department of public health doing their job, for this restaurant owner, but, again, i would not vote to have a rehearing under any circumstances, given the testimony, given the prior testimony and the testimony we have today. president hwang: is your motion still pending? vice president fung: i would move to june 20. is that ok with you, madam director? director goldstein: that is ok with me. it is a heavy calendar. it is the board's decision, and did you want to have a written report from the department or the other parties or just an oral presentation? vice president fung: i think

they should be allowed to provide a brief, but given the time, can we accelerate it? director goldstein: so you want all parties to submit? vice president fung: same time. director goldstein: how many pages? vice president fung: 5 pages. director goldstein: this is to allow them to inspect the restaurant and to file a brief, five pages from all parties, and have them submitted prior to the hearing, all parties to submit at the same time. is that correct? vice president fung: ok. secretary pacheco: on that motion to continue from vice president fung, three votes are needed. president hwang? commissioner hillis? commissioner hurtado?

the vote is 2-2. three votes are needed to continue. i believe the prior motion would stand then. absent another motion. commissioner hillis: we talked about continuing, i do not know if we can revisit this, but adding more than the inspection? president hwang: what would those conditions be? >> -- commissioner hillis: that they come back -- i am trying to get to the reapplication. they would approve an operating plan and an ownership structure that meet the operating requirements. commissioner hurtado: that sounds like a new permit to me. commissioner hillis: yes. director goldstein: may be a point of clarification from the department is in order, because i understand that in order for a

new person to participate in the permit, a new permit is required, that they cannot add an additional party to the permit. i do not know if that is a correct understanding or not. they indicated that that is correct, suggested piece of information. -- so just a piece of information. commissioner hillis: so he could not sell 50% of his business? he would have to get a new permit in order to do that? >> that is correct, regardless of what a restaurant, or whether they were in complete compliance or not. vice president fung: commissioner hillis, the issue here is that kind of ownership item could always occur at a future date. at issue here is whether our actions may create an acceleration of the time that

would allow the operator to get back. president hwang: here is another thought. one of the things that inspector hong stated is that there was a food and safety inspector who was an actual operator, and i do not know in terms of business versus consultants, versus on staff, whether that would suffice if they attract the services of someone with that type of expertise, but that would satisfy the department for purposes of operating this going forward. can you speak to that, inspector? >> sure. i think short of an equal partner with the ability to make

decisions, it would be in my opinion tantamount into -- to someone you read had their license revoked for drunk driving. this is why i prefaced the opening comments from vice president fung at the very beginning. what is the easiest way that you see? that question i answered honestly. that to me would be the best way to go about it and give some comfort to the department knowing that they would be on equal footing. if you hire someone, you can always fire someone. you are giving the keys back to someone who got us here. to put on a show, and for lack of a better word, and i want to believe it. food safety knowledge on equal footing. the department would get a sort

of consultants. -- consultant. president hwang: ok. secretary pacheco: the motion was withdrawn. i will repeat the motion to continue -- vice president fung's motion to continue failed. therefore, the prior motion stands, which is a 2-2 vote to grant the rehearing request with a couple of conditions. therefore, without three votes, the rehearing request is denied, and the order shall be released. director goldstein: ok. thank yo president hwang: why do we not take a five-minute break?

director goldstein: ok. [gavel] captioned by the national captioning institute --www.ncicap.org--

director goldstein: the department of building inspection, legal authorized to use, no new work proposes. we will start with the appellant, aged. >> good evening, commissioners. first, i would like to congratulate president hwang as the new president, and as i was not here for the last meeting, i want to thank president garcia

for his many years of service on this board. from his first hearing, he was one of the most interesting and insightful commissioners and made this process better for his presence. the reason we are here on this matter tonight is basically a very small, very inexpensive dwelling units that would cost more than it is worth to be legalized through traditional channels. i met the owner, who is the second owner of this building. they have owned it since the early 1960's. i met the other at his job at lowe's, and we were talking about how we try to get a permit to remodel a dwelling unit and was told he could not get a permit because the house was

listed as a single family and a store. he was instructed to get a 3r report, and the report came back with three addresses but still said facing all family plus store. i told him there was a reasonable shot and that there were things in the record that indicated the record is incorrect, and as you can see in the materials i submitted to you, there are materials that suggest the record may be incorrect. there was a permit issued in 1952 that did not really clarified what its work really was, whether it was on a new unit or the flat behind the store, and i would ask this board to use its discretion to retain this housing. it is clearly only going to be affordable housing ever in the

future. if they are unable to legalize it through this process through a correction of the record, there is very little option left for this family but to simply return this potential living space to storage or to service for the laundromat. there are a few pictures, if i can go to the overhead. thank you. come on. do your thing. ok. this is the planning information database, which shows, you can see the address is 801-803 russia and another on athens. down below when it says unit counts, it says "two units." this is the subject property. you can see where that aero is, there is an entrance at 599

athens. -- you can see where that arrow is. next to the entrance of a laundromat is the entry to the unit of stairs. there is no obvious connection between the laundromat and upstairs or a connection from the laundromat to 599 athens. president hwang: i am sorry to interrupt you. can i just get that photograph back, please? >> sorry about that. president hwang: so which street is russia, and which street is the other one? >> the arrow is pointing to the athens street entrance. president hwang: and the entire corner lot? >> yes. it is the entire corner lot. president hwang: russia?

