mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez. i don't have anything further to add but in response to vice-president hurtado, the discretionary review was filed in november of last year about a month before the complaint was filed. >> who filed the complaint on the nov, do we know? was it the appellant? >> i believe it was anonymous in the system. >> the document i have said it was anonymous. >> okay. commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i guess i will start. although i'm not promoting retaliation for a dr, i do believe that the za has made a case that no matter when you did the windows, if they were done without a permit and you now get in expected they need to come to today's standards. understanding also that it could be hardship to go to a clad wood clad or clad window, i would be willing to extend something similar that was offered to the stockton street property. >> i'm not sure. can you elaborate? >> what my feeling is that the the permit was issued in error but i would give time extension on the correction that needs to

mr. scott sanchez in regard to the types of drawings that we need to submit. those drawings will require a new permit. and that permit will be or usually exposed to a potential appeal, but we are going through the entire process and making this process, as transparent as possible because our desire is not only to regain the confidence of the commission, but also the public at large. and we are committed to making this project a successful project. and the entire team has remained a cohesive unit. no one has been fired, no one has been sued. and everyone is working together to make sure that this project is successfully completed. >> okay, thank you, commissioners. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i get you a little bit of extra time there, because i think that it is important that your testimony, but please if you could keep your comments to 3 minutes i would appreciate it. >> going forward. >> next speaker please? >> good morning, president and commissioners and director. and i'm john kilkan and further to my esteemed colleague, rodreguis briefing to you, on th

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez. i believe at the previous hearing one at the mark proposed a language section h instruction that the affidavit should be signed prior to a purchase or lease and i was wondering if the board was considering that language change to ensure the affidavit for anyone who moves into the building would be done prior to them buying or leasing? >> i would support that. >> i would support that as well. >> there is two places where that comes in section 8 and notice of special restrictions. >> thank you for reminding us of that. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> i would accept that amendment. >> mr. pacheco, how do you feel about this motion, are you ready? city clerk: let's see here so the motion is from commissioner fung to uphold the permit, adopt the findings, with provisions as stated and with the two further conditions that the ground floor commercial space be permitted to neighborhood use by the san francisco planning code that the original entitlement as to density be maintained and with a 5th

mr. sanchez? >> clarification? >> scott sanchez, if i may detail the chronology of this permit. the board heard this and taken a vote to grant an appeal, adopt revised plans, which included changed the sides of the building which are stairs and producing the rear of the deck of the building and some minors changes as well. that permit was subsequently issued as a special condions permit. during the addenda process for the permit application, this was a time that the new owner decided they wanted changes, under the addenda that are not appealable, they are just the structural details of submitting a project, they submitted revisions that would remove a dwelling unit from the building. we pointed this out that it is not allowed. under an a project and discretionary review and we referred them very clearly to have the plans match what was approved by the board of appeals to take some time to work with the project sponsor but ultimately the permit that was finally reviewed and approved under the addenda did believe very closely match what the board had approved. subsequent to that,

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. i want to address 3 points. first in regards to the building permit that was approved by our department and the fence constructed, maybe i wasn't clear but if there were inconsistencies in the plan, they were not out deception. i think the site plan was a little bit unclear in terms of where the rear property line was, the elevation appeared to have been more clear. the fence originally approved was 13 feet at all over all of it's already reduced to 11 -foot and reduced further. the code would allow up to 10 feat -- foot. we are talking about the perspective of the street, we are talking about the code requirement of the rear yard would be one 1 foot taller than that. lastly, there were alternatives that were shown by the appellant and we did consider those. however, this lot itself is already shorter, substantially shorter than typical lots in the district. it's varying between 64-68 feet deep. one of the proposals, alternatives is to move the fence further into their rear yard reducing the amount of usable ope

mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department. the subject property at 530-day street. the appellant is located one property removed at 530-day street. this is a sloping lot so the property is higher than the permit holder property. also as the permit holder noted there was a 2011 building permit application for addition and to add a garage and that went through notification. and there were no discretionary review requestcious , the building permit was issued last may and after the issuance of the building permit, they decided to add the roof deck and access to that roof deck. based upon the plan, that is code compliant and would not require notice. it would be allowed without section 311 notice as well as the railing that is proposed. that said, there are a couple of discrepancies that i did notice in the plans which maybe something that can be addressed as through revision process. when comparing the roof plan and third floor plan, the location of the retractable skylights do not lineup. there is also a proposed stair from the deck at the rear of the building that goe

