to the board of appeals. it was scheduled at the beginning of january. a few days prior to the appeal, the ceqa appeal was filed and heard by the board of supervisors in march. that was unanimously upheld by the board of supervisors. so we went to the hearing last night at the board of appeals, and they unanimously upheld the commission's decision, said that is where we are with that project. i think most of the appeal options are exhausted at this point, although they can request a re-hearing within five days. the final item is a very it's decision that i heard earlier this year. it was a lot line adjustment, not a subdivision. it is a unique situation where we had two single-family dwellings, and two small lots, and they actually straddle the property line. so what this project did was to make it such that each of the single family dwellings would be on their own separate properties. we felt that the fact that the buildings troubled property lines was a hardship and justifiable and require a very it's becaus

and the board of appeals voted to overturn our decision. and that kind of decision -- i was a member of the board of appeals at that time. that kind of decision is very rare, i think in terms of the board. and it points out, i think, that in the board of appeals, it's not a body that sets policy. this board can vote on various policy issues through the general plan and other planning mechanisms. the board of appeals is really there to uphold city law. and for them to step outside the boundaries in my opinion, in this case, is pointing a direction. and i don't know, along with commissioner miguel, if anybody's listening. but somebody should be listening. i think each time we get one of these, there's an increasing number -- not increasing number. there are concerns that are being expressed that the current ordinance as commissioner miguel said does not give us much leadway to address. so something, i assume, at some point, will begin to happen. i feel that in this case i'm quite supportive of the current application. if we include -- i think

the board has conducted meetings not in conformance with the rules of order. i am bringing this to the attention of the board and requesting it comply with the san francisco charterer and the city board of appeals rules of the board of appeals when conducting its meeting. thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will move on to commissioner's comments and questions. item number three, for your consideration are the meetings and who -- the minutes for the may 18, 2011 meeting. >> seeing none, i will move for adoption during good >> is there any public comment on -- i will move for adoption. >> is there any public comment on this item and? we will move to the role of h -- to calling the role. [calling fovotes] >> this is adopted. >> item 4a, a jurisdiction request. the board received a letter from jonathan sacks asking that the board take jurisdiction over application who 2009/12/18/03506 s. the request was received on may 3, 2011. the project is an elevator at the rear side of the structure. we can start with the requester. you have three minutes. >> my name is jonathan sacks. i am here with my wife. our neighbor convince us to not object to his building permit

, the appeal was filed on january 7. the boardof survivors heard the matter on march 22 and unanimously upheld the appeal, so we have had unanimous of holding -- upholding of the project end of the permits that are before you -- and on the permits that are before you. i would like to point out that no variances were sought. it was determined of variants was not required, and that was withdrawn. the board of supervisors has found the project lies with the planning code, and we think these are modest developments of the turn we like to see an would respectfully request the board denied the appeal. i am open for any questions. >> we do not have anything at alsl on the process. >> i apologize. we specifically submitted to live aboard -- to the board, and i do not know how that happened. >> i was of explaining the question i had to ask had to do with the board up held. >> thought was categorically exempt. the appeal but was -- was that it was inadequate. goo>> could you say what you sad about the height limit? >> it is a little quirk o

we will start with the requestor. >> i appealed the 25-day suspension issued. the board denied my appeal and i am here to request a rehearing because of findings and determinations of the department of public health are not factual. they do not have the authority to determine that i or anyone else to violate that the penal code. that is a matter for the courts. i have acquired information that i did not have the time of the hearing. i believe this information would impact the board's decision and the board granted appeals of others at the time. i appealed the suspension of the tobacco sales issued by the department of public health providing the penal code and the sales of tobacco to minors. i do not to sell to minors, we do not do that. the board denied might appeal but granted appeals to others and this is a n inequity. testimony by the department of public health was misleading or false. they take affirmative efforts to educate on the laws pertaining to the sales of tobacco. i learned that the department has not performed any tradi ining. they make efforts to inform r

to the board of appeals heard last night. many of the same issues regarding formula retail were raised. i did do a site visit with the senior building inspector. we measured the site, and it does comply with the size requirements. it is less than 4000 sweet and does not require a conditional use authorization. it was still disputed by the appellant, the claim that a corridor/storage area that is not in use by chase bank, that is not least by chase bank should count toward their use size, which we disagree. the board sided with the department and of how the decision. the building permit was issued. we would like to highlight the last time we had discussed this issue about financial-services, noting that financial services are not covered under formula retail uses, and the commission had requested a hearing on formula retail overall to see how the program is going, and i think we're going to try to bring that to you in the middle of july in association with legislation by supervisor mar that would deal with pet food stores and t

additionally, this is not dissimilar to another case that the board of appeals heard recently last year, v-10-004, 1120 19th street, a.k.a. 398 pennsylvania. the board upheld the previous owner administrator's denial, similar in the existing older building at the rear of the lot and had maximize the development potential and letter thought to subdivide them out. -- and later thought to subdivide them out. the project sponsors have been very agreeable to deal with and i know this is a difficult situation, but i have found them to be nothing but courteous during these times and we have paid to them the same respect to the department. that said, we felt the need to deny the application because we felt it was not consistent with the planning code. there is not a pattern of these smaller lots, a predominant pattern in the district. we found at less than 2% of the 1000 lots within 1,000 feet, 1868 lots within 1,000 feet of the property, that less than 2% were smaller than 1100 square feet in size. also, as the product sponsor stated, their alternative is here. they can go through the condomin

appeal was rejected? >> i believe the request for discretionary review came after the building permit was issued. once the building permit has been issued, the proper process is to file an appeal with the board of appeals and the planning commission cannot hear it. vice president garcia: mr. sanchez, if the project sponsor worst to submit plans and a designated area as something and it was a specific designation and would trigger c.u. because it would be over 4,000 feet, it is an option for them to rename that? can they decide to avoid the c.u. process we're going to use it for storage and said? bridget for storage instead? >> it is important clarify that it was not an exit space, it was not a space under their use or lease, that if they were too common with a revised. and crossed that out, we would have a question of whether they still had any intention of using that space or any intention of occupying or renting that space. the case it is it has never been their intention to occupy or use this space. vice president garcia: i am not suggesting that. before you go down that road, what i am saying is given the plants they had, if they are to avoid the c.u., they're not barred from designating

the permit holder filed an appeal at the board of appeals. since that time, the business has folded. there has been a new permit issued to operators at the same location. the board of appeals formally receive their withdrawal from the appellant. that thankfully is now filed. in addition, the citation appeal, the first one we have ever filed -- we did finally get an outcome on the circolo appeal. the citation was issued on february 27 by mr. bernelli for a violation of their security plan. that was appealed and heard by an and the district of law judge under the office of the comptroller on april 29. the matter was taken under advisement and the final disposition was reported to staff on may 27. and they ruled in favor of the commission, upholding the citation in its entirety. we worked closely with the city attorney on this first time around. we are hoping that in the event of an appeal, if this would happen again, we will not need the city attorney. we will have a template to use for any further appeals and citations. lastly, i wanted to upda

appeal was rejected? >> i believe the request for discretionary review came after the building permit was issued. once the building permit has been issued, the proper process is to file an appeal with the board of appeals and the planning commission cannot hear it. vice president garcia: mr. sanchez, if the project sponsor worst to submit plans and a

makes a decision and the director issues an order to remove and that decision and the order are both appealable to the board of appeals and i go to the board of appeals and i see carla there every couple of weeks and people often appeal three permits, anytime you need a permit to replace a tree, remove a tree, anytime you need a permit, they're appealable, it turns out that trees like fences are some of the most contentious issue that is come to the board of appeals, they're there every three or four weeks, we see a big tree case. i don't want palm trees on my treat. i want a six-foot box. everybody is very strongly felt about trees, i think. it happens constantly. >> it really brings out people's passions, which, as an -- as a forester, i'm always gratified to see. >> you're passionate. >> but this are also a -- oftentimes conflicts between trees and properties and developing a property, putting in a garage, you happen to have a tree in front of your house, you want to build a garage, you have to get a permit to take it out, we may not grant it automaticly, it can be a process that is challenging. >> we wo

under the administrative code, the city administrative code provides that while an eir appeal as a pending, the board will not consider the approval of the project. they certified the eir on the 21st. during the appeal period, we could -- hold hearings. our clients with than file a timely appeal. even after the appeal was filed, the board would continue. we would consider approval of the project. >> thank you very much. let me ask the city attorney if you could respond. >> i am at the city attorneys office. i will try to tackle these one at a time. i think the appellant has confused the noticing requirements under state law. the notices are required. the purpose of those is to give the public an opportunity to show up at a hearing and testified. we gave a 10-day required notice for the general plan with many required amendments. in advance of the land use committee hearings on this item. by and not quite sure what the appellants' noticing issue is in regard to ceqa. we made the comments and responses document available at least 10 days before the planning commitments certification of that action. the

at the full board tuesday, the housing element was before them. the board had already heard the appeal of the eir and upheld the eir ceqa document without public comment or board debate. the housing element was also approved with the 8-3 vote. the western sonoma community stabilization policy, urgent resolution sponsored by supervisor kim, that what urge this commission to incorporate policies and objectives from the stabilization policy into the western sonoma community plan when that item comes before you. the stabilization policy development developed by the task force would establish a metering of development, with the goal of achieving the desired balance of affordable housing and market. housing as well as an overall balance between housing. but the full board hearing, supervisor came introduced changes to the resolution so it no longer urges the commission to incorporate this stabilization policy -- supervisor kim introduced the changes, and asked them to incorporate the policies in the plan to ensure this balance happens. with those amendments, the board approved the resolution

the board of appeals disagreed and denied on those grounds, because they took no account their discretionary authority what they saw as the impact on the neighborhood to deny their application. president olague: is it not primary and secondary schools? so it does it include some youth facilities. >> it is primary and secondary educational schools, as well as community centers, recreation centers primarily devoted to use. -- to youth. president olague: yeah, i don't know of any around there, at work across the street, actually. i'd like to thank supervisor kim's office. they have been extremely helpful and facilitating these conversations. commissioner antonini? commissioner antonini: i just want to mention that my comments and vote will not be reflective of -- this group has done things the way they should be done. however, the clustering as a concern for me and could have a depressing effect on other development in the area, although this will be a big improvement over what is there, certainly, but the fact there are so many mcd's in a small area, there is something wrong there. i think the

