out is a ridiculous standard. this unit shouldn't be lost. please approve this. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i live at 41 surrey. my wife has already spoken to you about our trees. i just want to reiterate the distinction from a three-story to a four-story building will do to our long-standing trees. a good deal of the trees will have to be removed whether it's on a three-story project on the fourth-floor area added to remove below, it could make the difference between a tree

surviving and not lasting and having significant damage. the appellant has the right to cut branchs that extend over his property but in a 1994 case a california appellate court held the neighbor doesn't have the absolute right to cut encroaching roots and branches. he must take into account the health of tree before they start cutting or chopping. in this case the appellate court held the neighbor must act reasonably when pruning branches. three arborists have told us the remove of those tree branches with their roots would very well kill these trees. one made a point that quote, a tree protection plan should be completed and in place before construction starts. ann excavation on this site

should be done in conjunction with an arborist to reduce the risk of damage and failure. green space has been included in the glen park plan as a characteristic feature of our neighborhood. i want to point out this is not just a small loss -- lot. this is an extremely small lot and would cause much disruption. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> members of the board, good evening. i'm janice blackwell. i've been asked to read this letter. dear members of the board, i live at 2785 diamond street, the bottom apartment in a two-unit building next door to the project site. i was unable to get away from work this evening, i am a doctor and wanted to express my

concern. the appellant wants to block my kitchen window and move his roof deck to the front of the building. the appellant shows a list of examples and actions to be taken by designers to alleviate light and air impact to adjacent property. because the property line windows constructed in 1945 faced a ban -- abandoned lot is not example. does that mean other unique circumstances are not cited? only typical circumstances can be addressed? i don't think so and neither did the planning commission. the design decide lines and the general plan in the planning code all call for the preservation of light and air to the existing circumstances. the architect puts the bottom

not down to the earth as we had expected but below my window sill. but at least i will have some indirect light and fresh air. i join with the affected maybers to ask you deny the appellant's requested changes. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners, i live next door to jay whose window he wants to block. this is the light view from jay's and cory's yard. the further back it goes the worse it will look and more exposed it will be.

we are on the left side of where jay and corey live. we will see it when we're out in the yard because it goes a full floor above. we're looking forward to the birth of a child and expect summer days in the yard with the baby. as he grows older he'll be playing with his friends in the yard. we don't think the occupants of the new building should have a direct view of our family. when you consider the small size of the lot and adjacent public steps and alleys now part to be part of the camino real it seems the commission did the right thing by reducing the fourth floor and introducing a garage using the same curb with the public steps and blocked view is a frightening prospect for a parent. a garage at this location does not make sense. furthermore, it's a shame the

sponsor wants to continue to block jay's and corey's windows. i'm in the sure it's a surprise. the sponsor had an application meeting and didn't like what he heard. people wound up shooting because the sponsor refufd -- refused the impact problems with bill and francessca and ignored jay and corey and the public outcry about the steps andair -- -- and jeremy doesn't care about the amenities he'll be taking from others in order to get for himself. >> i live at 2720 diamond street. we all love glen park. we have lost our shared garden on diamond which is a

circumstance we all regret. maybe we could have bid on the land. we think the planning department might have missed an opportunity as well. what's gone is gone and we ask the new applicant but we ask again as we have for a long time to consider the scale of the proposed building. as it oversized for the lots and the proposed building height is out of scale to the homes around it. per the residential design guidelines and there's four, does the building design compatible with the surroundings buildings, does it respect open space and provide adequate setbacks and meet design guidelines. i is a no. we have been negotiates the details from the start and

revised plans were approved but not without concession and now year back before you today with all the same issues. please deny the fourth floor, larger deck and block of our neighbors windows. thank you for your time and thank you for listening. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is gloria navara and raised in glen park. this year is a graphic map of the neighbors who signed a petition opposing the appellant's request. we noticed the sponsors on the

appeal from those who don't live in the neighborhood and we felt compelled to get signatures specifically addressing the appellant's request. a few concerned neighbors stood outside the property for a couple hours to explain what was removed and approved by the commission and what the appellant wants blocked. most people were shocked by this request. in less than two hours almost 50 neighbors, mostly immediate neighbors signed the petition saying they did not support the request. please consider this in your sentiment for the neighborhood and deny the request. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i'm helen duffy a resident of glen mark. in the appellant's brief, he

provided data on building sizes. he looked at all new and existing residential building in glen park to show the buildings, especially the new homes are large so his home should be large as well. many lots in glen park are standard 2500 square foot park and those are more than double the 849 square foot size of the lot we're talking about tonight. we are not talking about removing a unit from the neighborhood. we're talking about building a unit that fits within the context of the lot. marilyn and ken sent you an e-mail and documents the size of nearby lots and building sizes. the lots and buildings the residential guidelines considered are the first and second-levels of context for this project. this shows us two things.

