[inaudible] 1070? >> from 700, that is right. >> [inaudible] >> april 3 or maybe 1 april actually. >> they are due april 1. he was there you go. [cross-talking / off mic] >> if you've done one like a newish, commissioners may not have to do it again. may have to call [inaudible] they are due. >> another note, if you don't get them in on time they will start the be monetary fines. the adamant about that. going online but the really keeping track of late filers. >> thank you. number comments from commissioners if there's no one in the public of the common is quoted we will go ahead and adjourned the night and adjourn this meeting. thank you.

>>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> b was >> wednesday, march 20, 2000 710 will begin shortly. >>

>>[gavel] >> good evening and welcome to march 29 4017 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. presiding officer tonight is board president darrell honda and he joined by vp frank fong commissioner rick swig we do expect bobby wilson to be here sure. and lazarus will be your absent. to my left is deputy city attorney and it'll provide any needed legal advise advice 10. i'm cynthia goldstein executive director. we wildly joined by representatives that have before before the evening good we expect scott to be here is the city zoning a missed read or and also be representing the planning department and planning commission. the senior building inspector joseph duffy will be here representing the apartment building inspection. will also be joined by rebecca-deputy director cultural fairs representing the arts commission and the board request that you turn off or sought silence all but on devices that so they will not disturb the proceedings and that you carry on conversations and the holy. the board's three rules of presentation are as follows. everyone is given 7 min. to present their case of 3

min. for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include the comments within the seven or 3 min. permeates. number the public not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 min. each to address the board and no rebuttal. please, speak into the microphone to to assist the board in the accurate hesitation minutes you're asked to not required to submit a speaker card. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions we've customer service action survey forms on the podium as well for your convenience. if you questions bout requesting a hearing the boards rules or schedule please, speak to board staff or after the meeting. or come and visit us at the board's office. we are located at 1650 mission st. in room 304 and that's between du bois st. and south van ness this meeting is broadcast live sfgov tv cable channel 70 and

rebroadcast at friday 4 pm on channel 26. dvds of the meeting are available from purchase from sfgov tv. now we will swear in a firm those all tend to testify could be please, note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the right under the sunshine ordinance and if you wish to the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please, stand if you're able and say i do accurate stand or sworn in. please, stan. >>[oath repeated] >> thank you. president, the measures we one housekeeping items i get this is item number six appeal number 17-021. regarding a site permit at 2330 and 23 4919 data that matter has been withdrawn and will not be heard. if there's some question about that item this is item number six on our calendar. it has been withdrawn.

that means the board i think there's no matter before the board to be decided. the appeal has been withdrawn. having to do with the case on 19th ave. [inaudible/off mic]. >> unfortunately, evidently the permit holder as was the person that filed the appeal have settled their grievances. now we will of public commons and a second cu mike just for the record state the reason why you are here under that public comment since it's no longer being her before this board this evening >> the board doesn't 02 postcards people interested in these cases and guessed that if you want further notification of matters to let us know so we can notify you of any changes. my understanding those letters to go out but perhaps they did

not get to you yet unfortunately because we just received the withdrawal late yesterday. so our apologies for that. if you need to address the board we would ask that you -if you could maybe ask mr. cantero your question is are we until public comment if you want to tell something to the full board. okay? actually our next item is item number one, which is general public comments. this is for people that speak to any thing within the board subject matter jurisdiction that's not on tonight's calendar. if there is anyone here would like to address the board now is the time to step forward >> if you like to speak and address the board under public comment you make it just step up to the podium. >> good evening. thank you for letting me speak.

unfortunately, we all came for that particular reason and all of a sudden it's not on the calendar. that is very sad because we have been waiting for a wild to do this and every time that we tried to talk to the right people, something happens that we are not allowed. i think that is part of the respect that with there is no respect for the community neighbors, interested in this case. the other matter is the security that unfortunately they lack and i'm not sure if i'm allowed to show a picture >> yes, you may put it on the overhead and have it orientated like you're looking at it. >> this is what i'm speaking about. the security, the lack of security. this is the lock that they put on the gates so

that nobody could come in and go into the site of construction. it is just a wire that's been twisted and we had rainstorms and direct neighbors had 18 holes into their garden and homes. the next door to this side, they were not told that their wall was coming down and so what was left of their wall was just hanging in the wind. never told that they should come and that was what was going to happen. so they were very upset and sad because everybody prizes their security, home security. this was not given to them at all. the other thing is, the fact that every time we have had any notice way beyond the time that we can do anything, it is late in coming. and, they seem to get larger and larger and changes and change and we go,

where is the board or the planning board that is helping the community? same, no, your plan was this. this is what it should be. you cannot be changing every year and this has been happening for over 7-10 years. i don't know how long. we don't hear about the changes until it is too late. we cannot do anything. most of the homes in fact on 19th ave. are first and second floor. they want to go to the fourth, fifth level. why? we don't know. they want to go way back into the yards. we 01 some sunshine. we all want some shadow and we will have more shadows because these are much larger than all the homes. the last one is, the security of the wall between 18th and 19th avenue. that boundary is over 100 years old.

>> thank you. sorry, your time is up now. >> jody had told me how secure that while is. >> thank you. >> state your name for the record, mame? >> lizzie jeremy. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is richard jeremy son of lizzie. i currently reside in the home directly behind the project at 2351 18th ave. i have three main concerns. and they're similar to what my mom lizzie has address. one is the safety issue. he came in with no notice closed the place down and lifted unsecured and we have had a wave of burglaries and home invasions in my neighborhood. sure you're all aware of what's going on to parkside community. and with

very little-the second part is the communication. there's been zero to very little communication and as she also mentioned the moly find out about hearings or when it's our chance to voice our concerns about this project, it's often too late and we are not able to do that. my third item i want to also bring up your is the scope of the project. it seems that, believe in 2007 or, 2008, the property one from a commercial two and r-two. they had approved some plans but it didn't go to the community. we were not allowed to voice our concerns about the project. then the plans changed once, once, three, i think this is about the ninth revision of these plans. this is one of the first opportunities we've had a chance to speak to you and address our concerns. so i looked at the code for our-two genome hearing that are-three and now i really don't know what is going on with this project. i'm very concerned

because i raise three daughters at the property and to have the security now compromised with just a very light gauge with a bungee cord holding it together, it's allowing access. right now, she showed an old picture but right now, the entire wall is covered in graffiti so it's blighted as well. the whole entire while there's no room. in fact they ran out of room to write graffiti on our. they moved to the neighbors while civil now the neighbors wall has quite a bit of graffiti on it. again my concerns are the security. my concerns are the communication and my concern is also the scope of the project not research the r-two loving code and the specs and it seems to me this project is grossly out of proportion to what the building code allows for. again my name is richard jeremy. thank you for your time.

