there was a confusion of any kind. obviously i don't support this appeal. >> just a little bit of history, some of the many discussions that occurred here and they haven't occurred for a long time now was the correlation of the degree of penalty. liquor, the first offense, you can pay a fine. most of the tobacco sellers who have been brought appeals here have no problem paying a fine. versus having their license suspended for any period of time. >> notification of that license suspension to be posted publicly. >> motion. >> i'll make it. moved to deny the appeal on the basis that the department

imposed a proper penalty for the violation. >> thank you. >> there's a motion on the floor from the president who uphold this 20 day suspension on the basis that the dph imposed a proper penalty for the violation. on that motion to uphold commissioner fung. >> aye. >> vice president honda? aye. >> willie >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0. the 20 day suspension is up hell. >> thank you. we'll move on to item nine which is a hearing request subject property at 437 duncan street.

at that time the board voted 5-0 to withhold the two permits that the design was appropriate by the planning department. the project is to demolish one story single family dwelling with 690 square feet of ground floor area. we will hear from the requester first who has three minutes. >> actually i have six. >> you're right. my apologies. >> that's okay. thank you so much. good evening commissioners. i am here to respectfully ask for rehearing because the motion made and passed by this board on april 8th did not deal with the issue of protecting the relative affordability of existing housing. the motion and the vote ignored the main premise of the appeal of both the demolition and the building permit. that premise was that this board

deal with the criterion in section 317 that requires that when a demolition occurs, the relative affordability of existing housing is protected. this criterion is one of four that specifically deals with the priority policies of neighborhood preservation and planning code section 317. my appeal did not focus and did not ask this board to determine whether the design of the project was appropriated vetted by planning as your motion and vote did. first of all, given the heightened concern by everyone from the mayor to an average citizen over housing i think this board should have dealt with the issue of protecting the relative affordability of existing housing and your motion did not. secondly the motion itself is wrong because the design was not

appropriately vetted as i discussed in my brief requesting a rehearing. here's some renderings on the overhead that was done after the planning commission approval by the neighbor who was public d.r. requester. there's the project. it's kind of dark. there's another of the street. here's the project. here's some more. there it is there.:f here it is there. here it is there. here it is from 28th street at the rear of the other houses. based on the residential design guidelines, there was no appropriate vetting of the topography, the light rail that does not go to the ground level. the lack of setbacks the roof lines as well as the stair and never mind the context. again, as inappropriately vetted

as this design may be design was not the premise of my appeal of these two permits. it was not the thrust of my brief at the april 8th hearing. the appeal is to mange a motion on the protection of the realtive affordability of existing- building permit with specific suggestions that were in the first brief. the board ignored this. whether the board intentionally ignored this or not i do not know. the board believes that the project protects the relative affordability of existing house, this board should have made that motion. not a motion about the design. i am not asking for a motion about the affordability of 437 duncan. which like the soundsness of the property, has been conceded by the llc that bought this property in 2011 for sale price of $560,000.

what this board's motion should have dealt with is the relative affordability of existing housing, the other existing properties on the 400 block of duncan. homes opened by my neighbors. homes considered relatively affordable. the proposed project is replacing a sound and affordable single family home with the project that 2986 net square feet with the gross square footage of 3544 square feet. this project is built as proposed can easily threaten possibly more homes on the street. if this project is built as proposed to reduce the over all square foodage, will be the largest most expensive single family home0÷ 4y on the 400 block of duncan street.

it will precipitate a major up tick in the price of and the likely loss of existing housing. the other homes on the 400 block of duncan that can currently be considered relatively affordable. therefore, this proposed project will not protect the relative affordability of existing housing on my block. this is what the board's motion didy,%( h9npl÷ deal with. as i stated in both briefs and here on april 8th, the average size of the existing#z single family homes on the 400 block are 1556 net square feet. it is less square footage it will be cheeper. cheeper isí-np affordable. it is not affordable. existing housing is important housing and it needs to be protected like the code requires. protecting housing that is

affordable has an effect on entirety market, which i think is the underlying reason for planning code section 317. i believe that by ignoring this very important criterion the board asc staff has made a major error. the huge difference between $5 million home and $2.3 million homes. one thing that distinguishes one from the other is size. square footage. your motion and your vote did not confront this and i'm asking for a rehearing so you can make a motion that at least deals?i%("?7 with this one way or the other. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> thank you good evening. i understand that the issue here is not about design and that's what the appellant's position

