mr. sanchez. mr. duffey. >> thank you scott sanchez with the planning department i mean, i'll be brief wanted to conform it only relates to buildings with 3 or more illegal units and you rove an illegal unit it will be subject to the discretionary review and give-up the history while the building on the 7 unit will be over zoned it would not be if constructed in 1912 and some of the facts there would be legally two units the fact there's two exterior doors the permits subject to the jurisdiction request why is there no exterior connection and the allegation it's removed don't have any evidence this is a clear a single-family dwelling dwelling and we rely on dbi and the report as we final record of notice the final records are not also correct. i'll note this was advertised and what we can tell the materials submitted on the overhead as a 5 unit in the front and 2 in the rear that was need in the record. so again, i think maybe department of building inspection can shed light but the additional researc

sanchez from the planning department and thank you, mr. sanchez thankful been working on this quite sometime this is going to have more involvement so with that, mr. sanchez >> good afternoon, supervisors. the planning department looks forward to working with supervisor campos with the culture district as always is planning department supporting the changes in the zoning controls that reflect the desires of the needs and in line with the gunmen e general welfare. some examples are the work culture districts japantown, culture sustainability strategies and as well as the chinatown broadway example those are successive collaborations and we'll follow precedent thank you very much >> thank you very much mr. sanchez. and now eric the president of the latino program and it's hard to imagine 24th street without eric he is involved in every aspect of the neighborhood and we are indebted to him for all the work he's done and i know in many receptors this is a culmination of the work and thank you, sir fewer contributions it's greatly appreciated >

mr. sanchez. mr. duffey. >> thank you scott sanchez with the planning department i mean, i'll be brief wanted to conform it only relates to buildings with 3 or more illegal units and you rove an illegal unit it will be subject to the discretionary review and give-up the history while the building on the 7 unit will be over zoned it would not b

. >> mr. sanchez wouldn't it be easier to file for a permit. >> it's certainly possible they wouldn't have had to wait because the deadline facts have been changed but since this matter could come back to the board and it's part of the settlement process so also this decision would not inform appealable further so in terms of the process it's more straightforward for everyone to have this permit be the final action. >> thank you. >> mr. mathison. >> thank you. good evening commissioner president lazarus and commissioners ryan with the permit applicant the zoning administer has set out of important facts but i want to take a enemy to thank you thank the city staff for resolving this matter it's a long running difficult situation i'm happy to come back and report that the parties have been able to settle the matter action committee for women in prisonly and reached the ross resolution. this is a copy of the variance removing any city denomination that created a dangerous situation that can be ad

as mr. sanchez knows we've gone through the neighborhood fights subsequentially and there's been a couple of height limit changes to address some of the issues in rh2 zoning. and so in looking at those things and i'm trying toy determine how objectionable this third story is over the balance of the other buildings. i understand and i'm hearing with the neighbors that saying i'm not i agree with them it's obviouslyable i think whether you want to do the little things that the rtc has or whether you want to bite the bullet and say is a third story inappropriate with this neighborhood i agree it can be appropriate and therefore i'll vote that way >> make a motion. >> all right. i'll make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it is code compliant. >> thank you. mr. peck check >> we have a motion then from the vice president to uphold it is code compliant. >> on that motion communicating commissioner fung. commissioner hwang. commissioner president lazarus commissioner ho

mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez with the planning department the architect did a thorough job in detailing 9 process by which it was developed it's kind of confirming the act it's located within rh1 the single-family home zoning directed acrossful from highway 280 it's building permit was submitted last march and the preapplication process was implemented there were provisions made and we were made aware of the neighbors concerns they redesigned the project i held two meetings to discuss this and a series the recommended changes and all the issues the design team pledged the designs and all were address regarding the map of the scale and the third store not uncommon for the planning department to recommend an approval where there's neighborhoods with predominantly 2 stories so the building is actually has maximum setbacks from the front set back from the location of the front set back that's a 25 percent rear yard and doesn't encroach and this 3 story set back from the wall so 27

