scott sanchez. >> i am sorry note -- i am sorry. your time is up. mr. sanchez? >> scott sanchez. the appellate has proposed all sorts of complex solutions that address the planning commission's decision, and the most recent submission by the appellant was measured at 21 inches in height, which contradicts what be was most recently submitted, which was 21 inches above the cricket, -- which contradicts what i believe was most recently submitted. we can go back to the clans -- plans that they submitted in march 2009 that satisfied the planning commission's requirements. this was only one or two months after the hearing. they submitted something that met the hearing. it seems to me that they understood the requirements. i do not think there is much room for discussion or analysis or interpretation for this decision because it is clear. i think the appellant has recognize the depth -- has recognized the -- that. for some reason, they are not willing to go back. president peterson: high have a question. the plans submitted in march that were approved, those that start from the plate? >

. >> scott sanchez, planning department. this is the denial of an application that what is submitted in 2009. the residential design team recommended minor changes. there is also the stairs at the rear of the building. as this relates to the project sponsor, the project sponsor respectfully refuse to make those decisions and the recommendation that the project be modified in those it the ways. it was a difficult decision for the residential design team to make. there was a tremendous amount about reached that the project sponsor had done. there was low or no opposition to those projects. one thing that we do want to make clear and two proposals were said to the planning commission. i think that everyone would agree that the project should move forward. there is the project that was initially proposed, there was the denial of the building permit but we would like to approve this with the planning commission's revision to allow them to build a project along those lines or if you believe the arguments that they put forward to y

scott sanchez, acting zoning commissioner. i am here with ben fu. i am also here with kay connor, one of our enforcement planners, both of whom are familiar with this project. this is a notice of violation and penalty that was issued to enforce the decision of the planning commission. the planning commission required changes to the para perch et of this building, which has already been built. that was built in excess of a previous permit which was approved by this board. previously the board of appeals had approved a permit which didn't have one. i want to go through this so we have a better background of what has happened here. in june of 2005, the building permit itself was disapproved. this is prior to any notification being done on the addition. i have a photograph here of the building as it was ultimately constructed. the addition was appealed.his board. the board overturned the denial and upheld the permit and allowed the permit to be issued. this is without any section 311 neighborhood notification. the direction of the board was to make sure

. -- scott sanchez. i will be brief. i think the permit holders have done an excellent job going through all the issues the early. i would give you some of the procedural issues. there is an excellent summary of that in the permit holders brief, which has the discretionary review time line. they did the required pre- application meeting, the project was submitted to the department. initially, upon first review by the department, we did not think the light well needed to be matched. that is true. the building permit notification was sent out. during this time, the neighbors met and came toward resolution of incorporating the light well. the department supports that. it does not specifically address the design guidelines. those changes were made. the discretionary review was still filed. the item was taken to the planning commission on the discretionary review in january, i believe,the planning commissio uphold

we have laurence kornfield, scott sanchez, acting zoning administrator, representing the planning department and planning commission. and jarvis murray is here representing the san francisco department of transportation. at this time, if you could please go over the boards leading guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all funds, beepers, and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, have seven minutes to present their cases, three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with the parties must include their comments in these times and members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the lectern. speaker card and pans are on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes comments a

scott sanchez, planning department's staff. the department respectfully request the board denied this rehearing request. there is no new information presented this evening that is not available at the time of the previous hearing. also, the letter of determination holders, there is no manifest injustice. they have the right to go through and fulfill the use, at which they work properly entitled for. i respectfully suggest the discussion at a previous hearing and the decision was largely based upon the two issues of whether or not it was actually entitled properly in the first place. i think we thought it was not properly entitled and we did not have the permit and not unlawful mcd. the second issue, that they abandon the use by converting it and making significant efforts to convert it into another use. we believe the board properly heard that matter and we request you uphold the action and denied rehearing request. i'm available for any questions. thank you. president peterson: thank you. is there any public comment on this it

>> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. there are two issues as i see it. at first, the work proposed under the subject building permit application, the addition of the three dormers, all of which comply with the planning department requirements for dormers that are exempt from public notification. none of them require public notification. then there is the foundation work, which appears to be diverted to the building inspection and appears to be a life safety issue of and something that should probably be taken care of. the palin has raised issues about the adequacy -- the appellant has raised issues about the adequacy of the planning department review. the review was adequate, i would challenge. there was a preservation specialist that approved the building application, and he can comment on some of the historical questions you may have. the dormers comply with provisions of the planning code. no neighborhood notice was required. the appellant had issues about whether or not a matrix was properly filled out and submitted. that is only used when a permit i

sanchez, nbc bay area news. >>> and as sunnydale deals with job cuts, scott mcgrew has a little bit of some hiring. >> wells fargo says it has at least 50 good jobs open. these will be in santa clara county. these are tellers and bankers. now, the san francisco-based bank has been quite stable through the economic crisis. employees of about 19,000 people in the bay area alone. so you know what a teller is. as far as a banker, he or she deals with accounts, mortgages. wells fargo on its job opening website considers these to be salespeople. the bank recently announced its customers were saving more money in their accounts, up about 10%. wall street worries a bit when the consumer stops consuming. we do have a society that, for better or for worse, depends on people buying stuff. so a shakier day on stocks tuesday on consumer confidence, but still to the positive, we've had three straight days, or we had three straight days, of triple digit gains. the dow industrial's never seen four triple digits in a row, and it didn't this time. the string remains unbroken. >> we'll wait and see. maybe it will. >> maybe some day

scott: mr. speaker, i yield such time as she may consume to a strong advocate for victims of stalking, the gentlelady from california, mrs. loretta sanchez. the speaker pro tempore: the gentlelady from california voiced. . ms. sanchez: i thank our chairman for bringing this forward. year and a half ago, we put the first stalking legislation together for the uniform code of military justice. that is the code or the laws that govern our military. and since i'm the ranking woman on all military issues here, i was the author of that. in having looked at that and done that for the military code, i thought about all the issues that were still outstanding in the current federal civil code. and so i'm here today to thank you, chairman, for allowing me to bring this long overdue piece of legislation, the stalkers act of 2010. representative virginia foxx of north carolina and i have bridged party lines to introduce h.r. 5662 and i thank her for her leadership on this issue. there is also a companion bill that will be introduced in the senate we hope next week. no one can deny that the internet is a remarkable tool capable of connecting billions o