funding all parts of the solution and we need to be doing this in a holistic way. so we would appreciate more discussion around that. and we appreciate you. chair chan, thank you for sharing your comments. do we have anyone else who has public comment on agenda item numbers one, two and three heard today? madam chair, thank you. seeing no more public comments. public comment is now closed. colleagues, we finally are finishing our first series of the budget items and hearing with city departments. we. i'm eagerly await for our budget and legislative analyst report to come back to us and give us some guidance and thoughts. and you know, and there will be a lot of feelings, hurt. and i, i am predicting that a lot of hurt feelings next week because it's not easy. and i just want to put it on the record for that. and i, i think that the way i see my job colleagues, is that i do not

foresee everybody is going to be pleased with at least me and my suggestions and decisions, for the coming week, i don't anticipate that. but all i ask is for your patience and that we work together as a team. and as a body, to make sure that we do right by the people. so, mr. clerk, do we have any other business before us today, just a point of clarification, madam chair, item five, just we have not disposed it yet. yeah. oh we did. actually, we make the motion to, to recommend out. i just wanted to clarify that, we're recommending out to july 9th or to the 25th. i think we can recommend it to july, july 9th, but it isn't actually an appropriation for the current fiscal year. so i don't think so. i think we have to do it by june 25th. okay. very well. and with that we have no further business. thank you. and then we basically continue this thing. oh yes, so we i moved to

continue item one and three, to the next budget and appropriation committee. okay. and on that motion, second by vice chair mandelman seconded, on that motion by chair chan, seconded by vice chair mandelman to continue the hearing and the and the ordinances, the o and aso ordinances to our june 20th meeting of this, of this committee. and on that motion, vice chair mandelman mandelman i, member walton walton. absent member. peskin. peskin. absent member. melgar. melgar. i and, member onan. brown. and absent. how we have three eyes with members walton and ronen. oh, sorry. church and i. chan i we have three eyes with members walton and, ronen absent. thank

you. and the motion passes. do we have, any other business before us today, madam chair? that completes our business. thank you. the meeting is adjourned.

>> good evening, welcome to the june 12, 2024, board of appeals. president lopez will be residing. vice president alex lemberg is absent this evening. also present is city attorney jeff who will provide the board with any legal advise. i'm julie, the board's executive director. we will also be joined from representatives from the city departments that will be prenlting before the board. up front we have tina representing the planning department and kevin birmingham acting chief inspect or. we will also have matthew for dbi joining us via zoom. the board meeting guidelines are as follows.

no eating or drinking in the hearing room. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellant and respondent each are given 7 minutes to present their case and three minutes to rebuttal. time may be limited if the agenda is long. our legal system will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. modify a determination or grant a rehearing request. please email board staff at board of appeals. now public access and captioner are paramount importance to the board. sf gov. tv is broadcasting and

streaming this meeting live. sf gov. tv is also providing close captioning. so watch the meeting, go to cable channel 78. please know that it will be rebod cast on friday. a link on the live stream is found forward now public comment will be provided in three ways, one in-person, two in via zoom and go to our website and go go to hearings and then on zoom link. three you can provide public comment by telephone. and enter webinar id 8300697 and again sf gov. is broadcasting and streaming the phone number at the bottom of the screen if you're watching the broadcast or stream. listen for the public comment for the item to be called.

we'll be brought into the hearing when it's your turn. you may have to dial star 6 to unmute yourself. please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast. therefore it's very important to turn off the volume on their tvs or computers otherwise there is interference with the meeting. technical assistance, you can make a request in the chat function, or send an email to board of appeals. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. please note that we will take public comment first from those present in the hearing room. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that everybody who is expect today speak, if you

intend to testify and wish to have the board testimony, raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? okay, thank you. if you're a participating and not speaking, please put your speaker on mute. we do have one housekeeping item. item 6 appeal number 24-031, 77 mcallister street has been withdrawn by the appellant, so if you came here for that item, you can go home. we will now move on to item 1 which is public hearing. is there anyone here who would like to speak during general public comment? okay, anyone on zoom.

commissioner comments or questions? >> commissioners anything? thank you, we can move forward. >> item number 3, for discussion and possible adoption of the minute of may 28, 2024, meeting. >> i can't hear you. >> i move to adopt the minutes of may 29, 2024 meeting. >> okay, on that motion president lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner swig? >> aye. >> that motion carries 2-0 and the minutes are adopted and just in time, commissioner epler. let's give him a moment to get settled, we're now on item number 4 for appeal number, subject property at 617 sanchez street, the appellant is requesting rehearing of appeal

number which was decided. the board voted 5-0 to grant a the appeal and issue the permit. the motion was made on the basis and provides a thorough review. the permit holder is jw, llc, single-family resident this was number permit--and we will hear from the requesters attorney first. welcome, you have three minutes. >> speaker: thank you, mr. eppler you made it. i'm the attorney for on the request for hearing on 617 sanchez street, new construction of this four-story single-family resident.

we, request president lopez to be able to submit a 48-page text of the board, meetings on 617 sanchez appeals as broadcast. and we have them here and ready to submit them but, should i wait right now for your decision? or keep going? >> just to clarify you're seek to go submit a brief to the board? >> no, submit a text transcript of the last hearing. >> i believe she wanted submit something to the board and ask permission from the president to do so. >> do you have physical copies? >> yeah. >> sure. and also she used some of her time to ask that, should i

reclaim that time? >> yes, let's have her reclaim that time. >> speaker: thank you. the commission really zeroed in on a couple of issues struggled with the things that are here. >> and this is generated by a i? >> yes, and we only changed the spelling of names, the names why wr* misspelled. >> i'll start your time now. the presentations, on both sides are in the transcript as well as discussion by dbi staff

and mr. t from the planning department. when your discussion, you really dug into the issue of the report and that was the condition that you made on this project. the presidential issue decision set precedence for the future cases. right now the next speaker is

albert harugio, with the engineering, he will speak next. thank you. >> i paused your time. >> thank you. >> hello commissioners i'm i've been hired to be the representative of owner of 6 19 sanchez street. my client's main concern is the safety of this property and their house. we want to clarify the instructions from the board from the may 8th hearing in order to protect my client's property which is adjacent to the property of the new construction. this board required a third party by a license gear of the 617 report. this report was created by engineer alan and dated march 6th. the duties of the peer review,

just be elaborated by the board. the pier review must have additional barrings or further information from the current, so they can create and submit a new report that actually addressed the entire property. structural showinger, truck tour al counselsing design within a week of receipt by the permit holder or currently available now. thank you. >> 30 seconds. you have 30 seconds.

following the real life communication between project permit holder and the, affective neighborhood, we sent a request to mr. sucker to really meet with us. because this is not a minor issue it's whether a house is going to be safe or the underline by construction. >> thank you, that's time. >> thank you, we have a question from commissioner trans --tras vina. >> i think you were suppose going to tell us what the response was to your vacation. was there any? >> no, but he had the request before. we've had various communications over the past couple of months. not really a lot.