mr. mark video is being disingenious when he says he's reduced his project it's to the reduced the size of the overall project. the original proposed 40 plus size this on this lot is ridiculous. last fall i declined miss marry making video the project agreement, however, my mom's health declined and i had to prioritize to get her care. because of this i missed the discretionary review and i heard filing an appeal would be the appropriate step the planning department made a error they failed to uphold many of their design outlines and my primary conditioner is to address the scale of building projects. the guideline says quote design the scale of the building to be comparable with the height and depth of the surrounding building this project clearly fails and it's a full store taller than the neighbors and it extend beyond the neighborhood. the negative impact of this failure to respect neighborhood scale is a significant loss of light in the neighboring backyards this will cause on negati

. >> that sounds reasonable i have a couple of questions for scott mr. sanchez some of the correctly items i'm trying to understand i understand 1930 van ness and also another site dealing with the card collection the problem is if it were for the public it would not be part of the teaching institution is that what it comes down to. >> the property was formerly the mercedes benz he dealership that was first used to store a large number of the cars and also had offices for the institution they subsequentially removed the offices but still have it for the storage of automobiles it's a change of use from the retail use and is a question of working with the academies to determine what they want to do do they want offices there's been discussions of a museum there's signs if you want to see the collection call a number and people do that. it's also used we understand a research library for the students and automobile design program and also the building and the 4 nine hundred van ness across washington it's used by students i understand the inspiration also o

november 1st comes around and mr. sanchez has said if they don't meet the deadline the penalties will accrues as of the second that stand and will not be resend >> so as part of the process part of the release of stay the appeal periods for the violations and penalty will run and their ability to appeal that with the determination in there about the november 2nd date the time is now. >> and do the penalties start to accrues between the time they started to delay or descending second. >> so they've been in violation since 2006 or 7 or 8 when they bought the properties and no penalties assessed for the entire years only starting on november 2nd so they're getting away with murder again so i don't understand what the issue is with commissioners who can't say we're going to schedule a hearing to have a discussion about what the hearing in the latter part of the year one we've been looking at the draft and have environmental report and put the academy on notice and the public that the commission series about having a heari

thank you very much >> mr. sanchez and mr. duffey anything further. >> thank you scott sanchez i'll brief provide context bp about the photos of the booth at the end of the brief on the overhead we have a day have the overhead please. all right. so this is the entire of the booth it shows the sprinklers and the side windows noted in the appellants photo and interior latin-american for the booth and the photo of the outside of the booth seeing the lights on the inside have off and some covering and the outside the boothd you can see the window to the left through which the patent took the photograph of the car sitting outside the booth you see the light this is a better one the lights on the exterior of the booth that's what the appellant is claiming it appears there's a light coming from within the booth it seemed to be covered $0.35 that's the issue raised. a that's all i wanted to present for information >> commissioners any help on the issues i think the owner knows he has an outstanding notice of violation so far the spray

. >> have a seat, mr. sanchez. >> why don't we go to your office? >> well, my office is too small for the two of us. why don't we sit here. >> you know what? do what you want. whatever the [ bleep ] you want. i don't give a [ bleep ]. i say you're wrong. >> mr. sanchez, you know me. i've been here for 15 years. you know me. why are you talking to me -- >> do what you've got to do. >> okay? >> do what you've got to do. >> i'll tell you what i'm going to do, i'm going to sit over here right next to you. together. we're going to go over this together. on august 20th of '06, you were placed interim level vi. in the policy, when you're placed interim level vi. >> what was i placed there for? >> this is the one where you assaulted that guy. were you in med-line or something like that? yeah, med-line. >> he had it coming. so this one has to be consecutive to the seg time you were doing here. it was, wasn't it? >> no. it's concurrent. >> no. policy says disciplinary segregation is consecutive. this is my biggest concern, is this right here. is you're talkin

