i guess i could make a difference. we need three votes in order to continue. my feeling is that, i know it is not a city policy, but the cat x issue has to do with state laws. not any thing with the city. it would be one thing, and i regret this, ms. shaw is new to the case, but it seems difficult moments before something is heard before this board, there is an abuse of this process. someone appeals it to the board of supervisors and it prolongs the process. i know what the tradition of this board is. i know what we normally do here. given the statements made by the zoning administrator as to the

individuals who dealt with this at the planning level and the fact that category a was taken into consideration by two different people who are skilled in this particular area, i am going to not support a continuance so if someone who wants a continuance wants to make a motion, we will vote on that. >> in the absence of a motion, we will hear the case. president garcia, i recommend until we wake that it is normal order to hear it. president garcia: i would agree with that. >> i will call item no. 4, a jurisdiction request subject to the property that is at 2825- 2827 greenwich street. the board received a letter -- a letter from gregory hanson

asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa no. 2012 /01/24/2796. it was issued on january 24, 2012. the appeal period ended on february 8, 2012 and the jurisdiction request was received at the board office on march 7, 2012. the project is to remove an illegal unit at the back of the garage, to install drywall @ sailele walls, and sealing a descent to unit above. there are also seeking a continuance. president garcia: if someone is seeking a continuous, we will hear that. >> i had spoken with the executive director today in contemplation of requesting a continuance and but we never

said that in and are not, at this time, requesting a continuance. >> my apologies. if you would care to go forward with your three minutes to argue the matter of. >> mr. hanson is going to begin. >> thank you very much for hearing my request today. with the request of the the building permit issued on january 24 and the appeal period that ended on february 8, the first time i had any awareness of such a permit was when a copy of the permit was taped to my front door on the 30th of january. at such time, i called an attorney who i had worked with in the past on occasion and

asked the attorney what to do. the attorney said, you need to go find -- he is an attorney who specializes in that land use issues and some legal area that i needed help in. i went about the business of trying to find an attorney. i finally did find one who agreed to represent me on a contingency basis for a buyout negotiations and suggested that the best thing i could do to help myself is start doing some research. he suggested that i see if there is a certificate, a certificate of final completion on the file and is there a way i could go about appealing the permit. i went about doing my research, made many trips back and forth to the planning office, the building department, and learned that there is a lot of compelling reasons to believe that my apartment is a legal

unit. with that, i am not an expert. i would like to turn that over to mr. kristol to present to you. -- mr. driscoll to present to you. that is pretty much it. >> thank you. tonight, we are just addressing whether the appeal should be heard. as mr. hanson indicated, there is some efficacy in explaining why we want to be heard ultimately. this is a 1938 building that was recently constructed as a two- story building. i have seen a permit that allowed the additional unit to be constructed in 1940. also, i understand this is an rh2 zone now. i have seen the zoning map that showed that it was originally r3.

i want the board to realize that this is not a pro forma appeal or request for jurisdiction but that there is some substance triet one thing i would like to amplify on what my client said it was he received notice on january 30. that is correct. it was attached as an exhibit to a 60-day notice attempting to terminate his tenancy. other than that, he had no notice of these proceedings. what this comes down to is the right to be heard. thank you. commissioner fung: do you have a response to the current holder where they indicated the december date of correspondence? it was december something, the correspondence with the appellant. >> excuse me.

i was just retained a couple of days ago and have not had a chance to review it. >> mr. schlarb or your counsel? >> good evening. i am speaking on behalf of jeff schlarb. this is a jurisdictional request. nothing has been stated by the request for, mr. hanson, indicating he has satisfied it any of the necessary threshold's in order to justify the right to have this matter proceed. in particular, to grant lee jurisdiction that the board must find that the city intentionally or inadvertently was late in filing the appeal. there is nothing before the board that suggests that. unlike what mr. hansen had stated, exhibit b, which is

referenced in the materials are presented to the board, clearly, in december of 2011, he refuses to provide information regarding his tendency and references an attorney who is representing him at this time, robert peterson. mr. hanson is now on his third attorney. while i understand that mr. hanson may be disappointed about the fact that he is residing in an unwarranted unit, my clients are new owners, trying to do the right thing and remove what is not permissible. they have complied with the san francisco rent ordinance and served a proper 60-day notice, provided mr. hanson relocation payment as provided under the rent ordinance, and mr. hanson is not entitled to a jurisdictional request. he is not availing himself of other opportunities to contest this matter. he can contest it at the san francisco ran board and the has the opportunity to contest the termination notice through the

court system. i would vehemently oppose -- oppose any attempt to stop the process and allow the board to accept jurisdiction while acknowledging the right he has to defend himself. i would ask that you reject jurisdiction at this time. he did not take the necessary steps. he had counseled. it was over one month from the time of service of the termination notice to him actually going to the board of permit appeals despite his claims that he only received the termination notice when the board was mailed to him. we have a proof of service that is provided. most importantly, my clients are in a very particular situation. they bought a property knowing that it needed to have a unit removed and this simply want to avail themselves of the right to be compliant with the law. thank you.

