You by telling the applicant theca appeal to you in 15 days then its asking to take this option and consider whether or not the permit applicant timely submitted his application. Its almost like a consent situation because its not truly a permit that was submitted. It feels like a jurisdictional issue to me. Should we proceed with the rest of the hearing . First of all i want to ask mr. Pacheco if we can get the closed captioning on in the room. I see that its not. Is there any other comment on this item . Seeing none, mr. Castillo, you have 3 minutes for rebuttal. This is your opportunity to address the body. The only thing i need to ask is if you can give me a chance to continue the application i can do it again, all the paperwork because what happened before they dont have the money for all the paperwork at the same time because its a lot of money to pay on my permit, its almost 5,000. Its my first time to get a permit in 2012. We get a lot of papers and paid for it and i paid for m
To complete the application by granting the appeal. In essence by doing that you are consenting to the issue before you. I think you have that option if you want to proceed that way. I tend to agree with commissioner hurtado, the action taken would be tolling the time at the department. I dont think thats really within our purview. The question is do we have jurisdiction. I guess there is two ways of looking at it. It is involving a permit although not fully completed but evidently its Strong Enough where they can release this one until someone makes a decision and thats why they are here today, right . But i agree with commissioner hurtado as well that maybe we are not the body that should hear that . Yeah, i mean, i think march 2012 was the initial application. Thats almost 2 years. I think that the department has been reasonable in their actions and has sent two Certified Mail notices one of which i think was received, one was returned and the other one was received and also an emai
Jurisdiction to do anything at this point. Its an administrative, the dpw has Administrative Discretion to deem it abandoned. Thats my position on it. What you are saying is we shouldnt have accepted this appeal . Right. I understand that point. I think it was confusing in trying to figure this out and im sure it was confusing for the legal side to look at this. But i would probably approach this slightly different in saying how can we allow some level of closure. I would probably allow him to complete his application because i think there is going to be appeals that the directors hearing and let them go through their process to determine whether its an appropriate location and then well see whatever comes back to us. Right, but what authority do we have to do that to do anything . I thought we had two options, one was to allow him to complete the application by granting the appeal. In essence by doing that you are consenting to the issue before you. I think you have that option if you
Commissioner fung, president is absent, vicepresident lazarus, hurtado. This vote is 40. We are welcome back to january 29, 2014. Board of appeals. Item 9 will be scheduled for february 19, 2014. We are ready to call no. 10. 100 appeal no. V13166 nob hill neighbors, appellanttss vs. Zoning administrator, respondent 1601 larkin street. Protesting the granting on november 15, 2013, to pacific polk properties, rear yard, usable open space and dwelling unit exposure variances demolish existing Vacant Church and surface parking lot, and construct a new fivestory over basement building with 27 dwelling units and 32 offstreet parking spacess. Case no. 2013. 0980cev. No. 10. Sf 101234 this is on for hearing today and well start with appellants representative. Please step forward. And you have 7 minutes to present your case. If you are giving something to the board, you need to make sure the variance owner has one as well. We can share copies. All right Linda Chapman for nob hill neighbors. We
The proposed design apparently stops its building 3. 5 away from three of our Property Line windows in the kitchens of our front units. The new plan though, if i understand it correctly, is that it does not match our light well midbuilding. The new building runs right up to an alongside our building by about half of our light well. This will further compromise necessary light into our bathroom and kitchen windows in our three front units. The plan also completely eliminates one of our Property Line windows in the dining room of our front unit. We need a detailed drawing of exactly how this building will impact our Property Line windows and need to reach an amicably place with this developer. We have asked him to participate in a preop meaning with the city or at least fund that so we can get clarity from the city, namely dbi and fire about what will happen with our remaining Property Line windows that are left. We would appreciate cooperation in that regard. We would like to continue t