first, that most nearby buildings have less square footage than what is proposed and second, this is true even though all the nearby lots are larger. in other words, the proposed building is larger than others though the lot is far smaller than most around it. we would like a new building proportionate to the lot size and contextual to the buildings around it. i agree with removing the garage and moving the deck from the alley. thank you for your time. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm actually in support of the project and i'm speaking actually as a homeowner, long-time resident and architect. so when i hear the issues with

the neighbors, i have a great deal of sympathy. i've watched a three-story building replacing a one-story structure blocking my view of the bay bridge but it means there's three units where there was only one. i recognize the city's under a great amount of change and that we need more housing. the reduction of the applicant's project means perhaps a family cannot live here. we all know the city is in dire need of housing for families especially. post accommodate one to two bedrooms. not more than that and families are leaving the city and under great pressure. one of the other issues about this is the appeal is whether the process was correct in evaluating the applicant's original proposal.

he worked diligently with the planning department and came up with a clever design to utilize what everyone calls a substandard lots but i argue there's many substandard lots in san francisco and we need this creative thinking to add housing stock. the neighborhood allows for the height and i think he's worked hard to make the setback work. back to the process, when the planning commission looked at the project half were absent so i feel he didn't have due process to have the project reviewed properly and discussed and it got far with the planning department and then to get to commission i think seemed contradicty unfair as someone who followed the process and in good faith throughout. thank you. >> do you care to state your name for the record? >> e.b. mihn. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> hello, i'm carol merski and i heard all the arguments and such. if you've been out to the project and to glen mark and seen the project? so you come down the hill. i live at 2554 diamond at the top of the hill. so you come down the sidewalk and as you get down to the bottom and there's a beautiful tree in front of the property. if i go like this i can barely -- i can just barely get partially around the tree because it's huge and it comes up like this and has a beautiful branch. the garden club had it pruned themselves. i want to clarify, we're not

against change. we are not against housing. we are not against creativity. we have a lot of creative buildings in the neighborhood and welcome them all. we're not against any of this. wa we are for breathing and having sunshine in a place to stop at the rest there and have air and trees provide fresh air in the neighborhood and our country. if we destroy the trees, we destroy our whole humanity. if they come in and take away the roots and put in the machinery and the overhang, they have to cut out half the tree and pretty soon the tree is dead and destroyed. that is really immoral. we don't mind him building there. we thought he'd reduce the property and can make it livable. i live in a very small house and

it's very livable and convenient. i ask you to reconsider and have him redo his plans. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello commissioners i'm speaking in support of the appeal in this case. in terms of the planning commission process and ruling as was noted three commissioners were absent and it's important to note they discussed f.a.r. in term of the scale of the building but f.a.r. doesn't apply in the residential zoning district. it's important to keep in mind the scale. the fourth floor is 300 square feet. the deck is roughly 150. this is in terms of neighbor impact, this is a small structure and minor structure.

for the potential occupants the extra bedroom and living space is significant quality of life improvement. in terms of the property line window, i sympathize but they're not protected especially in the case of a kitchen window. if it were a bedroom that would make sense as providing light well but in this case it is only a kitchen window and that is not protected particularly in a case with a smaller lot and taking that square footage from a smaller lot would seem unfair. i want to point out in terms of the size and unusual shape, if you look around the world, as the a transaction of making use of the odd shaped lots and other

things that are more interesting. they add something positive to the city and think this should be approved. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i live at conrad street up the hill from the project you're considering tonight. a couple observations. my wife and i bought a house built in 1953 and 1,003 street of space and living quarters. we get along fine and have for 31 years there. the changes that concern me about the house is the fourth floor going up. a deck coming out the front at 150 square feet which is going to impact the heritage tree. i've watched now three or four heritage trees in the last two

years being sacrificed to builders. sometimes to permits, mostly not. this tree will dry if you cut back the crown severely and impact the routeses the roots. it seems to me the japanese have the right idea, small is good. that's a lot that just screams for a really creative small house. we'd be delight to see it but a four-story building is going to really change and impact the heritage street. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> i'd like to disclose i'm a member of the glen park association and president of the glen park association. i will not be speaking as a

representative but as an active community member and individual living on diamond street. i'm here to support the commission's decision to include the required decision at the hearing and reject the appeal. specifically, i believe the planning commission's review and conditions help bring back into account the community concerns and the balance to the neighborhood input for the project. naturally when it was sold the neighbors wanted to be part of the profit. after reviewing all the material in the glen park and documentation from the community meeting it is clear to me that the project sponsor did the minimum of community engagement for the project. i believe commissioner honda asked why this would happen. this is what a think. even after seeing a pre-application meeting full of

concerned community members and speaking directly with a g.p.a. member promoting better dialogue and reached out to adjacent neighbors after the review not before. i believe this decision was a mistake. and the position the community is not to be able to engage the planning department during the project review and development. i sincerely believe there has been a decision. i believe if there had been a decision and better communication, listening to the concerns and cooperation conflicts could have been resolved and it's my hope they'll be more engagement and work towards a compromise for a solution. >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> my name is dr. michelle burch in support of the effort to build a home on his property. i became aware of the conflict when he held a community meetings initially in glen park at the library. i have to say i followed this because i was appalled at my community's attacks on his building his home. saying my family has lived here 40 years and deserve open space. there was such opposition to a newcomer to the neighborhood and now i feel the complaints have been exaggerated so as to block him from plans that have been approved by the planning department and the fourth floor in the rear part of the building

is a small addition that doesn't look onto people's backyards and occlude their privacy and there's some neighbors that do look onto their yards. and so i think this man has tried to take a small lot and use it creatively to build a home. i think we need to make space for newcomers and to be fair and to share. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> i'm laura van ness. i am a newcomer to the neighborhood. i think i think it's clear from

the neighbors we're not opposing the building. i think what we're opposing or trying to get to is the compromise about the removal of the floor, the protection of the light wall and the setback for the roof deck. i think what prompted me to speak up is the sponsor did not respond and i've sat on the meetings and developers and architects disyou -- dismissed

the design of the neighborhood and there's a need for someone to build on their property and the requirements from the guidelines and the community input. i just ask you respect here you respect the community participation process more than the development team has so far. thank you. >> any other public comment? okay. seeing none, we'll have our rebuttal starting with the appellant. three minutes. >> thank you. i appreciate the time to rebut what's been said.

one of the points made was the planning commission -- the neighbors hammered home the point of f.a.r. and you've been presented with a diagram i've never seen about vote -- lot sizes. anything like they should have seen to had a chance to review it. residential districts are not set by f.a.r. that's a house on 84 proposed and proposed at 4,000 square foot. i'm proposing 1700 square feet. still a small house, relatively small, three bedroom. the terrace is not a dance club. it's 12 x 13 and a place to sit

and have a cup of coffee and have a bite of granola. i'm happy to provide a privacy screen or glass if that mitigates anybody's concerns, particularly my neighbor mr. perish, if he wants a privacy screen, no problem. regarding the tree. i met about the tree and paid for part of the arborist report and that report did not indicate a problem with trimming the lower branches. it's two feet from the property line and overhangs significantly all the adjacent parcels so there will need to be some trimming of lower limbs and i'm willing to work with them and an arborist in trimming the tree in an appropriate way. the neighbors said i have done

no outreach or negotiation. nothing is further from the truth. everyone that provided their e-mail to me at the hearing or pre-application meeting i e-mailed them saying let's meet. i'll sit down with you and look at the plans. this say summary of my outreach for the project. i had tried to schedule with the d.r. filer countless times through e-mail and the planning commission and we finally scheduled the meeting and then he canceled at the last meeting. i asked what are your demands and what are you looking for and he said reduce the height, width and length and refused to give me a phone number. i don't feel the comment that i'm not willing to engage with the neighborhood is fair. bottom line, we have a code compliant house and meets

guidelines and doesn't impact anymore than any typical house despite the unusual size and shape. >> i have a question, sir. so you met with neighbors and offered -- what compromises have you offered to the neighbors? >> so let me tell you the process. after the pre-application meeting i met with marilyn and ken about the tree. i e-mailed everybody. nobody got back to me requesting a drawing. i turned in the drawings to get planning response first up wanted to make sure i was code compliant and met all the planning concerns. then i e-mailed everyone and said, hey, we have our plans ready to go, let's meet and discuss. not -- i think i got a couple replies. nothing substantive. >> this is after the pre-application meeting.

>> yes. i have records of the e-mails on a thumb drive if you need to see them. >> the next question i have is this a spent project or are you planning on owner occupying. >> i plan on owner occupying. >> not they know what the board is going to decide, would you be willing to do n.s.r. regarding your own occupancy? >> a notice of special restriction on the deed. >> for how long? >> 36 consecutive months. >> sure. three years? >> yes. that's my question. thank you. >> we can hear from mr. cerf. >> thanks again for the opportunity to speak. again, i just want to reiterate we're not seeing don't bring the project here. what we're asking is to deny the request to move in a large

impact. we're asking to deny a fourth floor because it adds too much height and massing for the tiny space and creates a wall from the public steps and alley. we ask you deny build wall over the two kitchen windows of the occupied apartments because it would remove light and air and the there's nothing in the 1940s building code is what is relevant. the code in effect at the time of the permit was a 1934 building code not the 1940 code. section 11 of that code covers frame buildings outside of the fire zone including glen park. when the code says is a solid calls are required between buildings not on property line because there was no building next door and because the city never anticipated a building on an 849 square foot. surely the appellant noticed.

this is the rule that allowed that to happen. windows are original to the building and so have a vested approval over the years. in summary, we request the board to uphold the board's unanimous decision and deny the peel. we also believe the building could be further improved of what other neighbors have recommended. we ask you grant the appeal, deny the sponsor's request and remove the garage so he can have the space for his bedroom and parking. also move the roof deck three feet from the alley property line and pair parapets from the north wall. my wife would like to make comments. >> i'm not very good at public

speaking. my parents lived in glen park and they raised three kids in the bottom flat and two bedrooms. they filed all laws, rules, and paid taxes. they raised me and my brothers to do the same. point of me telling you this is this, this is what me and jeff received in the mail. the appellant knew we'd be noti notified as a section 14 party and left the party information blank so we would not be notified. had it been a week later we'd be out of the country. i assume intentionally he did not show up and therefore all the changes would ab prov -- be approved when we got the little post card which could have been lost we had so ask for help.

>> please wrap up. >> he didn't follow the rules of the board. i guess he think rules do not apply to him for this reason i ask you deny all of the requests made in his appeal. >> mr. tege. >> good evening, commissioners. [please stand by]

arb . >> -- but just to paraphrase from his brief and just from the plans, obviously, the lot tapers as you get deeper, and it gets narrower, and the light well would be fairly deep into the property, so at that point, obviously, it cuts into the floor plan layout on multiple levels, and you -- obviously, if you want more detail than that, i'm sure the permit holder. >> i've got several questions. >> okay. >> so the -- the deck on the top level, is that part of the open space that's required?

so if -- >> the deck on the permit -- the plans as approved? >> correct. >> yes. >> so i mean, right now -- >> [ inaudible ]. >> where it says 150 feet, so if we reduce the size of the deck just as a question -- >> does it mean 125. >> or 125 feet, does that mean that they lose square footage in the property, as well? >> well, one of the planning conditions in the d.r. was that the deck be reduced in size to the minimum requirement for a required open space, which is 125 square feet, which is what is done here, any further reduction of that deck would trigger the need for an open space variance. >> but that's predicated by the size of the number of bedrooms. >> in an rh-2 perunit, it also varies if the open space that's being provided is private open space or common open space. for this one, it's a

single-family home, and so it's all essentially private, and so 125 square feet is the minimum requirement. >> second question is that is this property at the maximum build they can do or it can go larger? >> in terms of just the building, the planning code envelope? >> yeah, the bulk. >> as i mentioned, this project is in a 40-x height district, so the code does require for a bit of an angle at the front, an rh-2, so to taper back a little bit, so it would require a will i bit of a set back at the fourth floor, but perthe code, the property could hold a four story structure. the building is as proposed was maxed out. >> it is maxed out. so they can't add another square foot. >> well, which plan are you talking about? neither plans are maxed out. the d.r. -- the plans that were originally submitted and reviewed at the d.r. hearing were fairly close, but they set back the fourth floor at the front more than what the code would require to respond to the

residential design guidelines. >> and the public said there were only three 34r57bing commissioners. >> there was four planning commissioners there, which is the minimum for a quorum. >> do you have -- thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. sure. >> so simple question, just for clarification, so what -- what we're being asked to do here is -- is if the appeal was denied, what -- what is left is a house which has been approved by the planning department, which has been approved by the planning commission, and everything's okay. no variances, no special favors. it's a -- the project developer still gets a house. still, it's inhabitable, and the only thing that if we denied the appeal that wouldn't happen is they don't get the

fourth floor and the -- and the light well. so other than that, it's still a house. the rhetoric about oh, we're not adding to the -- we're preventing more inventory in the city of san francisco for habitation is not so, correct? >> i mean, i can't comment -- a zoning permit has been allowed for a house. yes, they issued building permit for the house, which has been appealed, and that's what's before you today. >> and the big issue is by taking off the fourth floor, we're reducing that house by about 300 square feet of habitation space. >> in terms of what the big deal is, i would refer to the permit holder to respond to the issues it creates for them. but yeah, obviously, removing the fourth floor is obviously removing floor area. >> okay. thanks. >> do you have any input regarding the property line

windows or of that building? >> that's more of a building and planning -- well, i mean there's two aspects. there's what can you do from a building code perspective and how are windows protected or not protected -- >> but under the planning code. >> under the planning code, there's no specific reference to the protection of property line windows in the code or the residential design guidelines. there are references to protection of light when possible. it specifically refers to light wells in situations there to match light wells. there's no, again, direct correlation beyond windows. there was an architect earlier that described it in terms off h of -- of how the planning department or building department looks at it. if there's no other window, we may provide deference to that in those situations. >> thank you for that.

>> okay. commissioners, do you want to hear from inspector duffy, otherwise, the matter's submitted. >> yeah, maybe just -- >> do you have a question? >> yeah, in other words does the department have an opinion regarding property line windows, regarding when this property was built, as the appellant had stated that code changed in '34 and '40. sorry. joe. >> no, no problem, commissioners. you're talking about the existing property line windows? >> yeah. >> that's okay. we deal with this a lot, and to be honest with you, i always call it a case by disbascase b. i have seen many people lose their property line windows because of a new building, and i think that sometimes it's unfortunate, but it's -- it's really -- they're not really protected. if you put them in today under a building permit, you give up the right to those property line windows if someone builds,

so i can -- i think dbi's policy would be can you see them? i don't know what year they would allow you to do it by the code, but if you put them in today, you're giving up the right of someone building there, so you don't really have a lot of rights with them. they're great if you have them, but if you lose them, there's not much you can do. i hope i've answered that. >> thank you, mr. duffy. >> commissioners, the matter's submitted. >> i have a question for the permit holder. it's not totally clear in my mind what you're requesting with the roof deck. are you asking that the roof deck be in the front only if there's a fourth floor allowed? >> that would be my request because one of the conditions of approval was that with the

elimination of the fourth floor, that the roof terrace or roof deck be split towards the center of the property, with i is towar -- which is towards the east, so there are therefofore, you it floating over the roof on the third story. so in restoring the fourth floor, i am requesting that that additional condition be modified so that the terrace would therefore be at the front because that's a required open space. >> thank you. >> i -- i like what the planning department did, and -- >> planning commission or planning department? >> the planning commission, and so that's where i stand. i respect -- >> let's talk that out a little further. >> yeah, i agree. >> you know, let's go item by

item. it's very unusual to see the planning commission do two of these things. i can't remember ever hearing them do it. one is for property line window requiring a light well. i know that the brief has indicated there's been, but however, in my history, i can't remember that occurring on a property line window. and you know, the department looks at those very carefully. they always are required matching, not only in depth, but in terms of size. that's one. secondly, i've never heard the planning commission for required open space on a roof deck limit it to 125 feet. they approve all these gigantic

roof decks consistently, so i'm looking at something that's not consistent, which bothers me a litt little bit on those two items. and they -- i've never heard a planning commission direct that it has to be in the center of a roof versus wherever the applicant wanted it. i can understand if it had been related to some type of visiblity into some type of occupied space or something, and we've had those where they had directed the location of that deck. i understand that, but in this instance, there is none of that issue. and the biggest question is, you know, in terms of -- of the fourth floor, i'm not in if agreement with the permit holder on that. i think contextually, i think

this building should not be four floors. >> okay. >> so are you looking at some sort of splitting the baby? >> it's up to you, but i'm not supportive of requiring the light well, and i'm not supportive of limiting the roof deck to 125 square feet when that is the primary open space for the -- for the parcel. >> and you're not supportive of the fourth floor, right? >> but i'm also not supportive of the fourth floor, which the permit holder wanted. >> i can go with that. i mean, lots of notes. this was a very tough brief to go over. i understand that there's a lot of long-term residents and san franciscans that are used to having some open space next to them, but as we know, we need further density in this property. i mean, in san francisco, and the fact that this permit holder worked extensively with

the department, and then to have it overturned completely at the planning is kind of a surprise. at the same time, i am in concurrence with my president here that i think that it does supply housing for the city. i don't think the fourth floor is required, as well as i'm not supportive of the light wells. >> so i'll give you the fourth floor. i agree with you. i -- the deck, i agree with you, and the light wells, i disagree with you. so my condition would be no fourth floor, the deck, i understand your position, and the light wells, i disagree with you. >> mr. president, want to try a motion? >> yes. i tried it. you try it. >> i'll try it. >> i think i'm going to lose.

all right. i'm going to move to grant the appeal and condition it with the following changes: that the fourth floor remains deleted; that the light well can be deleted. and th and that the roof deck can be greater than 125 square feet as perthe property owner. >> did you want to put any set backs or -- >> i don't see a need. >> okay. >> do you want to specify a -- a maximum 125 -- you say greater than, but to what

degree greater than? >> it can be whatever his roof is. everybody else makes their entire roof it. >> am i hearing this. >> so greater than 125 feet and located at the project sponsor's discretion. >> right. and but let me make one final point. if this was not their required open space, i would have supported what they wrote in their brief, too, the deletion of the penthouse. >> yeah, i agree. i agree. >> and the basis for this motion? >> makes everyone unhappy? >> grant -- >> it's persf code. >> or given allowances given the unusual size of the property. >> go, go, go. >> that works. >> so it's based on the unusual size of the property. >> configuration. >> yeah, size and shape. >> mm-hmm.

[ inaudible ] >> excuse us. we're in deliberation. >> how many -- how many votes does this need? >> four. >> four votes. >> so mr. president, just to confirm, the fourth floor room is deleted. the light well, you say, can be deleted. >> so deleted as a requirement, right? >> yes. >> so you're saying that they would not be required to -- okay. >> to have it. >> double negative. >> okay. >> delete the deletion? >> yeah. >> so this is a motion by the president to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to allow the deletion of the light well and to allow a roof deck that is greater than 125 square feet and located at the project sponsor's discretion. it does not revise the requirement to remove the

fourth floor, and this is on the basis that the -- of the unusual size and configuration of the property, is that right? >> correct. >> okay. on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> okay. that motion did get four votes, so it does pass with a vote of 4-1. >> okay. zbl we are returning to the february 18, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. we'll call item 12, appeal number 17-199. 520 taylor street, lp versus the zoning administrator. the property is at 518 tail i don't remember street, protesting the issuance on december 20, 2017 of a letter

of determination regarding a request to abate the existing planning code violation preventing the establishment of a massage establishment at this location for three years based on the assertion that the property owner was not notified by the department of public health that violations to article 29 of the health code existed and there are did not have the opportunity to cure any existing violations on the property, and we will start with the appellant. >> good evening, commissioners. happy year of the dog, and thank you for your stamina. you out lasted my property manager who was here for a while. i represent the 520 taylor, lp. that's the owner of property located at 515 taylor street. >> would you state your name for the record, please. >> it's william klein. >> thank you. >> we're seeking to lift the ban that was imposed pursuant to planning code section

