of the homes have changed. there is not one time they have been consistent. so the number we are seeing today is different from what he showed in the first place. my question is, if this variance is approved, what will the actual square footage of the bill out be? we have tried to work with them. we talked. he came back to us and said specifically u that specifically use one single lot, build one single house, and make his money back. the only reason he is seeking this varian