president peterson: aye. sorry. commissioner hwang: aye. >> this matter is continued to september 15. president peterson: we have a final set of findings to consider, will you call item 4c, please. >> another adoption of findings pertaining to the revocation of tax medallion and color scheme permanent. decided july 14, 2010. at that time, the board voted 4- 1 with commissioner hwang dissenting to uphold the revocation of color scheme permit and overrule the revocation of medallion on condition that said medallion be suspended for one year with adoption of findings at a later time. president peterson: the appellant does not like the findings. i don't know if anybody is here, is anybody here representing mr. hollis? they were very well apprised of this evening, i explained that if they had no objection they could come here. they do not appear to be here. >> and there is nothing in writing specific to their objections? >> she did not believe that the allegations supported the ultimate decision to suspend and rev

president peterson: is there any public comment? seeing none, the matter is before you, commissioners. you just spoke. you can't speak under public comment. since you are up there, could you address the question back commissioner garcia asked the sergeant? >> there was a statement prepared at that had to do with a summary of findings that came out from the appeals court. i don't know the exact answer to your question. >> do you mean the board of appeals? >> the board of appeals, i beg your pardon. >> she was here as his agent. >> i hate to suggest this, but i think it would probably serve due process while if we would allow him to brief us on the specifics of what is, in his opinion, erroneous about these findings. i don't think anyone is harmed unless i am missing something by putting off and having a look at these findings at a later date. i think they accurately reflect -- a presentation was so fast, i was not able to follow every issue, and there's a couple i wouldn't mind knowing more about. >> isn't he here? >> i don't want to

the presiding officer is a board president peterson. joining her is vice-president commissioner goh, commissioner fung, commissioner garcia, and commissioner hwang. our board's legal assistant -- i am the executive director. tonight, we will be resent -- have the senior building inspector. it in the front row, we have someone representing the department of public and health. [unintelligible] at this time, i would like to ask you to please go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> we request you turn off all phones, beepers, and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. they each have seven minutes to present their cases, and three minutes for a bottle. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3 minute periods. those not in conjunction with a party may have up to three minutes to address the board. they are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or a business card to staff when you come up to the lectern. th

president peterson: did you receive it? >> yes, i did. president peterson: okay, thank you. sir, it is really your decision. would you like us to proceed tonight? commissioner fung: no, i think it is our decision whether we will have the opportunity in a brief moment between cases to review it properly, and i don't think that is the case. president peterson: then we will need to come up with a date for the continuance of this matter. vice president goh: might not be in favor of a continuance, right? president peterson: right, but if we don't feel -- vice president goh: the fact we don't have a brief in front of us, we would have to ascertain and determine if it was an error on the behalf of the board of appeals and not on behalf of the appellant. the permit holder. >> we are the permit holder. vice president goh: whether it was the permit holders mistake. commissioner garcia: even if it is an error, it could be forgivable. to hear this properly, we need to read the briefing, and if we don't feel like we have enough time to read it tonight, i think we have to hold it over. pr

president peterson: thank you. anything else? my name is trudy maurer, and a new home will be directly behind where i live and where the linns live, and it was the two of us to ask for the appeal. i want to reiterate that the neighbors accepted the same permit, the same original plan we have said to go ahead with. we are very concerned every time we appear before the group we were given to understand that everything was going to be as the original plans. that was submitted and the permit was authorized. now, one week ago, i received again a new set6z;rj what i just said, i wanted to proceduretb with the original permit with the original play and that we approved on, and the response to our brief was totally other things, nothing to do with what our goal is, so i am asking the board if the9bda is to make sure that the plan the korea of approved, that the st. francis association has approved, actually gets built -- that the plan that we have approved. president peterson: thank you. >> good evening, commissionaires. my name is -- i

president peterson: no. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the motion to grant jurisdiction fails for a lack of four votes. if there is no further motion, jurisdiction will be denied. shall we call the next item? vice president goh: someone could make a motion to continue. is that right? i will make a motion to continue the jurisdiction request. >> president peterson, do you want to specify if there is anything in particular you would want to see happen during the interim? vice president goh: i would like the plans and permits that were applied for subsequent to the permit at question to be made part of our packet and part of the record. >> and to what date? vice president goh: november 3. commissioner garcia: can i ask a question? could a commissioner request that those items be made a part of the record without us having to continue? vice president goh: i think they are part of the record because they were given to me by mr. kornfield, but my point is that i have time to look at them. >> on that motion to continu