>> thank you. >> both of you you want to call me in the morning i'll be happy to speak to you about ways you can get some other concerns addressed to other city departments. [inaudible/off mic] >> just as a side note we have someone representative from the planning department actually hear you can never chat with. >> any other general public comment? >> hello. my name is frank-i'm also residing right next to the project that rachel was talking about. we are concerned about security and we are concerned about the parking situation that is going to impact the neighborhood area and, yes also, the communication between the construction company in costs because we want to know

if they are all these bulldozers or big trucks coming in and what is their construction schedule. all that. it's good to impact us. definitely, the security. thank you. >> are you finished, sir. i have a question it were you given notification regarding this property? >> we were given some of the notification. but by the time that we could respond it's either like with strong or when we show up or we just don't have enough time. in one week, please complain or by the time we receive these revocations, be period for receiving comments on to the website or public hearings is already past. >> as in the prior speaker, my director will probably give you her card and again the

representative from the planning department is at the front they could probably have a word with him as well. thank you very much. >> any other general public comment under item 1? seeing none, we will move to item to which is commissioner, 10 questions. anything commissioners? >> i was going to embarrass my daughter but she left already so i guess that's out of the question. >> item 3 is the board's consideration of the minutes of march 22, 2017. >> any changes, deletions deletions or additions? if not a motion? >> i moved to adopt >> thank you is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, gave a motion for the vice president to adopt the minutes. honda aye wilson aye swig aye. that motion carries without vote 04-0. we will then

move to item number four which is appeal number 17-012. appealing the denial on july 24 2017 of the st. artist certificate and we will start with the appellants. you have 7 min. >> good evening and welcome again. >> thank you so much. that really helps. it really does. this is a long time that says this is been going on. i want to start out by saying that less than 1% of pro se litigants beat a state in california state of appeal. i did and was against barbara-i think i just part of it in my brief to you and i would think that would've been a wake-up call to the arts commission to stop allegations of stalking, harassment, hearsay and verbal abuse. since the san francisco city attorney's office never

investigated the-affidavit, my estimate is that it costs the taxpayers of san francisco over $30,000. the city attorney's office never bothered to notify sclera. i noticed this because i went to a full commission meeting in this room. her the outcome and the [inaudible] is still not on file with the war memorial management. the issue or why i'm here today is that i was never asked by the arts commission for a home address. i sent-they've done this many times before. i send applications and they just kind of dye in it take somebody from the outside to kind of revival is. in the past, it was kathy barnes city attorney. in this case, it was cynthia goldstein. when she contacted rebecca

--after a year and three applications, the response came back that i do not provide a home address. why did they just asked me? i sent e-mails. i never got one response for them they did the same thing in 2010 and 2012, and by day, i'm talking about [inaudible] since i think he's responsible for this. he refused to accept new street artist applications after the passage of proposition j that's documented. william clark a longtime street artist had to go into federal court over street artist denial in 2005. so i kind of wondered who wrote the response from the arts

commission, because they're confusing a few things. there's an application process and then there's a permitting process. so it's pretty clear to me that it was someone in the city attorney's office who wrote it and there are grossly misinformed. in april 4, 2016 howard lazard show me on market and spear street. i filed a police report. and notified via e-mail margaret baumgartner. never once got a response. may 16, back of the ferry building i was waiting to take a ferry. another police report and a long-winded false account >> are you hoping right now, there's nothing on the overhead you are you addressing-there we go. >> he went on to a long-winded tirade falsifying information to the was no security there. i did not do anything to him. if he had been so fearful of his

life he the would've in a police report. instead i filed a police report and contacted margaret baumgartner. so at november 22 public meeting, howard lazard public documents on the floor. he would not allow me to audiotape and refused to allow me public comments. why is this going on? i don't know. he also has a propensity to talk employees there and make up information. why would somebody-i do know by the name of and tricky, works part-time 30 hours a week in a new hire with no experience or training as a market manager say the things that she is said to me? for example, at the last hearing here that i one retired city attorney paula jessen got me an appointment to

go pay for this permit. and tricky open the door about like this. grab something i had in my hand and slammed it. i was called into the hallway by rebecca krill, who asked if i said something to her. at a july street artist meeting and tricky payment before the start of the meeting and set them up all, why don't you behave good you are going to jail to people don't behave like this at of nowhere unless their minds have been filled by somebody else. march 1, 2005, and tricky not over patterson-peterson of the ethics commission in the hallway of 25 van ness ave. she shouted to the guard to call 911 . and tricky thing get that comes about restraining order that did not exist. the building management went to talk to and tricky. october 16, went to an executive committee meeting and the public meeting of the arts commission. in the hallway, and tricky called security claims that i violated a restraining order to phil gramm the building management

and sfpd were there. she did not have any paperwork in her hands. i supplied it and it clearly says that i could attend a public meeting. so once again, she was reprimanded by building management. i did contact deanna rosenstein, city attorney who said quote i we went to get [inaudible] i don't care what you do with it. on december 14, i waited in a office for over 20 min. because i wanted to answer questions but i don't go there very much because i know that it's a trap. it's a web. [inaudible] it's a waste of time. but if they don't respond to calls or e-mails, well then you've got to do something she was ranting for 20 min. about the catawba when she saw was there she screens, what are you doing it. i walked out. it was just bizarre. similar in the permits office when she dropped off those fonts on march 23. looking at the-o god,