after the planning commission certifies and eir for anyone who was involved in the process to file an appeal with the board of supervisors. so until such an appeal is actually filed, the city and all its departments and commissions may proceed with the approval actions related to that project. however, once an appeal is filed, that is when eight freeze occurs on taking an action that would constitute an approval action or considering an approval, which would be in the board's case, for a committee, forward a recommendation of approval to the full board of supervisors. supervisor mar: this area of law is so fuzzy and subjective. i recall yesterday at the land use committee -- i know other members of the planning department were there as well. i recall at the beginning of the hearing of the treasure island item a supervisor raised a question about not so much whether we are considering the item but more of were we to take any action. your response was we are not going to take any action or cannot. the only appropriate action would be to refer it to the full board without recommendation. but it is still very

the board of appeals and the full board did not meet this week. >> commissioners, the historic preservation commission did meet. the only item of interest would be the historic resources survey before them before the preservation and -- before them for preservation and possible action. they continued at. -- continued it. i did not bring my notes to tell you what it was all about. commissioner miguel: if i may interrupt, i was at the meeting. they looked at two or three of the district's proposed, being reconsidered to look at whether some buildings that were not born were noted to be outside the district could be outside the district. most important were the ones on the east side of the lower st.. it asked that those be added to the mission survey, rather than the separate district on their own. >> thank you. the only other item -- that was a public hearing. the item will come back at the next meeting for action. with that, commissioners, that completes my reports. commissioners, we can now move on to item number nine, case number 2011.0118i, 2 harrison streets. this is an abbreviated maste

we feel this is just the type of appeal for which the board was created, which is to provide oversight of the decisions made within the city departments so of residents are given equal and fair treatment. we're not real-estate developers, we're just to residents that would like to own our properties equally. severna heights review committees have shown no concern of our project. we don't believe this case would create any problems for larger development projects. that are ample requirements for code restrictions. as city departments are tasked with many competing and conflicting directives, the board spends a great deal of time and effort to reach a determination of the facts of the case. we know from watching archive broadcast that these proceedings, all of the cases are decided unanimously and understand that well-informed and good intentioned people working together do not always agree. we hope that i bring this to the board, we have taken it finished to have more than one good intentioned person to decide the case. we are asking the board to review our circumstances and determine i

but the delay has been the appeals by the opposing party to the environmental appeals board which is not even in the clean air statute. so this bill is simply designed to speed up the process and give people an adequate time to oppose the exploratory permitting. at this time i'd like to yield three minutes to the gentleman, mr. terry, who is a member of the energy and commerce committee. the chair: the gentleman from nebraska is recognized for three minutes. mr. terry: thank you, madam chairman. mr. gardener's bill addresses this country's need on energy and power. mr. gardener's bill prevents the government from going out of its way to stop private sector from creating jobs. this job alone will create 54,000 jobs sustained over 50 years. the economic report from northern economics of the university of alaska, i would ask unanimous consent to submit for the record. the chair: request being covered under general. mr. terry: we will do it then. and with one million barrels per day going to our country's need of about 19 million barrels per day makes us more energy secure. so what we hea

the board appeals will ask me when the work was done. i can nail it by the fasteners.hat does this tell you about the date. the square cut nails before they were wire nails were used. and that let's you know this is a piece installed in victorian times. >> often the screws, also. >> uh-huh. >> an older type screw. many of the screws now are phillips and look like sheet rock. >> the mention dating plumbing fixtures the same is for door and window hardware. oftentimes it will have a manufacture and a patent date. >> right. >> here's a cool hing. that was a door hing. heavy, probably weighs 5 times what a normal hing ways. >> a hing to made to swing both ways it's double acting and a spring hing you adjust it. >> this one might be rusted. saturday you might be able to get it to work. >> then, we have some facets and hardware. what can people do to upgrade stuff like that? >> well, it's all disassembleable. everything canning replaced. as with the door hardware you can take this out and have it plated in anything you like. if you don't like chrome or you want this to be br

to commissioner lee, it's one thing to have nine times the permit fees and ca go to the board of appeals and have them kickback. everyone who gets a notice of violation turns into a lamp at the board of appeals. when it's time to argue that penalties. a little cooperation might make enforcement a little easier to incentivize. my client -- i cannot believe as an architect i can go to a job site repeatedly and see violations as plain as the nose on my face. they don't get much plainer. the department does a great job. there is all sorts of code enforcement and a big staff and director hearings. i have been to several and scene of process work. but at this address, there is a cone of silence that cannot be heard. this property has this protection around it. i cannot explain it. i am an architect and i practice in the city. if my job site look like that house, i would be fired. there is work going on at that house without permits. there has been for seven years. this department has utterly failed that woman. she has spent tens of thousands of dollars trying to get your department to do its j