person voted no on the same issue. it did not make any sense and you should clarify. >> >> thank you, members of the board. the ultimate issue, it does the 2002 certificates of use create any new fact that justifies every hearing? i do not think it does. it does not apply to the planning code or any other zoning laws. the invocation of the ellis act does not give the owner the right to rezone the property. because of that, the new certificate of use, because they filed the ellis act and

withdrawn the property, and that was the only evidence presented to support the certificate of use. because of that reason, and because of the court of appeals decision, it is not determining anything under the planning code, the issue becomes, what is the fact that merits rearing? the certificate of -- merits rehearing? it is not a fact that would change the zoning. the fact they have lessened the nonconforming use during the 1980's to have more residential use indicates to me that this is not a 100% tourist hotel. lastly, it would still have to be terminated under the nonconforming use provisions of

the planning code. it would have had to be terminated by 2007 unless they received a certificate -- a conditional use authorization from the planning code based on an application filed before 2007. which they did not do. there is no reason to grant rehearing, it because it will not get any different result as far as whether the hotel is in compliance with the planning code. i do not think the certificate of use has any percussive effect because it was not prior in time to the zoning administrator's determination. the application to convert was clearly based on the hotel conversion ordinance being pre- empted. the court of appeals specifically said the city cannot impose the hotel conversion ordinance

requirements on the hotel. that is why the certificate was changed to permit the hotel conversion ordinance on a -- 200 tourists rooms. i do not think it is a new fact that changes the zoning. >> i do have a question. most of the reasons he gave had to do with hurdles that would have to be over, by the request for rehearing. that would be things that would be harmful to the request. a side of the fact that you have to prepare briefs and appear

before us -- >> i think we have a long period of time in which this hotel has continued to operate in violation of the determination under the planning code. there's been no determination by any city agency that he is exempt from that. it is just delaying the process further and to lead the city's position -- deleading that the city's position that it is not a lawful nonconforming use. there is no other hardships to -- there is no particular hardship to the letter of determination holder. >> thank you, sir. >> mr. sanchez? >> regarding the nonconforming

termination, it has been department practice, they can still go to the planning commission. they did have this question pending before the board of appeals. they didit would have been prevd from going in 2007. they could still go to the planning commission and seek an extension of the nonconforming use. this was done several times for the bar in the same building. first, in 1990. they have extended hours, the operate until 2:00 a.m. they extended again in 2009 and finally removed that determination. that is the thing that has been nonconforming in the building.

they could still come in for a conditional use to seek the operation if this board finds they are in nonconforming tourist hotel. on the permit to converge, i do not have any records that the planning department did review that. i do not have any indication or record that the planning department did review and authorize anything related to the permit to convert. i think that is all the wanted to say. >> i think it would be beneficial to us to have that individual from a different department. >> definitely. she was going to come this evening and i said this is just a request. ultimately, no matter what road we go down, it is going to be

back at the board of appeals. but said the board does not pursue or doesn't allow the rehearing, are we going to enforce on the tourist hotel? if we do, that is something that is appealable back to this board. someone would could request another letter of determination and bring it back to the board of appeals. i really appreciate the time of all the parties involved. i feel is something that is something best dealt with it -- dealt with the appeals process. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i will start. i appreciate the briefing. i definitely would like written at something from the zoning administrator. he spoke so quickly, i could not

retain all the information. i thought that would have been helpful. it is clear that i am inclined to grant -- grab the rehearing request, especially when i heard the letter of determination holder suggest there would not be great harm. >> i would concur. the issue on of whether there is new information, i find the 2002 certificate of use is new information. more important, the community deserves a resolution of this. perhaps, i am being optimistic,

this board can come to a resolution. we will attempt it. we have attempted many difficult issues in the past. i would support a rehearing. >> it looks as though there are no other comments. i hope i did not cause someone who had come here to testify not testimony -- not to testify. it seems like most people in the room are going to get what they wanted. i hope everyone is satisfied carry [applause] -- i hope everyone is satisfied. [applause] thank you for entertaining us tonight. that was an interesting ping- pong game. i move that we grant aid -- grant a rehearing. the new facts have to do with

the 2002 certificates of use. >> we would need a hearing date. i would recommend something in it didn't so the parties have time to prepare their briefs -- something in june so the parties have time to prepare their briefs and have everyone in attendance. >> it looks as though they might be conferring on a date. >> what are the dates? >> june 13 and 20. those are the two board meetings in june. >> 20 would be better. >> up to you. >> i am sorry, that is not a good day for me. >> we would not have a full cadre of board members on the

20th. >> the 13th does not work for one of the? >> [inaudible] >> and the board is meeting on july 11 and july 25. >> you may have a new board by then. [laughter] there are three members that go up for reappointment or substitution. >> the people -- >> i might be able to make the june 20. it depends when i am back in town. maybe i can try. i will prioritize the list. >> ok. >> if we find out that we have to reschedule, someone will be in touch with you all for alternate dates. maybe you could tomorrow send in those states anyway as the contingency. >> [inaudible]

>> you need to speak into the microphone. >> we would like to have a full panel of five members to hear the matter. we want to schedule on a day when everybody is here. >> ok. there is a motion to -- >> a motion to grant the rehearing request and set the meeting for june 20. [roll call vote] thank you. the vote is 5-0. the rehearing request is granted. the board's original decision of 1998 is set aside and the new rehearing on the merits is to and 20th. thank you. >> let's take a quick break.

my apology is -- to whoever is waiting on the next case. we are taking a break.

>> we will resume the meeting. this is the san francisco board of appeals. item #6 has been withdrawn. we have heard item number seven. we will move on to item number eight.

laurie herraiz versus the department of building inspection. the property is at 395 arkansas street. protesting the issuance, the permit to alter of building, complete internal remodeling, add new windows, and expand existing debt. -- deck. all the board members are here and we will begin with the appellant. >> you have seven minutes. >> thank you. thank you for staying so late and not running out for food. i live in the property directly adjacent. this is a neighbor who lives on the other side of the property as well. we filed this complaint because of things we saw going on out in

the field that we thought needed to come to the attention of the department of planning and building inspectors. the things we did not think were kosher given our own experiences. with three -- we have three main concerns. the timing of the permits and how that coincides with the work that was done. the scope of the permit. and the removal of hazardous materials. and the methods that were used. it is my understanding that the first permit was granted in october 2011 for kitchen and bath remodel. into january, the work that we celadon was a complete demolition of the interior -- that we solve done was a that we solve done was a complete demolition.