202.2(a) 4, the circumstances under which that ordinance was applied, we believe, violated basic principles of due process, and i can -- if you have any questions regarding the brief, i can take them at any time; otherwise, i'll be happy to share what my thinking is. the imposition of 202(a) 4 came about as a result of inspections that took place by the health department in december of 2016 and march 2017. pursuant to those inspections, there was a hearing set for 2015. we have -- what's interesting is we have the proposed order of the findings of that hearing that was prepared by the department of public health. in those findings, they found

that the operator would have been subject to $18,500 worth of fines and suspension for 30 days. however, the hearing never took place. the hearing that wis attached o the brief as exhibit d, the notice of hearing, was only to the operator, a one timothy mead, and he decided to settle with the city and county and stipulate to the spa closing as a result of health code violations. that triggered 202.2(a) 4, there was never notice to the property owner of that statute or the consequences of it. the property owner was only notified after the conviction

was put into place, and he received two letters in april of 2017, basically informing him that a complaint was filed, and that he had -- he should take action to abate it, and then, three days later, he received a letter from a notice of enforcement saying you can open your business for some other purpose. most discussions of due process really focus on what is the adequacy of notice. but here, it appears that there was no notice whatsoever prior to the imposition of the three-year ban. and as a result, we believe that this was a violation of the property owner's due process. as a result of that, the value of the property has become diminished. the premises are configured

into small little rooms. the space is small. it's not suitable for many other purposes other than massage. when we had a realtor put the property on the market, as indicated in his declaration attached to the brief, there were no offers other than by massage businesses. the property owner has subsequently entered into a lease with a new tenant, and the lease provides that if that tenant can do massage, rent would be 9,000 a month. if she's unable to do massage and do another business, it will be 6,000 a month. the economic impact of this ban is apparent. for at least three years where a property owner is impacted by approximately 36,000, but if we don't do massage now, it will

be in perpetuity. we won't ever be able to go back because that area now is zoned not to allow for new massage. >> are you finished, sir? >> yes. if you have any questions, i'd be happy to answer them. >> question. i had a question. in your brief, you indicated that thomas mead was -- >> timothy mead. >> hmm? >> timothy. >> timothy, or mr. mead was not involved with the spa, and yes, he signed -- he was signatory to withdrawal of the lease. >> well, that's correct, but he wasn't even a signatory to the settlement agreement. his attorney signed on behalf -- >> no, i understand that. but i thought you indicated that there was -- in the name that he represented himself as -- with was something

without the word spa. is that correct? >> oh, the llc that's entered into the settlement agreement was misnamed. it wasn't an actual entity. >> okay. was he part of that llc with the correct name? >> it's difficult to say. i think mr. mead operated in the shadows in some regard, and it was -- and it's difficult to see if he was the owner of that llc. >> further questions, commissioners? no? thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. teague? >> good evening, president fung, commissioners. cory teague for planning department staff. again, the p.o. is for the property at 518 taylor street

which is located in the rc-4 zoning district. i think it's important to understand that this letter of determination that's the subject of the appeal is kind of two separate but connected processes, and so the first was the current public health process. so to that end, in december of 2016, and once again in march of 2017, public health staff inspected the subject property and found numerous violations under article 29 of the health code. the property manager, jeffrey polk was present during both inspections and received the inspection reports. on march 13th of 2017, public health and massage establishment owner reached a settlement agreeing -- agreement admitting the establishment was operating in violation of article 29. the agreement stated that the establishment would cease operations on march 15th, 2017. then, on march 16th, 2017, department of public health informed the planning department that the operator of

a massage business at the establishment property admitted a violation of the code. the planning department issued a notice of enforcement to the property owner indicating that due to the established violations of article 29 of the health code, any subsequent applications to establish a massage business are property cannot be approved pursuant to planning code section 202(a) 4. it's important to note this is not a formal notice of violation and it cannot be appealed. a formal notice of violation could not be issued in this case because the actions ceased at that point. the owner was informed a letter of determination could be requested. the property owner did request that on june 25 of 2017, and on december 12, 2017. the zoning administrator issued the letter of d