>> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, february 15, 2017, meeting of board of appeals the infills nicole's and we're joined by commissioner vice president fung and commissioner bobby wilson will be absent this evening given there will be 3 board members hearing the skies i cases in the vote of a fourth member makes a difference we'll continue to vote on the matter. >> okay are to my left is brad

the deputy city attorney and provide the board with legal advice at the controls is gary board's executive director. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. and the front right now is greg and others with the board of trustees i believe we'll be joined by scott sanchez planning department. and representing the planning commission and joe duffy dbi inspecting please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. please carry on conversations out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the

minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight,

please stand and say i do you've been sworn in or affirmed please affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you very much commissioner president honda and commissioners one housekeeping has to do with with item 7 appeal is notice of violation of violation on 660 3rd street we jointly worry about for a continuance and want additional time we need a vote in order to move the item they want it heard on february 22nd. >> motion to continue. >> that's what is needed. >> motion to continue this item until next week.

>> okay any public comment on this motion okay commissioners the most from commissioner swig to continue this item to next week on that motion commissioner vice president fung and commissioner president honda that motion carries the item will be put on the february 22nd calendar. >> so going back to the regular calendar item one general public comment this is an opportunity for anyone that wants to address something on with the jurisdiction but that is in the on tonight's calendar any general public comment seeing none, item 2 is commissioners questions or comments and anything commissioners. >> no. >> no. >> item 3 the boarders consideration of the adoption of the minutes of the february 8th. >> unless additions, deletions, or changes may i have a motion to adopt the minutes.

>> any public comment on the minutes seeing none, then we video a motion to adopt. >> excuse me - i'm sorry i believe i wasn't sure about the vote on the last item i thought the vote on the continuance 3 to 2. >> excuse me - not a continuance but my motion. >> i don't. >> 3 to 2 on my motion for, 3 to 2 on your motion against. >> 2 to 3 on your motion and 3 to a two. >> i know that commissioner

wilson voted against your motion i believe that citizens did as well. >> is there. >> i thought commissioner wilson. >> the first one commissioner wilson voted yeah, and then nay and the reverse. >> i'm pretty much she voted no on both commissioner vice president fung if you want to us check we'll make a correction. >> scott sanchez planning department. was my recollection that commissioner vice president fung voted for the motion. >> that's okay. >> if it needs correction. >> the results are the same. >> okay. so a motion from commissioner swig on the adoption of the minutes on that motion commissioner vice president fung and commissioner president honda that motion carries meaningful to item 4 a rehearing request the subject property at

1712 castro street william and listening i didn't are recks west stone versus the deputy superintendant with the cases on january 18th it at this time the vote was with commissioner wilson absent to issue the permit that the glass railing be transparent on the basis it is code compliant the permit holders are with the 200 plus a spiral assess and new sliding glass patched skylight from the requesters first. >> 3 minutes to present your request. >> thank you we request this hearing based on several preliminary facts that our position as appellants the board of appeals can i cannot it especially in the light that the

appellants have not been truthful and evasive and selective in the real facts of the situation it is utter no one's that the responsibility reapply to the photographs of our backyard we specifically were stating they showdown the backyard of the neighborhood to the north the claim when the gentleman showed did photos of their cousins and neighbor to the north backyard by said that was our barbed was a bogus smoke screen of misinformation they claimed that the shade if our trees please note they showed on a single tree to the south end of the - the rainy part of winter barely casts a shadow as far as their yard and all of a sudden and amazingly and the

respondents have shown in the photos 6 and 7 to illustrate the claim the fact they used this doctrines lighting to shows ours acacia tree and our memoranda lemon tree from a low obscure angle that shows the trees in the opposite part of lighting is a series of less than factual statement by the respondents please look at if where the height is of their property versus our bedrooms as to what it is going to be when they build a deck over our head the issuing will sorrowing impede our rights to privacy and the visible right of their viability and their children's and twice as the vice president pointed out when they go up to the hour

and a half or down indoctrinates the or not were ignorant of a law how can a build and lawyer and agent claim not to know the lie their disingenuous. >> why want build on the cousins we respect the right to live here and to the live in privacy thank you. >> .

>> once again for your time this evening we ask you reject this month manifest injustice will result the request in allowing the roof deck to summarize. >> stop the clock are you trying to use the computer. >> not yet. >> so when you're ready to make sure that you say that to they know. >> to summarize in documented the gentleman has mischaracterized the description those are incorrectly in our original respondents brief. >> now morph as a photograph of exhibit d shows it is the large tree in their backyard that blocks the sunset to our backyard and house here's a photograph of the tree

blocking the sunset i took in our backyard and note that it is not - this tree and it's appreciative shadow that was cast on our property is not limited to the rainy days of the year i diagramed that in the brief and looking at exhibit d 6 as you can see our backyard is small and shaded we want more outdoor space and access to sunset the plans for a modest roof deck will be able and should be approved approved with the city's rules and regulations and 2 1/2 years after filing the permit i'd like to briefly respond to some of the other claims many are argument from the original brief that were talked about we addressed the owner on when the roof deck was

conceived with the model mr. wet stone refuses again and again that was planned by the remodel and offers his 0 own prescription for the consequences with no regard for the previous decision mr. wet stone repeats a claim we'll be infringe on his privacy we detailed in exhibit a that multiple properties have views in the appellants window in the backyard and in fact, are more intrusive from the proposed roof deck since the roof deck the roof hatch from the property line by 10 feet no safety issues in the proposed it was corroborated by mr. sanchez mr. wet stones brief was a

misrepresentation that were comprehensively are you feuded duration the appeal this didn't support my manifest injustice this is a convenient disk attempt to deny the feasibility to build untruthful roof deck we have spent a lot of time into first trying to find areas for compromise and from the appellants fabrications and those personal accusations have been draining to us both please reject mr. wet stones brief for a see. >> any comments from the commissioner any public comment come on. >> good evening and welcome. >> want to state that the permit own photograph showed clearly that the entire commission and everybody that the windows in question which