>> 32nd >> okay, to address the allegations that have no merit, fake addresses, they did not provide any evidence of it. i don't recognize those addresses good fake names. no, not true. i'm quoting from a civil grand jury report of 2012 that documents the arts commission addictively howard was our refuses to communicate with people. >> i'm sorry your time is up but you'll have time during rebuttal. thank you. >> we can hear from the arts commission now. >> good evening and welcome >> thank you. director thank you for taking the time to review our response to appeal number 17-013 and sit for the opportunity to present our position before you. i'm going to highlight key points from the brief we submitted to you

last week. the ordinance which created the arts commission street artist program was designed for persons the commission licenses to sell the art they make. staff has previously refused permits to pablo's detached and others because results from investigation show they did not actually make the items they sold. the voter adopted ordinance opposition l provide an actual residence address in addition to a mailing address and an actress with the artist creates the art to be sold. this is not only necessary for sending important notices to an artist, but it's vital that satisfying the ordinances required to do in on-site possession of the artist studio or workshop to their further verify whether the artist is creating his or her work. in addition command pursuant to legal precedent, the government is allowed to require an applicant to provide a physical

location where the applicant stays. in this case, she would have at least a temporary residence to store her physical property when she is not selling on the street. ms. detached, as students we provided a real address for many years. she is taking a bandage of the confusion regarding her address to avoid enforcement of street artist rules and regulations as well as to avoid service of restraining orders related to treatment of commission staff which at times rises to the level of obsessive and frightening harassment. ms. detaches prior indolence actions of submitting applications and fees and then withdrawing them has resulted in the commission staff physical return of payments because of a lack of address. given her long history of inaccurate representations of her address, the board should not automatically accept as true the statement that she is homeless. in denying if she went to the street artist certificate the arts commission

is exercising the authority granted to it by section 5 of the voter mandated ordinance which provides for denial issuance when quote charges of deception resorted to in obtaining the certificate or any other violation of the applicable provisions of the san francisco municipal code cabin filed with the commission. ". as part of the implementation of a feasibility study to improve the program the commission has hired a market manager to spend more time to ensure program compliance. the accurate information of the artist addresses as required by law will allow the market manager to spot check the artists and resulting possible studio visits to verify whether or not the artist creates their work. however, when someone tries to hide the location as ms. detach has done, the market manager

must expend in an organ amount of time to do the most basic of investigations which results in limiting the commission's enforcement effectiveness. ms. detaches not about street artist license for number of years. she nevertheless continues to sell items that she does not make from a table on the street in various locations. it is the peddler permit managed by the police department the cupboards for our kiddies with respect to those items and not the street artist ordinance. we believe should not be allowed to take a huge amount of resources that we better spend >> great. nor should be allowed to flout clearly defined and requirements for application. in closing, granting mr. tesh's appeal would adversely impact the arts commission's positive progress to improve the street artist program. it undermines the credibility and integrity of the program encourages a lack of compliance. we respectfully request the board to deny the appeal. thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, then we

will have our rebuttal. ms. toubro. >> once again rebecca krill has confused the application process with the screening and permit process. in the application process, i was not asked for a home address. had every opportunity to ask me. by drudging up 20 years of past history is not fair and it's not relevant to this thing. most of the information is -they

don't have any evidence to support their claims. the application process is clear. providing a home address. there's no such thing as an on-site check. it's not in the ordinance. it's not in the bluebook and it's not in the police code. this is another invention of the arts commission. they do not show up like her role officers or eyes in the middle of the night and you open the door so they can inspect to see if you made stuff. it doesn't happen. this was an excuse. basically, i have never been issued of violations. in fact, it's been the contrary. in my brief i showed a series of hearings that i've won because they have not been able to demonstrate proof with the so-called restraining orders. i've been doing public records researches for 20 years because i expect this whether out of the country, out of the state, i always do public record searches. when something pops up in san francisco i know who to call. dwight moore of city attorney's office. in every situation i did not so it wasn't a matter of being me running a way of avoiding detection or anything for that matter. once again, those sites provided by the city attorney's

office work against them. in all three instances, the people won the right to vote because they were homeless, because one gave an address of state park in santa barbara. april the. gave an address of the park and its the truth in my case. nobody bothered to ask additional provision in any ordinance any police code or any bluebook that talks about the things i've talked about. they just don't want me to have that permit. that's all it is. people do not be a good way john-digit if you recall, out of nowhere stalking and harassing you let someone has filled his ear with a lot of fake news. that's what happened here. >> i have a question. so do

you have a home address? >> no. but pursuant to the appellant cases that were cited here i would be willing to say once again, i was never asked for home address. >> okay. the next question is, when is the last time that you did have a valid street permit license or vendor license? >> i don't recall. i don't communicate with them and i don't-i keep records of legal things, of e-mails. i don't know. there's something called a priority reissuance. there's freezing a permit. there's lots of things that they do that are not written down. those opportunities were never offered to me and when sent e-mails i never got a response >> the last question is, what is the product that you sell and do you-i veil handmade by you? >> everything i did was hand made when i was in the program. i work with feathers. >> okay. thank you. >> we have rebuttal time from the arts commission.

>> we have a copy of a application for certification filed by ms. detach on december 26, 2015. a copy of it is in your packet we submitted last week. there's a request for residential address on the application and ms. detach it up at homeless. she put 150 center st. address which is not a resident address. i don't have any further comments. happy to respond to any questions you have for me. >> the question am i have is how often does your department make inspections on vendors in regards to if they make the products? or not? >> usually investigation based on complaints that been filed or on observations made by the

advisory committee members to do the monitoring should so it really depends what information we receive. >> so how often and when is the last time you recall that inspection had been done? >> of the studio visit >> correct. >> they're done on a regular basis. >> so- >> i mean, there's done on a monthly basis. >> okay. thank you. >> another question. if she had written homeless, what would your department [inaudible] >> i understand now from the city attorney, because we've now got some legal counsel with that situation because is the first we have heard about her being homeless and i didn't inform that the government can still require a person to give us a location good so it's not a residence address because there homeless it would be a street or an intersection on where they can be found.

