i am the attorney from patel. we submitted a letter to you with the proposed state and a decision which was stipulated by the determination holder, the tenderloin housing clinic, where a person's -- representative is present tonight. mr. collier represents the clinic at this point in time, and other than requesting after these many, many years we finally move on and allow my client to continue to run his hotel and to seek a conditional- use authorization to extend the operation of the hotel as is stipulated to an agreed to, i would ask that you adopt the stipulated decision, and if you have any questions for me, i am happy to answer any questions you have. president hwang: mr. collier,

would you like to speak? >> good evening, members of the board. my name is steve collier, tenderloin housing clinic staff attorney. yes, we have agreed and stipulated to the findings and determination that are presently before you. the matter should be decided by the planning commission to see if they will approve a conditional use. i think that is where the issue is better set, and that is why we agreed to the stipulation. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: mr. sanchez? >> thank you. good afternoon, president hwang, commissioners. we have a of -- we have reviewed what was put forward to the --

to us. there is information that was not previously provided. this board agreed to the rehearing request because of some of this new information that has become available. it is required to go before the planning commission in order to continue the use as a tourist motel. so that due date would have been several years ago now, but they would not have been able to file the c.u. because it has been more than a decade now, so the result of this appeal will allow the appellant to move forward with the conditional- use to legally continue the tourist mattel use. that would be a hearing for the planning commission to make a decision about the appropriateness of the continuation of that use, and i am available for any questions. thank you. director goldstein: is there any public comment on this item?

do any of the parties wish to rebut anything? ok, commissioners, the matter is submitted to you, and i want to make one note. this is under the standard of error, use of discretion. president hwang: i want to be clear with the zoning administrator that are comfortable that you erred? not you, but your office? because that is what we are going to have to do in that the information was not present at the time of the determination letter, ok? vice president fung: commissioners, we have granted an appeal before an accepted as the basis a stipulated agreement without that kind of fighting. i would just assume not enter that into the record. >> you are required to find that

either the zoning administrator heard or use discretion, so i would recommend that we do included in the findings. -- to include it in the findings. vice president fung: ok, our c.u. is quite big. president hwang: i would be inclined to grant the request, to have the stipulation permitted on the basis of the zoning administrator abused his discretion in light of absence of information available, or i should say erred, in light of the absence of relevant information in 1997. director goldstein: so, president hwang, is your motion and to adopt the findings as

proposed and agreed to? ok. so the motion is to grant the appeal and overturned a letter of determination adopting the findings -- and overturned a letter of the termination of adopting the findings and adding an additional note that the zoning administrator failed to recognize the information that was available about the nonconforming use back in 1997. president hwang: more gentle. thank you. secretary pacheco: so, again,

the motion is from the vice president, or the president of to grant the appeal, overturn the letter of -- as proposed by the appellate attorney, with the finding of error by the zoning administrator -- can you repeat that again? for not -- director goldstein: for failing to recognize the nonconforming use. secretary pacheco: for failing to recognize the information available in 1997 regarding the nonconforming use. excellent. on that motion, vice president fung, commissioner hurtado, and commissioner lazarists. -- lazarus. the appeal is granted. it is overruled with the adoption of those findings and the error, and it is a rehearing and no additional rehearing is

allowed. a notice will be released. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: we will then move on to item six, which is in two parts, 6a and 6b, john carey versus the department of building inspection and also versus the department of zoning administrator. the property is at 135 el camino del mar, appealing a denial for a permit to alter a building, no. 200865117, 200864297, and 200989665. there was a veranda, upper floor, and tears, and front room at first for hour, building of

the property line at the southeast corner of the rear property. the appeal number 12-035, is about the rear yard and noncompliance structure variance for the required rear yard, and that was constructed beyond the scope of a building permit number 9802662, and documented in building permit application number in 2010/1/7/04 three five eight. we will start with the appellant and the appellants representative. you are entitled to 14 minutes. there are two items. >> 14 minutes. i am an attorney, but i do not think i can talk to that long. good evening. i come to the meeting early and late. i was the attorney, and i will not take up too much time.