but, we have always been willing to meet with the other side. because it's, it's a discussion that needs to be handled it should just not be the source engineer. >> i don't recall what the exact motion was we approved i'm trying to look for it in this transcript. page 43, my question is for the things that you are seeking, are they not possible under our motion? they are possible but one of the issues that we have volunteered to the other side is that we would satisfied if there is ska vacation, there is availability of this all. and one of the issues is, if they go down another to have

the owners parents move there, they could save their house from the hear, support from the neighborhood next door, they don't have to demolish the house that exist already. >> i'm sorry, so for the request that you're making, which is as i understand it, the excavation in a different spot in the front rather than in the back. >> speaker: it's limitations, the excavation already knows there is a source problem in the place that they dig, and they did the boring already.

so we were assuming when they do the next round of ska vacation, they will probably find a problem, because they were they didn't excavate at the site where there is going to be ska vacation now at the new hout. so we're willing to work with them. and existing house. >> right. are you saying that what they do is now ir specific? --irrelevant?

is the purpose, is it unable to get fulfilled unless it goes your way. >> speaker: there are two ways of going. second thing is, how to allow ms. host who have secondary unit. so we're willing to talk to them about how this projects proceeds. and talking to them pardon me,

the board really talked about at the end of your hearing, the last time around how important it was for people to talk to each other and not just everything on you, if they don't attempt to resolve issues and they come to the board of appeals. the board hearing gets really complicated, like this one. and so it will be good advise to developers in the city to really help talk to the neighborhoods. and one of the way is to design, the second issue of the

engineering report which is major issue on this one. >> i think you're going beyond what i asked. i appreciate you're fully answering the question which you have. thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners any other question? >> thank you for bringing the transcript. >> thank you for bringing the transcript. let's get the right mic. now i see it in front of me. i'm going to ask the executive director to remind us why we're here and this rehearing request? >> what is the standard for the hearing request? please? >> i have it in front of me.

>> thanks very much. >> accept and extraordinary cases and to prevent manifest injustice, the board may grant a rehearing request only upon showing where they have ariz en. it should state the same of witnesses or description of document to be produced why the evidence was not produced at the original hearing. failure to produce the facts shall be grounds of denial of the request. >> thank you. >> and we had a problem. >> excuse me, excuse me, supervisor. that's how i recognize you. what is the new, what i'm hearing tonight is continuation of our hearing that we closed a

couple of weeks ago. what is there any new information and that, that accord to go what was just? >> nothing just happened since the hearing because nothing can happen when the matter is before you. >> there is no new information that will change. >> we're trying to get new information. >> okay, now, we had a, we had a significant dialogue and i, i show great concern as you know. that one boring is not enough. the feedback that i got from dbi, ms. birmingham, we're going to have this discussion when you step up. it was dangerous territory to set up a precedence to require what i was looking for is a, a whole report et cetera et cetera.

when none of was comfortable with. it was considered that was set the precedence. okay, so naz why where we ended it. i'm going to talk to mr. birmingham how we make you comfortable to have a fair just and broader soils, study is done, okay. that's where we're going in this hearing.

but we can't grant you a hearing request without meeting, the test which ms. hubert just read to us very clearly. where is the new information that has, that is surfaced that is different from what, what was order in the hearing a couple of weeks ago. i'm there too with the soils issue. but i'm not hearing anything that would justify a new hearing in any way shape or form. >> and we don't want the new information to be house coming down. that is just a reminder of something that we talked about.

>> so, we're in a pickle because, if there is new information that is we can't come back to the board. but dbi serves a purpose to protect you, to protect your customer, your client the appellant, that's their job. we made it clear that it's of great concern that a fair and just and thorough report be done so your client is protected. we hit that on the nail on the head made it very clear. this is not new information, this is yourself being deeply diligent and deeply responsible to protect your client but this is not getting a new rehearing request unless there is grand opposition from my.

we talked about how many times a week? maybe on every hearing? where there is not enough communication between the two parties. that's something that we don't have jurisdiction over. we continue our line, we beg of you both parties to enjoy communication with each other because we have to live with other. we cannot control that. what we can adjudicate is the strong recommendation which we did last week. so that's i just want to do you have any difference of condition on that? or where is your new information accord to go what

ms. raoubeter just laid out? >> that's legislative, you've some something to do with this during your tenure. >> if things are not worked out by talking to each other one of the projects is going through, it becomes a issue as well as the neighbors. and i'm not fwg to --going to lie with you. i urge you to read the transcript, thank you very much.

>> commissioner trasvina. >> we have yet to hear from the property owner, or from the department. and i was reluctant to bring this up earlier, but it's the deputy city attorney quoted from i think, part fine of our rules, rehearing request, but didn't, didn't go all the way to the end. which is e says this section shall not be apply to any motion made by the board's own commission. as a distinct there is what is known as the board, a motion to rehear the case made bit initiative where the restructions which you just described which says the section does not apply. so i am, i am perhaps i don't have a question but i do want to layout my reading of section

9 is that, all of those requirements are not necessary for us to do what you seem to try to do which is to try to get the best possible resolution here. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, you can be seated. we'll now hear from the permit holder. >> can i get the overhead, please. >> computer. >> speaker: good afternoon, justin sucker here on behalf of the permit holder. we're here on a rehearing request brought to you by the appellant, the standard review as note by the city attorney is one that states that rehearing request requested by an

appellant is one that should be granted under extraordinary circumstances. and it gives you an outline of information that is critical for achieving that. in this instance, the appeal ant has not presented any evidence that would impact the decision that was made on may 8th, material that has been provided has already been presented for the may 8th hearing all but the transcript, but the transcript itself was the dialogue that was the consideration of the may 8th hearing. oh, sorry about that. >> i'll paws your time. >> without any new information or evidence that is material, there is a lack of standing from the appellant to move forward with the rehearing request. we do appreciate that the appellant has concerns with regards to the construction, as noted by the appellant's attorney, she reached out to me late this afternoon, stating if

you have any information please provide, we want to have a dialogue, i did not get a chance to respond because it did comethank you i would like

to know are what are the cost difficulties or any other problems, that would be visited upon your client if the appellants request was granted? >> are you asking what the additional burden would be for additional borings at the front? >> yeah, i'm asking, if we said well, we can pick this up on our own motion, what are the real implications to your client? what should we way on your side? what would be the disadvantage to your client if we did that? >> the disadvantage would, you

know, i will frame it this way, we don't believe that this is necessary considering that we will be doing what this board has requested, we're getting external pier review, we also hear the dissatisfaction with the previous boring sales report and we are, look into providing more robust in addition to the pier review, we're looking at retaining additional soil expert to help provide that and all of that can be provided to dbis as part of the review process and we're, hoping to doing that but with respect to the rehearing of this matter, we don't believe that is warranted. >> i'm not hearing any costs, time, or dollars, or anything

else about. >> i don't have specifics in terms of cost for additional sales report or timing, i invite the architect to come up. what i can say in terms of timing, we have been looking into getting others involved and that takes time to get. i'll leave this to the architect. >> can i clarify, we cannot amend the decision, would you have to grant the rehearing request and then have another full blown hearing and then you'll have another decision. >> i understand that. we can decide, based on section out, then we can decide on the merits, is one side better than the other. in which case, we would have a rehearing or not.

the board would have to have a separate hearing on rehearing in essence. >> whatever they are, it's good for the public but that does not take away from the issue of that these rules one set south side they have described, and then you have the other section which says we can have a motion on the board's initiative.

