access the property from the neighbors. >> at the time, that was an improved -- approved condition. >> at the time. >> i need to try that at my house. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. from our perspective, this case, we issued a notice of violation for work without a permit. we valued at $500 at the time. the honor filed a permit, paid the appropriate -- the owner

filed a permit, paid the appropriate investigation fees. at this point, based on our administrative code, from our perspective, the issuance of the permit is an ministerial act. when all pertinent departments approvals are in compliance, we shall issue the permit. in this case, it was disapproved by planning. normally, for this type of alteration, we would look at the proper exiting and ensure that it meant the building code. providing the land use limitations and the zoning restrictions are complied with as well. in our case, we would wait for a determination based on planning. clearly, the interest of the department is of attaining compliance.

>> does your data base show nsr's or variances or anything? >> this was one of the permits that was same day review in terms of over the counter. all of that process took place for us on that one day, the 25th, and then it went on to planning on the 29th. >> thank you. president hwang: we can take public comment now. >> i live at 79 montezuma's streets. i am here to try to persuade you not to convert on street parking

into another driver. you'll make it unusable for many of the families living in the area that might not have a parking, like myself, or families that have multiple cars. this street is very densely populated. the negative impact will be felt immediately. i am one of the least 20 residents on montezuma's street that could be here to argue in favor of keeping this space open and available as it has been for 20 years. i am friends with -- we go to their house often come in and out through this space here talking about. i guess i cannot picture putting a car there because you would

have to almost going sideways. if something happens to the house, a fire or something, that is going to be very dangerous. that is my comment. i want to take the opportunity to read two and letters from my neighbors who are not able to come. "i live that 17 montezuma street since the november of 1992. i was involved in a review hearing in 1994. the neighborhood was concerned regarding the potential for the units in this building. the nsr talked about a second

unit being allowed if the zoning change. a second parking space was being provided in the design of 69 montezuma for this potential future second unit." >> the next letter is -- "i rented the structure on the baking much at 69 montezuma street prior to its demolition in 1985. i rented it to store tools. the outside dimensions for about 10 feet wide by 12 feet. at the front was a horse hitching post." thank you. president hwang: any other public comment? please step forward.

>> good evening. my name is elizabeth. i own 65 and 67 montezuma. i also on the parking at 69

montezuma. i bought this property just prior. i submitted you a brief that gave you a history of the way this easement was created. when i purchased my property, a long came a deed granted easement. the planning department to mandated this in 1982. it was a condition of approval to split lots. this mandate said parking was required. in 1988, they were well aware that this easement existed on the property. they fully understood that the planning department opinion on this. they had an opportunity to terminate their contract.

they took responsibility for this issue. there are three documents, k, n, and o, confirming those three items. this easement is located on 69 montezuma and has been used as a carport. the exhibit and i would like to show you, if you would not mind, this shows what the date looked like prior to then taking it off -- the date looked like prior to then taking it off. this is what it looks like today. this is in your brief that i sent you. thank you. this is what they said they think they did not need a permit for.

in 2009, without my permission, -- i filed a complaint with the department and ask them to remove it. the city center and a notice of violation. they got the permit revoked. then there was delay after delay. they sued me i have no off street parking nine years i battled staged for cancer. when i came back, this is what i found. they have cost me my life savings. 2.5 years i have been defending the city mandate. i ask you -- if you have any questions, i ask you. please. vice president fung: is their ongoing litigation? >> yes.

there has been two years of this. postponing the this, suggesting they would give me back the parking, they will do this, they will do that. that is what is going on. president hwang: were there any issues getting in or out of your car? as the picture would suggest. >> i have a 1982 z. may i continue? what i would do, when i would go off on trips, bob would say, will you pull out your car into our garage? i did that. there was a period it were at a

lot of personal issues so i spent a lot of time away. president hwang: you parked your car in their garage? >> that was a fair deal. nouri often, i would come back into the city -- very often, i would come back into the city and i would park my car right in front of the gate. if i came back at 11:00 at night, i would just parked in front. for years, you could park beyond the sidewalks. i did that for years. my tenanted that -- my tenant did that for years. and then i got sick. and when i came back, there is .

i want to be clear that this easement was a mandate by the city. it was mandated in part of the planning process. >> thank you. president hwang: is there any other public comment? we will move into rebuttal. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the attorney for the appellant. the question of whether or not there is an easement that exists across my client property, the question before the superior court. what is clear is that this area at that we're trying to -- that

some of us call parking is not allowed to be a garage. the fact that the developer, as part of the process of getting his house approved, does not change the fact that there is not a garage on this site. there has never been a garage on this site. there multiple basis why we believe our bryant -- our client will prevail. what is for you tonight is to consider the impact of requiring a private property owner to provide parking to their neighbor where there is no reported document to which the city is a party. i observation and experience is in the past, when the city has conditioned approval of the building on parking being granted to some other party other than the owner, the recording notice of special restrictions. there is a recorded document to

which the city is a party that memorialize the city's interests. that never happened in this case. that is a fatal flaw in terms of the position the planning department has taken. if the city now attempts to require parking on my client's land, in favor of someone other than my client, that raises some significant constitutional questions in terms of the occupation of my client's property, the confiscation of my client's property. if there any questions, i am happy to answer them. >> crafting yourself an easement, which is what the developer did, would be like me granting myself -- granting myself an easement to park in my backyard. then he cut a deal with the neighbors and the only document the city has signed is this nsr.