i just want to point out a few things. director goldstein: would you like to state your name? >> my name is john carey. ms. hester makes use of talking about -- she was not there, i was, and they are totally incorrect. the settlement with the city had to deal with matters other than what we are talking about now. the city had insisted on remaking the underpinnings of the area, including the underpinnings of the house, under the promise that they would give them the platform to reconstruct their house that was exactly like the platform they had before the disaster. that did not happen. they included in the best interests of the city that they would take away the substantial underpinnings of the house, so there was a lower portion of the house which was never capable of being reconstructed. the case was long since settled

by the time the case was made. it was not a part of the settlement, it is a reduction in the total settlement because that was not part of what was promised. that is part of the reason that the subsequent applications were made. to get this covered and move forward. there is some extraneous information in the braves, which is that they have not lived in the house since 1995 -- some extraneous information in the briefs. this is no relevance except that the neighbor bought his house 10 years after the disaster and did not have to live through it. it is a representation that mr. greavy banta over backwards. that is more hyperbole than anything else. there is a very troubling

accusation in year from, apparently, mr. sweeney, who was present, -- a troubling accusation in here. someone forges something, someone familiar with the engineering procedures of the city. it is more troubling that accusations like that can be made without a hearing, evidence, proof, a jury, or anything else. those applique -- allegations up and flying around for quite some time, in that understand the process because i have been a commissioner in the past in other cities, but i do not think it is right to rely on unsubstantiated, even if it comes from a man with great experience to earnestly believe that there was some untoward event. there is no evidence that he has the ability to do that. he never did this type of work in his professional career. there is no evidence that anybody who worked for him did

that. there is no evidence that he was ever told that somebody did that. there is no evidence that he participated in this in anyway, so to the extent that this portrait of documents was somehow related to the decisions that were made as we move forward, it should not have been. they suffered a disastrous loss, and the documents i submitted can assure you that. they have been left in an incomplete situation. i do not believe it should have been put through this. i do not understand what the recommendation of the staff was at one point to grant all of these applications and then shortly thereafter turned to deny all of these applications. so i really do not have anything else to say unless you've got some direct questions for me. thank you very much for your time. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: ok, we can

hear now from ms. hester, and she is representing the section 14 party, and for those who do not know what that is, this is someone in an adjoining property who filed and was somewhat successful. >> sue hester, and i wanted to start with a correction. secretary pacheco: ms. hester, i am sorry. i am only to give her seven minutes, or 14? >> i will be brief. you were the guinea pigs for my first brief. there are mistakes on the first page, and they are the result of my capacity. it should be dbi, and on the second page, 2012 should be 2000, the building department 2010.

this is about 1995, and mr. carey is right. i had only been an attorney for three years. the sink hole got a permit. they got a permit that was inspected by the city. we are not talking that the sinkhole was a minor thing. it was a major thing. the first half you hit on the el camino del mar you come out of the presidio, -- the first house you hit, it was this house. the planning commission was brought into this in 2010. in 2008, there were a flurry of

additions built on this, and at that time, there were complaints made by the adjoining property owners to dbi about the plan's not being correct, that no one knew about them, and no one had any opportunity to hear the variance, which is definitely needed for the additions on the house, and dbi went into whether or not it was a particular inspector or not, they went into the side, and they looked at the plants on the site, and the plans on this side seemed to be, they appeared to be, the plans that were being built, except for when mr. sweeney ran the plans in the file. he found that the plants that had been approved by dbi was very, very different from what was happening at the site, and

whether or not mr. yee altered the plants, the plant at the site were altered, and dbi, after several months of trying to figure this out issued a series of stop work orders, and then we came through the process of the planning department and getting the 311 and a variance. there was a hearing of the planning commission. there was a hearing at the zoning administrator with the planning commission, and both of them, the zoning administrator and the planning commission decided the same thing, that the project that had been built was illegal, they had to go back to the project that had complied with the code. they cannot build an addition that did not comply with the code. in the front. they cannot build an addition on the front because they did not comply with code. mr. greavy is going to speak to

the fact that he knew when he was there. we're asking you to uphold the zoning administrator and the planning commission. they both struggled with this case, and i will stand on my brief that you have. thank you. president hwang: thank you. >> hi, i am rodney greavy, and as my attorney mentioned, there were two sets of plans. there were the approved plans in the file and plans at the site that were altered. i am reading a quote from mr. sweeney that says that they altered the plans after getting the plants back from the city. that was clear from the building inspection commission. this has been going on a long time. i have spent a lot of time and money on this.

there are conditions that are out of character for the neighborhood. they are large. they are out of scale. they take up 60% of the rear yard set back, and they are not compliant with the codes. the fact that the appellant is suggesting that a legally -- a l -- a legal addition is done 10 years after the sinkhole, that is ridiculous. the home is more than 5000 square feet. they are there often. they do have a house in nevada, but they have chosen for some point not to live there. the of built well beyond what was approved, will be for what their house was before the sinkhole incident -- beyond what was approved, well beyond what

their house was before the single incident. any compromise i have made has been rejected without a counteroffer. we have had to live with this oversized and illegal addition for four years now. i ask that you deny the appeal, respect the decisions of the planning commission and the zoning administrator, and the desires of me and the other neighbors. you know, lastly, we have rules and regulations in the city, and most of us respect them and follow them, and for someone to willingly and purposefully not only not follow them but then try to cover their tracks is something that just should not -- people should not get away with. thank you. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: ok. mr. santos? >> thank you, scott sanchez,

planning department. i will speak to the planning issues, the city planning representatives are here, joe duffy and pat o'riordan. this is located within a single- family detached zoning district. it is approximately 46 feet wide and varies up to 100 feet deep, 100 feet on the west side, and it has an irregular, sawtooth rear property line. there is a single family dwelling constructed in 1935. as has been noted, the key event that started this was the sinkhole, so in 1995, a significant runoff from a storm when ruptured a bricks were line under the avenue, and that

resulted in the destruction of the residence, causing significant damage to the subsequent property. in 1998, the building permit was issued to restore the residents at 135 el camino del mar back to its original condition and also allowed an edition over the garage. the floor plans were inaccurate, and it never received a variance for the planning code for the one-story addition that was over the garage. additionally, the appellate exceeded the scope of the building permit applications and expanded the building to the side, rear, and fraud without the benefit of a permit. in 2010, the appellate filed another permit, 4358, to legalize the condition of the subject property. the appellate did work extensively with the planning

department to revise the design -- the appellant did work with the planning department. we set out narrow -- neighborhood notification. two reviews were filed. what went before the planning commission. the planning commission held several hearings on this item, as has been noted and then subsequently decided to take the review. they conditioned it to go back to the original permit from 1998, and that was a pattern that would allow them to restore the building to what was previously built, and it would correct the issue with the front and backed with the permit was issued in error, and the extension over the front, so that was the condition of the planning commission decision. there were the findings.

al fayed findings were not met in this case, so they subsequently denied the various application. -- the findings were not met in this case. they are taking away all of the legal additions that are done, but they were about to restore what was there previously. was that, i will be available for questions. -- with that, i will be available. vice president fung: mr. sanchez, the front, and how it did not conform with the set back, that was not part of your variance? >> no, they first submitted this in 2010, and they did work with

the department. we spoke with a senior planner, and he had all of the case. if i recall correctly, they had been up to revision 11, so it actually took awhile to get support, but that proposal did involve setting that the addition at the front, making changes to the fraud, so it would no longer require a very it's, -- making changes to the front. so it would no longer require a variance. the as-built conditions, as it stands right now, it violates the fraud and rear yard requirements of the planning code. -- the front and rear yard requirements of the planning code. thank you. director goldstein: ok, we will hear from dbi and mr. o'riordan. >> good evening, commissioners.

patrick o'riordan, dbi. this is a pretty complicated case, as you have been hearing. from our kids, we came on board -- from our side, we came on board in july 2008. three notices of violation were issued. the first one being in 2008, 65117, issued on july 10, 2008. this was in response to an anonymous complaint, and this was to do with a new third level added above the garage without obtaining a building permit. now, this was evidenced by our inspector, who went out there, and it was clearly evident that there was, indeed, a third story added over the garage. the next day, based on another, this was july 11, 2008, 2008,

64297 was issued for horizontal building enlargement that had been constructed on the southeast or left side of the building, and the requirement was to file a building permit to comply with the construction. and the final notice of violation was issued actually by myself on february 6, 2009. that is 2009-89665. and that had to do with the rear of the property. the southernmost façade wall of the property, which had been added to, and it did not match the most recent drawings that we had on record, which were from the restoration and the rebuilding of the building from 1998, said that is why that permit was issued. subsequent to all of that, a

permit was filed. in 2010. so a permit application 2010- 0107435 it was filed in response to all of those three notices of violation, and it made it to the planning process is and what happened at planning, which you have just heard from mr. sanchez. any further questions, i am available. president hwang: thank you. director goldstein: thank you. ok, is their public comment on this item? please step forward. >> hello, my name is robert, and my wife barbara and i live at 130, across the street. we have lived there since 1986. i remember when construction began, i do not know, 2007,

2008, your records are better than mine, and my white take -- took a look at that and said, " gee, they are adding to the place. they should have notified the neighbors for comment. why did you not go over and ask him about permits?" i did, and he said there were, and as the record shows, that was not the case. in 2009, we wanted to do a major renovation in our house, and we had to delay one year to go to the processes of the variance and the building permit. it cost us some money and some consternation, but we did so. we would expect that everybody would have to do the same kind of thing. that is obviously not what mr. yee thought. we saw the house balloon out in all directions. my personal view is it is a monstrosity, but that is not my

responsibility. we would appreciate it if you make them go back to what they had in the beginning. thank you very much. director goldstein: thank you. is there any other public comment? ok, seeing none, we will open up for rebuttal. mr. carey, you have six minutes of rebuttal if you would like to use it. >> well, this project, excuse me, has a long history, and, obviously, various perspectives on it. i do not know if the last speaker filed a complaint atthey entitled to make remarks. i reiterate that the yees had their