were 3 bedroom windows 2 and 16 castro one were clearly visible in the photographs they showed taken from the roof where the roof deck will be so the gentleman just deflate his own argument it is clear the point is the last ruling by the commission here was based upon evidence that was presented under oath by the individuals that applied for the permit they provided questionable information false information, abridged photographs and incorrect wrong photographs to because the evidence they attempted to get their permit issued by the commission that is the problem why we believe that my brother and i

building this is an manifest injustice i want to state something i'll state it for one reason i spent my whole professional career in law enforcement i served as an advisor to the police chief and serving as the bureaucracy of investigations with the district attorney's office 35 years i understand law and to make statements and the evidentiary facts whether things are presented in that regard there is the letter of the law and the spirit of law this is not the letter of the law we are dealing with the spirit of the law and i think in that regards it is more important to air on the side of spirit of the law than the letter of the law when the individuals was here applied for the permit and every step along the way done everything that is counter preview to

present a true and factual case in they're part so my brother and i as the property owners and landlord and others that are effected we request a rehearing request be issued by the commission and give us a better chance to present the facts in a very clear honest factual way not to wrong evidence and considered some other testimony fraudulent evidence this is a clear-cut case in this case thank you very much thank you and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. >> richard. >> thank you any other public comment. >> good evening and welcome. >> name michael rick's brother

i grew up at the 1716 castro street and property owner with my brother that the property we're talking about now it is 1714 which is with rental we my brother and i rent it out to the people that are with us and helping us nicole bill who just spoke but when what i want to mention is this because of the owners on castro street not filing credible for a permit which is documented which is a circumventing of the law and second less than truthful when they explained why they didn't file the correctly for this permit with the city of san francisco i strongly feel that whatever they say here today

should not be strongly considered as correct documentation because myself i wouldn't file 4 permits circumventing the law i'll follow the law of the city of san francisco if they can't follow the law properly then what at the say in a public hearing under oath not considered correct information and the last hearing there architect was here and uses an overhead an aerial photograph of a number of properties in noah valley with decks that shouldn't be allowed to be used in this hearing or the last hearing because every property has its own specific locations and this property is different

the one we're talking about 1712 castro street and certainly different than the properties in noah valley and that's what i'd like to end with we've been a long time residents of noah valley and owned property and not had my problems over all the years dating back to 1940s of new problems and as a result a problem now. >> thank you, very much. >> any other public comment. seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> question whether or not the threshold for rehearing has been met i've not heard any new evidence and not convinced by the argument of manifest injustice.

>> i concur with the vice president that is a rehearing request the merits to allow that is manifest injustice i've not seen any new information a material fact not shown at the prior hearing that leads me to believe that manifest injustice has occurred. >> move forward to deny the rehearing. >> to deny this request on that motion commissioner president honda. >> commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 3 to zero. >> the next item 5 a rehearing request for the subject property at 3751-3753 20th street appellants are requesting a retearing of the appeal to grant

the appeal on the condition the permit holder come applied with the code and provided a settlement at no cost to the adjoining neighbors and any fresno's or screening no higher than the property it is code compliant and the permit holder is here and a new living level 0 blow the structure and below grade and replies the wood windows and replace as indicated living room and bedroom and bath we'll start with the requester. >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening he will everybody for weeks i tried to convince you that the project next door is too big and much too big next to where i live

of course, i didn't succeed you thought that the architect did a good job and that the cottage a historic cottage is a challenge for the architect sometimes and in this case, i guess that was a challenge to build something which includes the comb it is a challenge if you turn a home into a monster home if you trigger the size of the existing footage of the home then that is a challenge the two questions are the issues i want to bring up that came up at the last meeting one the height of the 3 story addition of the home it goes beyond the limit and everybody agreed on this the

height goes beyond the height limit which would require a variance but it didn't get a variance the zoning administrator said that that was included in the variance that was cast for moving the pop out box towards the neighbors property line however, there was no such discussion i was there that he meeting and actually, i have text here of the acknowledgement here i don't know but it was not discussed at the variance it should have gotten a variance if you go beyond the height limit and the second question i have is what exactly is the height limit and how much is the deep story pop out box not pop out but the arithmetic beyond the height limit i hired an

expert and maybe some people know here mary gallagher look at the code language and found a mistake made and applied the code language to the plans however, the zoning administrator does not agree with that he came up with speaking different where do we stand i want you to allow this to be addressed again in another meeting thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening shawn architecture

good evening commissioner president honda and full board members the permit holder is traveling i'll be representing him i'm sure you reviewed the page on the claims i won't rehash the information here there is no new information and the project has not changed obviously we believe that is clear that they've not met the requirement for a new hearing i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you nothing from the department no any public comment step forward. >> figure georgia swish swishing i was here at the 18 i watched the hearing it struck out you didn't have the site

plans in front of you commissioner vice president fung mentioned that twice and commissioner sanchez mentioned it didn't have the plans requested do architect to show you the plans on the overhead they were hard to see i think he showed you page the lower two pages the critical thing as i see it the top 3 floors this was not addressed when you upheld the appeal you dealt with the function and all the structural the underground and the digging excavation there was great before you that didn't deal with the site plans and the floor plans that relates to the programming and the programming makes the math i think that is something very sponsor important to deal with you saw the renderings they were nice and didn't i think detail

the dictators they're from the side can i have the overhead, please? that's the cottage that little house and the project from the side angle so you didn't have a head-on thing from the door and living room and bedroom window so this plus the fact you didn't have the site plan i think that a problem and demands a rehearing he found it on the historic preservation commission website that i can only do an 8 and a half by 11 i'll be happy to show you next that according to her discussions with mr. baine after the january 8th hearing the programming has changed at the level so here's the programming as it was in the historic preservation commission and i assume when it was before you only is 18 can i have the overhead, please?

