again, as stated previously, we believe our action is correct, and i'm here to answer any additional questions you may have. commissioner fung: mr. kwan, here's the problem i'm having with this case. it doesn't really matter the address whether it's 2301 or 2305 because that's usually only a couple doorways, in any event, in the city, and your radius in terms of how you locate carts and everything is much broader than that. but what is troubling, i'm asking you for a response to that is that leo's hot dogs has a permit granted september of 2010. for 2305. your renewal process and

courtesy notice went out in spring of 2011. that's only six months apart. and yet somehow when the gentleman brought up -- i would have assumed that a lifetime of that first permit would have been in excess of six months. >> in this specific case, it's a fairly unique situation, it appears the applicant acquired this police peddlers permit for a hot dog stand in september of 2010. legislation was passed in the interim in december, and then it became effective january of 2011. within the legislation, it was very clear that all current police department permit holders for the first year,

they're allowed to -- the department is required to provide them the permit for free. there was one year grace period based upon this information. the unfortunate part specifically is that the department did not have mr. ascarrunz's information when we received the package of records from the police department and why he was not notified. commissioner fung: ok. i understand all that. i understand the processes that the transition required to implement. but when the appellant brought this issue up to your department, at that point in time, a glitch had happened of some type. >> that is correct. commissioner fung: and i'm just wondering what did the department then do to try to resolve the situation?

>> the challenge is such that once we knew about it, had there not been another application for this specific site, the department would have had a finding that, you know what, this was an error, that as part of the correction, we would have issued a permit if this specific case to the appellant specifically in order for him to retain his rights under the peddler's permit. however, in this case, legally the permit expired and we have a new application and we have to try to figure out in terms of being fair who would need to take precedence. commissioner fung: ok. all right. commissioner goh: i have a question that brought to mind, ok, if mr. castillo is applying for a permit for the same location, is there any weight

given to -- i don't know if it's true or not but we heard there's allegations he's been running that cart without a permit for some time. >> this is the first time the department of public works has been informed. we've been informed previously and once it was brought to our attention, we directed mr. castillo to cease and desist and at such time he acquire as permit under public works to operate. my understanding is right now we hav other objections except from mr. as -- ascarrunz and once the information was provided to us we sent inspectors out to validate and there was no one up there to inspect it. commissioner goh: he was given a cease and desist and he did cease? >> that's correct. president garcia: i don't understand, this gentleman, the appellant, mr. ascarrunz has two permit with, one for 28 and one for 2300 block of mission.

so one at 24th and mission and one at 19th and mission. is he in the same -- first of all, is that correct? >> my understanding based upon the description, this peddler's permit was authorized to be on the sidewalk. president garcia: i understand. but does he have two locations, it's a simple question. >> yes. president garcia: one is at 24th and one is at 19th? >> the department has no knowledge of that. let me try to explain this. president garcia: don't do that. what i'm trying to determine is might be in trouble, also, with his -- if he does indeed have a permit at 24th and mission, it's not before us. >> he had a police department permit for 19th and mission which is the 2300 block. that permit under the law doesn't exist anymore. president garcia: i understand that. >> that's the denial before you now. president garcia: i understand that. but what i'm asking is, it's come up tonight he might have a second location at 24th and mission. >> from the bart authorities.

president garcia: ah. so therefore it's a totally different -- so he might or might not be in trouble with that because this legislation does not apply to that location. >> correct. that is on private property and therefore outside the jurisdiction of the department. president garcia: ok. good. i was just hoping it wasn't more complex than it seems to be already. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. president garcia: i guess i'll go for the general thing first. this legislation seems very troubling. and i think it was done with all the best intentions, you know, we heard it stated over and over it had to do with revitalization of the street escape and all that. it's a very vital area to begin with and we're not going to go to that, when you get around those parts of 9 i am not opposo

having food there. one simply hopes that we can go through the proper procedure to maintain a permanenit. and we have different families dependent on this herman -- permit, and the hope of the individual will do what is profitable. go it seems like some greater care should have been taken to determine that each and every individual was properly notified of this. i do not think it is relevant

whether he is operating illegally. the aluminum foil, that is not before us. every time you say i do not want to cast aspersions on this gentleman, that is exactly what you are doing. this situation has to do with who should be at this location. according to the rules, assuming everything is proper, but i am troubled by about, and i look forward to hearing from my fellow commissioners and their point of view. >> i would concur with that direction. however, i am not exactly sure

what action i would take. it would have been reasonable for someone who was granted a permit on september 8, 2010 to have an opportunity to have been able to say yes or no to renew permanencits. we do not know whether the person would have renewed, but they should have been given the opportunity. he was not on the list and did not received courtesy notice. i am leaning toward at minimum we need to let him have the option to let him be able to

respond. >> my inclinations are similarly weighing in favor of equities. i think the fact he had a permit to months prior to the law changing and he has incurred costs as a result of the permits, and while there is an applicant, the permit has 19 been issued, so it is not replacing an existing permit. i agree with what president garcia's stated about the irrelevance of the negative comments with respect to the businesses, and i think they have no place here, but i think generally my inclination is to

overrule and grant the appeal. >> i agree with that for the reasons stated. good >> i will make the motion, but i do have one comment, and that would be, assuming the will of the board is to allow the gentleman to go through the proper procedure, he might not end up with that location, but is the does happen to please work vigorously to get him a good spot. >> the permit is before you. the permit is granted to the individual at that location. >> i would move we overturned based upon the facts that this

board or i am making the motion that the procedure was on reasonable to this appellant region would be unreasonable to the appellant and would constitute failure. >> you could say that because of the 90-day period. as soon as he got notice, he promptly applied. >> thank you. >> we can call the roll now. >> let me recite that once again curio -- and once again. >> the move is to issue this permit with a finding that the

apollyon's failure -- of the appellants failure upheld the permit. on the motion to overrule and issued this permit with that finding. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. the deep two -- the dpw is overruled. price we are going to take a short break. >> welcome back to the january 18 meeting of the board of

appeals. we are ready to move on to item no. 8, and before i call this, i understand the parties are here to arrive for a continuance of this time. believe they are looking for a february 8 state. but we are continuing to talk, and we of for a three-week continuance so we can resolve this issue pure and. >> so we can never see you again. but that is too much too out for.

