>> good evening. one moment.

good evening and welcome to the april 11th, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. board president frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight, joined by vice president rick swig, commissioner ann lazarus, commissioner darryl honda and commissioner bobbie wilson. to my left is deputy city attorney brad russy who will provide the board any needed legal advice. legal assistant gary conterra. i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board this evening. we anticipate inspector joe duffy from d.b.i., department of building inspection to be here, cory teague, zoning administrator with planning.

and amanda higgins with sf public works bureau of street use and mapping. we have certain guidelines that we follow. the board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they won't disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board's rules of presentations are as follows. appellants, permit holders and responders are each given 7 minutes to present their case and 7 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within threes 3 or 7 minute time periods. public not affiliated have up to 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. for rehearing requests each party will have 3 minutes only and no rebuttal. members of the public not affiliated have three minutes each to address the board and please make sure you speak into the microphone to. assist the board you are asked but not

required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the podium for your convenience. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing the board rules or hearing schedules please speak to board staff during the break or after the meeting or call or visit the board office. we are located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv, cable channel 78 and rebroadcast friday 4:00 p.m. on channel 46. d.v.d.s are available for purchase from sfgovtv. now we will swear in or affirm all those who wish to testify. member of the public may speak pursuant to rights under the sunshine ordinance f. you intend to testify and wish to

have the board give ur your testimony evidentiary weight, please raise your hand and say "i do" after you have been sworn in or affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> [off mic] >> thank you. okay, president fung and members of the commission, we have four housekeeping items. item 8 has been withdrawn. this is appeal 17-196 regarding the issuance of a revised letter of determination of a variance decision in connection with the subdivision of a single parcel into two lots at 100 and 122 rivoli street. item 11 has been withdrawn. this is appeal number 18-014 regarding the issuance of a notice of violation for operating a formula retail use at the subject property without a conditional use permit at 2239 market street.

item 12 has been withdrawn. this is appeal number 18-013 regarding issuance of a notice of violation and penalty for the unauthorized operation of a light manufacturing use in the basement level of 819 ellis street. accordingly, these items won't be heard. item 10, parties requested a continuance to april 18th, 2018, 17-184 regarding issuance of a suspension request, requesting that building permit application numbers 201709016795 and 2106094183 be suspended for the purpose the building wasn't completed in accordance with approved plans for the building permitted. we do need a motion and a vote in order to move that to april 18th. >> so moved.

commissioner lazarus has a motion to move this item to april 18th. president fung? >> president f. fung: aye. >> i apologize. is there any public comment on that matter? seeing none, president fung? >> president f. fung: aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> yes. >> and vice president swig? >> aye. >> okay, so that motion passed and that item will be moved to april 18th. okay. let's move onto item 1. this is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction that is not on tonight's calendar. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on

an item not on tonight's agenda? please approach the microphone and identify yourself. >> hello. commissioners, my name is ellen [inaudible] 2650 hyde street, hearing was heard in february. four of you have no knowledge of building code. only president fung is an architect. california constitution section 7 city local ordinances cannot be in conflict with the general rules, 108.81 require local appeal board members "qualified and specifically knowledgeable in california building standard

code and applicable building ordinances". california building code section 1.881 requirement building appeal board shall be knowledgeable in the applicable building codes that regulations and ordinances. at the hearing one commissioner said the project and plans were too complicated. another commissioner asked the d.b.i. inspector [inaudible] should we be worried about that. i would not be. we have to put our faith in the design professionals. i did not look at the plan fully but looked like a code compliance project. when a commissioner said i will defer to president fung, fung's response, i think the building department and planning [inaudible] provided on the drawings. they are satisfied with that. i am satisfied with it, end quote. he denies his knowledge impartially. he was first appointed in

january 1986. one commissioner asked [inaudible] commissioner duffy responded i believe the garage had been sprinkled after the hearing he gave a different response, no sprinkler was installed because he believed it wasn't required by code. you rely on commissioner duffy, we pay $500 to file an appeal [inaudible] and cannot act impartial. the d.b.i. pass the buck to the private sector. the project architect who has performed -- simply remove the natural grade about four feet higher than the previous architect's natural grade to circumvent. [inaudible] gray line measurement are wrong. at the hearing you deny this but deny our appeal.