this is the top most level oh, in the second level sorry, sorry sorry the top uppermost level this is a den that's the deck that's the market-rate bedroom and bath. >> can you pause the time zoom in. >> sorry. >> should have enlarged it i'm sorry. >> that's fine my eyes are getting older thank you gary. >> this is the top floor you only saw the basement and the lower units smaller unit it is not clear you may have seen the first floor but not this and the level below the programming changed and the issue is math and she is seeking relieve from the math on the rear that is

important you examine the programming to make a a full hearing and use your discretion i believe you're allowed to use ♪ hearing >> thank you. i'll be glad to show you the other floor plans. >> any other public comment seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> if you don't mind i have a question for the project sponsor. >> so someone from the public has mentioned there is been changed to your floor plan; is that correct. >> no that same floor plan that was before us the first time. >> correct. >> sorry so thank you. >> thank you. >> interesting thing happened

at the hearing on this particular case i made no comment i asked a lot of questions and didn't make a comment that was quite unusual and part of that there was a level of discomfort i didn't voice it i would support a rehearing on the basis of the information related to the high ever height calculations as brought forth by the appellant needs to be examined further. >> i remember are you finished - >> so at the previous hearing no i believe the project sponsor didn't supply any drawings we got information from the department that i would 100 percent clear can you define your concern as president and

the the appellants brief indicates that the calculations of the height limit was not clearly done in disputes and i would like to take into account that. >> do you mind if i ask the department to weigh in on this. >> if you want to. >> batter up. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so covered by the permit holders brief a clear actually copy of what i stated at the previous hearing to reiterate that we believe that the height was properly calculated and as the appellant has alleged they need a variance for the height limit that is actually not the case testified in the previous hearing that was calculated properly, however, in a variance is needed for this was kind of a

3 foot portion where it needs to be reduced in height no more than thirty feet above grade that is a variance from the rear yard requirement not the height limit you can't get a variance from the height limit this project sought a rear yard variance as the appellant put on the overhead this limit for the height under the section the same code section they sought the plans were same and a as the variance it was not appealed that decision was final the variance allows that again, this decision was not appealed for the building application i'm available to answer any questions. >> no, i think we understand never been a health variance for the city okay. thank you mr. sanchez.

>> commissioner. >> i'll move to grant it. >> okay. so a motion in the vice president to grant the request we need 4 volts to do that so we can see if there are 3 votes and then take it from there. >> commissioner president honda commissioner swig. >> no. >> no? >> no that motion needs both of the other board members to agree to it and so if you wish to have them participant we'll need to continue this to allow them to

do so. >> i think as a matter of policy we'll require. >> unless another - >> yes. >> i would do a motion to deny the request for a rehearing on the basis no manifest injustice in the finding we're correct. >> okay. on that motion to deny this request by commissioner swig commissioner vice president fung. >> no. >> and commissioner president honda. >> no. >> okay like i said we'll need to bring it back. >> yep. >> move to continue this. >> okay shall we continue to next week. >> is that okay. >> it's okay. from the boards appreciative yes. >> are the two parties available. >> next week.

>> i'm sorry any update please come to the platform and there maybe an absence from me. >> are the two parties available next week. >> yes. >> okay we will be missing a board member perhaps. >> another date an alternative date might be better. >> the next meeting is march 8. >> move to continue this to march 8. >> okay. >> okay so the motion then from commissioner vice president fung to move this to march 8 to allow the missing board members an opportunity to participate in

the vote on that motion commissioner president honda commissioner swig okay that item passes and this item will be moved to the march 8 calendar thank you. >> next time is item 6 appeal 25 post street and 101 california street the properties are protesting the issuance of public works order - start with the appellant. >> come on up welcome. >> i'm sorry before you begin if you don't mind i want to make an announcement i received and withdrawal for item 9 abbey

wanted to make an announcement for the appeal christine & vincent tobkin vs the department of building inspection at 2712 broadway street. have been withdrawn and not heard together. >> thank you for that. >> good evening can i have the projectors i know i want to make sure that. >> projector overhead please. yeah. >> thank you. >> can we do that? >> yeah. >> all right. thank you. >> ready. >> okay. >> hi, i'm rob i represent the whole cart and thank you to the appeals board and thank the dpw for devoting their attention we understand the reaction to our

application that is a busy area and the assumption that there will be a lot of congestion in the m f s operates on the base is remarkable, however, due process should not be interpreted should be interpreted to their own internal logic and the decision on the substantiated facts not knee-jerk reaction no dispute in the dpw that our code proclamation met theer requirements of code they stated this as august hearing and stated it in the brief in response to our appeal and they that made the finding besides a lot of the opposition that was sophisticated and spent

a lot of time poking go holes in our application the director shouldn't use his own opinion with the application and in the limited circumstances where he is required to make his own judgment over above the m f f code this should be on facts the denial findings one the finding there are approximately 40 restaurant for in the block radius our position the director should not be in the position to count restaurant the code is complete in and of itself with respect to specific requirement around required businesses of m f f restaurants and also m f f away from each other so the internal provisions of code dictates where there is an assessment in the area and the density of restaurant dictate

whether m f f can open we cited language from the code that basically states what i said that the code in and of itself is complete with respect to the location and addresses the public concerns in the legislation with the legislative commentary that talks about restaurant and cited two cases one by the dpw where they said basically, not in the business of choosing winners and losers but the market should decide who has the opportunity to open food services businesses in san francisco if the appellant meets the code compliant and down to the facts quickly in the financial district steering wheel my demand for lunch service

projector please this is typically 1220 - this monday on 1220 as you can see this is the rothman bar an california street and across the street if california street on that monday they were long lines that's typical there is steering wheel high demand for lunch options because of the density the dpw and we've submitted lists of restaurant in the area if you look at the affordable restaurants on those lists those lists gets shorter it is important to understand there are relative to the high density of them in the area limited lunch options denial it's the first of its kind number it the m f f will cause incremental in the area the pedestrian traffic i'm sorry safety is an important concern

with respect to code enforcement and approving the m f f the initiative was cited by the city to eliminate the pedestrian accidents and deaths in san francisco we have an example here it is important to understand this is 101 california street the lines on this map indicate areas in the city that has monopoly been identified that is dangerous to pedestrian through the vision 0101 california street is not one of the areas and this makes sense because the block base we are requesting are m f f has extremely low pedestrian traffic thflsz taken on monday one 23 at 1220 and as

one p.m. as you can see 5 to 7 pedestrians walking on the whole block this location really is ideal for operational m f f to address the impacts on pedestrian traffic open sidewalks the 101 california street building is off the sidewalk the restaurant at the area are set off the sidewalk and pedestrians walk on that block face have access to the buildings and the restaurant through public square they don't have to say use the sidewalks to assess that's why the sidewalk the density of pedestrian traffic on sidewalks is a minimal and dedicated loading zone will not impact the loading and unloading the dpw raised a concern about cable car stopping there we have the built ability

to move away from the cable car we're able to move the m f f location and not adhere to the sign and suggest the board approval. >> so in closing m f f and food trucked are the avenue for a lot of small businesses serving the public this is true for the financial district small businesses sometimes not have the same capital to open a restauranteur particularly in the financial district so this should be considered when we're considering how the director. >> your time is up. >> finish your thought. >> it is important to look at this internally i internally if you make the finds for the facts make sure they're not bans their

opinions and assumptions. >> thank you. >> sir. >> how many permit does the whole cart have. >> it has. >> pardon me. >> no permits. >> zero at this point. >> however, this location low d b.a. off the grid and we'll hear from the department now. >> >> welcome and. >> you're becoming a regular. >> becoming one. >> good evening my name is brent cohen representing the public works present a brief overview of the application process for the whole cart the whole foods

facility m f f and the reasons the department denied the request for the location on 101 california with four trucks located in 5 parking spaces on the south side of california street operating monday and wednesday and friday from 11 to 2:00 p.m. the appellants applied for the m f f the food facility permits on february 25, 2030, for 3 locations the 225 located in parking spaces frosht post street operating thursday and friday and saturday the section location 101 california on the davis street with 3 trucks located in the first four parking spaces operating tuesday, thursday from

11 to 2:00 p.m. and the third location 101 california street on the california street footage with four trucks located in 5 parking spaces on the south side monday, wednesday and friday from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. public works has reviewed the proposal locations and determined them to be in general conformation with the information as specified in the article of the public works code and on june 15, 2015, public works continued with the public notification per section for the public works code during the period they received 6 written objections that required them to schedule a public hearing it was held on august 5, 2015, 13

people testified at the hearing and objection to the permit application with concerns have added trash and unfair competition and injustice to the businesses nearby and parking the food facilities present during business hours to take away - a piece of pie and create a health hazard and brick-and-mortar businesses didn't have the luxury of delivery spaces and accessibility to a rothman bar on 101 california street specifically to detrimental and negatively impacting and smells from food trucks enter businesses and surrounding property will not - during the

hearing the applicant withdrew the requested location on top of california on the davis street here's the 3 locations to two and following the hearing on november 7th the director issued order which conditionally approved the condition on post street to operate after 6:00 p.m. and deny the location on 101 california on the ceda of california street the reason for the denial of 101 california street location the reasons for stated in the finding which were determined based on the directors review of the information presented at the time of hearing and the intent of city ordinance which provides the city with the authority to exercise care and addressing the location from the

3 facilities and determined if the area is underserved and less congested we want to reiterate a few statement from the public works brief those areas are high pedestrian level from tourism and mass impartial and the legislation attempts to preserve as quoted attempt to preserve the safe pedestrians and protect loading and unloading in a way that allows regular use of this limited resources and provide for less vehicle flow so there are 8 general meter parking spaces available on the block by the california street parking is prohibited during the community hours for bus load openly on the south side between 7:00 a.m. and 10 and 3:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. and should be noted the appellant note on the brief that the food trucks will

be operating from 10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. and noted aon the application from 11 to 2:00 p.m. there are 40 eating establishment of the location the proposal for this location has been determined by the department to be in conflict with the legislation tint and based on the information it will be denied the location on 101 california street for the permit thank you i'm available to answer any questions. >> mr. cohen refresher my memory on the legislation do you have an application for 4 trucks considered one permit. >> we can permit 4 trucks under one permit. >> what happens then if each

of the trucks is a different owner. >> we will have to get the all the requirement for the truck to be submitted to us and then we will upload that to the permit so the permit has the information for all the trucks for the fire and dmv. >> can those trucks rotate with other trucks. >> as long as they are listed as having valid health and fire and dmv. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, then move to rebuttal starting with the appellant 3 minutes. >> i want to take up on a comment you made and if you want to use your time for the

presentation. >> so - we are going to rotate the food trucks in the area i didn't say this by likely operate with 3 instead of 4 by the think that the area will print better rotate them the other thing i wanted to say that the dpw cited the language from the legislative tint bans the care and consider the public safety in the evaluation we cited the same paragraph but the restrictions include in the legislation are not intended to address the public concerns this is at the end of the same paragraph that dpw cited to typically the legislation

interpretation the last sentence modified the whole paragraph i'll using that from the director is using their independent judgment over and above should be limited it is clear the legislation intended for the code to be interpreted in its own four corners. >> and then the last thing i'll say the dpw brought up the time and consistency with the brief we're committed to fulfilling the requirement in the application as mentioned. >> that's all i have. >> thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you my further from the department?

>> so there are two separate sections that sentence at the end of section d and i'm not sure if you're interpreting that to be applied to the entire section one or just section d but since this is interpreted then that the intent of the code is to provide the food facilities in underserved areas as stated in section c and also in section c to preserve the pedestrian movement and they that's all in section c the prevention has criteria for specific locations

technical and then i believe the director has the ability to review the concerns he safety and other thanks things not to be and the by the technical aspects in the code. >> i think earlier in our oral presentation you mentioned a synopsis of the food truck there were traffic issues. >> yeah. >> you brought that up, i believe. >> it was at the inn the brief stated that having the wall of food trucks has the potential to obscure the view of traffic signs on the sidewalk but also, because cable car

that's our in our brief. >> thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> beauty in age before (laughter). >> i'm get older by the minute. >> i separated it together tonight so we don't fight as children who wants to start first. >> go ahead. >> you know the question is whether the department erred in its finding and . >> over review. >> i have to add something discussion as to where their disagreements are so and i guess without budget committee laboring this question i will say that you know the

directors looking at a variety of things beyond some thought that are more qualitative beyond the issues in the application and the code i at this time will support of department ♪ issue and deny the appeal. >> i'm going the same way the issue of that's. >> tough block for traffic california street is a traffic street for traffic because of cable car it happens to be that that second block backs up because of cable car ending at the following block so thirdly, because a southern turn a rouig

turn that turns into a bottleneck night time during the business day and the combination of a wall of food trucks and cable cars and the issue of traffic i find the department was absolutely correct in its findings. >> i concur. >> care to make a motion. >> i move to deny the appeal on the basis that the - departments finding are correct. >> okay. so the motion from the vice president is to deny the appeal uphold the public's determinations to grant the deny in part of the permit application on the basis from the san francisco public works findings were correct

on that motion commissioner president honda and commissioner swig. >> that motion to deny the appeal is upheld. >> item no. 7 has been rescheduled to next week february 22nd we'll call item 8 appeal geary darling pp versus the department of building inspection at 501 geary street. planning department disapproval on geary street for the disproval of a building permit to install on an electrical projection sign. >> good evening and welcome. >> hi, thank you in my mind a steve .