>> is there any public comment? c. non, we need a motion. >> to continue until february 8. if you want to call the roll please. >> we have a motion to continue this matter on february 8, and no additional briefing is allowed? >> right. [calling votes] >> the vote is 4-0. this is continued on february 8. >> item #nine has already been heard, and item number 10 has been continued, so we will move to item number 11, the neighborhood association and

verses the zoning administrator protesting the granted on november 18, 2011. the proposal is to split the lot into two lots. but would result in to two dwelling units, and we will start with the appellant. >> good evening, commissioners. i am vice president. i screwed up and did not get my paperwork in on time. it was something i could read to the public and handier if you would permit me.

how many do you want? the your commissioners, the neighborhood associations position is to oppose this. variances that would split it into two illegal lots is one of those. the boosters have no problem with areas for the existing areas of the property was is, which includes the duplex and makes a total of four units. the existing conditions of the property do not change. and we can resolve all

irregularities for these existing conditions. the reason for the application is to maximize profit, which is not a problem or a bad day thin but you should know they are vacant. the split also sets of the property for being more easily converted into condos. these lots will be removed from rent-controlled. is this in the interest of the city's housing interested? if there is a problem, it may be because the properties are overpriced. these are basically a 20 foot

lots. we do have odd lots, because the happens in all properties that are subdivided, but to go into a standard lot the does not conform to the code, because it does not provide a proper rearguard. -- rear yard. it is probably making it worse. to solve the problems in this property, a subdivision is not it. why have two units on each rather than one with formeur, unless it burns down and you replace it with three?

being able to split it illegally just because you can does not sound like it makes any sense to me, and is just because the planning department has the vehicles to be able to split into two lots. if they were going to make some changes that would provide more open space, i might understand, but nothing is going to change except the legality of this property and make it a code- conforming. one is 960 square foot. neither of those would be illegal, -- would be legal.

the property line division is accommodating existing conditions, vetoes it has to circumvent existing stairs. you do not have a clean cut all the way across. it seems like we are working awfully hard to split this lot, not to conform with the code, when we should always have in mind that we want it conforms to the code, and it is not up to the planning department to make it illegal in that way. it would be preferable soo to ge them their variances if they want. why force an additional one?

thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good evening. the owners of the property, and the respondents live a block from the property. like the appeals of many permits before you, various appeals. now the board can over turn only if they have abused discretion. the appellant makes no such case. mr. malek provides no evidence

any errors were made by the zoning administrator, and he makes no argument but abuse or indiscretion occurred. with the zoning district allows three units, this is legal- nonconformity. most parcels are less dense and contain one or two family homes. this one is difficult to finance or to sell at a price reflecting its true value. more stringent lending rules are in place and reduce the pool of qualified buyers. this is not attributable to the owners. i want to point out a of building was moved there in 1949 from a lot condemned on vermont street to make way for the 101

freeway. it predated the requirements currently required, so the owners but applied for this says variances do not meet requirements for lot size, and the property line also triggers some technical variances for rear yard and usable open space. these conditions meet on the lot. goonote timely appellants in brf was submitted, but he mentioned three bullet points but we address in our response. apparently the appellant is no longer concerned about two of those points. the remaining is rent- controlled issues. most rental units in buildings

constructed before june 13 are restricted by the san francisco ordinance. that restriction would still apply to this property, whether it is two buildings on two lots with or without a lot split. it is always the building owner's choice to be a landlord or not. what determines whether these units would remain under rent control is the owners' decision to rent them. the granting of issuance is immaterial to this issue. there is no legal bases to overturn the decision, and we respectfully ask the board to overturn the request. now she will use the remainder of our time, and the project architect and i are here to answer any questions should you have them.

thank you. >> good evening, president garcia end commissioners. i am the owner of the building, and i would like to tell you why we applied for these variances. we are experiencing financial hardship. and we need to sell the property to recover expenses. it is extremely difficult if not impossible to sell the property without taking a loss on the money we've put into it. we did try to sell a, but we have absolutely no luck. we could maybe sell the back building and keep the front building as is, and if we were able to obtain the front

building, that would keep two rental units on the market while making units available in the reader. there is a lovely courtyard between the building's. this provides a natural way to divide it into two lots. the division would not have a negative affect on the district, and we are mystified 90 opposes it. prior to the september meeting, and within a minute, he said he knew exactly what we were during which was he thought we were doing a condo diverged -- condo division. he said he knew all about it because he was trying to do

that. he jumped to a conclusion that was not part of our plan at all. we out for specific objections, and he said they object to all lot split squad but he did not give any particular reason in our case. i am curious because in october he said he had not presented a this at the monthly meeting. we do ask that you consider this so we can put a please part of the property on the market so we can begin to recover from the setback this economy has caused us. >> when did you purchase this property? >> 2003. >> thank you.

>> mr. sanchez. >> just to recap, is a variant application for lot sizes, and the lot size affects both of the properties with respect to the code. it would take a standard lot, which has one building in the front, one building of the reader. the building at the front appears to be constructed in 1926. of a permit indicates it was removed to the subject property, and this appears to have been done to accommodate a widening of the freeway, and the proposal would create two