>> anything from the department? >> scott sanchez, planning department. just a few notes. no neighborhood notification is required to remove and a legal unit. records indicate that this is a two-family dwellings. the map indicates it is a two- family dwellings. i am not aware of any information that establishes it legally as three units. a third unit could not be legalized at this time. maybe mr. duffy has additional information about the past records, but that is what we have. additionally, the permit holders briefed there was some mention of the use as an office. just to be clear, the use of this office independent of a dwelling unit would be illegal. it would be a separate

commercial use. you are about to have a home office as part of an accessory to a dwelling unit, but not separate from a dwelling unit. i am available for any questions. >> i do not know that you can straighten this out for me, but in exhibit b, i assume this would be the permit holders brief, it appears as though there are six units in this building? and the tenant has the right of first refusal? i do not think it has any bearing on whether or not we agree to jurisdiction, but i am just curious. >> exhibit e is the agreement for premises. i do not recognize this as a city document, an official city document. whoever prepared this, maybe this was a tic agreement.

but it is not something that we would use as reference for establishing the number of legal units in a building. president garcia: i was just curious as to whether or not it was three units, this being the third, that the request for lives in. or whether there were actually six minutes -- six units? >> if it was being rented out as office space, that would be illegal. this is not a city documentary we did not generate this, so i cannot comment on it. >> i believe this refers to the property across the street. there are some allocations in the brief about the requester's tendency across the street. president garcia: thank you for clearing that up. commissioner fung: the

legalization process is different. it needs to be initiated at the planning commission, does it not? >> in terms of establishing this as a legal unit, we do defer to the department of building inspection to establish the legal number of units in the building. a report was prepared last year as part of the transfer of the property to the current owner. they have established this as two units treat you can petition to the department of building inspection to correct that if you have additional information that establishes a historic use of the property. i am not aware of any information that establishes historic uses. commissioner hillis: can i just ask how this works? if you want to avail yourself of the rent board process, do we stop the planning permitting? how do they work together? >> this board has a tradition of

how to handle illegal units. there are separate processes. the board does offer processes for relocation. when it is an illegal unit, i cannot exactly comment on how it plays with a unit that is illegal, which appears to be the case with this. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners. joseph duffey, dbi. the permit was applied for and properly obtained under -- over the counter. two dwelling units.

the only thing i see, it is done on 3 units on that. that is probably not accurate but just for tax purposes. i do not see anything in the brief but is it legal occupancy. as far as i'm concerned, it is a two-unit building based on the permit. if anyone has any questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. president garcia: i guess the reason it would matter whether or not it was a legal 3 units, if they were to evict this tenant and go to two units, it

would represent a dwelling unit merger. different processes would have to take place. there has been no evidence presented that this is anything but two units. there is no evidence presented that anything was not done that should have been done in terms of the notice. i personally look forward to the comments, but i see no reason to grant jurisdiction. commissioner fung: i am in concurrence with that. president garcia: i would move that we deny the request for jurisdiction. >> please call the roll. >> we have a motion from president garcia to deny this jurisdiction request. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye.

>> the boat is 4-0. this jurisdiction request is denied. >> we will call item no. 5 now. ruth levy inverses the department of public works bureau of st. use and mapping. this is protesting the issuance on december 22, 2010 of a minor sidewalk encroachment permit. the public hearing was held on february 8, 2012 and is on for further consideration today. the matter was continue to allow time for the permit holder to pursue other proposals and allow additional briefing. is the department here? great, thank you. i would think we will start with the permit holder, since they were the one to provide

additional information. we will give them three minutes, is that right, president garcia? president garcia: please. >> president garcia and members of the board, i am the permit applicants. we prepared an alternative design for a worked sidewalk as per the board's request and provided a split level sidewalk previously submitted to you. we submitted the drawing to the department of public works on february 21 for their review. the drawing -- i am showing a drawing now of a proposed design for a worked sidewalk. -- a warped sidewalk.