>> in her grief she referenced a number of other street artist who had unusual addresses and residents. are those verified by your department? >> we've not had the opportunity to verify all those good we have requested residences addresses from all the artists because we are now wanting to step up our enforcement in the program. as part of our efforts to improve the program. we do feel like this is a very unusual special case where because of all of these other related issues with ms. detach, it's especially important that we have an address for her. >> so the appellant says that there is no required for a home address and that you are mistaking-mistaking the application-i hope this get

this right-for the program and the application for the permits. that there is no come in requirement for a home address on both applications. she says-and so is that so? i don't have the applications in front of me >> sure. what i have in front of me is the application for certification. that is required before a license is issued. if an individual is participating in the program they don't need to read like they can just request that the license be renewed, and that doesn't-they don't need to repeat the application process because the department already has enough of their information on file. so would only be have some kind of change. >> so the initial application takes care of the permit information? >> right. exactly. then there have to be reissued. >> okay. secondly, the

statement was made that there is no place in the rules regulations, anything anywhere, that says anything about the need or the option to inspect and verify that a street artist is selling their real art as opposed to something made offshore which i've seen many times unfortunately in the city of san francisco or by somebody else. we are in the rules and rags does that specify and give clarity to an applicant like the appellant? >> sure. thank you for asking. so i actually disagree i think the whole crux of the law that was passed is based on the notion of the artists making with a cell because the whole reason the law was created as a result of this community effort for folks art, artists to be with to make with this on the streets. so that was really the whole impetus for the law and

so it's reflective of the law >> maybe i did not get my question- >> the examination? >> these discussion is not whether it was made not by the hands of the artist. that is implicit and that's understood. we've heard that before on this board but, rather, the requirement to make an inspection to insure an artist is making their own stock. >> sure. there's an entire mayoral appointed body called the advisory committee street artists and crafts examiners. that's their whole job is to screen the artist and inspect what they make to verify that they've made it. >> does that process occur-it

would seem to me that it would be logical if that process occurs at application time. >> it does, but are also on the street doing field inspections >> i understand that. because that's how we found out about the stuff that's on the street is not made by the artist. but, in the appellant's case, has anybody-did anybody-from this advisory committee screen the appellant to ensure what her product was and that she was making it at a location and that it was, in fact, real art? >> yes thank you for asking i believe she was screened many years ago. she has been in and out of the program many many times over the years so i would have to check our files and are records for the times when she was screened, but she would have been over the years. >> isn't the first up the application. the certification process you have in whatever else you have in terms of the interview and other things, that occurs after the application >> exactly...

>> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for city attorney. what is [inaudible] >> i can hear you >> what if somebody writes if somebody's place of residence is on hold? >> have to give a corner or approximated area. >> i am asking our city attorney, is that by law a beagle place of business on an application? >> i agree with the cases cited by-in the arts commission's brief. that in the context of the registration the courts have said the government can require a person to list

some physical location, whether it may or may not-it doesn't have to be a physical building. a place with a person can be found. >> so if ms. to go read those are application that says i'm homeless and puts a place whether it's a park does that qualify her? is a place of residence? >> then i think that could be sufficient to set aside the ordinance. i think the arts commission has agreed to that. i think that was a statement they made on their brief >> understood. >> i want to follow-up on a question to the city attorney. so, if we find today that if we deny the appeal, tomorrow can the appellant walked back and ask for an application, fill in an address, or a location, satisfy the needs of the arts

commission and be assured she will be dealt with fully? >> typically, i'm sure you are aware section 31 of the business and tax code would bar an application for a permit after the been denied for one year. there is an exception, however, that if the permit was denied by bees and of definite existing conditions, which prevent the granting of said permit, instead of conditions removed to remedy the one-year prohibition against application will not apply. i think in this situation, if ms. toubro were to provide an address that met the requirements under the ordinance that might fall within

the definite existing condition exception to section 31 of the business and tax code. in which case she could reply without having to wait for a year. >> okay. crates. i think one of the issues that is obviously there some frayed emotions on both sides here. in fairness is what we try to do here. so i think regardless, if we do find not in favor of the appellant, i think we always try to provide a remedy to allow that to happen. so i want to-i'm not projecting one way or another i would make a motion. i think i'll let somebody else make a motion but i want my fellow commissioners to understand when they go to make a motion with the sure i'd be one way or the other and,-or, if we find

-another question- >> before you do that guy ask who decides on that interpretation? in other words, is it the arts commission? who decides whether or not it's- >> i think ultimately, say, if they were to deny the permit because it falls within the one-year bar, and ms. toubro appealed that it could be a decision that you would make again. >> can i ask a question related to-i asked the question related to if we deny the appeal. i like to ask a question if we uphold the appeal. and condition it with the need for ms. to bow to provide a home address and sure that things that are the issues in-on the table here. could we

find either way and give the appellants the opportunity to clean the slate and redraw it so to speak? >> i think you could grant the appeal on the condition that ms. trudeau provide addresses that comply with the code. i would also point out, though, i think it was some discussion whether being the second step in this process, which is not been completed which was re-examination of our artwork. there may be another >> vector be another condition >> that could be another condition of the granting of appeal in which case would go back to the arts commission and of a denied you might want to clarify that if they ultimately deny the permit on the basis of the artwork not satisfy the examination portion that out within still be appealable to the board. >> actually a question for the department for the commission.

we've heard several times regarding a restraining order. with the restraining order to and from and for what? >> sure. i believe them there's been several over the years. i've been with the department five years. i believe the most recent restraining order was from commissioner scolari against ms. to passion. >> okay. thank you. i been here over and this is been the force 3-4 times as well. thank you.[[inaudible/off mic] >> i'm sorry please >> [inaudible/off mic] >> please you are not helping

your case here. you're not helping your case reviewed please, be quiet. thank you. that made it easy.would someone like to make a motion? >> i am leaning towards allowing her to submit an appropriate application. not necessarily understanding or guessing whether it will continue any further than that, but i would also say that historically, any permit that has shown a change to it and the amount of change is not on quantifiable does illuminate the one-year bar. so, i would

be inclined to deny the appeal and allow her should she choose, to submit an appropriate application. >> i have been on the board for over four years. i think she's been before this board. this is either the third or fourth occasion. this board has leaned with her on all four occasions. i believe so. you know, what i meant by my comment earlier is if her outburst and her lack of decorum on televised-i can imagine she would be in a closed room without a camera to the fact that i asked her nicely to,, to please pay attention to that, it meant nothing to her. so i mean,

depending on what the other commissioners are going for, this is-i think she shows really well when she gets here and literally she just fell apart. >> why don't we proceed equipped >> yes >> i would support the vice president's position with the clerk occasion that she the one your-that she could file again within what. of time commissioner? >> any period of time just there's no bar of the one-year ban >> so the one-year ban would be-so tomorrow she could walk in? >> that is right >> unprepared to support that. >> i'm prepared to support that. [inaudible] >> it's not the first time. that's-i will make a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the application was not properly sent out.

>> with the additional motion that the one-year bar would be waived in this case? >> if we condition it i have to grant the appeal. >> so you don't want to grant the appeal >> not necessarily. >> so what your motion? >> i am a little confused. i might've misunderstood good >> can you repeat your motion again, vice president? >> my motion is to deny the appeal on the basis that the denial of the application was properly done. >> but if you- >> i have an aside. i would consider placing a designation that place of residence on a

new application would be a substantial change. are you confuse? >> i'm not sure if you are ready to call the motion. if you are i will try to do that >> yes >> can i get clarification from the director? >> commissioner wilson are you ready for the motion to beard? ps >> the vice president has made a motion to deny the appeal, hold the denial the certificate on the basis that the application was not properly filled out. okay. that's the motion. on emotion than honda aye wilson aye swig aye. that motion does best with a vote of 4-0. thank you very much. we will move on then to item 5

-eight and five-be the appeal number 1701 one and 17-012. filed by john-i guess the department of building a special with planning department approval having to do with the property at 153-155 arkansas st. both are protesting the issuance on generally 17th 2017 to jc sf investments lp of one of a demolition permit to demolish a three-story one-family residential building in the other of a permit to erect two stories, no basement type db2 family dwelling. we will start with the appellants.please, step fo > >> good evening and welcome >> good evening. i am appealing

the permits a demolition of with 153 arkansas st. because there is an investigation going on by the antitrust division of the department of justice on the auction of the second lien on the property at 153 arkansas st. involving clay clifton. on october 3, 2012. because craig lipton's previous guilty plea of auction and conspiracy to commit mail fraud on october 27, 2011. regarding real estate option. so the department of justice [inaudible] is now investigating the property of the sale of the second lien and auction of 153 arkansas st. so

i'm asking the board to hold off on the demolition of the property until the investigation is over. >> are you finished, sir? >> i'm sorry. >> keep going, yes. >> i was waiting on word from tim fry of the historic preservation commission also appeared i've not heard back from them yet. >> are you done, no? >> yes. >> are you disputing the ownership of the property? >> yes. i am trying to-welders investigation going on on how the property was auctioned off

and how the bid was onewon. and that's being held by the entire trust division by the department of justice. >> so maybe you can clarify a look at 40. going to the presenter was a lot of reefs, regarding this, the person that acquired your property off the second note has a court case before the state or federal. is that specific to your property, or is it for another property? i'm trying to get some clarification, sir. >> i believe this case is dated before he obtained 153 arkansas st. but when i spoke to the department of justice they were not aware of him

--they told me they were not aware of him bidding on 153 arkansas st. so they are investigating that as well. >> so when did you have that conversation with the doj? >> well, my first conversation was with the senator's office [inaudible] district when i met with jeff sparks. district director. and my conversation with the department of justice was just a few days ago. >> this has been-i'm sorry i'm not trying to question, but this is been going on for a while, sir, why would that call to the doj only be a few days ago? >> this investigation-no. let me >> take your time. relax. >> i first contacted the antitrust division when david

ward was there. a few years ago. but he's no longer-david ward was the attorney following the case that he is no longer there. so, now there's a person named tom greene. he is a new attorney on that. i have been going back and forth with a lot of departments on this. i was waiting and i had not heard anything. >> are you currently living at property, sir? >> no., i am not. >> thank you that answers my question. your time in the rebuttal as well. >> i just want to characterize it properly. so, what i got from reading all this up is basically this. you felt that this property was

acquired inappropriately in a fixed way, in a prevented you, or somebody else, from purchasing it in a legal and just fashion? is that basically the discussion then? and one of those persons that might have bought it in a legal and just fashion could've been yourself so that you could keep it in your family? is that what i am hearing? >> no. that's not how we're planning on doing we were not bidding on the property. we were talking to the bank and they were modifying-they told us there were modifying the loan the second lien because the first mortgage was up to date. it was a second lien on the property. my son, ray, was working with the bank to modify

the loan. but there's a thing called [inaudible] tracking that happens. one department is working with modifying a loan where the other department is foreclosing on that loan. so we do not know. we were under the assumption that everything was okay and that they were modifying the loan. until there was a notice put on our door and i called my son and he said, no, that has been canceled. the sale was canceled. of the auction was canceled. so that was my understanding. so, this tracking is now a legal but two months after this happened. it happened to us but the law went into effect two months later. >> are you done, commissioner or another question?

>> yes, the please. >> so when i'm confused at -confused here is this home is not included in the lawsuit. you said yourself, not included in the lawsuit, which is currently in the courts related to the integrity of this man's actions. so how is this-how is our action one way or another, going to solve the problem? >> okay. say, for instance, the investigation by the department of justice finds out that there was something illegal done while he was bidding on-my family home and

it's demolished. what am i going to do with an empty lot? >> that's a very good point. thank you >> one more question can you said your first loan was current? >> yes b was huge only the amounts if you remember what your first loan-what the amount was for your first loan and with the amount was for your second loan? >> about $575,000. around there. the second was $101,000. >> okay, thank you, sir. >> thank you. >> you can sit down and will hear from the permit holder. >> good afternoon. i did

prepare a very short brief which i did not file on time. a one page with a couple of exhibits that have to go through it. >> state your name for the record spews my name is david estes, i'm sorry. i'm happy to hand a one-page summary of the facts together with two exhibits or i am happy to go through >> you can go through it and you can put it on the overhead. >> what we've learned in the last few weeks the department of justice-i mean this is having her what i just heard, the department of justice has not identified if in fact the doing an investigation the idea that someone can call the department of justice as a commodity investigating the matter is factually inaccurate. i think that sort of line of reasoning takes us down a rabbit hole which i don't think any of us want to go because i can assure you there is no pending department of justice investigation. the was a matter that was settled in 2011-2012

before this event occurred and with his counsel, he was able to continue his business. the idea that there are some ongoing investigation is entirely false. but as to what we are talking of today come i think there's factual issues second the demolition and erection permit we heard pursuant to the appellants brief. what we are doing is throwing a lot of mud in a direction which i understand you don't have good facts, [inaudible] it is very sympathetic situation. what the real facts are, mr.--has a