>> we should be free and beyond the argument looking at the sign it's the ownership the management changed the sign and it is in error and didn't fit with the district we propose to keep the sign visibly identical and change it is to the market hotel the m is the same and the number of number is identical to be the same size and 5 of the letters are different so one of them and with that, i'd like to move on to an argument of one of the

other parts of brief the planning department stated that on october 26th the department issues a notice of violation which found the project to be in violation and opposing the penalty of 200 and $50 a day not appealed within 15 years and the determination is final at that point we are told that had accrued 22 thousand plus dollars in penalty we were not aware of financial penalties until we got the brief on the 9 and in addition, we thought we'd see the number of days i i'd like to read an e-mail from the department she says and this is on october 19th apologizes for not getting back it is tricky to get the template for the letter

of denial the permit needs to be officially denied before we foil an appeal i have to file before i take off for the weekend and confirm and issuing a denial for the permit alternate this is - please keep in mind that will initiate the notice of violation pr so the dates on which they officially filed that denial was november 2. >> from the intent of the penalty is that you know the owner should have two weeks after the documents are filed we've had multiple correspondence to try to do that you know the phone calls to make sure we are in compliance and she thought we were not missing dates and were not notified four

for to be penalty lazed. >> they look like the same sign do you replace it are the old sign repained. >> let me show you what the - this is the one that went up that was denied you can see that is black with letters we were no involved at this time i believe the management the hotel asked anyone someone to do this not knowing the requirement as soon as we got involved. >> i'm sorry is that the same sign or a completely new sign. >> exactly. >> that was the question so it is the same sign you changed the

lettering and painted that black okay. thank you. >> the planning brief says there are a significant amount of time no answers or correspondence or other things considered i'm assuming this is before you got involved. >> the one involving the fees and the penalties we were involved at this time and we went back and forth with the planning department to make sure that many times we're not voigt. >> my question during that period of time when no respond from the hotel their will management is there a reason why not. >> if it went period was before the notice of violation i'm clear i think they're not sure how to move forward what the the notice of violation was done we were got involved to

foil an appeal. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay mr. sanchez. >> yeah. i'm ready to hear this one. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so the the subject property at is needed within a 3 c g current market conservatism upper market and historic district and built in 1907 as a hotel noted as significant building in the km s conservation subject to article 11 of the planning code further a contributor of the tenderloin historic district and listed from the register of historic places in 2009 the appellant submitted this building permit on august 10th of 2015 to change the lettering of the name of the hotel at a

time within thirty days the planning department sent a requirement that is attached to the end of the brief noting the requirement necessary to bring the signage up to compliance for our permitting requirements given the building is in a an article 11 it is subject to the historic preservation commission review through a permit to alter they did initially filed that to alter about that permit was not issued i apologize didn't exclude if in the brief i only have a few short days because the appellant submitted late it is important to allow the signage has not been issued at this point. >> at the time they submitted the permit it appears around that time at least there was a vinyl over the sign with the new business name on that

we didn't hear anything back from the permit holder the appellant until early march of last year when they thought to withdraw the permit and when we did receive the e-mail from the department of building inspection our staff found the sign under the permit didn't comply that the requirement had been installed we opened up an enforcement case and began that process what date. >> that was - was march 18 we opened the enforcement after we received their cancelation for the work they've done and issued the notice and went through the process in august they first sought to withdraw the permit in august and then staff described the process moving forward they

did that we need to pursue the enforcement further they redated the permit given thaifr they've permitted the work is in violation of if i didn't have a permit in hand and given gowns we didn't seek the enforcement process they smamentd a revision but no signage to comply as outlined and substantially issued a notice of violation on november 6, 2016, it owls the appeal processes and the fact they especially\respond and he'd the violation one - we

substantially denied the permit and it was you know - for the reasons outlined in the brief didn't comply with the planning department their subject to planning code requirement first they need to have the permit for the sign did signing permit it is required for the change of the hotel name the requirement of planning code 604 that any such sign comply with the signages or signage they choose to ignore that and put up the sign no way the appellant acknowledges that it didn't comply that the requirement and don't say why it is allowed for the violation of our requirement but i believe it is clear under the code the historic preservation commission shall disapprove under the

article 11 applications if they don't comply with our requirement we gave them clear handout that gives examples how to do the as i understand right and upon receiving the requirement they didn't contact the department they went ahead and did the work we believe that now they should have the permit denied and reapply and submit a sign that complies with the requirement and get it from the historic preservation commission and move forward with that and that's all i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> go for it. >> that's what i was confused what the point the point to take down the as i understand completely or is it to just

rollback the - the mistake the modifications and that have been made and put up a sign that is appropriate and was there before. >> the sign that was there before didn't comply with the current laws so you know it says - they need to work with staff to what extent they can savage the elements or have a similar type of sign but as it is now as it was not complying with the laws today, the change of the hotel amazement to a new hotel triggers the compliance with the entire outlet of the copy requires compliance with the whole planning code. >> it requires not having the blade sign this is where i'm - i want to know the end game.