president peterson: i mean on the foundation. vice president goh: we could carve out the foundation and deny all the permit but for the foundation work. >> the foundation report is part of the overall project, and ceqa applies to the project over all. it is not up to the board to decide whether that applies to the foundation work. i do not think you can per se it out that way. president peterson: did not hear from the appellant that the basis for the appeal on ceqa was due to historical considerations? you could ask the appellant. ms. wuerful, is that? was that the basis of your appeal? >> yes, as well as the fact that the entirety of the project has not been reviewed by planning. these are the secretary of the interiors of guidelines for any project on a building over 50 years old. it is more complicated than saying it is a historic building. when you do that, you get into a variety of other issues i am sure mr. sanchez has discussed. it is not just an old building. it is an old building that has been invoked under standards thr

president peterson: thank you. >> good evening, commissionaires. my name is -- i am the one high your by the owner of the agent of record. -- i am the one high your by the owner, the aged of record. -- i am the one hired by the owner, the agent of record. ok? now, if you want, i could show you some of the things we submitted to the city. a two-story car garage. president peterson: mr. linn, why do you not put that on the projector so everyone else can see it? mr. pacheco will help you. >> these plans, now, as i say, that we will comply with but never the city requires. we do not understand what they want. they should tell us what they want, and we will comply. commissioners, this building permit has been there for four years. i have been a construction engineer for 40 years. and i know what the requirement is. thank you. we will comply with whatever the homeowners want. commissioner fung: oh, sir? sir? president peterson: victor -- >> i will give you my card. thank you very much, commissioners. commissioner fung: i have a question. >> ok. commissio

president peterson: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? step forward. >> paul, 309 fourth avenue, san francisco. i watched the original hearing on the internet. he is not my colleague. ms. win is not my client, but she is one of my people. the last 28 years, was married to a south vietnamese refugee. they lost everything. in my wife's case, her father was sent into a so-called re- education camp in vietnam. he did not make it out in time and broke his health and spirits and he died just a few years later. her mother died i think of a broken heart, chronically depressed, and not last much longer. what i am getting at is they lost everything when they came here. it would be a shame, i guess the word is manifest injustice, to see the department of health pursue this through absolute revocation. it is the death penalty of administrative sanctions. a lesser sanction would be more appropriate. i am just here to ask for mercy and ask that you send this back for a rehearing with maybe a referral for suspen

president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> item 6 has been dismissed and will not be called this evening. shall we take a short break?

president peterson: mr. pacheco? secretary pacheco: commissioner hwang, commissioner garcia, commissioner fung, vice president goh, president peterson. the idea is approved. president peterson: could you call item 10? secretary pacheco: a permit it to alter a building. jurisdiction was granted june 9 of this year. president peterson: we will start with you, the appellant. >> the landlady did not turn in her statement on time, and at the jurisdiction meeting, she did not turn your statement in on time. if you remember, she also kept us waiting 1.5 hours because her architect did not show up on time, so i am not sure what i need to be saying here beyond what i wrote before the first board, the jurisdiction board, and now you. i realize it's some of this sounds a bit fantastical answer korea, but that is my life -- i realize that some of the sounds a bit fantastic " -- fantastical and surreal. i stand behind it all. i do not care how ludicrous it sounds. that is what is going on. and there are people in the audience, an

president peterson: thank you. we will hear from the other side. >> is it done? president peterson: thank you. if we can hear from the appellants now, you also have three minutes. >> i am one of the homeowners adjacent. i am somewhat disappointed that after she had directives given to her by this body to produce certain documents -- the grading, the letters -- my understanding is she did not produce those. my greatest fear is that there will be a refutation of the last case we just heard. at this juncture, we need to make sure she follows the approved plans, not afterwards, when there is all kinds of things that have been put in there and i have to keep coming back. we have been here three times. the committee has been very clear that she had to produce certain documents today so that you can see that she will adhere to the original plan. if she has not done that, i do not see how she can get an actual permit to start? i do not want to repeat the same thing we heard 15 minutes ago over and over again that something

president peterson: what dates are available? maybe this will help guide the discussion. >> the following meetings are fairly equally full, but if you don't want to wait much longer, i would move into next week. commissioner fung: the 22nd looks ok. >> september 22? commissioner fung: are both parties available? commissioner garcia: you have to come up here. >> the reason i am here is because mr. stevens is out of the country. i don't know when he will return. president peterson: can you represent him on the 22nd? >> in light of recent events, i am not entirely sure, frankly. commissioner garcia: i am confused as to why you would have been able to represent him tonight but you will not be able to represent them next week in a request for jurisdiction. what has changed? what has changed? i . commissioner garcia: i beg your pardon. >> i was just sued. that is not what i was told. ok. if0ó:g6=7zçof?u)c"00ah would mt likely be able to, yes. commissioner garcia: you have raised an interesting issue. if there is a lawsuit involved --

