one story single family dwelling and project 2, permit construction of four story building with four dwelling units. looks look -- like this were issued in 2013. >> yeah. both in 2013. >>

>> sorry for the delay. my name is tom church and along with my dear friend, marolyn allen. thank you for considering our request for reopening the permits for demolition and construction at 353 san jose avenue. the house we have

rented for 24 years. a letter from the central permit bureau was sent to us around the time it was signed. the board of appeals posted. we honestly believed that we did not need to respond to this letter signed in the manner prescribed in order to strengthen our case for gaining a fair and realistic timeframe given our individual and special needs of a one year eviction notice, a time frame by the way that has always been promised to buy our landlord adil shaikh. by not responding to this notice, -- who in the past had successfully assisted us with

an illegal eviction from a prior landlord. after the window timeframe for responding to the notices had expired on may 25th, we received two eviction notices signed from mr. shaik. we were told at that time that because we had not responded to the notices in time, they could not be of service to us. we feel we lost a valuable ally in this process. so it's been proven in the past to help us. why again did we not respond to the notice? the sign posted in part reads any person who deems his interest or property shall be affected by work

performed. to us that phrase is crucial. we understood it to mean the actual work itself, dust, noise, objects falling and so on. not a time frame for that work occurring. the letter sent to us in part reads, quote, no action need be taken by you, however, if you wish further info or the proposed work or to inspect plans on the building permit application, we understood this to meet the designs, the plans, the work itself, not when the work would begin. again this latter part is linked to our unique needs, not our neighbors to have to vacate the premises first before the work could be performed and yet, i say our

unique needs, the wording was exactly the same. i checked our neighbors. there was no distinguishing wording to address what is most important to us, a fair eviction. the fee of $175 posted to the sign was to the project itself, not to the timeframe when the project would begin. our eviction notice, we feel an unfair link has been with the wording and the 50 day eviction notices that has been to usher us out and the eviction in the process. at the same time this process has entailed our loss that could expedite our rights and keep us out of court. we have had terrible news. my

friend, has a life threatening illness that has spread throughout her body. i would like to spend quality time with my best friend on this planet and i don't want to be in superior court contesting something that was promised to us. i'm not saying the landlord is a bad guy ahead of this hearing. i know this is not your domain. i extended a phone call to both mr. shak and his lawyer addressed our individual needs. we are not trying to ruin your permits, we are trying to get the time you promised us. at the time, this is one week ago. mr. shak acknowledged that promise of the years eviction. i have always planned to give you and marolyn allen a year to vacate. i will be at the hearing to

support you. unfortunately there was confusing news with that. my lawyer made me sign the evictions and with that kind of confusion, i think as reliable renters, we deserve a better ending to this. by the way, talk about toying around an idea of demolition construction from 2005, is not an eviction. having inspectors come to the house for asbestos is not an eviction. what we rely on is far our eviction is different. we expect him to go with the one year eviction. the

last thing i want to be in court for the rest of her life which isn't too long. thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> the other microphone. >> good evening, first of all thank you for allowing, sure. my name is adil shaikh, the permit holder and next to me is my legal council. my response to what mr. church was saying is that i have acquired this property since 2000 and from that day going forward i have always indicated that what my

plans and intentions were with this single family home. i have always kept them in the latest informative information that i can give them. they were at both of the hearings. tom was at both and marilyn was at one. from that time i did absolutely nothing because in the letter i said i would wait years before i started the project and that's what i did even though the project was approved in 2011 and i stated all along that this project was not some real estate developer looking to make a quick buck, but this would buy behind be a project that i would leave for my family. this project was approved in 2011 and finally i

decided to move forward in 2013. i have waited years and years and i'm just following the protocols setforth with the guidelines with the rent board and what is is required from the city and county and the state. i have no idea how the process worked but i have been very patient. i have waited and there was historical hearings and i waited and there was preapplication meetings and i waited and finally i had to move forward and when i did i did it despite being approved in 2011 and i don't know what more i can do at this time. so i leave it at that. >> i'm david fran and we paid the moving expenses and the

notice has been served fairly recently. the 60 days hasn't expired yet. i would imagine it's still under the rent board's jurisdiction. there is no unlawful retainer filed. negotiations can incur at any time. i don't think that would be cutoff with the permit. that's all we have to say. >> thank you. >> don't leave yet. mr. adil shaikh, the pell on -- appellant or the requester said that you promised them a year. is that correct? >> my understanding is that i said in a letter that i would wait years before i actually