>> that is for the upper unit, which is called 803 russia. president hwang: ok. >> the windows are behind the laundromat, and they are windows for 599 athens. there is also an exit breezeway kind of right behind where the arrow is. there are windows at the back of 599 athens facing that breezeway as well. president hwang: thank you. >> thank you. this is where the kitchen was, where the gas line and the flu event were, clearly of some considerable age. some wonderful old wallpaper. this has been occupied it since not the 1920's, then easily the 1950's, and i have got the 1954 -- which was quite interesting.

the owner at the time of construction, a family where a day -- where the lucchesi's purchased this. pardon me? i am sorry. 599 athens streets is listing michelle at that address, and, come on. powerpoint do your thing. we see from the same directory, russia street, one showing the laundromat, and 3 shellings barnhart no -- bernardo geely. thank you very much. this clearly has been occupied as a dwelling unit. i think that this board has the discretion to correct the

record and allow permits to be taken for the renovation and restoration of this dwelling so it can be used as affordable housing, as it always has been, and hopefully always will be in san francisco. thank you. vice president fung: the 3r is based on a number of things, but one of them is the current assessor reckons -- records, and the current assessor record shows it is one unit. the current assessor record. >> i am not so sure i agree with that, sir. the assessor's record is what i showed you, which shows two units, and what i included in your packet -- vice president fung: excuse me. let me go to the question. what you showed us showed two

units, one residential and one store. if you go back to what you provided, in 1938, the assessor record showed it as two residential units and one office, and in one commercial. is that not correct? >> i read it as being revised, and if you take a look at what i have listed as exhibit 5, the assessor's building card. this document shows 801, 803 russia and lists of the 1938 inspection date, and above that, there looks to be a revision date from the 1950's, and that looks to me to be in the same handwriting as we have both for the athens added, and if you

look down at the bottom of that front page, you see apartment one an apartment two. i think that that entry may have been made at the time of that second inspection in the 1950's. vice president fung: my question to you is in terms of the taxes they have been paying, it is only on one unit. >> i think that the assessor's rolls are showing two plus store. vice president fung: not from what i saw. i thought it was a total of two units in the building, one commercial and one residential. >> the database is what the planning information database is based on, the assessors' database, and that is showing both, all three addresses, and it is showing two units, and usually, that is referring to dwelling units.

they would not call a commercial space a unit. vice president fung: but just down below that on the same form you had, it said one residential and one commercial. did it not? >> i believe what you are saying is that this record, that the 3r report on is understandable. i would agree with that. there is other evidence for a third unit. there are three electrical meters. we can go to the photograph on the overhead. with the other -- with the different addresses shown directly on the electrical meters. there are other elements of this, other elements that all contribute to the understanding that this has been used as a dwelling unit it's not since the 1930's then at least since prior

to 1954, when parking might have been required to add eight dwelling units, so i believe this is something that could be interpreted as a dwelling unit, as having existed prior to the current planning code, and could be approved by this board as a correction of the record. i think that there was some discussion at the building department level about whether the record was correctly correct as one family plus commercial or not. they chose after their investigation to go back to a single-family plus store. i think it would be a very unfortunate circumstance to lose this unit. thank you. commissioner hillis: can you tell us what is the process?

you said it is an onerous process to go through and legalize the unit. >> if this board chooses to correct the record, they will take permits -- commissioner hillis: i mean if you did not appeal this, and you went through -- >> they would be required to go through several processes. one would be an additional living space requiring the school district fees. they would have to meet open space and exposure elements of the planning code, which would require a variance, and the fees would be considerable. simply the preparation to legalize this unit would be considerably more than their income is over and an annual period, so -- commissioner hillis: how much is that? >> i did not, but i certainly could list some of those fees.

the various application fee i believe is currently $2,100. something thereabout. plans preparation. this would be several thousand dollars. there are application fees that would be another couple thousand dollars. there are school fees treating this as if it were newly created housing. there is another couple thousand there. suddenly, it becomes in feasible for this family to maintain. commissioner hillis: that is kind of the process, so you are kind of short circuits in this process with this permit? >> well, what i am trying, what i tried to do for the lucchesi

family, was to see if there was something in the record to indicate that it was more than one unit. i think it clearly shows that. they are not creating a new drilling in the basement and hanging a sign out. this is something already in the system, so i think it is a legitimate process that i am seeking to achieve. president hwang: the space that was recently vacated by a 30- year tenant. >> yes. president hwang: athens street? >> yes, it is. president hwang: and what you are trying to do in this permit is to try to legalize it without going through the permit. it has a kitchen and everything that is needed to live on. >> yes. an inspector duffy was there today. >> thank you. director goldstein: