and zero tourist use, we noted that it was the owner agreed and signed a stipulation. that was appealed, lost at the court of appeals >> you have pretty much answer that question. the original intent was to maintain whatever housing was there even though it has been testified to that there was no housing. >> the report said that there was residential tenants in the hotel. >> you would dispute that it ever operated as a hotel?

the reason to do that was to preserve what it considered to be housing was the same next -- the reason to do that was to deserve as considered housing or was this a mischaracterized use? >> we have never seen it characterized at the time that the zoning change. we requested the lod to see whether this was a lawful nonconforming use.

>> you know where i am going. i am much more concerned about the legal finery are around this. was it really a hotel that someone had not done proper paper work on and so therefore it is classified as residential when in fact as a matter of operation, it was actually a motel? >> because the bird and -- >> yes, i know. -- because of the burden. >> yes, i know. >> there was a residential use as well as a tourist to ususe. i can assure you that on the screen. >> they were able to operate as residential and they were

required to. >> yes, this would be under the hotel convergence use. >> so, to protect their own interest, they were possibly lied about the use in order to apply? >> or, they could be operating as a residential mixed use hotel, of which there are many in san francisco. >> they are under violation because they're not allowed to operate as a hotel? >> correct. >> i will show you some random ones. the report to the city and and the data that is. the 15th, 1985, this has two residential units.

>> they are making a declaration against their own interest. >> apparently. >> you can read by the week for a number of weeks.

>> any other questions? thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, good afternoon. i am coming to this with fresh chives. i was not the zoning administrator when the letter of determination was issued but i did review the materials and tried to compile a history of facts. we can go through what may have happened and the background. it appears that the permit in 1957 to build a building that

would contain 12 -- 1012 in units. they did convert that to a motel use and as appellant showed, this shows minutes from a planning commission meeting which was in 1957, 1958. as reported, a letter from the property owners that they wanted to convert this to a motel use. the motel use was converted. the records from 1960-61 show this as a motel. there is one dwelling unit associated with it. that to continue for many years. >> was this ever occupied as the residential use? >> no, it does not appear that it would have been occupied as residential. maybe they had received a permit, been granted a permit,

and then decided to change their mind. we have a survey that shows this as a motel. how long are they doing this for? one night? seven nights? is probably is a feel fluctuation and variation in the construction and operation. 1979 is a critical year, that is the hotel conversion and demolition ordinance which said that if you are a hotel that has residential use and was looking at occupancy of 32 days or more, that would be covered under this conversion ordinance. it seems that they did have at that time, i did review the same records that was presented and

the department of housing inspection services. there is variation. it could be 17 units or a variation in the 80's. in 1997, the level of the termination says that this is a residential hotel, which would be correct. based upon our records, looking at the 1979 hco, this was continue at the call of the chair in 1998. this almost came back and this request was on the agenda in 2002, 2006. now, it is being heard by the board. the residential units, whether or not they were there, they got out of the residential rental

game. 2002, there was a permit to convert. we don't have any records that indicate that this was done. if you look at the note on there, it says that it is really addressing just chapter 41 of the administrative code, not dealing with the planning code compliance issues. what we have here is no longer a residential hotel. what use is it? this is under a permit that was not available at the time. that does seem to be new information. a little bit about the zoning history, 1957, up to 1960, this would have been located in the commercial district. we had about six or seven zoning districts in the city that was commercial. in 1960, it resound to r-four.

this allowed any nonconforming motel to maintain, carry on as they were panther 1978, there was rezoning to the residential district prohibiting any hotels of more tha and it can't do away with the ability for that motel to continue operating. there would be the expiration for that and that would be in 2007. the nearest commercial district is a block away and it also prohibits tourist hotels. that is the presentation, i'm available for any questions should there be any. >> and mr. zoning administrator, a couple of questions. let's go back to the question that i asked the appellant, this certificate of use process, can you explain in a little further detail for us

what is involved in that and specifically what kind of review then correlates to the issuance of that? >> yes, i have limited knowledge of that. that is within the department of building inspection services. that is different. i did speak with the head of housing services and we did discuss the process a little bit. typically, we are notified of these and we respond to them but i don't have any record of us responding to this. i'm understand there was active litigation around this at that time and i was not personally involved in this and i cannot speak to any of the litigation issues that might have been going on with this back in 2002 but it is my understanding that we do typically review the permit. >> ok.