started the project. it was at one time in a telephone phone call that marilyn mentioned to me that when you do get ready to move forward do you know that you have to compensate us and that a year is required. i have never done a demolition in my life. i didn't know what the legal formalities were. i waited a year. if you look at the record, 2011 was when the project was approved, sir. >> the records indicate you picked up the permit in april. where are you with your construction process? do you have a contractor already on board? >> yes. i do have a contractor on board and as a matter of fact we were supposed to meet today to just go over some details and i told him can we meet tomorrow because today i'm

attending a hearing. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> anything from the department, mr. sanchez? >> thank you, good evening, members of the board, scott sanchez, planning department. the permit application was submitted to the city in december of 2007. it's a demolition new construction required a mandatory hearing at the planning commission. we did our neighborhood notice in 2010. at the time the planning commission gave the sponsor advice to redesign the project and the project was revised and in april of 2011 the planning commission approved the project with revisions. it was stamped approved on the plans of may of

2012 and it was to the department of building inspection where it was set as approved with the department of building inspection on august 17, 2012, anytime after that date, the permit holder can pay the fees and pick up the permit and it became issued which it became issued on april 24, of this year and that's setforth the appeal period. i just want to provide the timeline to the board. i'm available for any questions. thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, then commissioners, the matter is yours. >> comments? >> i respect the permit holders

rights. i also am sympathetic to the requestor. i'm tempted to continue this case for 6 months. >> any other comments? >> the council for the permit holder expressed that if it's not done right that they are still open to some negotiations. so rather than holding it off, maybe we can come to some decision prior and let everyone have some closure to the end rather than having to wait again. because i am sympathetic to the tenants as well as well as to the permit

holder. he's been waiting properly and through the correct channels and no matter what, there is someone going to be unhappy no matter what here. we can try to come to some understanding, maybe. >> question is whether both parties aren't happy. >> that makes for a real compromise. >> i agree with commissioner's approach and i mean it's observations, but six months seems like a long time to potentially hold up the permit. if there is going to be discussions, it seems to me they could be had and done. >> i was just reminded by our director and city attorney that this is different than an actual appeal in that the permits are not suspended

during the course of this discussion. i had forgotten that. i have a question for the permit holder, mr. adil shaikh? >> yes, sir? >> this board has two options, they can take jurisdiction in which case your permit is suspended and it will take you at least three months to get on to the calendar. i'm appealing to you whether there is some timeframe that you can allow the tenant to stay without us having to go through that process? >> well, i am sympathetic to the tenants as well. i think i can be flexible, but i felt that it would be very difficult for me to give them a whole year at this point which is

what they originally requested. i'm not saying that, hey, in 60 days, again, that's why i retained council. i'm not familiar with this process that you need to get out in 60 days. so, again, i sympathize with my tenants. i have always tried to work with them to the best of my ability. i don't want to seem to them that i mislead them or somehow lied to them. i am open to that idea. that's not a problem. i can go ahead and say that in front of you in whole honesty. to me, if i was misunderstood, at this point to give them a whole year would be difficult for me. but i am open to some flexibility where they don't exactly have to get out in 60 days, sir. >> i'm totally in agreement. i think you have been an outstanding landlord. i think that most people who have

gotten their permits and had the legal right to proceed would have. is there a number that months or days that you would be willing to commit with and you might want to speak with your council? >> i would say can you pause for about 90 seconds? >> while you all confer. go ahead. i don't have any questions of you. i want to offer my comments. this is a jurisdiction request, the written submissions as well as the testimony today, i found compelling in that the capacity to understand the notice and it's implications and the need to actually file the appeal within the time period, and that's what, they missed it by 20 days and i read in the submissions that part of it was a challenge and actually

visibleably seeing the sign and the challenge on the part of the speaker tonight was reading it in the manner that it would reflect an actual impact on them such that they would need to take action within that period. so for those reasons, i would actually be amenable to granting the jurisdiction request. as to whether they can sort something out would be great, preferable than to hold up the parties moving forward. but i would like to put that out there for consideration. >> i totally normally would agree with that, but i think in this particular case, they knew that this was coming along and i think there has been communication wean -- between the landlord and tenant the whole time. >> commissioners, i'm sorry, i think the permit holder and council have left the room. >> they knew i was speaking

and they left on their own accord. they didn't care, obviously what i had to say. >> i don't know if you heard what i said, but i would be inclined to grant the jurisdiction request. i would just repeat that. did you have

something? >> yeah. with regards to the extension for an allowing the tenants to stay, i would say 90 days. >> in addition to the 60 that's already there or 90 days total? >> sure. in addition to the 60, that's fine. i think that would be a reasonable time. >> you know what, i think given that there is an opportunity to potentially resolve this. i would suggest that the parties take this discussion and put a pause on this and move to the next matter while you have an opportunity to speak to each other. >> sure, no problem. >> this -- thank you for your flexibility. >> okay. we'll hold that off