>> i'm not sure what you're proposing commissioner trasvina but perhaps we can hear the argument and see where this goes. the board will need to agendize a hearing and have a hearing on the merit in order to amend its decision. i think we're on the same page about that, unless there is? >> i'm not sure why this is an issue now, we're hearing from the architect as to what the costs are to, to doing it the way appellants want. >> so, commissioner, we have robert the architect in the project. >> did every one hear me? architect for the project, respectfully the cost frankly is time and professional fees.

i would like to remind this board that this project was filed at least five years ago. we've had multiple meetings with planning department, we've had mediation meeting with supervisor mandelman's office, this is for the board of supervisors to get to the board of appeals meeting last time that i think our third continuance that was initialed by the appellant, from our point of view, respectfully, it's just more time and delays additional professional fees, and that sort of thing.

>> thank you. >> thank you, >> dbi is we will not issue a permission unless all recommendations are met, that includes pier review, and if they require more, they will do what i talked to. a couple of weeks ago, i assured them that as soon as we get it, we will share with them and dbi is to make sure that the safety of not only the property the people in it, the neighbors, the public that go by, we're not going to issue a permit unless it's completely reviewed and meets the recommendation that the board setforth. >> i'm not sure what else we can add. >> commissioner swig has a question. >> i think that was my question and i think you've answered,

i'm taking a moment to make sure that so my first question we are clear on that subject? >> absolutely. >> okay, that means that, there is no new information because we already covered that path last time. >> yeah. >> and i'm looking at the notes here, thanks to ms. hester. second of all, the availability in the communication stand point, from communication stand point, which was a concern of

the appellant voice and i. when that pier review occurs, how transparent will be. i don't expect that you're going to invite or maybe you will, the appellant represented to the table, but i expected that there will be a pier review, and you will have findings. can you clarify whether those findings and the confirmation of that pier review will be available? >> i would encourage our engineers to share with them just to make sure that they're comfortable with the pier review. >> so there will be pier review, there will be a request for expanded soils activity. those findings will be provided transparently to the permit holder. i believe we, we covered this

ground last time, correct? and your request is please don't put it as part of a condition because i don't want to set the precedence, we agreed with that wise counsel but we believe that you would do what you just stated. do you hear any new information? >> no i don't. >> so it's an expansion of the same thing. and the appellant's needs with regard to safety and security and the house falling down a kill will be protected by the pier review, and that is primarily goal is to make sure the building is safe. >> i'm asking this question to put it on the record, thank you i'm comfortable with that. >> thank you, i don't see any further questions. >> we'll now move on to public comment. is there anyone here to provide public comment on this item?

>> can i submit this? i took this off the internet, it's about the house, it's rented, it's lived in and i don't think that's new information that the house that is suppose to be demolished is rented, at 5,000 a month. >> you can show it on the over house. >> you can submit anybody to public here. >> it says rented. right there. it says and then they're all the pictures of how nice it is. anyway, i'm georgia shoedish and i think that's new information. i've been concerned with demolitions in this neighborhoods for over ten years. in fact, they have declyder, and certainly dolores height has seen share of demolitions.

as for 617 sanchez on the do will ising of the sound, as you can see in the overhead is the fact that this house which is proposed for demolition, that's where the only sole borehole has been done and it's at the bottom of the lot. and appeals with may 8th, the board did not specify that anymore bore holes should be done, at least that's my reading from it from what's in the minutes of may 8th. i don't know what a third party review actually means without being a specific location of additional bore holes. given the steveness of the 617 sanchez lot and steepness of the block and the large size and the major ska vacation on the front of the lot, it seems

prudent that there should be bore holes where the lot is currently by 6 19 and by 615. that would be the best information for both the appellant property owner and the project sponsor property owner. i'll just add that the house is unlivable and inprudent to demolish it. i live in a steve hill and we had a structural engineer and we didn't have to but we decided to make the neighbor feel better so we went to an 1800 square foot house, and it made the happy and the neighbor does not even live there anymore but that's another story. in fact, going back to 617 and the bore holes t seems the

results would raise, if they do them, i don't know what the third party review is. >> 30 seconds. >> speaker: it seems like that would raise a bunch of questions about how deep to excavate, on the part of the lot which is steep as you know. >> did you want to submit that to the record? >> speaker: oh can i, there it is, thanks. i put something in the back of it. >> anybody else wanting to speak on this item. i don't see anybody on zoom, this matter is submitted. >> thank you, commissioners, let's begin on the other side of the dais with commissioner swig. >> to no surprise to anybody, i don't see any new information that was presented today, we're continuance of the conversations as supported in the, the document that was

given that was given to us, sorry. the information was not new, and continuance of the last hearing and i pretty confirm that with mr. birmingham that is on the addendum, so seeing and hearing no new evidence, seeing no example of manifest injustice, i am not in support of granting this rehearing request. >> commissioner eppler? >> i, i agree with what commissioner swig has said. but i want to emphasize is that, you know, without any new information i'm not sure why we would go back to question our ruling from the prior hearing. in particular because it has

not been februarying two ated. we had a three-tier system for reviewing technical reports and this sort of situation. they had selected the lowest tier, we found it within our power to go to the middle tier and we found, at least our conversation said that we were not within the power to go to the third tier and we chose because we're not structural engineers ourselves to allow a professional to make a termination what would be necessary in order to provide and not to pick locations and pick remedies, you know, outside of the realm of our expertise. because we do consider all the information including tonight's information that has been presented to us, i do not see a need to review this ruling and,

you know, we'll point out that if anything and i mean should go side ways, there are civil remedies which the homeowner can avail themselves, so while they cannot come back here, it does not mean that they are without remedy. >> commissioner trasvina. >> i will vote with commissioner swig and eppler but i do want to say a couple of things that i find disturbing, one is the reading on provision on request for rehearing, i don't think this is a proper request for rehearing. 9 appellant was here provided a lot of the arguments. what i'm hearing tonight is this is a zeus of construction being done in the back rather than in the front. and i think the permit holders

satisfied the concerns about where it's going to be. and ultimately the permit holder should be able to decide where they're going to build on their property. obviously with the appropriate safety and other constraints. i think, because of the work of my colleagues, and both of the last hearing and today's proceeding, we've gotten a lot of discussion and engaged with all the parties as to, what the goal is, the safety concerns, and we've heard from dbi thanks to commissioner swig of nailing that down, that if safety is a concern, then that will be addressed. i do think also the permit holding, ablely represented as the architect here as the attorney here, i'm confident that they will be talking with, talking with the appellants. i didn't see any disagreement, and i didn't hear from them,

the appellant's attorney today that there was ninnie failure to communicate, difficulty maybe getting together but not ignoring them. i think part of this process is to do that. my concern is the way we have read this section, there is no new requirement for new or different material facts or circumstances when the issue is extraordinary cases, or preventing manifest injustice. commissioner swig did say he has not heard any manifest injustice. if there is a collapse building and it's coming down, i would consider manifest injustice. and i don't think the remedy is adequate to address that. but i'm confronted by the responsiveness and your actions

that i've seen on the two parties that they will work together in a, in a in a reasonable way to resolve any, to have further conversations. and i do want to say that finally, whether it's manifest injustice, the board has the power and rules to rehear the case on the board's own initiative. the board does have its authorize irrespective of the rest of the rule it's right there in the rule and that needs to be addressed as well. thank you. >> >> i'm in agreement that we should let the perm ilt play out. that they should comply with

our decision. i will not support a rehearing q.i also request with commissioner trasvina reading, 2b, through two prongs and i thank him for plaguing the pasting 9e under article 5, i do want to i don't want to discuss that tonight but maybe off line we can have about what serving the motion, what that would look like. and what the procedure considering should that be considered to the board. that's it for me.