sanchez who received $5,000 and attended international high school. (clapping.) the following names are students that received a $3,000 scholarship that are going to 4 year universities the first from admission high school and jacqueline attended o'connell and cleveland and m e.c. xavier menus is attended the international high school and we have a recipient between 15 hundred scloop she attended jordan high school and went to dpw e director heinecke man and long fell. lewis chavez will receive $3,000 he and then a local high school. and many mendez went to mission and everest and steve you didn't many went to longfellow elementary and we had another student attended balboa she'll he gets 3 thousand. 2 year scholarships will go to the following students john received $1,500 will remember to lick and chavez and marshall high school and rose academy of arts and science went to e.r. reiterate and finally, there's the last student attended hill toup top and will be receiving $1,500 and that's the list of our students. i apologize them for not being here (clapping) th

we feel there's a gap in the logic and mr. sanchez noted there's at&t's an, an out that's where the front wall of the rear cottage exceeds the rear wall from the adjacent building if you fill in that circumstances there's no adjacent open area so we're pointing out the that problem and saying you can use our discretionary powers to lots like this. the building walls on this side of ashbury are unbroken you can't help to see the gardener and then the hill draws up your vision to the building surrounding that. as i mentioned last time at the last hearing this picture was taken from the advertising from the sue electro estate he erected the liberty and left to right status. my point is not that this building is not sixth under sequa the cottages are ordinary than the buildings they have interesting architecture and facing gardens off something valuable to the neighborhoods. with the approval of this project we would be saying by virtual the city wanted to get rid felt older building and have affordable housing. so this dr is not

. >> mr. sanchez please verify that is only for indoor uses explain that to me it would be interesting to hear that as an expansion of an indoor use correct. >> yes. however, certainly commercial entities that could be open air. >> would they come to us separately because we know of instances where large gathering in outdoor spaces have ramifications i have you could explain that and the current use for the minnesota it is your use is indoor use only put forth in our amendment. i understand your concerns if it expands to outdoor uses the community wouldn't appreciate the expansion with the bona fide entertainment with the outdoor use we've kept it narrow in our contraction vs. as changing the code >> thank you. if i may through the chair they require a radish or someplace like if that it must have a outdoor permit >> thank you. >> commissioners there's is moved and seconded. >> commissioner antonini. >> commissioner borden commissioner hillis. commissioner moore commissioner sugaya. commission

. >> something to add mr. sanchez. >> all right. i renew my motion to grant the jurisdiction question. >> we have a motion to grant the jurisdiction request. on that motion. commissioner fung arrest commissioner hwang. commissioner president lazarus and commissioner honda >> thank you. the vote is 5 to zero the jurisdiction is grand and she now has a 5 day appeal period and this ends this coming monday. >> thank you. >> this coming monday. >> okay. we'll move on to item 67 the next stacey versus the urban forestry protesting the issuance on march 6 to the orthodox of a tree removal permit to receptionist two privately maintained trees. starting with the appellant you have 7 minutes >> hi i'm stacey we're representing in response 10 homeland security on the street at the 299 valencia street as concerned folks post of the case orthodox foundation we ask the board it the destruction of those trees is not necessary for the fruittion the church wants to see this done to reduce their costs this has nothing to do with the safety of the com

. >> so mr. sanchez, that for me eliminates the non- complying part and privacy, which we deal with all the time. pell are always going to have windows that look into other windows. but i mean, in terms of the setbacks, if i am reading the plans correctly. setbacks of 4' between the project sponsors and property line on the second and third floor and 5' setback on the fourth floor. staff correct me if i'm wrong, there is the whole top floor setback 15' from the front, i believe. and then there is -- isn't there also a light well, matching light well that is fairly? and the 5', that is the length of the light well? >> yes. >> and that light well is barely long as i recall. so typically i'm in a single-family home myself and we're ' from the property line, and the other single-family detached home is 3' from the property line on the other side. so you know, a 6' separation is what you have in gracious districts that have completely detached homes. if you have -- i don't know how much the dr questio