president peterson: can you represent him on the 22nd? >> in light of recent events, i am not entirely sure, frankly. commissioner garcia: i am confused as to why you would have been able to represent him tonight but you will not be able to represent them next week in a request for jurisdiction. what has changed? what has changed? i . commissioner garcia: i beg your pardon. >> i was just sued. that is not what i was told. ok. if0ó:g6=7zçof?u)c"00ah would mt likely be able to, yes. commissioner garcia: you have raised an interesting issue. if there is a lawsuit involved -- commissioner fung: the other opportunity would be october 13. gzÑiçó>> i am scheduled to be of the state. commissioner garcia: this is already completed, this project? >> the project is complete. the certificate of occupancy -- how mr. stet holder would be prejudiced if we put off until a time when everybody who wants to be here can be here. i think we go beyond whatever the date is, beyond the 13th. >> october 20 as the next meeting. -- october 20 is the next meeting.

president peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> item 6 has been dismissed and will not be called this evening. shall we take a short break? >> we are ready to move on to item number 7. this regards the property at 3224 and half 22nd street. we will start with the department. you have seven minutes. >> good morning, commissioners. 8 little background on this permit application. the application was submitted to the department on march 29th of 2010. as part of the permit, we received some code compliance information on march 26th. we did a notification on april 6th stating that there is a notice of intent to place tables and chairs at this property. we received two objections to the notice of intent. we reviewed the information -- we provided a directing a hearing for june 30th. the department posted the surrounding mary fisk on june 14th. during the intervening time, we received objectives to the potential issuance of this permit. we held a hearing on june 30th forward this permit. the public showed up and

president peterson: thank you. is there any]u3? other public comment on this item? step forward, please. >>a]8/=r hi, i am not affiliated directly with mr. bley or mr. fung in any way. i spend a lot of time at the national archives in san bruno, historical stuff, and at that early times of the turn of the century, 605 kearny street was not considered part of chinatown. i spoke with one of our commissioners and is now considered part of chinatown. i have no objections -- basically, i have no objections to the construction, but it really looks bad to have the front of the building -- it is a fairly wealthy current structure. w height be set back a bit so the actm1(hj preserves the architecture of the original building. thank you. president peterson: thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none at -- seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. fung:ru8n commissioners, during the last that i would probably take back, and that is the statement that i felt the clock started with the recording of th

president peterson: thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none at -- seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. fung:ru8n commissioners, during the last that i would probably take back, and that is the statement that i felt the clock started with the recording of the variants -- excuse me, the special conditions. that is probablyñj not a good point to have made in a public body, and that the recording is done and dependent upon the permit holders whenever he wanted to do that. prior to the discussion tonight, it was really apparent to me that the appropriate time when the clock started was the issuance of the variance, and in that event, it's still occurred within the timing of the three years for the life of the conditional use. therefore, i feel that the new issues brought forth by the applicant for a rehearing are not appropriate in this particular instance, and therefore, that we should not grant the rehearing request. commissioner garcia: i would agree. mr. bley has his hand up, madam

president peterson: thank you. mr. silverman, you have three minutes for a bottle. >> very briefly, in response to mr. levenson, he stated that there is 5 feet between the property. -- mr. levinson. they have huge front yards in huge back yards. secondly, on the issue of moving this towards mari loma, it is violative of several policies, but the communication between the parties were in the context of settling their d.r. in other words, they came to my client and said, "we want you to move this this much forward." he said, "we can do it this much." they said, "no, we want it another 10 ft. or 12 feet." no agreement was reached in settling the d.r., and the offer was withdrawn. it was made in the context of a settlement. commissioner garcia: who owns that tree? >> i have no idea. commissioner fung: mr. silverman, where all of the compromises that were offered pre-d.r. -- >> absolutely. the d.r. went forward. the idea was to avoid the hearing. yes, yes, sir. commissioner hwang: i have another question. the kinds of modif

president peterson: we will go to public comment and then. three minutes. >> can i have my full three minutes? i got involved after the notice was filed by the neighbor. m=9iñ 3 minutes. >> the complete language was not very clear. so i filed a board of appeals permitted to get clarity. there was the owner of the building and the senior inspector, joe duffy,. what they filed for was to seal it up. this window is a new edition. it is illegal. it is an aluminum frame. this was an opaque film. the project sponsor, not us, elected to remove its. there is another option. another option -- this is why i brought it. we just ask that you make it ok. the current permit is to remove it. if you go for the property window -- property line window, it cannot be operable. it has to have fixed glass. to be honest, in current code, there are no requirements for light and ventilation in the bedroom. by seeing this up and putting in the glass, it will not change the occupancy of that bedroom. the code does not require it. but if the board chooses to take that a

president peterson: then i will move to adopt these

president peterson: thank you, sir. commissioner fung: everybody should remember, then that is a c.u. issue. we are dealing with the zoning administrator's release of suspension. i find it was a reasonable decision by the zoning administrator, and i so move that the appeal be denied. >> if you could call the roll, please? >> the motion is count -- the motion is from commissioner fung to uphold the zoning administered's release because it was reasonable? >> there were no errors on the part of the zoning administrator. >> again, to uphold the request for release of suspension on the basis the zoning administrator did not abuse his discretion. on that motion -- [roll-call votes] thank you, the vote is 4-1. the z.a. is upheld on that basis. >> president peterson, since the next items were withdrawn, there are no further items. [applause] [indistinct voice on p.a.] announcer: when charles bennett graduated from high school, he dreamed of returning to his old neighborhood as a teacher. but without the money for college, only