mr. sanchez, anything further? >> scott sanchez, planning department. again this permit is not really what's at issue but it is tied to the permit that is at issue, that's why we are requesting until the underlying permit issued are being resolved. i'm available for any questions. >> thank you, mr. duffy. thank you, commissioners, the matter is yours. >> if you would allow me to leave the materials? >> i don't think i need them because i have enough information. based on what i have heard today and i think i'm in agreement with the suggestion by the zoning administrator which has concurrence on the department of public works that we should continue to the call of the chair until we have a better understanding from planning as to the status of the underlying building permit before we make a motion on the -- >> especially if there are more appeals. we would like to, we should aggregate everything just to have a resolution one time. >> i would also agree. >> i will make that motion. okay. i will move to continue this appeal to the call of the chair pending

department of city planning and zoning administrator scott sanchez suspended this project and asked to allow to resubmit for reevaluation. we joined mr. sanchez at the original hearing in requesting that a judgment be withheld pending the evaluation by city planning and dbi. we again join scott sanchez in his request that you allow city planning and dbi to work through the entire permits. this is a case that began with a fundamental deception. a 311 notice was sent in 2011 to the neighbors about the work that was to be done. it turns out the permit, their plans were fraudulent. the measurements of the height were entirely fictitious. the architect later on informed us by e-mail and he said no survey has been conducted on the property by the property owner to determine the height or before being raised since the proposal to trays existing and changes to the building envelope. therefore what happened was a plan was sent to the city by all the neighbors and the building height was stated as 34. they didn't know what it was. this was no the an error, this is simply an invention. we think it was targeted to aly the fears of the neighborho

>>supervisor scott weiner: you can continue. i think mr. sanchez has to lee shortly. we are going to get to him after you are done with your section. >> in non-compliance code violation? if the property opener owner fails to comply a notice is scheduled for the directors hearing. the directors hearing is a transition to enforcement which leads to inspection and potential order of abatement. directors hearing for monitoring fee review. outstanding fee review. filed reviewed by inspector for directors sharing and date chosen. the hearing packet at least 10 days prior to packet imposed and property. after the directors hearing and order of the abatement imposed at the property. if improved the case can be referred for the city attorney referral. finally when all permits are complete and assessment cost are paid the order of abatement is revoked. complaints received 2013, the number is higher to this if you have any questions. tip cass types of complaints. work without permit, work exceeding the scope of the permit, unpermitted change of use of occupancy. construction sit

mr. sanchez will discuss the actual substance of the variance decision and the issues raised by the appeal. thank you. >> thank you, kevin. scott sanchez from the planning department. i will be brief in regards to how the granted variances have be met. they have been documented in the bullet decision letter itself. as kevin noted this is a project that did evolve over time and the application to deny this as a conditional use authorization. part of their review and revisions in the reduction of the nuk of floors so they have already produced the number of floors in the building however a variance is still required. i know that the appellant has argued that now the rear yard variance is justified, but the other variances are not justified. i think given the corner lot situation here, the other variances are in fact justified and as the project sponsor has over time worked with the neighbors to come to address their concerns in particular the property adjacent to have the large light well and in order to preserve and maintain that light well will in doing so, that changes what we would probably typically say the frontage would be

scott sanchez is here, the zoning administrator and representing the planning commission, and senior building inspector, mr. duffy and bureau of urban forestry and department of public works and john kwaung the manager of street use and mapping. mr. pacheco, at this time if you would please go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the clerk: the board request that you turn off all phones and pagers so they do not disrupt the proceedings. please carry on conversation in the hall ways. appellant and permit holders have 7 minutes to present their cases and 3 minutes for

scott sanchez in the front row is the zoning administrator. duffy is here senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection and urban forester representing the bureau of urban forestry. mrds meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. city clerk: the board request that you turn off all cell phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. appellants, permit holders and department representatives have 7 cases to present their cases. speakers must conclude their comments within the period. public comment has 3 minutes but no rebuttals. to assist the board in accurate presentation of minutes, m members of the public who wish to speak on an item is asked to please fill out a speaker card. the board also welcome your comments and suchlthsz -- suggestions. if you have questions about a hearing, please call the board office tomorrow morning located at 50/50 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television sf gov tv. thank you for your attention. at this time we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you are going to testify, please stand and raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in