thank you, mr. sanchez. i have seen a lot of these and it just seemed like -- i think it's the first one i have seen with 20 out of 20 sites exceeding the wind thing, but that is what it is. it's a windy place and it's always been windy. it was windy when there was nothing there and it will remain windy even when there are buildings there. [laughter ] >> so you wanted to live there, you put up with the wind. and now i also wanted to know this funding would come from [tp-eufpbd/]s funds collected by the mayor's office of housing? >> let me refer to the project sponsor. >> that ; is that correct?. funding would come from the mayor's office of housing and community development and they in part provide funds for acquisition of the site in 2007 and committed additional funding for pre-development and construction. as well as then we are securing funding from the state. and we'll be securing funding through the tax credit system as well. do you have any idea what the construction costs are going to be for this pro

mr. thornberry votes no. miss sanchez. miss sanchez votes aye. mr. jones. mr. mcintyre. mr. mcintyre votes aye. mr. forbes. mr. forbes votes no. mr. brady. mr. brady votes aye. mr. miller. mr. miller votes no. mrs. davis. mrs. davis votes no. mr. wilson. >> no. >> mr. wilson votes no. >> mr. langevin. mr. langevin votes no. mr. lubeno votes no. mr. larson votes no. mr. bishop votes no. mr. cooper votes no. mr. turner. mr. turner votes no. >> ms. burdio? >> no. >> ms. burdio votes no. mr. klein. mr. klein votes no. mr. courtney votes no. mr. rodgers votes no. mr. lopsack vote no, sir. mr. franks. mr. franks vote no, sir. miss tsongas votes no. mr. schuster. mr. schuster votes no. mr. garamendi votes aye. mr. khannaway votes no. mr. johnson. mr. johnson votes aye. mr. lamborn. mr. lam born votes no. miss hanabusa. miss hanabusa votes aye. mr. whitman, mr. whitman votes no. miss spear. miss spear votes aye. mr. hunter? mr. hunter vote no, sir. mr. barber. mr. barber votes aye. dr. fleming. dr. fleming vote no, sir. mr. carson. mr. carson votes aye. mr. coffman. mr. coffman vote

mr. ionin to put on the screen. the issues of real estate yard coverage is something that the zoning administrator is going to have to interpret, as i said before. that is pretty good, if you could push it a little further to show -- you can see the space between the two. right there. you can see there is a setback on the dr requesters that is fairly generous, look like maybe 3' -- i can't tell -- from the property line. then you see the setback of 4' on the lower floors, 2 and 3. and then the 4th floor you see the 5' setback and see how long that light well is. i am trying to interpret this as we do every other case we get. if we had rowhouses which these are almost rowhouses and there are some separations and asked how much do we need between structures? think 3' and 4' and in some places 5' is ample light well. it's still pretty generous. so that is kind of my interpretation of it. i will defer to other commissioners, but that is my interpretation of what the project sponsor is doing w

mr. passmore's name came up. he used to wave his arms around and say i did have one where i thought it was not in the code or needed a variance. and bob said don't worry, if it makes neighbors happy, we'll approve it. thank you. >> commissioner sugaya. >> i think for me, there is a slightly -- we're talking about two different things. seems like the light well situation is something that we do apply routinely when there are buildings next to each other and there is already a light well or setback, let's say on the neighbor's side, either side or both sides and we try to bring in the building 3-4' by x feet long. and that is the usual, typical light well solution and what i was referring to and perhaps commissioner moore was the rear yard or open space requirement being treated differently than meeting it through a light well situation. and i think the two issues are slightly different. and the solution that i think we haven't taken a vote, so i don't know what will happen up here, but the

mr. sanchez, i agree, our alternative doesn't comply with our own position, but that wasn't a mistake. that was a compromise in and of itself. so we started with the concept that commissioners moore and sugaya have, which is an open area that benefits every one between the two buildings on that north property line. to try to move closer to what the project sponsor wanted, we tried to start talking about additional setbacks at perhaps higher levels, getting to the top floor, which would be the breezeway, with some sort of either angled roof or glass-glazed roof or something like that. so there are several issues. i don't think i'm helping you at all. >> thank you. i think we'll be looking at a continuance from what i am hearing to try to craft something that is agreeable to the parties involved. at least in my mind, you leave the floors as they are. you probably don't alter the lower floors very much, but you may narrow that center section slightly. perhaps bringing the front further -- th