so without the notice, and they are not planners, and center, and they get it, and they say, "oh, ok, we just have to do a couple of things." vice president garcia: i understand those arguments. commissioner fung: counselor, what is being sent to you is that even if we acted upon that -- what is being said to you is that even if we acted upon that, and, therefore, it would have qualified for submission, what you are going to hear at planning is this is not and allow use. there is no way they would take this a mission. >> i understand that. mr. sanchez explained that to me. i cannot turn back the clock. commissioner fung: i think you should think about that while we go through the rest of testimony, ok?

>> he was very kind to tell us these options, and the option is, again, you have got a good neighborhood business that -- commissioner fung: i understand. >> but if you say, "we will not, but we will suspend the fine" -- president goh: i have some questions, too. in september 2008, sent back to label the storage room and talk about square footage, at what point where the plans resubmitted to planning? the fixed plan? >> as i understand, this was before my time, they were submitted in a couple of weeks by mail, but that apparently did not get year, and when they called to make sure they had come in, he was told that they were not here. i do not know what the time frame was, so that he had to go

and get another set up, and the physically walked in a copy to make sure they got -- and he physically walked into the economy to make sure they got here. they hired someone to make sure they were delivered, and apparently, it did not make it. so be physically brought them up here. president goh: and was that the october 30 days, when he physically brought them up here? >> basically, what he said is correct. we hired a permit expediter to deal with all of this. clearly, they did not do a good job on our behalf. i was checking in to find out when hour hearing was. they told me they did not have -- when our hearing was. they told me they did not have it, and i rushed in. president goh: earlier, someone on your side said the fault was

with planet because the player was on vacation. where does that fit in? >> -- because the planner was on vacation. where does that fit in? >> this is why we are very frustrated, because the plans that were submitted on september 3 were the exact same plans, and everything was exactly the same, with the exception of the square footage not being labeled on the drawing, which could have been contemplated using the scale on the drawing, and the labeling of that storage closet. president goh: right, i saw that. what does that have to do with the planner being on vacation? .>> once something is accepted and deemed complete, it would take awhile for the hearing, and if it had been deemed complete on september 3, we were still going to have a delay because the planner in charge of it was out until the end of october. president goh: but that is not

what caused the delay. the expediter and plans feeling to arrive is what caused the delay. -- the plants failing to arrive but -- the plans failing to arrive is what caused the delay. >> it was not until the called in october when he found out that the emailed plans have not gotten there, -- the mailed plans had not gotten there. they were then going to set up a hearing. president goh: but planning did not deem them complete in september. >> correct, they did not deem them complete. that is why i am saying -- president goh: i understand. thank you. vice president garcia: how long was the vacation?

how much time did your client lose? >> if it was deemed incomplete, and i do not know how they were doing the planning and setting up the hearings, but i know that that email said -- who was it? dario was going to be out until the end of the month, and that was the person in charge of it, so i do not know how long that person would have taken once they returned to set the hearing. vice president garcia: my question had to do with how long that person was out of the office? >> from mid september to the end of the month. vice president garcia: close to one month. president goh: they did not have a complete set of plans, according to planning. >> there was another gentleman that had been working with them who said, "looks great." i think i quoted that already.

president goh: thank you. note >> is there any public comment? if there is, please step forward. [bell] >> my name is -- and i live in apartment 14, 1416 grand avenue. i have lived in this building for 10, 12, 15 years. i have lost track of how long line of lived there, but, anyway, i have lived there a long time, and i go back and forth. i go up to their offices because they are right behind me. where they are located, where they are located, there is no room for anything. you could not get a -- location in there.