the code require you should be knowledgeable in building code ordinance. even though you already got your powers of position but without complying with these codes. thank you. >> thank you. is there anyone else who would like to provide public comment? okay. seeing none. we will move to item 2. commissioner comments and questions. >> start by welcoming our new director. >> thank you very much. >> congratulations and welcome to the board of appeals. >> thank you. >> i second that motion. >> okay. should i come back for the next hearing? let's see how the end of the night goes, right? >> we will discuss that at the end. >> yes. is there any public comment on item 2? seeing none. we will move to item 3. adoption of the minutes. before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the march 21st, 2018

board meeting. >> president f. fung: commissioners any comments, corrections or additions? >> no. move adoption. >> okay. is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, the matter is submitted. president fung? >> president f. fung: aye. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> okay. it passes. the minutes are adopted. and we will now move to item 4. item 4 is a re-hearing request. the subject property is at 518 taylor street. the appellant is 520 taylor street limited partner. they are requesting a rehearing of appeal 17-199. this was an action against the zoning administrator decided

february 28th, 2018. at that time the board voted 1-4 to grant the appeal and overturn the letter of determination on the basis that the zoning administrator errored by relying on -- lacking the four votes needed to pass the motion failed. with no further motion made it was upheld by determination of law. as i said, 520 taylor street l.p. is the determination holder and they were protesting the issuance this letter of determination, regarding a request to abate the existing planning code violation, preventing establishment of a massage operation for three years based on the assertion the property owner wasn't notified by the department of public health and thus did not have an opportunity to cure any existing violations on the property. so we will hear first from the requester. if you could please identify yourself.

>> good evening, commissioners. my name is william klein. i represent 520 l.p. in its request for reconsideration of the board's decision to not overturn the letter of determination which imposed a three-year ban on planning code section 202a4. at peel was based on inadequate notice and failure of opportunity to be heard by the property owner whose property was encumbered by the restriction. at the time there was evidence presented by the department of public health saying that the landlord did get notice by handing a notice of violations to the on-site property manager who is here tonight and that as such the notice requirement was fulfilled. we would ask the board to consider whether or not a

hearing would be, whether or not the property owner would be entitled to a hearing on that issue and if so, to afford the property owner that hearing by overturning the restriction. i have the property manager mary tran who will testify on behalf of what the property owner knew at that time. >> hi, my name is mary tran and i'm the property manager for 518 taylor street. i'm here tonight to emphasize that the landlord is hands on and very participatory. we did not have knowledge of anything that was going on at the building nor with the business until my resident manager jeffrey polk here stumbled upon what appeared to

be an inspection by the department of public health and that's when we realized something was wrong but we didn't know what was going on. because when we asked, we were not given any information. so basically i asked jeff polk to look into the violations of any or what's going on and when he reached out to the department of public health department, they didn't give him any information. so basically we were locked out. >> you have 30 seconds. >> i was the resident manager at the time of the inspection on march 2nd. >> your name, sir? >> jeffrey polk. i was resident manager of 520 taylor at the time of the inspection march 22nd last year. i went down and found an inspection in process, they didn't give anything in writing and didn't specify what exactly

was wrong. obviously there was something wrong and i conveyed there was something wrong and a week later on the 9th, i made a phone call to the board of health, or public health department and i was told then that -- >> you need to wrap up. >> that it was a violation. i asked what kind of violation. he said the property owner is not entitled to that information, the landlord can't know, only the operator of the business may know legally. that's what i was told. >> okay, thank you. okay, we will now hear from the department representative cory teague, he is the zoning administrator. >> good evening, president fung, commissioners, cory teague, planning department staff. just briefly again, clarifying, this is an appeal of the letter of determination and the planning code is very clear regarding when the three-year ban is triggered the. the appellant's central argument that the health

violation was a flawed determination. it's important to note the land use and property owner is the primary responsible party. the health code and d.p.h. regulate individual businesses so their enforcement process primarily interacts with the property owners though they are provided notice. in this case the planning department did rely on the department of public health's finding of a violation and a representative is here to answer any questions you may have about their process. however, it's important to note the planning code language doesn't require that the department of public health make a formal determination of violation to trigger this. instead the planning code states any massage establishment -- >> president f. fung: are we supposed to have closed caption? >> he is working on it. >> to say the planning code states any massage establishment found to be operating conducted or maintained contrary to this code or the health code article