>> so i should make a formal motion to deny the request. in that there is no new information put forth from the previous hearing and no manifest injustice. >> thank you, on that motion. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0 and the rehearing request is denied. >> may i make a comment. >> pardon. >> may i make a comment on the 9-e factor. >> sure. >> it's kind of a we blew it factor. we had a case, i've been here for a while. it's been consistent that we take a position that we did tonight.

no new information, clear. the 9-e factor, i support your off line discussion on this, that's a good one because if there is lack of understanding among us, that's not a good sign. so if there was a request for rehearing and ms. hester put something in front of us, that was a we blew it, we would have the opportunity to without new information, without manifest injustice. we would have an opportunity to say we blew it. >> thank you, very much. we're moving on to number 5.

planning department approval subject property is 46 eagle street. of an alteration permit, the permit was canceled because there was no response by the applicant on june 23, 2023 and january 8, 2024. comply with notice of violation owner. new reinforced retaining law with fierce, to be shared with neighbors. this is permit number 2022-116523. >> thank you, i have some slides to present.

you have 7 minutes. >> do you want to show them at the beginning? >> yes, i'll present them. >> i'm scott i'm the owner of

46 eagle street. the contract structural and engineer have not received any correspond. the permits is for retaining walls involving five distinct properties. the permit is in response to notice violation for the complaint filed by the previous owner of 4741, 19th street and construction is now proceeding because there is a longstanding dispute between the neighbors with respect to construction access al as well as ownership is responsibility for the repair of the retaining calls. there are several walls, presumably built by the down sil neighbors and the crack that is of concerned to the san francisco department of building inspection which you can see on right is on only one of these walls and that's not on 46 eagles property. this is an overview of the five properties, i live here, so the

north, we have 47 19th street, as you will see both survey, you'll see the crack is located here. to the northeast, we have 471, 19th street, they filed a complaint that lead to the notice of violation and the photograph that you just saw was taken in the rear yard of this property. and then we have a duplex. it states a retaining wall displaying evidence of stress with vertical cracks, you see the photograph here that was taken by the inspect or during the onsite inspection it features a large vertical crack at the northeast corner. also incorrectly states that the recorded survey indicates while solely within the property line as we will see

both surveys agree that's not the case. the complaint states, that the surveys recorded under the recorders office, they should look at the recorder's office, in other words, they refuse today provide the inspect or with a survey despite repeated request. survey was not available for the recorder's office website. i recently received a certified copy and it was then that i realize it shows the entire north wall, including the large vertical craft highlighted in the notice of violation. this is that survey, this lock here is 475 and we have eagle street, the base of the wall is shown by the sol vant line, the top is shown by the dash line. there is a difference because the wall is leaning. and the entire section including that northeast corner is located at 4757 19 street,

not 46 eagle street. we have the second survey leading to the same conclusion also recorded with the city this was commissioned by the previous owner, it shows the northeast section of the wall here, and the surveyor walls out the location, the entire northeast section including the vertical crack. there is evidence of multiple walls built by the downhill properties where there is benefit. there is an object rupt change in the change and composition of the walls indicating the presence of the multiple walls for their benefit. here we're looking at the photographs taken on office sides of the fence. so, same fence just photos on opposite side. and you can see there is two completely different walls, different age of materials,

different composition of materials, it's two different walls built at two different times. furthermore, the walls are divided at the report line, this does not volve 46 eagle street. there would be no reason to stop at the property line because the property line does not volve. we take this as a strong indication that the walls were built by the downhill neighbors for their benefit. there is a distinct section, you cannot see the composition of the wall because it's covered by thick ivy and it has been for 30 years. i've had a couple of engineers inspect and pulled back the ivy at multiple points. which is distinct come possession and con significance in the other segments. there is an on going dispute.

even when i initially offered to offered all the cost of construction, they refused to grant access. it is not the primarily responsibility of 46 eagle to prepare these walls. 46 eagle is at a higher elevation. the walls appear to have been constructed to benefit the lower properties by giving them flatable and more useable yards. i'm asking to make an equitable construction to the cost of construction in addition to providing the necessary access. i'm asking the board does not cancel the permit while i continue to negotiate with the neighbors and try to come to a reasonable solution. i'm appealing cancellation of the permit. i'm also asking that you revoke because it's based on false information. both of the survey indicate that the crack is not at 46

eagle. and the complaintant refused to provide the inspect or with a survey. this lead the downhill neighbors to conclude that they have no responsible, it's becoming an obstacle to reaching an agreement. i would also urge the board that will help bring this matter to a speedy resolution. thank you for your consideration and i'm happy to answer any questions you have. >> thank you, we have a question from commissioner trasvina. >> thank you for your testimony. does 46 eagle street have any walls? is there any that you claim credit for? >> it's my understand that they

don't have the responsibility for repairs. i do have an interest in seeing the walls remarried which is why i've been trying to work with the neighbors to repair the walls. i've done more than anybody else to repair the walls. but it's not my responsibility to fix the walls, it's my understanding that it's downhill properties that built the walls. ?r. there any that are on 46 eagles property? >> well according to the survey, yeah, there are section that's are on my property. >> does the permit relate to those walls or other walls? >> the permit applies to the perm pit, proposing repairing all the walls. all of the walls are very old so we're posing repairing all the walls. >> sounds like the we is only you, at this point. >> the department of building

inspection asked me to pull permits to fix these walls because i noticed a violation and this is the proposal that the structural engineer came up with. >> so you're asking us to revoke cancellation of a permit that covers needed improvements. >> i think the whole properties would benefit from this, yes. >> does anybody agree? >> a cup of them are here. i hope everybody agrees that the walls requires repair, but they have not a ccommodated that. >> another question, if for some reason, we do not grant, the if we don't if we don't

restore the alteration permit that was canceled, what is the, the danger to your property? >> the immediate cost i would be getting back to scare one if we want to get these walls fixed. >> sorry, yiz ask you that. i saw in one of the documents it talked about life hazard. my question is what is the danger if the permit is is canceled? >> maybe it's best shown here. the retaining wall here with 3032 eagle street is in close