perhaps this is not necessarily germain to the decision making tonight but should it go into a rehearing process, there will be questions relating to some of the previous department actions related to termination clauses, related to the use, things like that that popped out when i was revealing some of the information. would you share any thoughts on this particular case? >> well, the big question is, now that it is no longer a residential, they can go to any member of permitted uses within the zoning district, be this the

apartments, the density here loallows one unit per 1000 squae feet. there are requirements for parking and open space. open space come other things like that need to be satisfied. so, there are other options within the current zoning. the question that should this be before the board, i think that would be one of the questions that the board would be able to answer. what is the produce? should this be reverted back to the previous nonconforming tourist hotel use? that is something that could be within the purview of this board to decide, given that that is what it had been in the past. because of the unique nature of the ellis act, does that mean that they can go back to that? that is a question that the

board has the jurisdiction to answer. >> it does not really matter of brother or not we had grant and the rehearing and some determination was made that they could become apartments or become a residential motel, which they claim they are now. if they wanted to do 10 apartments, would they have to go through -- >> not at all. right now, the question is exactly what is the current use. if we were just to classify the current use as group housing, and they wanted them to have that be dwelling units, they could do that without any kind of dwelling unit -- that would be required now. >> does the department others on the administrator have the direction for this board as to how we should go in terms of granting or not granting a

rehearing? >> the bourse typical rules are that there are new information manifesting, this was heard by the board in 1998. there is argument that there is new information which i believe is pretty slim given what has happened past 14 years. >> of the new information, it does that even have -- given what you have stated on the face of it alone, it has no bearing. does it have any impact on planning and zoning, which is what the -- is all about, right? to what extent is that worth looking at? >> we're looking at the residential hotel aspect of it. that is not the case because of the 2002 decision. in some ways, you could argue that this is moved because the

primary question is is this a residential hotel? that would be answered by the 2002 action. that kind of overrides the aspect of the lod. the core question was, whether or not it was a residential hotel. >> ok. you did not submit any written materials for this rehearing? >> no, i apologize for that. i was looking at it on the basis of the facts. is seem like there was no information that would justify -- >> no greater, right? >> well, not on this one. i believe that it would be well handled by this board. >> if you were the zoning administrator in 1997, would you have made the same determination

that was made given what you have seen in the files? >> i think perhaps i would have come to the same conclusion but i would have arrived at it differently. i think that there are facts to establish that there had originally been a tourist hotel but i do believe that there is also substantial evidence that shows that it did change into a residential hotel over time. >> prior to 1960. >> not prior to 1960 but prior to at least 1979. there is also the question of a nonconforming use and they are moving away from that to another use which is widely permitted. group housing is principally permitted in the district at this density. they move more closely towards a permitted use category. this changes from year to year. there are numbers that show maybe 17 one-year, three the

next, 17 the next. there is a variation and i am not able to be definitive on anything. we have an appeal, we have public notice, we have hearings at the board of appeals. maybe the board of appeals is better equipped to deal with something like this. >> thank you. >> it looks like -- would like to be able to speak again. we will have public testimony and then we will grant with everyone's intelligence, both sides. we will deviate from our normal course and we will grant each side two or three minutes. we are going to restrict, and i will explain why, we will restrict public testimony to one

minute because what we're dealing with is a very narrow issue. we're not dealing whether this should be a motel or that it is going to be sro. we are dealing with whether this board should grant a rehearing of those issues. we are not deciding those issues this evening. you are free to talk that anything, you could come up here and talk about the giants, but i would prefer that you stick to what is at issue and that is a request for a rehearing and that narrow issue. you don't need to repeat what someone else said. we're going to lead off with everyone else's permission the supervisor to who has patiently waited to address this board. >> i think we have a backlog

across the city so i appreciate it. this is not a question whether it should be tourism or residential use, this is about whether we should grant a rehearing. based on the conversation we have had, there is a standing for that. this has been out there since the 1990's. the board could not muster the votes to deny a rehearing. 14 years later, had there been evidence of a legitimate case for that. the minister believes that there is that information. this is an entirely new body that should hear this case and the merits of it. the zoning administrator has explained this. they would really benefit from the public process. in addition, all of our records have shown that this is a tourist hotel. i think that it wants this board to really take a look at it with fresh eyes and resolve this issue once and for all.