. >>> to minnesota where adrian peterson and the vikings finally hit their stride. peterson ripped off an 80-yard touchdown run in the third to put the game out of reach. vikings caged the lions, 24-10, their first victory this season. >>> the falcons had luck in new orleans. the saints' garrett hartley missed a 29-yarder for the win. that opened the door for atlanta's matt bryant to put the game away right down the middle. falcons beat the champs. >>> the seahawks' washington returned two kickoffs for touchdowns. his first 101 yards to start the third quarter. his second, 99 yards to put the seahawks on top late in the fourth. washington and the seahawks shocked the chargers, 27-20. >>> finally, there's something you don't see every day. red sox/yankees. tenth inning.

president peterson: thank you. anything further from the departments? >> just a few quick clarifications. as soon as i sat down, i realized i had incorrectly described the locations. the happened on the second floor. that ground floor is partially below grade. i think the brief attachment q and r shows that rare condition. the second point is that our typical practice for those issues would have been to renew those. the plans are correct. the appellant had contacted the case planner for the second application and the project was described in detail. subsequently, no dp -- no dr was filed. that is all we have. thank you. vice president goh: now i am looking at q and r. r says that this is a deck. this deck meant that the addition was supposed to be -- i am sorry. this was not shown on the plans at all. it extends further into the open space. is that right? >> not entirely. on the overhead, you see i believe the debt you are looking at in attachment r. i believe that is the structure here. and i believe this is the access next to the deck. vice president

president peterson: is there any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> my name is charles stange. i am the property owner directly behind 48 newton. i am here to support the appellants, only because of the history that has happened with the construction that took place. from the very beginning, i was led to believe there was going to be a replacement? . in a week, the whole back of the house was torn down and there was a room addition attached. that was two years ago. since then, there has been no out reach by the permit holder, no communication whatsoever. basically, that is it. i would just like to remind the board that there is a history of problems with the property. commissioner fung: where are you behind? >> directly behind. commissioner fung: did you watch the construction? >> yes. commissioner fung: the plans indicate there was an addition at the second floor that now matches the edge of the ground floor. >> i recall initially that there was a dilapidated deck right outside the back door of the home. from there, there was

÷president peterson: commissior fung? mr. please sit commissioner fung <, is this by the permit holder? ÑiÑok, we will ask it from mr. sanchez or mr. reardon, a reduced set. commissioner garcia: would you remind me when this comes back before us if this can be expanded, windows can now be in the back, or whether or not there fate is sealed? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. there are architectural changes that can be made during the addendum process. however, they must be submitted to the planning department. the planning department k-

president peterson: thank you. mr. corn field, anything further? commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: for me, the crucial point here is where that existing wall was. the photos do not provide definitive answers for me either way. i think the entire variance is premised on the fact that that existing wall was located at a point around 23.5 feet from the property line. i am not convinced that is the case. i do not have enough documentation that demonstrates that to me. therefore, how i view the variance is dependent, i think, on exactly where that rear wall was, or whether that rear wall disappeared at some point in time. i do not think that the 311 notice was fatal in terms of the information it needed to provide it to adjacent neighbors and the appellant. however, if the existing rear wall was not located within that distance of 23.5 feet, i think then that the -- my take on the variance would be entirely different. i need additional inspiration from all parties, including whatever photos they have, especially of the rear. the

president peterson: thank you. is there any other comment? seeing none, we will move into the were bottle. mr. hasson, you have three minutes of rebuttal if you want to use it. >> we would like to have a window in our bedroom like everybody else on the planet. >> i want to let you know that i agree with some of what that person is saying. ms. gould had explored various options it, and one of those options was two definitely sealed up a window and create another window in another part of that room in that area. mr. hasson had obviously strenuously objected to having the windows sealed up, and, frankly, i understand why. it has been mrs. gould's intention all of this time to maintain a window in this space, so with all due respect, at some point, he might have understood that mrs. gould had attempted or contemplated ceiling that space up, -- sealing that space up, but she has always wanted to maintain a window in that room for obvious reasons. the property value will be affected if that window is sealed up. there was another consideration. mr.