>> you know this is the process they'll need to work with preservation and address the issued that were raised with the planning code requirement relate to - first completing the alter process concerns about the depth of the sign and reducing the depth of the sign as it existed previously also illustration of the sign not appropriate as well and the fbi materials there maybe a pocket for a blade or other similar as i understand but they didn't work and move forward working with the staff to find out what the suitable design will be. >> so close to this. >> so the monica sign that was

there for a decade or more. >> two. >> why was there i mean that was there that was functioning and seemingly someone approved it or else filed way back there then. >> it was approved before the current requirement so it now they're seeking to change the copy they can't change the copy on the sign that didn't conform. >> monday morning quarterbacking the falcons shouldn't have lost but they shouldn't be ♪ position but they are

had they responded to - what should they have done to not get us where we are today >> they should have responded to the staff and worked with them to develop the signage that was appropriate for the historic building in a conservatism building. >> and if they were have con that in a forthright position they especially\respond they didn't do a lot of stuff how much modifications to the sign that was there would that have been described by the appellant that you know the name would have changed to see the yellow background and life would have gone on. >> given the department of sign would have been roving the

sign box and having new signage that is something we're happy to work with them in our presently staff to direct them on the signage that is appropriate and we we have outlined the concerns in the notice of planning code requirement and unfortunately, i was going to center preservation staff i thought that meeting would be happening later and didn't want them to wait we can come back with the preservation staff give you more implicit details the fact remains the sign was installed without a permit and the violation is continuing. >> if we were to deny the appeal then what will happen is that the appellant would file for appropriately for a new permit having a discussions with

planning in the complexities and with the historic preservation commission to develop and sign that is appropriate to the site according to the current. >> i mean, they'll complete the process they stated when they first submitted the permit and i wanted to find out. >> except for other localities of the signage they don't conform to urban design group location of it can and which are difficult to sewer mount in terms of dealing with staff. >> i think that staff what work with that signage that will arch let me just - >> the sign requirement has to be and base i agree with the

sign of 2 two years is probably not historical in any sense the original one that was difficult pieces if they wanted to change the - if it was there they wanted to change the name they'll have to go through the same process and not necessarily get approved; right? because high on - >> exactly. >> that was raised in the appellants brief and if there are you know where a sign - maybe in this case that was not orange o original for the building but may have kept to the day may historic i sits so administrations could have been made but not before us they're arguing the sign that is there the 90s is now historically

significant. >> that's more than - >> i'm up. >> so 1995 this is the fully permitted sign and it removed the sign they changed the copy inside they especially\change the ownership of the permit holder or representatives it is the same ownership they only changed the name so how does that work you have a fully code compliant and you will have to spend $200,000 for new signage. >> the information that will the same owner is new that was not in the appellants brief i can't verify that. >> did that make a difference. >> we could look at that but

given the lack of trust how they preceded i don't know if this is the case not necessarily building offhand that is the case that will be new information. >> i mean as a small business owner in san francisco for a long time and the city is chasing small business owners i see from the signage was illegally put up this is a legal sign not left the building. >> it is non-conforming and having personal dealings with enforcement as well as historic review i find there is sometimes a very gray area where there is not specific things required and so it goes to the the person from enforcement or from review to give their personal thought there is not any specific code go out 4 inches or 8 inches.

>> i understand that concern how have i will note they submitted the application we said implicit we this is not complying with the requirements they especially\comply or try to develop a signage that was in compliance they implored what the city without the permit. >> that's where we are with this i think this is the difference how we had those issues come up before and yeah completely without permit. >> and then i understand that and the other thing so right the representative for the permit holder saying $2,400 have accrued is that appealable. >> they didn't appeal that.

>> that's like my return at best buy last week. >> i have too much information in any brain i'm not in the hotel business it is - i'm not sure we're getting the right information from the appellant. >> i understand. >> yeah. >> and i would rather we're missing a couple of things we're missing the historic preservation commission being here i will invite the appellant to get his facts straighter on the the ownership of the building it is public information i can't remember but my recognition that building was sold and the representative from the appellants is marketplaces the truth kind of by the way, at the time the building was sold and

this is public information and i want clarification is that the organization to owns the monocould and the rights to that brand was removed from that property as part of deal and changed names to another name so not what the appellant is representing here which is that the ownership didn't change my recognition the ownership changed i kind of like too many missing things i kind of like we'll talk about that later but look to a continuance because i think that might be the fault of the department and the commission and the appellant to revisit the facts as you okay.

>> but we're not there yet. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> okay any public comment on this item? seeing none, then take rebuttal from the appellant. >> an attempt to explain a few things i'm game for the planning department the new sign they say they'll work with use it sound it's close to the sign but under the regulations will be about this big. >> so it is not like they're letting us resurface it and put a new face a entirely different sign it is very much reduced in prices and mentioned the alter was not completed one of the reasons is because in order to file an appeal the building department permit has to think

denied so the permit alter to attached to the artist we decided to file an appeal we had to tell them to stop this and deny the permit from the building permit denied then the appeal is denied that's the reason we didn't want to go through the stoppage to the appeal and then as mentioned they were willing to provide the opportunity to match the 1964 sign we're happy to deal with that, of course, that will be much more in violation of the current standards, however, we're willing to look at the one that is indicative of that sign and the question of management i agree the management changes the ownership it is exactly the same they been all the way through i'm not sure what issues why

they changed over however, they changed management and to me it's like some of the people inside have changed you know the entirety of made service for union arrest non-union they helped to run the hotel but don't own the hotel. >> i know better than you. >> we'll get a clarification on a later date. >> i'm happy to have anyone look at the files for ownership. >> thank you, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. just in in regards to that last point not the ownership but the the embassy and and equity the appellant want us to not

building that is returned that a permit was required and that's why it is not approved in regards to the permit alter that is important in order for the permit to be approved it will have to be precede the alter and there is due process that's not happened here that would be a serious concern moving forward if there is something other than an approval they'll have to get if before this permit is issued as is happy to have the preservation staff talk about this they understand what the limits are but don't want to follow them we can have the preservation staff to answer when the appropriate signage if you like but given upholding the

denial of this permit put it through it's due process and have the alter and permit reviewed and the permit are generally handled administratively if they comply with the code we have not gotten that far they've not given us something to approve at the staff level. >> i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have one. >> i have one, too. >> so do you have an idea what was approvable can you do that to respond to the overhead. >> one the signage projecting above it so as illustrated on there would generally be the highest point we'll want to see the signage there but you know i don't know you know further

destruction discussions - can you give me ideas. >> article of a question of preservation staff it is in context with the difference and have the guidance as i see you'd like like. >> i've been here only 40 years but seen lots of pictures of huntington and all the wonderful building that had those blade signs along the spine of the protruding front or on the front of the property so, i mean this is just you know residents opinion if you're going to historic why would you historically design the 1964