proximity. and i've been advised that my foundation could become unstable. >> thank you, i see no other questions. i understand the planning department will not be weighing in so we'll hear from dbi. >> good evening, commissioners, alex overhead. >> it's upside down, there you go. >> this is the set for the certified mail for the letter that the owner was issued to notify that there was no activity. however that being said, dbi,

does not have a problem with the appeal being granted mainly because the permit is not being issued yet. it's at the final stage and we feel it would be in every one's interest if the permit was actually issued and retaining walls were addressed. i do have a bigger blowup here as well. and the walls that are highlighted on yellow are the walls that are failing. the one across the north, on does cross the property line, and that is also where the crack is and i've talked to code enforcement and we'll be issuing a notice of violation of that wall which will help him access that property and will also have the property

owner 4757 address both the issues. the main concern is that it's a rather large wall and we would like to see it repaired. so at the end of the dai, dbi has no problem with the appeal being granted, the two parties or five parties can work together in a civil to try to cover each other's costs but we'll be issuing a notice of violation for the 4757 retaining wall. >> commissioner swig? >> yes, thank you. >> so your recommendation is? >> to reactivate it, it will be going through the final stage. >> now, since we have you here

this is really interesting because there is a natural occurrence of shared walls in san francisco. i in my home had a fence that was falling down and in invasive racoons and skunks, not to mention it looked like garbage but i couldn't figure out who's fence that was. so i went to my neighbors, hey the fence looks lousy on my side and i said let me look at yours, and i said if you don't want to, i'll fix it and they chipped in, and we rebuilt a fence.

but how is that handled in general? can you give us some chapter as to when there is a retaining wall? when there is a fence, when there is a problem, how does dbi sort that out? and hold one side or the other, responsibility? >> and most cases, it's sort of a survey and in this case survey shows that most of the wall that runs on the north side between 46 eagle and you know, 4741 and the other property on eagle. if it's clearly on somebody's property, it's their responsibility. there is a longstanding, downstairs or uphill neighbors, there is no law that it says it's yours, if it's clearly on your property, it's your responsibility and in this

case, it shows it's on 46 eagles. however, we want the back that straddles the 4657, it's is a shared to they would both have to share the cost of rebuilding it. between the fence, most cases it's a good thing to work with your neighbors and say hey, you're getting as much benefit so hopefully they will work together but from the pictures, it's a pretty substantial wall and pretty substance cost to go with it. >> and in this case, there is on the screen for our view, the top part, you're going to issue an nov and that will create a whole dynamic. >> yes. >> can you also address when there is a retaining wall?

i believe the uphill is the 46 eagle and the downhill is everybody else. one has to get access and permission from your neighbor. how are those protocols managed? >> that's more civil, you have to grant them grant i believe, by issuing the nov to the 4757 that will mandate that they have access to address that portion of the retaining wall. as far as the other properties, there is no area to mandate to let them. >> so if you, let's say at the lower part of the screen, which represents 30 and 32 eagle decided that they were not going to be be cooperative, even though it did not happen in this case but it might.

if you issued an nov to 47 eagle, fix that wall. >> that's a civil issue, they would have to go to a civil court and try to go civilly. >> that's out of our jurisdiction. so basically the issue is that we pay attention to the survey in this case, the survey says that 46 eagle that wall is on your property, you've got to take care of it, instead for the stub which continues on to the neighbor's property.

again it's in every one's interest to address this wall. a it's contention. >> i just want to be clear on our jurs dictioner our jurisdiction here it says if it's on your property, it's yours, you own it, all the other activity that goes with that conversation between neighbors is a communication rather than jurisdiction of this commission and in this case you're about to do an n.o.v.so that will clear that out. >> yeah. >> thank you, no further questions. >> thank you. we're moving on to public comment. is there anyone in the room that wants to provide public comment. please if you can line up against the wall and somebody come up to the podium, please. and when you're done speaking if you can hand mr. longaway a

speaker card. there is a speaker card. >> i'm the owner of 4757 19th street, immediately down the street from eagle, i'm a retired architect so i have some experience with this sort of thing. i want to address some miss at tatements and frankly false assertions that were presented by mr. gaourin. regarding the surveys that we've been look at, you saw two different surveys, they don't agree, both survey, misrepresent the shape of the

wall in question as well as they don't agree on the property aligns in regard to the wall. i've lived at my house for 35 years, no surveyor has ever seen the wall from our side. there is never been a survey conducted from there and i think that's why he's inconsistencies have been happening. point one, i question the surveys. sektdly, there is a misrepresentation of the structure being discontinuous. there was a dis continuity in the place where he showed the picture but most importantly going around the corner in the u shape of this wall, the construction is continuous. that's important because it shows that the wall was at some point built by the owner, of 46

eagle, not by the downhill owners, to somehow make their yards flat. fact the 46 eagle yard is landfill, it's fill. being to retain in order to create a flat wall. therefore the benefit of this wall is triem airily to the benefit of 46 eagle. and clearly it was not built bit neighbors. that's a preposterous. most important thing is the scale, the scale of the project is being presented is in the order in the $300,000, that's. he's now asking after three years for this to be split up among all the homeowners when

in fact the benefit is to keep a flat yard on his property. there are alternatives. >> your time is up. >> speaker: i would like to talk to about that in some future point. thank you. >> thank you, if you can fill out a speaker card, that would be great. next speaker, please. ?flt welcome, you have three minutes. >> thank you, i thank you for the opportunity to speak. my husband and i own the property at 47, it's not there anymore. it's over here. 47--shoot. 41, which is the downhill where the large crack is. i do want to also shed some light. some gainer and i have reached

an agreement and he has reached to our yard. he has refused to sign said agreement that we reached, so we have not denied him access to our property. as you've heard, this wall is significant, and his attorney describes it as it will crumble resulting in the death to several adjourning properties and to the potential ca tris ca advertise --catastrophic crack. you have our support for that. >> thank you, we'll hear from the next speaker, please. >> speaker: hi, thank you very much, i'm darcie, i'm mark crosley's partner and live in 4757, the downhill property. tour things are crucial.