is. i will not go into the design. if there's any question about the design of the building i'm glad to answer them. it's really just a rehashing of the same discussion about affordability that we had >> i realized that the firm -- i do need to make a disclosure prior. i went to disclose that i have a existing business relationship. i retainedkwj: separate project. it will have no affect on my decision. thank you sorry. >> it's just exact same issue that were raised on the eighth. there was some discussion about afford the. we talked about that previously. this is not a huge single20 home. this is a home that will be

taken down . the affordability issue is not an issue that was considered by the city and the demolition permit?%(ns was granted. if there's any questions, we'll answer them. other than that,ly leave it there. thank you. >> mr. sanchez?k6 iá1ñ jpw% >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. this is a rehearing request. this is whether or not there are any new information that may(3 have led to a different conclusion by this board. lot of the arguments that were raised were also raised previously in the appeal. we addressedv the prior hearing in addition to design concerns available for any questions that[2u have. thank you. >> anything? is there any public comment?

>> we live next door to the project. we're here to support georgia in her statements. there's been quite a few errors made on the analysis itself from july 10th. which goes to show they didn't really read it or write it in the proper way. they're not describing the right project. i don't see how they can get the rest of anything else written correctly. they haven't come to tell us anything. they haven't come to see what it's going to look like. right where our property lines is at. they're passing over our property line. it's kind of like -- i don't understand why they didn't bother to come and say anything to us.

we think that permitg denied until they have some kind of and they come and talk to us about anything about what's going on with the construction of the house next door. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none, commissioners matter submitted. i rñlthough i -- all the items that were discussed and broughtid up again this evening were brought up at the original hearing. i commissioner will not support a rehearing. >> discussion? >> no.

>> i'm of the similar opinion, that nothing new has been brought forth or changed circumstances. therefore moved to deny the rehearing request on that basis. >> there's a motion on the floorv from commissioner fung to deny the rehearing request. onftr that motion to deny president lazarus. >> aye. vice president honda? >> aye. >> wilson >> aye. >> swig, aye. >> thank you. the vote is 5-0. both rehearing request is denied. >> we will take a break.

>> welcome back to the board of appeals. decided on april 8, 2015. at that time that board voted 4-one to overturn release7 suspension on basis -- this is a zoning administrator order requesting that the department of?e#z8ur&ding inspection release the suspension of¢::gh building permit application. comply with notice of violation and this is a permit for demolition of office wall on the first through fifth floors. we will start with the requester. mr.patterson. you have three minutes.

>> thank you president lazarus and commissioners. this is a pretty straightforward rehearing request. i think that the written briefing speaks for itself. i had take a couple moments. that's all i'm allocated to respond some pointsojpcññ i expect that the tenant's attorney will likely raise. this was a permitjlpáv to remove illegal residential use or floors one through five of this building. the most current legal use is office retail at this property. it was property considered planning code rather than the building code in this appeal. his

there can be no nonconforming use where the prepistonning use is illegal at the time of the zoning codes #wt change. this case was distinguished in more recent case s%('rof enterprises 1482. the seconda this was a case out of contra costa college. completely unrelated what we're talking about today.

the directives which was raised in his brief, the last hearing has predated the determination. i hear the permit holder's actions were proper. they were correct. there was month misrepresentation. rather than deny the permit holder's property owners use of their property, we respectfully request a rehearing so that the previous determination by the board can be overturned. thank you very much. >> thank you. we can hear from mr. collier now. >> thank you commissioner steve collier representing the tenants 1049 market street. there's no facts. i think the basic argument by

the requester is that when the building code says the most current legal use that means they can put down the heel use if even it hadn't been used as was as for 20 years. which is the case here. clearly the stokes case said that's not the rule. the stokes case, they specifically did talk about a defective permit because the permit holder this claimed they had a vested right in that permit. it is on point. there's no manifest in justice ú3n' here or in the extraordinary circumstances. showing the overhead the permit application >> it sees here there's nothing on this permit that would lead you to believe that there was anything in offices floors one through five.

in permit holder agrees that that's the reason they got permit that they never state that in the permit itself. therefore it never went through planning review and therefore, it was defective. it hasn't been used since 1995. the housing inspector indicated on the overhead educated that he spoke to the building manager, richard lane in 2007. mr.lanecv%( +%jmf

is live-work occupancy. thank you. >> 38 seconds if i can add. >> yes mr. rain mentioned the mayor's directive. if i recall i thought that happened some time between december of 2013 and february 2014, which is a good year before the zoning director's request. >> would you state your name for the record? >> karina zone. i'm a tenant at 1049 market and an appellant. >> thank you. >> sanchez. >> thank you scott san his. planning department. i will be brief. as we stated at the previous hearing, we requested that the

board grant the appeal and maintain the suspension. it would rear conditional use authorization for the work proposed under this permit. we have no issue or contention with the board's ultimate decision there. would note we did suspend the permit at first because we identified problems with the permit. i exercise my discretion in releasing that suspension. i i can, that the -- i understand that the board may disagree with that. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> missioner, i don't have too much to add here. apart from some of the stuff in the brief that-cf i read. i know there's a case a one of

the attorneys referenced in dbi in 97. we would ask for the presence use. it talks on a permit application. if i could just for this. this says legal description of( @ñ existing building. below that it sayseñp&yñ presence use. i believe it's retail office and work. number of dwelling units were six i believe on the sixth floor. that will be the legal description. however, when you get done to line 16 where it says write in description of all work to be performed under this application, reference the plans, it's not sufficient. i would have3c+ body of the description of work would have maybe referenced the illegal construction to create the live-work units in that

area. i was also concerned when we were talking about the permit and i know this is mostly planning. in dbi when we see a permit to comply dbi stops the approval process and are expected to look at the nob. if you read the notice of violation, it does reference office to live-work. it was to remove the illegal construction off the live-work. i just want to add that because it's in the brief. i get to read the brief. >> thank you. >> may i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak under public comment? we will begin our public comment

then. >> hello my name is tommy. i'm with the housing right committee. what's at stake here is the removal of 77 affordable rent controlled units. it will be the largest mass eviction in san francisco. that's no exaggeration. at this time of crisis of our severe housing crisis the city cannot afford to lose one unit let alone 77 rank controlled units where low income tenants are currently living. not to mention the mayor's directive, can has been mentioned but i also believe that the mayor's directive does

apply here. the mayor has been very clear not only in that directive but also subsequently in other talks that the mayor has given. he's been very clear. that city departments need to do everything they can to preserve rank controlled stock. this certainly is a chunk of our rank controlled stock. we at housing right committee have seen up surge of demolition of rank controlled units. it's really alarming. i'm sure you might have seen the article in supervisor weiner wanting to stop that. i think your path is clear. you can't allow the eviction of all of these tenants. [ [please stand by, captioners transitioning]!u

for the most part these have been commercial units. and i find it hard to believe

that when this property was purchased a couple of years ago, they had no idea that there were people living here. so today i just like to ask the board to uphold your original decision to suspend this demolition, because me and the rest of my neighbors would like to keep our home. thank you very much. >> thank you, next speaker please. >> hi i am larry edmand i live in district 6 65 mason, i have been here 25 years. i remember the address, 1049 market it was called traveler's aid. it used to be the building that people come here to find housing. and now it seems like you are throwing people out of a historic place that used to aid people that travel to san

francisco. it was called travel aid when i got here 25 years. and we know what is going on in this city and country. we cannot continue to say that we are a great country and our own citizens and people are not having housing. first of all, i don't like the word homelessness. it's really anti-homelessness, because you know what? the statute of liberty guarantees to give me your unwanted, when a person gets to the statute of liberty, come to america, and if you are born here, you never should be homeless. this is like america killing their people when you don't have housing. and you know that people are getting out of prison and coming back home. any type of home taken away from them in san francisco, how far have are we going to go.

our president obama has been here in 25 times in one year. and president reagan became the governor and closed down napa valley and put the people on the streets in california. and thank god for brown running against reagan in '66 and that is after a man that did great thing. and reagan would go there and tear down hud housing. the first time i heard the word homeless was i living in san diego, and before that it was hobo, or you are a traveler. homeless is an ugly word, it's not american and we cannot be the home of the free and brave if you continue to take people's

homes away from them. you are worse than isis and when you continue to dismount american citizens and those coming in for housing. remember 1049 was called travel aid and still have one in san diego. and now you are taking people's homes and adding more to the streets. and it's a shame every day when you see that flag you know that you have done injustice, and people are supposed to build the world up not build them up and push them out. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> hi i am chad benjamin, and it took me a long time to find housing. >> sorry, can you speak more into the mic. >> yeah sorry, i have looked at housing