and take the next item. 4 c. item 4c: adoption of findings: subject property at 2118-2128 fillmore street. discussion and possible adoption of findings for appeal no. 13-030, mio inc. vs. dbi, pda, decided may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 4-1 to overturn the permit with adoption of findings at a later time, on the basis that this permit was not validly issued, that the determination of formula retail use should be reconsidered, and that the one-year bar against re-application would not apply. permit holder: monique ramos. project: tenant improvement remodel of existing retail space within existing mixed-use, multitenant building; renovation of ground level storefront façade for new retail establishment; no structural work; bpa no. 2013/03/01/1323.>> okay. we'll hold that off and take the next item. 4 c. item 4c: adoption of findings: subject property at 2118-2128 fillmore street. discussion and possible adoption of findings for appeal no. 13-030, mio inc. vs. dbi, pda, decided may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 4-1 to overturn the permit with adoption of findings at a later time, on the basis that this permit was not validly issued, that the determination of formula retail use should be reconsidered, and that the one-year bar against re-application would not apply. permit holder: monique ramos.

project: tenant improvement remodel of existing retail space within existing mixed-use, multitenant building; renovation of ground level storefront façade for new retail establishment; no structural work; bpa >> okay. we'll hold that off and take the next item. 4 c. item 4c: adoption of findings: subject property at 2118-2128 fillmore street. discussion and possible adoption of findings for appeal no. 13-030, mio inc. vs. dbi, pda, decided may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 4-1 to overturn the permit with adoption of findings at a later time, on the basis that this permit was not validly issued, that the determination of formula retail use should be reconsidered, and that the one-year bar against re-application would not apply. permit holder: monique ramos. project: tenant improvement remodel of existing retail space within existing mixed-use, multitenant building; renovation of ground level storefront façade for new retail establishment; no structural work; bpa no. 2013/03/01/1323. 1234 commissioners i have contacted by the attorney for the permit holder who informed he that neither he or his client would be here today. his client is following the direction of the board and decided to no longer pursue and instead is planning to open an independent retail operation at that location. and therefore she is no longer interested in pursuing the permit that is the subject of this appeal. he indicated that his client would not object to the boards moving forward with the disapproval of the permit and the adoption of findings. so i wanted to let you know that was his communication to you. >> i have a question. all the parties were provided with the draft. they were also given an opportunity to comment on the draft? >> were the comments received and incorporated? >> they were received and incorporated and some were not and they were given opportunities to provide comments to you if they cared to go further with their request. >> my packet didn't include any. there were none. >> okay. but i do believe that the appellant is here and would like to speak to the board.

>> okay. >> i did receive a copy of the letters. to drop the permit, however, instead it's opening they said it's independent boutique. in this letter it indicated that she no longer required a permit because she was not going to do a build out. however, as i passed the building everyday, there is major work being done. the front facade has been removed. apparently they were given a

glass permit after the appeal was made. the total space was empty and it was totally rebuilt. and because i was a tenant in this building and had to do foundation work i'm familiar with some aspects of what is required for a foundation construction and we certainly did not have to remove the facade of our storefront when i was a tenant at 2116. we also did not have to redo the walls or the electrical work. so i'm perplexed by what's going on in that space. also, the fact that they are calling this an independent boutique. 2130 if if fictitious name. monique

ramos is a manager partner as it was called. this is just osca in another version. initially bh it was going to be an osca store and they did apply for a building permit, how is it that suddenly they don't need a building permit. it really perplexes me and i'm wondering just how is this ordinance going to protect small businesses if large corporations can just change the name. i mean, we have athletic with gaps and brooks brothers on the street. what recourse does a small business person have. also in the

findings, osca, it isn't a corporation. it's a corporation where i guess they don't pay any california taxes. so my other questions is, if it is an independent boutique and they do carry osca apparel who is going to monitor that it isn't over 50 percent. just changing the name does not mean that this is osca. i'm quite perplexed by this. >> thank you. we can hear from the departments, mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott san chez planning department. that would be under the purview of the planning department. if we get information that they are operating illegally as an osca as defined in the planning code then we would pursue

enforcement action on that i do note that there are several different proposals now to devise controls. our department is working on trying to come up with a broader approach because a lot of these changes have been district by district. in the hayes valley maybe different than another district and it should apply citywide and most of the city's zoning districts. not all of them are subject to formal retail control but it's much easier for us to implement one form of standards for each of the districts with a different definition. that would ultimately result in legislation that would not be enforceable. some of the ideas that have been floating around are including international stores which are not currently done and also looking more