sign much more prevalent than a 4 foot sign similar to the drawing that was illustrated by the - >> i would disagree that historical in terms of the codes the size of sign is not as large certainly there were large signs but smaller as i understand in terms of the - it is a characteristic in terms of the blade signs they're not called out as a characteristic of the km s historical district not a feature as prevalent if it was the original there are - yes ,there are some but the. >> business owners. >> if was original to the building and maybe going back to the 64 sign i don't know maybe ask staff about that that sign obviously was original we don't know how it relates to the

period of the significance to the building but have that conversation with the staff and could be supportive but generally have buildings originally constructed no blade signs whistle blower original in the 64 picture was e vehicle code not exactly when it was removed but you know certainly that was removed prior to the mid 90s when the subsequent blade sign - >> as far as the historic preservation commission is anything a product of 1950 and earlier considered potentially historic. >> potentially but been removed so there's not a lot of information available about that time it is can be looked at but to the best of my knowledge ask the department to look at it i can't give you an answer for the

historical sign that's a new question but something that could go looked into. >> okay. >> next. >> so i came into this hearing had read the brief with the president point of view which we rei think stilled in me and that is my family was ♪ business for years i'll telling that irving and taylor street and mason street had blade signs unfortunately, i'm old enough in the 50s and 50's that was the historic charm of that area of san francisco and, yes they probably were taken down because either fell do you think they were rotting from rust and someone didn't

want to put them up but historically that was true what commissioner president honda said an historical respect that was the building sign and the belview sign stayed up because that was a blighted hotel pure and simple i'll support of argument of the president a very i appreciate the appellants piece of information he reminded me of and go to in my dissertation not, in fact, the hotels the ownership has moved did buy that hotel several years ago owned it as the monocould and as strategy business decision but not necessary ♪ public place of the call the next item. >> ton group were - still it

retains the same ownership so again, i'm come in with the same argument i thought that would come in with in the first place the ownership has not changed but someone on their staff the asset manager or the general manager blew that and it was did an ill-advised thing we can - they did, in fact, they acted inappropriately and didn't follow-up with the things you've stated here we are this is where i don't know why; right to go with this i believe the sign should be sustained in what it was before instead of a maker for because it is the same

ownership and the same equity i believe they were inappropriate and ill-advised e in their acts there should be a penalty and i think that it would be inappropriate to penalize the owner that bought the asset with a sign and sustained that sign and just simply went through a rebranding and reidentity not a change of the equity not penalize as far as tearing down that sign i don't know where we are with that but challenge you on the entity. >> thank you thanks our commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> you want to repeat that again, i'm kidding. >> the historical nature the sign is valid for all the points

you've raised commissioner president honda the entity has not changed simple the management acted in an ill-advised fashion and then when making a simple change of an existing sign as a challenge of brand that would be you know chained the name of the restaurant from the grand cafe to something else and the management didn't change ownership didn't change. >> initially that's the issue i have here but we got a permit they didn't follow the rolls. >> right didn't follow the rules. >> but to - i generally am supportive of departments that come before us all of them but as being a long, long term san franciscan i sometimes have an issue with what is historical what is not historical and the appreciative of which who is

enforcing it and how that is enforced i think in this particular case they didn't take down the sign you change the name your subject to tear down a sign up there for 20 years i agree with the department that the permit holder was not forget coming and not responsive to the departments needs but having been in the same situation and dealt with enforcement and historic preservation it is a very confusing and muddy water it is the water is gray so i'm going to leave with my fellow commissioners but feel there should be i don't know about leniency but the sign has been there 20 years and a permanent

sign when it was there if i drive my car and decide to paint the color do you have a comply to the new registration. >> i don't think how i go with that so maybe the wisdom on the commission will help us clarify. >> i'm going to defer to 9 opinion. >> i know. >> it is a fine line in terms of how to deal with the preservation thinking and staff at the department it is not an easy process but the question here is not so much whether i feel that the replacement of a piece of plastic or whatever the material and the letter is too important

as the fact that because of the process was not followed in fact, was disregard i'm prepared to not have them do the due process do you understand what i'm saying. >> uh-huh. >> they need to file for an alteration permit and see if they get turned down at both end can come back here and i understand the angst that the department feels but definitely in terms of what occurred prethe empathy and coming on board. >> would you like to make a

motion. >> no. >> so - >> i just - i maybe the one sliding back and forth between two sides so if you're opinion that had they followed the rules appropriately that some leniency to sustaining that sign would have been appropriate but really by not following the rules, in fact, doing what they did that they lost the prestige of that lessoncy. >> that's my position. >> unfortunately i'll argue with you although i like the protect the rights of an owner of a sign. >> no matter we need 4 votes

to overturn that should be continued. >> oh, two, that - okay. >> 3 to deny 3 to deny or by default if there are 2 that want to deny we'll not necessarily have to continue. >> it is up to you guys. >> i'll move then i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis of due process. >> okay. so the motion from the department is to deny the appeal hold the department on the basis the permit applicant didn't follow the process that on that motion commissioner president honda

nay. >> and commissioner swig can you give me a clarification on the impact of my vote. >> if you vote in support of this motion then it will fail and then if no further months ago are made the permit will be the denial of permit will be sustained. >> if you vote against the moths it will also fail and there could be in either event a second motion that would be entertained to whether or not to continue it. >> it didn't matter how i vote that will fail anyway. >> no, but for preservation to give the response of what they'll do and why they'll do that. >> they're not going to do

that. >> we can request that. >> they'll not give you an opinion if 36 they have not done the work. >> details. >> i'm on the quandary from the appeal is denied if i go nay it is the appeal is denied. >> in either event a motion by any of you to continue you, you. >> if you say yes that is done. >> i'll go no okay. >> so that motion fails. >> i'll make a motion to continue it it so a full board can hear it and like the department to explain further so

i can understand what would be allowed there. >> so you file for a continuance. >> okay. >> could i respectfully add something to your continuance that subject to a continuance that representations e representation from the historic preservation be - i didn't hear you say historic preservation commission as well. >> can we get clarification that both representation from. >> and historic preservation commission be present at the hearing should there be a continuance. >> okay. do you have a date. >> can you cosign my bill. >> why not take the vote. >> a motion to continue it to allow the full board to hear the

