>> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. the department would not oppose a continuance of the subject item and definitely we're 73 happy to the parties have been able to reach an amicable solution. we're happy to have a meeting with all parties to see what the best path forward would be. i don't know what that path would be, but we can have the discussion. >> commissioners, our calendars are quite full over the next few wex. even though it would be tight, my recommendation would be november 7. >> okay. >> does that work for --. >> given the long length of time and complexity of the item, i would request some additional time. >> november 5. >> that's better for us. >> great. >> is there a motion then commissioner? >> move the item be continued until december 5th. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment? okay, you can call the roll. >> on that motion to reschedule item 4-a to december 5th. (roll called) the vote is 4-0, this matter is rescheduled to december 5th. >> okay, great, so we can then, item 5 has been continued t

. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. it real estate pete what i said in my rebuttal, you can have portions. raf above the 35 foot height limit, it's a matter of averaging. i blaefrb if they had a full width shed roof as long as the points measured out correctly and it was an average 35 feet, it would comply with the planning requirement. this is purely looking at the height limit and it would be code compliant for the height limit but it with still need other review. it's not as if he does the full width shed raf that wae would automatically send out the 311. the planning department still has it look at it and make a determination what we can support on that project. >> commissioners, i'm prepared to move to uphold the letter of determination. >> that's on the basis of lack of error or abuse of discretion? >> that's correct. >> call the roll, please. >> we have a motion from the vice president to uphold this letter of determination on the basis of lack of error on the part of the zoning administrator. on that motion, pre

. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. yes, just to clarify again about the process, the building permit was submitted in december. prayer to submitting the building permit, there's a preapplication process. that is the xhueplt outreach that the neighbor was referring to and the meeting at that point. we began our review earlier this year, gave comments back to the project architect as early as march, and i think since that time we've bun consistent in expressing how height should be measured. and it wasn't until a few months after that that the letter of determination request was submitted, to get the matter properly before this board is a question of interpreting the planning code. we were scheduled initially for hearing in august, it was continued to this date, so we can have some resolution hopefully on this matter depending on the decision of the board, the project would be revised or go ahead as is to neighborhood notification, that's a 30-day notice to neighbors and property owners within 150 feet. there could be di

sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. as noted the subject property is at 585 marina boulevard, it's located in an rh1b district. the application that we were reviewing now was submitted last december and it constitutes a rear horizontal addition. they are compliant with the rear yard requirement, they are extending out to the 25 percent rear yard. however, in adding the floor and adding the fourth floor they are not compliant with the planning code requirement for 35 foot height limit. the planning code section 261 establishes additional height limits, even though the mapped height limit for the district is 40 feet, planning code section 261-b says no portion, and i'll repeat that again, no portion of a dwelling in rh1d shall exceed a height of 35 feet. so i think it's very clear to note it is no portion. the applicant has provided even in their submital one of the sections that does show that the building will exceed a height of 35 feet so this is where we come to the argument here and i appreciate the appellant's argum

scott sanchez is here, he's representing the planning department and the planning commission and joseph duffy is here, senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection. we expect to be joined also by representatives of the department of public health. at this time, mr. pacheco, if you could go over the berd's guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests you turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disrupt the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules are as follows. the appellants each have 7 minutes to present their cases. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3 minute periods. member s of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 minutes each to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, member s 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 podium. speaker cards and pens

. >> thank you, scott sanchez, representing the planning department and the planning commission. the subject property on sanchez feet located with an rh3 zoning district so allowing 3 dwellings on a lot and has a 40 feet height limit. the building was indeed permitted in 2005. the neighborhood notification was filed in 2006, there was one discretionary review filed at that time. subsequent to that filing apparently the department decided additional environmental evaluation was needed so in july of 2007, an environmental application was filed to allow them to be through the historic resource evaluation report and they completed that report in december of 2007, finding that it was not a historic resource. and to explain the category issues, category a is a known historic resource, category b is a potential resource, additional research is required, category c is not a historic resource. given the age of the building it was a category b necessitating additional research. that additional research was performed in the hrer and found it was not a resource so it has been recategorized to

. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. the subject property is located within an rh3 zoning district which would allow a maximum of 3 dwelling units within the subject property. it does contain 6 units and is a existing legal non-complying structure. according to our records, it was built in 1900, which means it could have been built any time prayer to the turn of the century. the records were lost in 1906. if it was originally 6 units or if it was less, it was probably increased to 6 units prior to the current zoning going into effect, which was 1967. i would imagine the 6 units were created sometime prayer to 1960, but we don't see anything about a 7th unit on the property, just six. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, then mr. foss, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> first of all, there was a tenant in this unit for over 15 years almost immediately before my tenancy began. there was a couple months when his apartment was cleared out because he had passed away, but he maintained the building for i think the enti

getting from the planning department so we had asked for review and a letter of determination from scott sanchez, zoning administrator, regarding the calculation of height. he gave that to us, he did not agree with us in how we calculate height, and yet he did not give us any firm code references or code sections that we could relay on, so that's why we are appealing this. the owners have become very frustrated by the delays caused by going through the planning department and not having any kind solid code reference to count on. specifically, the question is how the height of the building is measured. that's this right here. the planning code section 268-2 states the height of the roof may be taken as the average rise of the roof or pitch or similar sculptured shed formment this is a pitched roof, it's similar to what you would expect in a mid-century modern house. there's nothing in the planning code or interpretations that require roof to cover the full width of the lot, yet that's one of the basis mr. sanchez' letter of determination that this in fact is two roofs, not one. it can be clearly

in the hearing we had previously scott sanchez testified on behalf of the zoning department that the paths at the summit would be retained and that they were not ada accessible. the new permit plans for the 610 show the scope of work is not understood by mr. sanchez or maybe anyone at the planning department and ms. hobson's prior commitment to retain and obtain the paths at the summit is no longer true. in fact the 610 plans show that the new summit will have new site facilities, and as mr. sanchez points out in his e-mail to me those site facilities will not be ada accessible. this is a serious problem with this permit. so what information was now not provided to me, the mandatory archeological resource report that would need to be done in connection with the holiday house, i now know has not been done. instead there simply seems to be a plan to maintain just the footing of the holiday house. we're talking about such an important piece of san francisco history and we're talking about a mandatory planning department review that has not been done. this is simply not satifactory. ther

sanchez, anything further? >> thank you, scott fisher, planning department. i believe they were on revision no. 7 for the plan, so they did make several revisions. i don't have a detailed log of what all those revisions were and why those revisions were made, but just to know there were several revisions made to the plans before they were issued. second, i think it's good it hear and i've mentioned the board is happy to hear modifications to the rear. getting into endless series of appeals, everyone's highlight, the beels if they were to adopt changes that would be put out in a special condition permit which is not appealable. if this board makes changes to the permit, that would not be appealable so make sure people are aware of that fact. >> while you are pick-up here i think you noted the regard with regard to planning, but it was a 3-3 level. >> at the planning commission, it was 3-3, so it was deemed approval, rather than approved. >> commissioners, the smater is submitted. >> i can start. >> go ahead. >> you know, contrary to i think -- stated by both s

scott reece, nbc bay area news. >> the one time i won't be rooting for sanchez.uper superstitions. we will hear from ryan vogelsong and a ritual. check out our website and look for the giants link at the top of our home page and tune in tonight at 5:00, 6:00 and 11:00. >> when it comes to halloween, a treat can be more scary than a costume or a monster for children with diabetes. they are helping local families getting in on the fun. we will start by thanking you for being with us. you have an event, a pumpkin-carving contest that is sugar free. >> it is and our children are allowed to have children, but we have to cover it with insulin. we let them have a normal live and do the things other kids do, we have to monitor it more. >> the pumpkin carving is an opportunity not just to get in the holiday spirit, but be with other people going through the same challenges. >> yes. we have try to have events once a month. it's an opportunity for kids to come and see how they manage their disease. they can be together and eating the treats and learning how to manage that.

scott, good morning. >> reporter: good morning to you as well. hard to predict exactly what bruce bochy will do with the lineups tonight. he had hector sanchez catching tim lincecum yesterday and sanchez has been barry zito's catcher for most of the season but it's strange to think of buster posey not behind the plate for two straight days. as for the torture, well, it seemed like two years ago it was in-game torture. this year it's in-series torture. the giants kid it in cincinnati as they trailed that two games to none and had to come roaring back three games. now a similar situation down 3-1 in the best of seven. the bad news is you go back to 1985 on the dawn of the seven-game championship series, 33 times a team has been down 3-1. only four times have they come back. but again then what the giants did against the reds has never been accomplished so clearly they are undaunted as barry zito takes the mound in a do-or-die situation. obviously the giants 3-0 in elimination games winning three straight against cincinnati. game time just after 5:00 pacific time. of course we're on the air over on comcast sportsnet bay area with your october q