right to pursue an action in state court. he can pursue an action in federal court judge in that he's indicated he would and can go get an injunction to an extent he can get an injunction and no one is discouraging him from doing that. that is right and he will say he will avail himself of that. as whether the lien was valid or not out the title committee determined it was about. the title, he determined the lien was there. so the idea there was an invalid lien and improper foreclosure is incorrect. mr.--was provided opportunity to pay off the loan. in california's foreclosure process takes approximately 120 days in which notice was given. so he had an opportunity to two dude defendant did an opportunity to continue to pay on the second lien which was $100,000. so having made on monthly payments the foreclosure would have been stopped in here brought it current. that was never done. after the foreclosure, mr. lipton on behalf of the buyer found out this it happened he offered, after a bout foreclosure, to sell the property back for a $108,000. he bought it for $102,000 and taking subject to the senior lien, actually out of the

goodness heart he had offered an opportunity to acquire the property in which i've never seen in my any years doing this, buddy ashley said, here is an opportunity that you can buy it back. finally, mr.-who is a tenant in the property, he conveyed the property to his son and his son had gone out in part $100,000 on the property and the sun had not made any payments. the suggestion that the bank was modifying that deed of trust, i get to see a second lien holder modified but taking him at his word that was a modification, we certainly have not seen any documentation to that. but mr.-is living in the house. and in a muffled retainer was brought against him following our clients rightful taking of title to the property and mr.--represented by counsel, sign the stipulation teared up

when i had and agreed a full release with respect to the property and also accepted a $10,000 payment in consideration of giving his full release and is vacation of the part i find it somewhat disingenuous now to say, the $10,000 i took from you now coming back in and, by the way, here's what i really want. i think if you cut to the quick, he's got an opportunity in a court of law. i don't think this board, inc. makes determinations with respect to the adequacy or foreclosure notices or pending litigation may or may not exist because i think that far-it goes beyond i would think with this board would be comfortable viewing. with that i was likely request to go ahead and confirm the demolition permit and the permit to build the two units and to the extent you have any questions am so happy to answer questions. >> the applicant on the permit represents the owner?

>> yes. >> the owner provided the appropriate documentation to allow an agent? >> to allow the agent to do what? >> to file the application? >> as far as i know i've not heard there's any inadequacy and the filing of the application. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. planning department. the subject property 153 arkansas located within our hiv three zoning dispute subject permits were submitted in august of 2013. underwent neighborhood notification in march and april of last year. there were no discretionary review requests filed. it does involve the demolition of the existing

single-family dwelling. it was reviewed and applicable requirements for demolition of an unsound building and the apple can did provide materials that satisfied our review that found the building was not in the soundness-did meet dishonest criteria the planning code was found to be unsound allow for administrative review of the demolition. during the application process is also represented that the building is vacant and that seems to be the case. did not heard anything to the contrary this evening. all the materials i have in the file appears that the permits were appropriately reviewed and approved and none of the matters raised in appeal this evening seem to relate to any planning or land-use matters but am available for questions. >> thank you. does lanning normally all the demolition invades [inaudible]

>> correct. he was has that been issued here? >> yes they have the demolition and new construction permits of those probably filed where both were issued together. >> this building doesn't bother under this work for any reason? >> no. it's not a historic resource and demolition approval. >> okay. >> inspector duffy. >> good evening commissioners joe duffy dbi. both building permits for demolition of three story single family residential building. the army was filed in august 2013. it was issued on 17 january, 2007. [inaudible] on january 27. both the type and for the demolition permit. you can the new construction permit was filed during exactly the same date and issued together with the demolition permit on 17 january and suspended on 30 january 2017. both appeared to have improperly issued and approved

by dbi. the contract for details is appears to be that of the owner as well. craig lipton [inaudible] san francisco. and according to the city assessor's records, in the dbi system, the owner is tag like production llc and i'm a 38 tanner st., san francisco. i just thought i would mention that. we do have one notice of violation on the property for a vacant tilting ordinance and that is has been issued by the department. we have not brought any further. it's just the notice was issued in 2015, which is pretty typical for a building that's vacant. i am available for any questions. >> what is a vacant -i mean,

why would you issue a notice of violation on a vacant building? >> because with a vacant building ordinance in san francisco under the san francisco building code. there's a seven and 60 471 $65 annual fee for any building-you're supposed to register them and if you don't register them then you're subject to a notice of violation from the department if we find out that the building is in fact vacant because there's a demolition you can do construction and probably have it enforced because they know that there's a building permit in place to eventually demolish and construct a new place >> i learn something new every day. thank you inspector duffy. >> mr. duffy, how far do you check ownership records in terms of who we permit applicant is? >> i heard you asking the question during the-dbi goes off the city assessor's records. it's called property [inaudible] in our system. we can look that up yet that's what i did in this case. when you apply for a permit and the

contractor can apply for the permit in this case, if you can apply for a permit for someone else's behalf, you would need permission from the owner. if you're not a licensed contractor. so you would be an agent for the owner in essence. >> i know the process. just some years back >> yes. >> how do you prove you are the owner? >> id. if you're the owner, believe you have to have some documentation wiki. >> except contractors they don't accept architects? >> yes. there's a lot of-a lot of criteria and i don't work in that division but-- >> [inaudible] just so you know >> there is a criteria. i have on occasion seemed permits improperly issued. to someone

representing that wasn't done properly but i'm of the understand that the central permit bureau there's any stringent requirements on checking numbers, issuing the permit to the proper party >> that all comes in the profile study >> yes that's exactly right. yes. a lot of times when there's a seller property it's not always for popped manners there's obviously the issue of the old owners details being in which case you have to prove you purchased the property in order to pull your permit the city assessor's records are not up to date. but, i think that in checking them pretty well. >> thank you. >> thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, the of rebuttal starting with mr.--the appellants. >> i wonder if the people in the audience know that the last case on 19th ave. has been withdrawn? it will not be

heard. >> go ahead, sir. >> at the time all this happened i had a bad brain injury and still being treated for it. i was also in a wheelchair. also, the neighbor at 151 arkansas st., i was told, he is a lawyer. i was told he was fighting the demolition. so i cannot really do a whole lot because i was doing with a lot of medical issues. i could not make a lot of good decisions at the time when i was in court being evicted from my family's home.