it is too far up the hill, ok? -- you could not get a retail location and there. it is -- in there. it is ludicrous to make them move out and move where? i mean, do you guys have somebody want to move in there? because nobody in their right mind would move in there. there is no parking, there is no nothing. it is just a space where they have their offices. it is convenient so i can go up at any given time, and make them crazy, or anyone else can, and you know that i do. so to make them move is, i mean, it is absolutely ludicrous, ok? they own the building. they take care of the building. they take care of the people. any time, they are right there because they are right there, and god knows where, there is no

other space to move them. why? it does not make sense. am i speaking to slow? too fast? do you understand what i am saying? president goh: if you are finished, i have a question for you. >> what? president goh: the restaurant next to the office, is that occupied now? >> snow. the restaurant went in there, -- no. the restaurant went in there. there is an influx of restaurants. we knew it could not last. we did not pay attention to it. it went under in, what? six months, eight months. and it was gone. now, there is a woman's boutique, ok? " they are doing better. they like, they buy. there are so many restaurants up

and down the street. president goh: ok, thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? seeing none, mr. sanchez, you have three minutes. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. just to clarify a few points, the player on vacation was actually an enforcement planner. it was not the project planner who was assigned to the conditional use, the one who would be reviewing the plan. they were still there. just to clarify that one point. and also, it the context -- and also, the context is where i am coming from. i wanted to make sure that all parties knew that we are very limited in our options in trying to remand this to be planning commission. since i could not see a way that could be done and wanted to outline some options for the board to consider, it is

typically -- definitely a difficult situation to grapple with, but we look forward to the board's comments and decision on this, and i am available for any questions. vice president garcia: what is this planning code that has been referred to a couple of times? gross square footage? >> that is dealing properly with the use size. we do regulate use sizes in the north beach commercial district. it is very tightly regulated. however, it is getting up to 4000 square feet where you're getting into prohibited territory. we also monitor in very close the four restaurants, the threshold between large and small fast-food restaurants of 1000 square feet, so it is something we look at for commercial uses. vice president garcia: i guess

the appellant is raising the issue that, why would they have to make a special submittal for that when on the plans -- why cannot he extend those figures? >> that is something the planner deemed necessary in order to have a complete application, and we do want as thorough and complete plans as possible. vice president garcia: i understand that you want the square footage, but why cannot the department multiplied -- multiply the length by the width of >> because we want to document that they know it. -- multiplied -- multiply the links by the wetproof it was filed about one year -- the length by the wit -- with --

width? >> because we wanted to document that they know it. i cannot speak to all the conversations had between the parties, but we had communicated what the requirements were. president goh: plus, in looks like there were emails. -- it looks but there were emails between the department and the project proponent, indicating that there was more time and more time and more time given for the production of the plans, in whatever way the planning department asked for them. the rest one, the one closest to grant avenue, is that the one that got the boat -- the cu? >> it is not the adjacent one.

hibachi -- oh, two restaurants. do you want to describe it? president goh: i should have asked you. >> the building is on the corner. president goh: yes, i am looking at your site plan. >> actually, there is two restaurants here. this is one. this is bocci. and this is 1400 grant. president goh: and they do not have cu's because -- >> they have been there forever. president goh: that is ok. that is enough. thank you.

director heinicke: -- commissioner hwang: what is the ultimate impact if we did something? >> if the board may find that there is a continuance, necessary to provide them time to find a new location, they could report back to the department on their progress for finding a new location. commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president garcia: if we did that, what about the fee? would be automatically suspended? >> the board of appeals. -- would that be automatically suspended? >> by the board of appeals. commissioner fung: mr. sanchez?

this is almost an excessive use, is it not? >> that is a good point. -- this is almost an accessory use, is it not? >> that is a good point. we have not fully investigated that. that is something we could investigate further, but, however, given that it operates outside as well, that a factor in and have it. that may factor in so that it is not an accessory -- that is -- given that it operates outside, as well, that factors in the, and that a factor in so that is not an accessory. i think there had historically been in office there, maybe eight years or so, but most recently, it had been used for retail use, and just prior to

the hearing, i looked in the reverse directories for 1986, and it was listed as a store. an antiques store. commissioner fung: an antique store. >> when we are confronted with something like this, when it puts someone out of business or even someone from a property, we do our best to find it all began -- all we can to see if a violation exists, and then we research other things, if there is a nonconforming use that can continue. there are other methods to allow it to continue, we are very diligent in doing that. commissioner fung: you know, it in that era, 1986, most intense stores were tax dodges. -- you know, in that era, 1986, most antiques stores were tax dodges. >> i think mr. sanchez has said