we have been so cooperative, we've opened our yard, they've had meetings, the representation that we have not been cooperative is kind of odd, so that is the first thing that i think is very important. the second thing that is essential, this wall is around 3 properties, and it is retaining his flat yard beinger there is landfill, his yard is higher than anybody else's align that line of houses there. everything else slopes downhill. if he would return to his house, or return his property to the downhill slope it would take the pleasure, it would not need a $300,000 wall, we put in a neighborly everybody would be happy. we created this mountain he is problem to protect his raised yard that provides a flat hard

to him, we all have sloped yards, our property sloped up, we put a few short terraces to create a few flat spaces. it's a hill, we should not be responsible for paying for his flat yard. and the wall, it is really important that you also realize, it's on three properties, so it's like this and it's failing on a couple of different properties, it's his wall, thank you. >> thank you. is there any further comment? >> speaker: i'm jeff wolf i'm the attorney for mr. gainer. >> sir, sir, you can speak during your rebuttal time, we're at public comment. you can have a seat. we're not quite there, yet. >> is there, is there any further comment in the room? okay, i see one hand raised on

zoom, jim kante, please go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. >> speaker: can you hear me now? >> yes. thank you. >> speaker: i live in the property 50 eagle street which is on the other side of these properties, above mr. gaourn's property. my property is level with him and the properties next to him are , sovei don't know if it's all land and maybe the whole block is landfill but his property my property are pretty much on the same level. there is a slight difference, if they were to bring his property down to their level, i would need somebody to build a 15-foot retaining wall between my property and his property because of the difference in elevation. i have worked with mr. gaourninmaybe two-foot

retaining wall, it's part of the original brick, he has talked about fixing that. i find him to be very cooperative and i'm not sure that the previous speaker said it's landfill because on the same level as mine and the other properties, above me. >> okay, thank you, are you finished? >> yes, i would also add that this has been going on since bought this house, in 1994, the previous owners have been told that there is a problem with the retaining wall, and it could be a danger, my foundation could be made unstable if there was any change in the elevation or crumbling of wall. >> okay, thank you. is there any further public comment? please raise your hand? okay, i don't see any. so we're going to move on to

rebuttal, mr. wolf? >> i'll quickly say a few things and then hand it over to mr. wolf. i did want to say that the characterization that the neighbors have been cooperative is not how i would character things, we have been negotiating. i've gone to their houses. i have tried to be nice. i initially offered to pay for the entire thing. but we have not been able to gun graoe. another demand over 10,000 so you can say that you're being cooperative. if there was a cheaper way to fix this, i would have already done it, and if we had an

agreement, there is not a cheaper way to do this. >> thank you, i just want to address the issue raised by mr. swig. the building department has a rule, if it's in your property you've got to fix it. but whoever has disturbed national lay of the land is responsible for the consequences. so if you've disturbed the land to level your back yard, you're still responsible for fixing whatever problem that created. and this, is the need the situation here. as far as access, these calls can't be repaired without going on the properties to fix the walls. not possible to do it. it has to be done from the other properties. >> you have a minute and 18

seconds left, do you have want to add anything? >> speaker: no i don't think i need to add anything, i've already said a lot in my brief and in my presentation and in initial rebuttal. if you have any questions, please let me know. >> okay, thank you. i don't see any questions, so we'll move on to dbi. >> good evening, the only point is that i would say if this disputing, they would review both of them or do a new survey and that put to bed who owns what. >> thank you, we have a request from president lopez. >> thank you, mr. burlingham, i think along those lines can you give a little bit more color, you know, particularly from the perspective of somebody who may

receive an nov, if they get slapped with an nov and say, hey, that's not even my property. is there a way to you know, pause enforcement. >> yes, in this case, he could have appealed at the director's. he can still appeal, at the planning commission and it could be amended. so he does have steps to go down to try to walk back the nov but at the end of the day, there is no one wall that is on his property that needs to be addressed. and like i said, we'll be issuing another nov at the 4757 and that will force them to work together to address the failing of the wall. >> and with that 4757 potential nov, if they dispute the

property lines, you're saying, they can bring that to your attention. >> yes, they would get together, and agree on a third survey to either review the surveys that have been done and say yes it's right or wrong, or they agree to conduct a new survey that will then address, you know they both have incut it's our surveyor. >> okay, thank you. no further questions. >> thank you. >> commissioners this matter is submitted. >> commissioner let's start on this side with commissioner trasvina? >> tubsinger president lopez and every one on zoom to help and clarify what is contention and complicated situation. i agree with mr. birmingham

that the, appeals should be granted and the parties can work together to bring this to a closure, it may be difficult and may be require mediation, but it's appropriate to grant the appeal. >> commissioner eppler? >> i agree with commission trasvina, before us is a single permit and in the trf public safety reinstating the permit is the correct way to go. >> commissioner swig? >> agreed and i applaud my fellow commissioners for not stepping into the swamp of

civil world. we have potential for a lot of civil issues but that's not in our jurisdiction. so i think my previous commentators summed it up perfectly. >> they say with that, i will make a motion to grant the appeal based on on the fact that the cancellation was improperly issued. >> okay, we have a motion from president lopez to grant the appeal and reinstate review of the permit on the basis that the cancellation was not properly issued. on that motion, commissioner trasvina. >> aye. >> eppler. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0 and for the record since the

department are in agreement with the appeal ant do you want to waive your right for a rehearing and we can get the decision out tomorrow? yes? in the planning drept, since there was planning department review. yes, so the parties waive their rights to another hearing and we can get the decision out tomorrow. thank you. we're moving on to item number 7. appeal, number. notice of violation. authorize for 8 family and xherm uses regarding to the report. district 35 units.

residential hotel under cap tar and contains 17 residential guest rooms. further it's usage report. prohibits residential uses on the first floor of the property. full bathroom three unauthorized restrooms and shared stove. there is no path to legalize residential uses on the ground floor. this is number 2023-00920. and we'll hear from the representatives first. welcome, you have seven minutes. >> good afternoon, can i pass

this around, it's got the drawings of what is existing right now. >> we accept that, president lopez? >> do you have copies for everybody? >> speaker: yes, i do. >> yes. also for the record, commissioner eppler needs to make a disclosure. >> yes, i once hired him to perform on work on behalf of a client and sefshds as legal counsel where he was the board. however we've had no communication regarding this matter and i see why i would

not be able to judge this matter solely on its merits. >> and i have a similar disclosure, i think enriques we worked together and i cannot hear whether i hired you or i lost. >> long long time ago. >> a long long time ago. but that also will have no bearing on how i behave in this case. >> so president lopez, this is a brief, he did miss the briefing deadline. do you accept this. >> no, understood that you were submitting plans. >> the plans are? >> i did forward the plans that you emailed, i forwarded them to all the commissioners. >> we will not be accepting this, sorry. >> sure, previously by the way, i was out of the country for

quite a while and i did not get a briefing on time and right now, i'm handing these out. anyway, that being said. we're seeking an abatement of reference complaint and allowing our existing non conforming edu. the three-storey building was built in 1911. consist of a medical office in the first floor and sro hotel in the second and third floors. a c o.c. was issued for application number 200000107503 for the remove avenue illegal unit in the basement.

not on the first floor. in consideration of the existing non conforming unit and no prior complaints from h id for the eud and residential in the first floor for over 28 years, we prayed that the board of appeals appeal and non conforming use of the udu. i j*uft want to repeat again, housing that's gone through this many many many times this has never been raised before. it's not unusual where a lot of buildings and non conforming existing non conforming. and even for no records, and yet, we have been getting permits issued for these

permits considering even the fact that they were existing non conforming. so i feel it's been there for 48 years. so for new, do you have any questions? >> questions from commissioner swig? okay. commissioner trasvina then commissioner lopez. >> can you tell me the impact of granting the release that you're requesting. >> can you repeat that please? >> what happens if we vote against you? are people evicted? what is the impact? >> yes, right, thank you for asking that. there is one tenant there that is i think she is a protected tenants, she's been there in that space, that's one thing.

we'll be just as happy to remove it but we have the issue of that one public tenants and with planning, she would not even open the door. so that is an issue. thank you tore your presentation. did i understand it? you that you've had granted? >> yes, so we have sprinkler that was done for the whole building and that includes the rooms. we had a sub story work done. and self storage, you have two separate permits one for commercial and one residential.

and that also was issued and signed off. >> how recently were those? >> one was from like, let's see, 2001, the one for the sprinklers. and 2017 for the self story. >> yes. >> go ahead. >> and we've been taking out the permits for repairs and it's never ever come up, one moment, we usually have to go to say yes it's or not, if we do repairs or whatever, then you have to show up how many units and anything else. but they've never questioned it. >> and you're saying in those permits, the the use of the

swais is indicated. >> it's in the drawings. >> thank you. >> okay, commissioner swig, do you have a question? okay, sorry no further questions. okay, we'll now hear from the planning department. >> good evening. this appeals per tienz a notice of violation issue on march the 8th, 2024. violation is for unauthorized alterations. 1449 powell street is over

basement mix use building. located on the west side of palo between valejo and property, it's in the northbeach zoning district. by way of background, the building formerly a garment factory was converted into a residential hotel in 1977, residential hotels in san francisco are governed by chapter 41 of the city administrative code. stipted in chapter 41 an annual usage report with plans is required to document the number and location of guest rooms and apartments fpt providing the names of the residents is also required. per the annual usage report dated october 20th, 2022. there are 12 gust rooms. the owner said this is the same

number issued by the city. per the floor plans submitted is part of this report, the 17 guest rooms and apartments are located on the second and third floors. there is no proof on the ground floor. no residents were listed for the ground floor. on february 14th, the city conducted a joint task force inspection, city staff and various departments including planning and dbi and fire and city attorney's office were present at this inspection, illegal work was discovered on all three floors of the building. it was confirmed that up to five new guest rooms and one possibly two apartments were added to the building.

three of the guest rooms and one new apartment was located on the ground floor behind the commercial use. on the second floor space in a utility room were converted. on the third floor was reduced in size to make room for a new bathroom for an existing guest room. as a result of all of this illegal work, there is now total of 22 guest rooms and 9 possibly ten apartments in this building. as you heard from mr. henry, he's arguing that the three guest rooms and apartment on the ground floor has always been there. he talks about the various permits and plans issue over the years showing the guest rooms and the apartment on the ground floor. while the permits were fire sprinkler and retrofit, they're not permits to establish the residential use on the ground

floor, as suches the residential spaces are not legal. as stated earlier, the building owner has already indicated in the annual report that the guest rooms and apartments are in the second and third floor of the building. to abate those violations, the owner needs to serve a permit and locations of guest rooms and apartments in this building. shall the owner wish to legalize any additional guest room and apartments which is permisable on the second and third floor, the owner needs to do that. however adding a guest room and apartment in the guest floor, is not allowed. strictly prohibited in the district. since opening the enforcement case, planet staff has been

explaining and explaining the request needed for the violation. despite granting multiple extensions, the owner has yet to file a application. while they have indicated intentions of restoring the building to the last recorded guest rooms, the plans are still showing residential use on the ground floor. planning has been very clear that means removing the residential use and exploring relocation for the remaining tenants on the ground floor. currently the three guest rooms are vacant. the apartment on the ground floor is occupied. there are multiple vacancies on the second and third floor, that could be considered relocation units for the existing tenants on the ground floor. in summary, they have not provided any evidence that work on the property was done

legally. the residential use has never been permitted and never been fully inspected. at this time, the department is requesting the board deny the appeal and uphold the issuance of notice of violation on the basis that the violation was issued properly. that concludes my report, happy to answer any questions. >> i got thoroughly confused trying to figure out the puzzle pieces in this building, now i can see y based on your testimony. so he said it's been this way for a long time and therefore it should be maintained that is the essence for his point of view. and then what i heard you say was, and correct me if i'm wrong, that on annual basis,

requirement from the city to basically reconcile that what is permitted is what is going on by lifting, who are the occupants, where they're living and that simple reconciliation, obviously supports that nothing has been done illegal to the property, correct? so if you have for example, i forget the details on this one because i'm still confused as to how many units are, in this place, but if you had a building that had a ten legal units and occupied by one individual a piece then on an aoun you'll basis, you're going to say in deed we have a full house, here are the ten names and that would reconcile back to the units and that that verifies what was true last year and what was originally

permitted was still in place. but in this case, there was no report that enabled wreck en silization to the amount of units that were suppose to be there. in the first place with the unit. am i get thating right. >> i'm not sure, but maybe this explanation can help. this is the annual report provided by the applicant. overhead, please. this is data received october 20th, 2022.

it talks about the number of guest rooms, 17. it talks about the number occupied, 14, how many are vacant, 3. it shows a rough plan of where the guest rooms and rooms are located. this is the second floor, the blue of the guest rooms and there are 7 and the red are the apartments, four, that's on the second floor.

this is applicant who submitted this. to the city. on the third floor, you have again, the guest rooms in blue, ten. and the apartments in red which is four. ten and four, 17, four and four is eight, that is consistent with the cer tificate of use issued by the city and that's what we're saying, the location and the 8 apartments on the second and third floor. what we have is additional guest rooms on both ground floor, second floor, and third floor. >> yeah, so what i was saying is exactly that but i would not get the words right. that's the, that's the this is the document which needs to be submitted every single year and a name associated with every

single one of those units. and if you were to go in and do an inspection or the department, went in and did an inspection and found that that what their findings were did not con siel, then we have a problem, what we have here is a problem. >> that's correct, that is part of the information that we have, other information like the permanent records that we are utilizing as part of our notice to substantiate why we don't have a permit. >> so what you did through that formal, i don't want to use were you, what the department did by formal review by doing an inspection was to discover that the report and reality, did not fully align, that would

be an understatement. >> that is correct. we have a number of inconsistencies in terms of where the guest rooms are, the number of guest rooms and then we have this illegal living space on the ground floor. >> i'll get there. i just want to get the upper floors clear. so we have a report that does not jive with reality, that is a breech of trust and concern in this case. >> yes. >> all right. good. now going down below i understand that there is a commercial space. concerted into udu, along with storage unit.

and therefore those are illegal that was clear to me with what you were taking. what i was struck with immediately, if this was a residential home or let's say a three-unit apartment building, and somebody had stuck an illegal unit, then that would be an udu and under today's laws, you would not kick out the resident unless it was impossible to legalize that legalize that. >> sure, when it comes to udu,

we try our best to figure out and find ways in the planning code and prophecies to allow for legalization of them. in this case, i think it's very challenging, because the code does not allow for that. in your hypothetical scenario where it's located on on the ground floor but in the basement, we have to explore whether it could be legally made under the planning code and building code, if it's, not able to, there is no light, there is no ventilation, we're not going to support legalizing a unit that is does not meet the code. so my point is, unlike a residential situation, where there might where clearly a residential situation is all about providing residents, a

udu or a residents which is not recognized and not permitted, is there is an issue to legalize that now, because unless it does have those conditions as you show, there is no access, fire track and possible, okay, that game is over. but in this case, there is an over writing situation in that not only in the one below which i fully understand we discussed that, there is no light no air no access but in the commercial those are not zoned to be residential. they are in breach and therefore they're as immediately convertible to a residential use automatically where there is a udu because

it's not a residential it's a commercial condition, i know i'm using too many words but that's why you're in the planning department and i'm here figuring it out. it's zoned that way, that's how it was meant to be, it can't be residential is your point of view. >> that's correct. not all udu can be legalized, in this case, we're not going to say change the zoning. we're going to say try to find another way for the tenants that should not be in the location that they are. and there seems some possibility in the top floor to relocate the tenants to another legal living space. >> right.