there is an investigation going on. contrary to what the gentleman said earlier. it's being held by tom greene at the department of justice. let's see, what else. at the time, he said that i signed a piece of paper in court with craig lipton and i agreed to move out with some money but i was lied to. there was a trial. the judge set it for trial, but he said we want you to go through mediation. here i am, sitting in a little red with a mediator and some other person craig

mallory, but as i said i had a brain injury, which was pretty bad and still being treated for it. i did not know if the time when i signed that paper-i did not know this criminal charges. i would've went to trial and thought it. i would've had my day in court. i would've fought for that house because i put everything, my whole life savings, into that house. i don't think it's fair for someone-you know they should be

honest with you good if i go to court unexpected honesty. i'm not expecting some lies to come at me. i would have never signed a piece of paper for $10,000. i would've had my day in court, which there was a trial coming up. not only for the objection, but for title of the house. he said that he offered me to buy by back for $108,000. he gave me 2.5 days and i'm sitting here in a wheelchair. then, i called up

my cousin. he was going to do it but i asked mr. lipton if i could have more time. he would not give it to me. i needed more time to give $108,000.so i would not come here and lie and tell you there's an investigation if there's not. i have a 13-year-old son. i was hoping to give that house to him. so i'm just waiting to see what the department of justice says. when i spoke to him he said it was going to dig into

it. he said he was not aware that craig lipton bid on that one 53 arkansas st. the whole time i thought they were. i mean a whole bunch of e-mails back and forth over the years with the department of justice. city hall. and a lot of people from city hall. spears are you done, sir? >> yes >> one question is when you went into mediation, due to legal representation? >> yes but this person that was representing me stepped up in

court at the same day and said, i will represent them. he said -i just want to see what's happening. >> okay. thank you. >> exact words were you want to see always playing out. >> okay. thank you very much. >> the trustees, you have rebuttal. >> again we find this very sympathetic but it has been five years. here is a copy of one page of the settlement agreement that was negotiated with a handwritten comments,

which said everything is fine except you need to pay me $10,000. here is a copy of the settlement that is signed by his lawyer-i don't think the practice in the legal community as far as i know is to question competency whether real or imagined obligations of a lawyer so i don't think it was up to mr. levin whether the lawyer representing him with the correct lawyer or he could've had a different lawyer but i was signed at the bottom there by his mr.-'s lawyer. so he was represented at that point in time. as to whether or not it was enough time the idea that you would actually offer someone to buy property back at a foreclosure sale, again i've never seen that. but it was an

e-mail offering to do that. one could quibble over the time but to my knowledge, was no response to its. in subsequent to that, the settlement agreement was reached and a $10,000 was paid and again was five years ago. finally, this idea that there's a pending department of justice investigation is i think we still called poppycock. the idea department of justice calls up and says that these are the people we are investigating today is just without merit. i know we stretch sometimes and we don't have good facts on our side and have a motion on our side, but i can unequivocally state there's no pending investigation of mr. lipton. thank you. >> so-go ahead. >> so was it that you only get 2.5 days to raise over $100,000? >> by the grace of-once the gavel goes down at a foreclosure sale the sale is done and there's no ability to pay off. what you have is when under 20 days from the date -

excuse me - you have no major mortgage payment they send it again and again. they may give you a 90 day notice that says >> i issue is very simple. did he-you said there was an offer to buy back for $108,000? >> yes. >> was the offer only on the table for 2.5 days? that's my only question >> the offer was made and not counter. as i'm sure we all know people offer >> you're not answering the question, sir >> to my knowledge it was it was two days. >> thank you >> you mentioned earlier there's no doj pending investigation. your client has a believe something in the brief there's no upcoming court times or anything? >> there was-let me go back in time. in the midst of the foreclosure crisis, there was >> the question is >> i need to answer because

there is a historical component >> it's a yes or no. i asked at this point is your client of any upcoming court cases regarding this type of practice? >> is entered into settlement agreement with the department of justice. he's cooperating witness in connection with ongoing matters that are still open. is agreed to pay $13,000 in restitution. it's not otherwise restricted from doing anything >> so is no court case coming up >> if you're cooperating witness, you don't actually sentence until the actual case they are cooperating on is settled such that you can't be used in the cross-examination tuesday did you testify in order to get this sort of a flea. they keep the plea open. it's now been five years but that has been open >> when is this court case

coming? >> i believe it's been pushed back to november of this year. >> okay. thank you. >> any of the questions? >> no. >> thank you. [inaudible/off mic] >> no. >> anything further from the departments? okay. the commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> matters, plural. >> actually, commissioners of i can listen to the permit holder has to make a comment without the okay? >> sure. >> please stepped to the podium come assert. >> please sailing >> thank you my name is craig lipton on the one i purchased the property. after i purchased the property we do not know who is living there and what the situation was. i was able to crack down mr.-his son and he

explained to me that he had taken a second loan on the husband's father was not aware of it or might not have been aware of it. at the time and that his dad was living there. it was a situation and so i did offer his son's opportunity if they wanted to pay for the house at the time it was $102,000 that i would be willing to deed the property back to them and i did this with annexation e-mails with his son because i cannot reach tom. when i went over to talk to the owner to talk what the situation, the document, he opened the door and mr.-student in my partner's face. we do know at the time who was living there and then the sun had told us that his tenant living there he do not toss it was his father. so those a lot of back and forth and finally when i found out it was father to a

private investigator i offered them to buy the house back. because give me the money back and you can have a husband whose time was what i paid for. a couple months that gone by. maybe it but definitely 30-45 days we started the eviction we started the process. the raw making a deal with us. then the sink them back to me and said, okay we will sell the house ourselves and give you the money back. we'll keep the profit denies it, doesn't work that way. i said, now we've already started the foreclosure process eviction cost. father stop incorporating. we lost that money on legal fees i spend money on the private investigator. i said, if you guys really want to do this, i will still give you the opportunity to pay me back when i paid for it all deed you the house that are marketed to be an opportune to go out and hire broker and sell the house. and profit off it at this point. so, i did february and i never heard from them again. so that