it all, and i appreciate your suggestions. what we're looking for is some way to allow this to continue. there has not been an adverse impact on the neighborhood. it just seems a shame that at age 70, to have his property management, and, yes, there are other properties managed, but those are actually -- you have one of the property in san francisco, right? this just provides the service as the tenant said, so if there is some way that we can work this out, i appreciate mr. sanchez' discussion and suggestions. i think it could be a win-win for everybody, as well as the tenants. commissioner hwanag: -- hwang:

how many employees are there? >> there is four. commissioner hwang: including you? so there are four of you managing the one building and the other property? >> there is the property manager, me, in just a bookkeeper. commissioner -- and just a bookkeeper. commissioner hwang: thank you. commissioner fung: would your client be willing to use this office only for the management of this building? >> i need a moment. commissioner fung: mm-hmm. vice president garcia: well they are talking about that, mr. sanchez, -- while they are talking about that, mr. sanchez,

if it were to do what was suggested by commissioner fung, would they need any special permit at all? >> i would think a building permit it to document the use, and i do not know to what extent they have done changes over the years, i mean, whether or not a permit would actually be required by the building department, but that would be something to run by dbi. >> but. it vice president garcia: -- vice president garcia: but that would be the accessory use. >> dealing with accessory uses in commercial districts. commissioner hwang: the provisions of that section you cited, if it is not too long? you can put it on the overhead. vice president garcia: perhaps

we should be willing to find out whether or not he would be willing to operate that way. >> the answer is yes. .president goh: ok. commissioner hwang: zoning administrator. >> i will put up the section dealing with accessory uses. it worked before for a vote -- for a vote -- for a photo. typically, more than one-third of the total, it has to serve a principal or conditional use to which it is accessory. if the board were to find that it was serving the primary uses of the building itself and the overall management of the residential and commercial components of the building, and where to find it complies with the other relevant provisions of this section, then i think it

would be with in the board's ability to find it that. president goh: most of those sections do not apply because they have to deal with food and liquor? >> that is right. food use and entertainment news, as well. -- entertainment news, as well. -- entertainment use, as well. this is typical for an apartment building. so there is some standards in the code already dealing with accessory management functions in buildings, and that would be in a different section. that is in 204.5, which i can pull up.

commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, and you do not need to be definitive on that right at this point, because let's see where it goes. in any event, should proceed any further, it would require written findings -- should it proceed any further, it would require written findings. >> a building managers unit. that is a possibility, at least. -- a building manager's unit. president goh: ok, thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: commissioners, i think most of you know that i do not care to put things -- i like to clean up

our own balance sheets, so to speak. if we are sympathetic to the property owner and the usage of otherwise a space that would probably not be in great demand, as a retail outlet, if we are sympathetic to that approach, then rather than just view it -- viewing it as a way to complete an effort to submit a conditional use application, i would look at it slightly different. i think there are two options. one is that we find there could be an excessive use your -- accessory use here, and with the

permit holder and owner, the functions within the office would be limited to the property management of that building, that is one option. i think that probably becomes the principal be permitted use without having to go through a conditional use as an accessory. the second option, which is probably more problematic, and that we find that it is a legal nonconforming use, therefore, we find some bit of history. vice president garcia: should be asked for a continuance to allow time to make sure we are on safe ground with the accessory use, or do you feel that is something

we should do? commissioner fung: i think we can do this for written findings for our final decision. if there is a will. i am going to move that we find that the proposed space can be used as an accessory used the property management of the building in which it resides -- an accessory use, with findings to follow. president goh: you mean exclusive -- commissioner fung: of that building only. secretary pacheco: that the motion is to overrule the penalty, with findings to come. commissioner fung: yes. secretary pacheco: on that

motion to overrule, with findings to be adopted at a later time, president goh, vice president garcia, commissioner peterson, hw commissionerang. -- commissioner hwang. it is overruled. >> there is no further business. >> there is no further business. president goh: we are adjourned.