there is a five-inch step at each of the store entrances, hear, hear, and here. -- here, here, and here. this step was lowered from 9 inches to 5 inches. at 11 comment street, there would be a four-inch round inside of the store as well as a landing at the store entrance to. my clients have advised me that they prefer the proposed warped sidewalk option because of the members concerns and their own tents concerns. i have prepared cost estimates, as you requested. both for the split level sidewalk and for the warped sidewalk. as you can see, the cost

differential is fairly minimal. it also explains the sources we had for the estimates. there is one difference -- there would be some loss of space in 11 clement because of the level landing carry it would have a long-term impact. i think that is all i have to say. do you have any questions for me? >> the last time you were here, we talked about a vacant storefront. two stores that were combined into one area your estimates for the gate in the middle of the sidewalk for the entire life, did you look at not doing anything to the storefront,

where it is not an entrance currently? >> for the warped sidewalk? commissioner hillis: either alternative. >> we did not look at not having a raised sidewalk at 11 clement yet. the cost estimates that you see before you are based on the previous scheme that we had. commissioner hillis: the storefront that does not need an entrance now, the vacant storefront, is the largest differential between the store and the sidewalk, correct? >> correct. that is 11clement st. we have reduced the steps so it would be 5 inches there. if somebody walks out that door, unless we close it off, there would be a nine-inch step and

that is higher than is allowed by code. we need to plan for future use of that space at this time with the sidewalk, i think. if the tenant moves out and they need a different tenant, we have an issue there. commissioner hillis: right. you can always come back for that approval. what you are asking for is to put a rather long gate in the middle of the sidewalk. if you do not need it -- i think it is pretty drastic in this case, accommodating some entry into the storefront. you do not need it because those storefronts are merged. >> i would have to look at that to see what would be the impact of reducing that. it would potentially mean that that would be a difficult sport -- a difficult storefront to

rent in the future. commissioner hillis: it is rented now, correct? >> yes. if it became vacant. commissioner fung: the department letter of response is based on -- >> they did a letter based on the same design your looking at now. commissioner fung: and they indicate that your cross slope is in excess of city standards. >> correct. commissioner fung: do you concur with that? >> yes. commissioner fung: then that design is not an appropriate design. based upon the directions from this board. the difficulty in getting that across slow occurs -- that cross

slope occurs because of the differential elevation between the store on the left and the store on the right to. what happens if you were to warp it for two doors and went to a split with some kind of a planner or something else? that would reduce the cross slope, would it not? >> i think i understand what you are asking. even if we did not have an entrance to a 11 clement st., we would still need to have this worked sidewalk -- warped sidewalk with these slopes. the cross slope is going from the entrances of seven and nine

clement, and you go down 4.2% from there and it drops down radically to 14% at nine clement and at 7 clement, i think it is 11% smoke. that is 4 feet from the sidewalk to the curb. commissioner fung: the slightly different alternative, conceptually it may work. at 7 clement you create a split sidewalk and design it so there is a -- there is something that addresses the elevation difference and then warp the sidewalk at the other doors. is that possible? >> i am not sure i follow that.

only at seven clement, there would be a split level sidewalk? commissioner fung: that is correct. >> but it would also need to have that at 9 clement. once you start at the curb, you go up towards the building and that is where we are running into problems. we would have to make up about 5 inches from what is on the existing kerr of to the current step. there is already a 3% slope in the sidewalk. it is the only way we can get up from the curb to the floor level of seven and nine clement, is to have these excessive slopes for the first 4 feet or so. commissioner fung: maybe we

should hear from the department and then i can rephrase the question. >> ok. thank you very much. >> actually, we will hear from the appellant next and then the department. >> good evening, commissioners. i do not know what to say because i was as puzzled by what i was given about one week late. . i did not know how to respond. i also received, and just as i walked in, the response from the department saying that his drawings were not acceptable. we are back to square one and i do not know what to tell you. my view has always been the problem should be solved inside the stores. there are lots of stores that have raised flooring. here is a picture of the

entryway down the street. is that not showing? it is a recessed entry and this is 55 clement, just down the street. i imagined it is not quite as slow as -- as sloped as the permit holder location. we all have these recessed entries with a little bit of a slope that brings you into a raised floor. i do not understand why that is not a viable solution. his analysis also shows that the ramp inside 11 clement is $4,000. i do not understand why it would not be $4,000 or one of the other stores. i do not understand the

analysis. i guess we are back to square one. and i definitely am a fan of the ramp outside and split sidewalk. i think you have a better view of what is code and what will work here. none of these solutions seem to work for me. commissioner hillis: you have a retail store front? >> yes. there are only three owners on the spot. mr. silveand the other owner is not here tonight. there is this really big 1-11, which is about one-third of the block, almost half of the plot. -- of the block. i have a property and there is another down the street.