it is our parking space. the document planning sign says it is our parking space. if it is our parking space, and they have signed it, we want to get it up. all this comes down to the original document that the developer lied on. that is its. you cannot park a car there. once that lie falls apart, the requirement to provide a falls apart and we can remove this dangerous condition. she decided she wanted a curb cuts. she did the work so we want to refer it back to neighborhood parking and remove this hazardous -- reverted back to

neighborhood parking and remove this hazardous condition. >> i read somewhere in there that settlement discussions have failed. >> the amount of money that was asked was excessive. andrew can respond. >> there have been settlement discussions as recently as the past week. the council went on vacation. you will confirm there have been efforts to settle the case. there is leveraging going on here in terms of the dollars. i am sure you do not want to hear that. >> i will be brief. this is a unique circumstance.

the appellant has made many arguments. there can only be one parking space on this property. however there are two parking spaces here and this of metal from the neighbors testifying there are two parking spaces, -- a vis the middle from the neighbors testify there are two parking spaces which was required by the planning commission and their approval of the project so it is clear that there are two parking spaces here. it is clear from the building permit application as referenced to the easement, no special restrictions the the second parking space is required for the use of the adjacent property. that is not what we would do today. we typically require no special restrictions. maybe that was an oversight

because the properties were under the same ownership. when you have another property and you have the nsr, that as not owned by the same property owners. that may have been an oversight at the time because the properties were under the same ownership. that is my interpretation of the facts as best as i can pull them together. this is a unique circumstance. i will be available for additional questions. there is a curb cuts. it is clear on the plans there is an 18-foot wide curb cuts. i do not know where the allegations of the neighbor going in the dark of the night and creating a new curb cuts are coming from but that is an established curb cuts. there is a curb cut there, it is on the plans. that is -- i am available for any questions.

president hwang: anything further? the matter is submitted. >> i will start by stating the obvious. there is no doubt that the joining at the hip means separation. the only reason i discussed that is -- let me back up. i find their brief is totally compelling and the convoluted nature is something i do not feel comfortable deciding here today. the reason i brought the issue, should the parties be able to come to some resolution, this board can assist them in taking

care of certain things which i am not going to mention in front of the city attorney at. however, that is the only reason i bring that up because i am not sure that i am comfortable with getting too far on a decision on this particular case. i will leave the last thought which is along the lines of where i was going to go. i was not sure where everyone else was. if there is any chance at all of some relationship in the settlement, our best bet is to continue it. we should be able to help both

parties to some extent. >> i would be open to a continuance. i would not be on the board when this came back. to give the parties -- i would like to come back at a time certain and not just be open because i think we should rule on it if those discussions cannot be resolved. it seems like there was this -- if i were to decide right now, the continuance is an option, i would uphold the denial but given the circumstances and the unusual nature of this, i would be open to continuance to a time certain to see if there can be some resolution of this.

>> i am disinclined to continue this. i fill the information i have been provided is enough to uphold the denial of the permit. i think there are some tricky questions that were raised but i do not think -- i recognize there is a pending litigation on the easement issue but to me it reads pretty clear and i am not the judge in your case fortunately perhaps for you. in terms of the denial, obviously, the work was done without a permit and that is a problem. complying with -- that is a violation. there is something that has to be done. >> just from a practical

standpoint, what happens if we deny the permit? >> we uphold the denial. the board upholds the denial. the board would have several options -- appellant would have several options. they could seek and justify a variance from the parking requirement. they could take the matter to court, the board's decision to court. >> as far as the city, then. being a notice of violation. improvements are removed. >> it would be an enforcement action and we would move on enforcement. it would be up to the appellant and the property owner how they respond.

>> this is difficult for me. i guess what i am leaning towards is upholding the denial of the permit at this point and if the parties decide to appeal this for's decision, that is at least moving this issue for and trying to come to some sort of resolution at least of the issue before us apart from the easement issue so that would be where i am leaning. >> if we were to continue this

based upon some legal resolution, it could take forever. i am somewhat uncomfortable with that also. if we were to continue this to a date certain in a relatively short time frame, would that put some additional incentive for them to find a resolution? i am thinking the time frame is one month. >> my only hesitation is i feel this has been an issue going on for many years, a couple of years. they have had opportunities and they failed to come to resolution. they have a competent counsel serving the interests of their respective clients. if pushed, they can get to a resolution. >> i agree with that. based on what is in front of me

i am comfortable of holding the denial. perhaps that would push a resolution. >> i would support a one month continuance. i am not optimistic anything would happen and this would be a result. i would be willing to give it a try. >> do you have a motion? commissioner hurtado: i would love to uphold the denial based on -- move to uphold the denial based on the planning department's reasons.

>> i am concerned the planning department's reasons are not stated. commissioner hurtado: i'm trying to find them. >> in the notice of disapproval. commissioner hurtado: and now that mr. sanches stated them. -- sanchez stated them. >> parking be provided in the neighbor's property. >> hixon -- section 150. once any of strain parking or loading space was provided, such of street parking or loading could not be reduced or made unusable. >> thank you. >> we have a motion to deny this

appeal, hold the denial on the basis of planning code section 150 as stated by the deputy city attorney. on that motion, vice-president fung, aye, president hwang, aye. commissioner hillis. aye. >> this passes. >> the meeting is adjourned.

supervisor kim: that