is-is not this idea was that today take it or leave it. it's not at all factual. >> so essentially,-- >> thank you. the question is whether the permit is valid and i find it to be valid. >> i also agree. is quite a bit of greece as well as, it's a hard story. but the reason what i asked with the first was on the second was, we are totaling close to seven or 8000 and this person had got it for 108 and was way to wipe the slate cured or he got it for 100 and willing to wipe off the

slate for $108,000. basically remove the first four 565 from the original owners. any personally i think this is doom and gloom type of transaction but the person actually offered it back to them. i mean, i love to be honest with you i love to be mad at the permit holder but at this point i think that it was a fairly generous offer and i would agree with by commissioner. but this is a really hard case. it's a tough case, but what is before us is the validity of the permits. >> i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis the permits were properly issued. >> both appeals and is that correct >> yes >> the motion is to deny both the meals that uphold the permit on the basis that they were properly issued. on that motion, honda aye wilson a

reluctant aye. swig aye. the motion does carry a vote of 4-0. pres. harnik is no further business before the board. >> thank you everyone. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> >> >>

>> (clapping.) >> one of things that makes me the happiest to introduce the mayor if makes me happy they inspires me a lot of my career can we make a dent if homelessness our mayor is a mayor for all people didn't just say that but acts it everyday he's looking each one of us having value mayor ed lee thank you for standing with san franciscans and a leader for all of us. >> (clapping.) >> well, thank you carr are good morning, everyone. >> good morning you know they started singing i was wondering in if i have the

energy and i remembered hamilton it had in town everyone has the infection everyone is here for project homeless connect the 67 times 67 times. >> (clapping.) >> we've brought people together in our wonderful city and you know many of us i saw the hands go up the first time i know how it would have in your minds you're walking through the streets and neighborhood corridors and see that you hear it can sometimes you smell and interact and see the needles you see people and ask ourselves how can this city of riches and you know all kind of the development going on allow this to happen and we say to ourselves if so gotten more complicated than one

sees with the naked icy know that's why you're here many of you are in addition to wanting the help you also want to understand what really is going on and for me as the mayor now in any 6 year having followed the work of gavin newsom who began those private right of action private right of action connects and began with programs like the carry no cash and making sure we try to direct our compassion but begins with compassion all of you are not here you think that you can help to solve homelessness you don't know as i did years ago what really has to happen because as you find out where people are from and how chronically for years they been on the streets you'll release how for those days are

a day when finally maybe you can get somebody to help with our hair cut, lava maze maybe a shower not for weeks or not be able to see a dentist and the pain in their mouth prevents them from thinking lonely and food and support maybe a counseling session with someone all of this in fact, one and 50 different services come through one roof for a day of private right of action project homeless connect it is an expression of your compassion we couldn't do that without the volunteers that come from every sector i understand that today, many people are coming from the cloud from companies that are working you're coming from the clouds and dropping in the best city

from the world san francisco to help people. >> (clapping.) >> this is what you're doing today, i want to say thank you. i want to say thank you because as you may know as well as i do those days across the country people are talking about things that divide us we in san francisco we bring people together to solve people's problems and we'll continue to do that and solis so long as i'm mayor, i want to make sure that everything when it comes to people that are hopeless begin with compassion and as we learn how to do things better that compassion guides us around permanent solutions that's why we opened up the first naebts when i said the shelter are not doing that for any of us in and out of shelters not doing that the idea of a 2345ek9 24/7

services save places dignity for people and then guide them in once they got all their benefits and support serves we love them as human beings and veterans and people with families as woman who have not survived do know and many of the challenges we embrace them with our san francisco compassion that's what i love about the city that's what i love about the city and the companies that work for us the employees some of them are out through we're trying to draw the employees to do the right thing and adopt san francisco values if they're going to be here it begins with all of you how you'll express it by your you touch and attitude and your smile because that is how people feel welcomed and belonging

and from the services and now i've gotten department to really understand their mission and their role is that we may not solve homelessness as a concept as a phenomena but every person we touch we ought to have solved homelessness for him or her that's our commitment in san francisco so since 2011, we've done just that for over 10 thousand people isn't that an accomplishment for san francisco. >> (clapping.) >> so i want you to know you're in a contest in a rolling contest when we touch people and getting them ready i'm working my rear off with jeff and public utilities commission and the mayor's office of housing all of the developers in the city to provide a permanent supportive of housing we need to house

people heroes and hearts in addition of people to be ready to accept that in order for us to help them off the streets while their on the streets yeah, we'll clean up the needle and have encampment recess luxury people and less violence it is a violent sidewalks you law u allow people to live on the streets we've 2k3w089 to get more people off the street not moving them from corner to corner and shelter to shepherded on a permanent basis that's why i need a city that is strong and clibt in the economics a strong city that is going to be a city that helps people long term i'm committed for the thousands of units of housing we have to have in order to bring people along this evolution of personal

change whatever is bothering them there is a lot of things bothering people on the streets we'll get them there to the programs we have first, it becomes temporary than more permanency but along the way they know that san francisco knows how to do this right and well and do that it begins with today with all of you and thank you for singing along they beginning but every person you touch no matter their attitude your smiles and offer of service and support it the beginning that is the most important thing from thereon the discipline happens and we lie people to really get back to what we would call a little bit more normal lives with shelter of permanent housing and supportive services along the way we're figuring out things but not only agencies not

only your tax dollars but a lot of companies and a lot of foundations have committed to us our vision their support us all the way rule see in the next few months some great announcement we're already started with announcements we end veterans homelessness by the end of this year in san francisco. >> (clapping.) >> our emotion and support for families we'd like do something about that in a big way i'm not going to ruin that announcement by prematurely announcing it but a lot of friends thinking and planning and organizing around family homelessness and youth that need our help transitional age youth and the individuals that you see everyday that are faced with drug addiction and

34g9s and answers for them as well everybody is working hard you're part of team now thank you, thank you, thank you i'm so proud of san francisco and just coming back from countries like china and hong kong and environment commission you're in the greatest city in the wormed they love our value of diversities they love our stance on immigrant they love our compassion for people this is what defines us this is what project homeless connect does and thank you for representing the best in our city thank

>> good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, i'd like to call the meeting to order. >>