matter and have the department historic preservation commission come to the board to explain what sign is allowed commissioner vice president fung. >> no and commissioner swig. >> yes. >> that motion fails no further motion that will be denied by default. >> here we go. >> okay. >> so we'll move on to items 9 ab have been withdrawn not heard and moves to item 10 which is the boards discussion and possible adoption for the fiscal year budget 2016-20172018-2019 and i appreciate our entertaining this this evening we have to provide proposals on the budget to the mayor's office by the twitter of february next

week and recognize some of the pages of the handout that we've been given on this because our budget didn't change very much some of the pages look similar to year and the overview of the revenue budget and shows you the breakdown our surcharges are the 95 percent of revenue 5 percent from filing fees that has not changed on the next page gives us an overview of the expenditure looking at the various ways we spend the money the large is number is on the salary and benefits and spend 20 percent on the services of on the department including the city attorney and sfgovtv filming this meanwhile e meeting and it from the department of

technology we spend 7 percent on services of other companies outside the cities with materials for our neighborhood notifications requirements interpreters for packet and the rest are infrastructure are represents and phones and supplies on page 5 as you can see the projections for appeal volume this year and as you can see we're looking at appeal volume below what we've experienced maybe at that time one and 44 appeals for the year if set the existing strengthened continues for the rest of year we had 99 appeals filed to date last year at this time one and 23 appeals by this date but recalling the cluster of appeals that pumped up the numbers last year. >> would those are just for my

recognition for the telecom and also the - >> the sign permit the denial of the sign permit 35 of those you remember that. >> yes. >> and also the academy of art was 17 or. >> 22. >> 22. >> those companion priced 29 percent of the appeals last year. >> and you know other things. >> - >> they gcenter stuff and appeals that come to us different businesses trend in 2014 a big fight because of the at at was really to to roll out the services and putting boxes on the sidewalks and 33 related to that. >> they're covered with graffiti they don't clean up i love that.

>> in fiscal year 2017, 11 site appeals and this year none yet what is happening in the city. >> what leads to what comes to us if you move on to the next page 6 this is giving you information about the budget in the current year that is important to give you an update before the proposals in terms of of revenues we are looking at a sewer mrs. in sewer mrs. revenues approximately $510,000 again based on the number of permit application that are made citywide and a projection but hard to know exactly we're thinking we're going to be in the black and filing revenue is down 3200 because of the volume and this is a small portion of the budget didn't have agree significant impact on us we would end the year with surplus revenue of $48,000 with the

projections on the expenditure side we're expecting a expenditure saving of $52,000 that is primarily seen in savings on the serves of other departments work order because the city attorney hours are lower than budgeted so because of meeting have been shorter than budgeted we have a saving in sfgovtv costs and the volume being lower we have savings in some of the attended cost of neighborhoods notification materials and things like that one other things not in the chart that came to my attention that is, we have salary savings this year as well i learned one of the clerks has been given the opportunity for a promotion so we'll be having a transition there in the

way the city structures job changes we'll have a vacancy so laboratory more savings there you might notice in the chart under the salary a deficit we've had problems in the past four or five years one fwrij or fringe line item is under fixed so looking at the current year look at the pronged surplus in revenue and the proerjd expenditures we expect to end the year with one and $10,000 on hand. >> and as in the past that money will going got rainy-day fund to be used in the future. >> again, the city has our rainy-day fund. >> that's a good question

turning to the budget proposals for the next two-year budget the rates for the surcharges are generated to cover the operating expenses those can be adjusted up to the rate of cpi if we need to go beyond cpi we can go to the board with legislation to request an adjustment of the rates we can go to the board if we need to change the budget types of surcharged we not levying the surcharge this year i don't expect a rate increase on the surcharge there be a slight increase in the expenditure the controller's office will like us to use some of the rainy-day funds to cover and offset short increases for the surcharges that fund has 90 percent of our

budget in that so for almost nine hundred thousand i think that makes sense for us to use some of that instead of going to the public and asking them to pay more for the permit it gave us a chance to help with that. >> as far as filing fees i'm not suggesting a change to those rates again given the small portion of the budget it is xhoemsdz of an page 10 increased in both years 6.3 it in the first year and 2.8 in the second that reflects the changes if salary and part of it to address the fringe benefits storage but some because of cost of salaries and infringes up they were labor

negotiations are happening the city employees that work in the unions effected in our department are voting now on to whether or not to ratify the labor contracts so those numbers are in flux the mayor when presented those numbers some increase but the final numbers come later when we know with the contracts look like on page 10 a little bit of a reduction in the departments one of the things we've been paying for our share of the city costs to renovate, upgrade the financial system we use that is becoming finalize that is come coming to completion then one other thing i don't have reflected on that chart but wanted to raise with you the possibility that we might go out of city to contract for the

upgrade of the database we have in the office to use to take in new appeals and generate the documents and report on the appeals in our annual report in our performance measures we have a database in place now it needs enhancement and that should be outside the city and looking at those costs might be and who is available to provide the services we go out to rfp those numbers are not reflected and bring back that information before i'll go forward with any kind of contract. >> so we don't have database requirement and they do. >> the city didn't use one vendor. >> no something called the tech store the city vets the contractor for this type of work

but got process or figuring out those and they've entered into salesforce but other cities evaluated on the needs of our department. >> when you stayed the volume. >> (laughter). >> right. >> so that's when you say database what's the database. >> what is the database. >> what's in the database of. >> appeals it is each appeal that is filed a person new appeal number. >> simply the file. >> a process how we take and gather appeals to dispense them all the materials we have so - >> it generates designed to generate the documents we need more the appeals some of the ones in the packet and other ones. >> so the full process in

software including all sorts of stuff. >> yes. >> it is more than - it is more. >> like a repository. >> for documentation documentation and . >> property management. >> our system is prearchaic it was on a platform it is no longer need it needs to be enhanced and needs enhancement yeah. >> okay. so my recommendations basic is to increase the surcharge revenue as needed to cover the operating expenses to reflect the enforced allocation of the fund to help to avoids the surcharges and the rates of surcharges and to work withhe