so all of that being said the lack of consistency and the on the lower floor, a commercial space or another type of space which is really appropriate legally or otherwise, to convert into residential, i could not figure it out and i'm going to ask you the question, is to enable the commission to be guided. what would you do in this case what is the recommendation to the commission to be done with this mays of mischief. >> the department is to bring the property into compliance of the planning code. it allows for more guest rooms and more apartments to be added legalized on the second and third floor. residential residential use is not allowed on the ground floor so there needs to be a permit

to remove the residential use and we're hoping the applicant can work with the existing tenant and find that tenant a reasonable spot on the upper level so there is not that eviction situation. >> so with that, with that obvious bias, it's not a bias, obvious position, what would i was trying to figure out and i agree. wla would be the action that you would be requesting from this commission tonight? >> you deny the appeal, uphold the issuance of ntsds of violation on the basis that there is an violation, authorization without permit so we can have the applicant submit a permit that can rectify the guest rooms and locations so we can have clear records from here on about the

property. >> right. julie, did you make that note for future consideration when we go into commissioner? >> yeah, you need to state that the zoning administrator does not error at his discretion. >> yeah, but did you get the detail. >> it's residential which is not allowed by the planning code. >> i want to make sure when the motion is made if that's the direction of the board that we have the proper words to make that motion, me in a million years could not have come up with what was just given to us. so thank you all, i'll yield the floor to whoever else wants to make any questions. okay, i don't see any further questions, thank you, so we will hear from dbi did math'

want to chime in, he's on zoom. >> speaker: good evening, commissioners matthew. if i can answer a question questions, i'm happy to. i would say commercial when a, building permit application comes to housing inspection for review, we are only looking to see that the protected guest rooms protected by chapter 41 are not being removed or converted. so we're not looking at stuff outside of the guest rooms. we're only looking at the protected guest rooms and making sure they stay protected. and then thing that they

describe the report pretty clearly but i can answer questions if there are any. >> okay, thank you. are there any questions for dbi? i don't see any, so thank you for your comments. we will now move on to public comment, i don't see anyone in the room, is there anyone on zoom who wants to provide public comment? i don't see anything raising their hand. so we'll move on to rebuttal, you have three minutes. >> speaker: i'll make it brief. we're hoping to hope for the best and try to keep these rooms, we know how much we want house anding so forth. and i do understand, with the zoning, we cannot do what we would like to do but going back again, want to remind you many buildings in san francisco, existing non conforming, that we issuing permits for approving drawings for, that is

no proof that they were what they were. i do understand, we'll go ahead and address the work to plan report to us. and we'll take care of it and move on. thank you. >> any questions? >> no questions at this time. thank you. >> thank you. >> do we want to hear from the planning department. can you clarify what you would want in the motion, from the planning department? are there srou or under the umbrella of residential use? it might be easier to say the zoning do not error or abuse instead of listing the violations there seems to be a number of them? >> i thought that ms. tam did a great job recommending a motion to us and i would ask her,

thank you for restating that suggestion of a motion. because the clearer the better, she is the department. why not. >> tina from the planning department. what is before you is an appeal to the notice of violation, this is a notice that we prepared sighting the reasons why we feel there is a violation on the property, section 175 of the planning code for unauthorized work. that's why you're here. you would deny the appeal that issuance.

we don't need to get into the details about how many guest rooms, that's for us and dbi to figure out when we have a permit filed from the applicant so we can work through the details. >> so would you please help at least me out, would you give me a suggestion as to what my motion might be if i agree with you? >> it would be motion to deny the appeal, and uphold the aish nots of notice of violation on the basis that the zoning administrative does not error or abuse his discretion. >> great. thank you very much for being so helpful. >> okay, did you have any further testimony? >> i do not. >> thank you. does dbi have anything further? nothing, commissioners this matter is sit submitted. >> commissioners, it seems like we have a clear direction here, so do we have a motion?

>> i would suggest the motion and the words that were suggested by the department. >> okay, so we have a motion from commissioner. >> just one second, commissioner trasvina has comments. >> i'm here to hear the motion, i just wanted express my appreciation to ms. tam for anticipating our questions, accurately and comprehensively describing the property, prescribing the issues this is was one of the most instructive exchanges that i've heard and it's very much appreciated. >> and i would echo that. >> okay, we have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and uphold the notice of violation on the basis that the zoning administrator does not error or abuse his discretion. on that motion, president lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner tras innocented vina. >> aye. >> commissioner epler. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4-0 and

the appeal is denied. >> and we're adjourned. thank you. >> thank you.

>> >> >> my name is alex sinclair of willow on the green in san francisco. we are the only british tea shop on the west coast and focused on high quality luxury goods from the u.k. and we have teas and baked goods. we came up with the name because willow is made with baskets and the parklett, a willow green and that is a picnic in the park. i have come up with the idea because i have lived in the neighborhood for a year.

seven years ago we had a tea shop. during covid we needed to have a new flavor and rejuvenate the business. we are between two beautiful businesses. i realized with the shop opening next to the bakery, we had a beautiful tea shop in the area. we started with british teas and want to support local tea makers in the local area. and once you have cheese and biscuits need tea and jam and lemon curd and chocolate and all of these parts basically imported from the u.k. our most popular products come from wales. it's an extra cheddar and next popular product is a jam made with alpine strawberry.

so you get a taste of a nice strawberry. this is about supporting cheese makers and business in the area and women-owned businesses around the world and always want to support the community. we support concerts, we support charities and come to the aid to those in need such as the british society and the san francisco society and the -- >> if you have never had british cheese, i recommend you come in on weekend. all of our staff are highly knowledgeable of all of our products and we are really passionate about what we do here and gives you a chance to explore our culture and food and our values. i encourage you to come to the

inner sunset with a beautiful park to be young and academy of sciences here. come to the shop. we have beautiful baskets and blankets so you can enjoy this wonderful nature and you can support these wonderful businesses out here. >>

the meeting starts at 904 a.m. secretary fuller, please call the roll. >> good morning. please respond with, here, or present. lauren post is absent today. gerald turner, present. commissioner turner is present. paul woolford, present. commissioner woolford is present. fady zoubi, present. vice chair zoubi is present and residing. with three members present we have quorum for the public works commission. public comment is taken for all informational and action items on today's agenda. to comment in person, please line up against the wall near the screen, the audience left when public comment is called and members of the public wishing to comment on an item from outside the hearing room, you may do so