>> can i have a show of hands on how many people that like to speak on this item? >> if people would like to, you can line up along the far wall to be the next to speak. >> my name is daniel donnelly. this is a neighborhood that has starbucks and we have schools in the area, this is a business area. there are street cars nearby, there are other hotels and motels in the area and they are residential areas also. we have schools in the area of

there is no reason to have this in the sunset district. king street has and the buildings, the candlestick park building -- area has and the buildings. they can put this anywhere in the city, why the sunset district? >> thank you. next speaker. please step forward. >> thank you for letting me speak, commissioners. i would like to show a support

for a rehearing and this might encourage your decision. >> i appreciate that suggestion. >> please state your name. >> daniel stricter, i owned a bar in the building. it is pittsburgh's bar. >> is there any other public comment? >> i am the son and, of the gentleman that this case is about. >> as a member of his family,

your time is included with the attorney. thank you. >> any other public comment? >> i just want to make sure, there are a lot of people that showed up and anyone does not want to make this meeting any longer. we just all wanted to show up and say that we are here because we do want it to be granted for this to go through and be seen through to the end. >> your name? >> ricks' no snow. collects any other public comment? -- >> any other public comment?

seeing none, we will start with rebuttal. >> does anyone have any feelings about this? it seems like this is a little bit complex. i should be able to do this less. i will focus very specifically on the conclusive effect of the certificate of use. the hotel conversion ordinance, the code speaks to this issue. it speaks to the requirement before the certificate of use can be issued that that particular use proposed by the application complies with the planning code. i brought my ministry of code with me. the provision that i'm talking about, there is a whole scheme that set forth in the ordinance that deals with how we deal with applications for a permit to convert. the specific session -- section

is 41.14, 41.15, 41.16 of the do not trigger code. -- of the administrator code. "a permit to convert shall be denied by the director of the apartment building inspection if the proposed conversion or the use to which the unit would be converted is not permitted. this certificate that i heavily rely on, could not have been issued if the use was not allowed under the city and the planning code. whatever words are written on it, that does not change the requirements and the law. if there was an error in the issuance of this, this is a process to undo that. they had a right to come here and appeal that in 2002.

when they did not do that, it became final. people need to be able to rely on the finality of permits and not worry that 10 years later, they will have to be dealing with some argume this does not have the effect that the law says it has. the effect is to allow a tourist hotel in this location under both of the initiative code and the planning codes. that is the main legal point of why we are here. i want to deal with some of the records which reported to, which by the way, i don't have and and when you talk about a residential units, you are talking about the use by the weak, not a permanent residence, not the use by the occupancy on the long term basis tend to the transient hotel taxes are paid on that. that is a commercial use. the weekly use which is technically a residential use, a commercial use.

i am asking to have this be heard. >> counselor, if you feel that the 2002 is final, why do you need this hearing? >> i am concerned how the tenderloin housing and it would use its determination and some sort of litigation with my clients. that determination is out there. it will become final. now, we will have two competing decisions coming out of the city under which one would argue, and i am sure the clinic will argue this. they make a lot of ordinances and many cases. they have argued that this does not comply with the zoning because this somehow tromps the certificate of use. you folks should clarify this. you should make these decisions

makes sense but it does not make any sense right now. >> it should be clarified the possibility that this could become a sro? >> i am not sure i could do that tonight but as part of an overall decision. i regret the fire. perhaps vice have some responsibility for it but it is the issue. i'm here talking about the law. you are a cause i judicial body. i know that you're committed to making a correct judicial decision and this truncated process is not the best way to do it. >> i was suris