29 shall be found in violation of the planning code and will be subject to the 3-year ban and i don't think there was any question that the prior operator was operating in such a manner. i'm available for any questions you may have and as i mentioned there are representatives from department of health. >> even though the permit is with the operator the encumbrance goes with the property owner as the property owner is responsible. what is the process for the property owner to be notified? >> again, i will have d.p.h. respond to any specific questions regarding property owner notification as part of their enforcement process. and our enforcement process, we do notify the principle parties which always includes the property owner. the property owner is the primary person responsible. originally we sent a notice of enforcement to the property owner when we were informed by

d.p.h. of the situation. at that point, the operator that was in violation of d.p.h. was in the process or had already left. there wasn't a violation at that point since it had been abated but the planning code violation states if it's determined an operator was acting in such a way the 3-year ban is triggered. so that's why the property owner, i think, wanted to know what was their due process at that point. we said they could request a letter of determination which was appealable and that's the process we are in now. >> president f. fung: thank you. so just for some clarification. so the message here is be careful who you rent your space to? because you as a property owner, or a landlord are subject to the behavior of your tenant and if your tenant is

operating, is a massage parlor and operating under the rules you described, then the owner of the building could be squeaky clean, perfect and legal, but if that tenant abuses the law then the property owner, according to the law is, has to pay. >> we had this discussion at the original hearing and we did talk about how it was, the structure of this program when it was adopted was created that way so there are penalties for the operator, obviously through d.p.h. but also implications for the property owner. >> just for the benefit of myself, to get my brain back into this and for the public's purpose, so any property owner that does a lease agreement

with a massage parlor before they do it must go in eyes wide open as to what their risk is when renting to such an establishment? >> that's probably good practice, yes. >> okay, thank you. >> okay. we will now have public comment on this item. >> let's hear from d.p.h. >> i'm sorry. d.p.h. they weren't a party but if you have questions for them, can you please come up? >> good evening, my name is patrick faust, assistant director of the environmental health branch, the massage parlor is part of that branch. i'm happy to answer any questions you might have. >> i have one question. >> i have a question. >> go ahead. >> simple question. it was my understanding that the property manager received a notice of violation very clear notice of violation at the time of the infraction. is that true? >> yes, that's true. >> any response to their brief

where they are denying that? >> well, i wasn't there that evening but i have the senior inspector here this evening who testified at the original hearing. and is prepared to testify again they provided a copy of the notice of violation along with the citation to appear to the property manager, who identified himself as jeffrey polk. >> perhaps you could speak to -- >> before that. same question. we have gone through this a couple times. maybe my memory is a little groggy here. but since encumbrance is actually falling on the landlord, and i believe in this particular case, the process had not gone through before the permit holder had admitted he had done wrong. so did it negate the landlord's opportunity to deal with this process? what is the process for

notification once this happens? >> yeah. i think two things there. one is in this case our position would be the property owner was notified because an agent for the property owner was in possession of the notice of violation as well as the citation to appear. but as was brought up last time, typically we will notify the property owner following our director's hearing if a finding in our favor, if the person is found to be liable for having committed the violations then we will notify the property owner. in this case, they settled the case prior to that director's hearing. so there was never an official finding of liability other than -- >> not that i'm saying he admitted guilt prior but shouldn't there have been some official notification from the department other than that handout? >> since this case has come up

we now notify the property owner at all intersections. >> so you are saying there was potentially an error prior to this? >> i wouldn't call it an error. as i said before, i think the position is that if the property owner agent is present at the time the notice of violation is issued and the citation to appear is issued that constitutes notification. >> then why the policy change? >> i think that it gives the, in this case, what we are trying to do is ensure that we aren't back here answering this question again. so we changed the policy to be that even if the property owner is notified at the time the inspection occurs that we are also going to do that at the time a finding of liability is found, as well as even if the case is settled in advance of the hearing. >> thank you. >> thank you. we would like to ask the same

question of senior -- >> senior inspector is sageta kim. >> good evening, my name is agetta kim, i'm working for massage program. >> i know we went through it last time but let's go through it again. can you detail for us what documentation you provided to the resident manager that evening? >> so on december 21st, 2016, we did an initial inspection with another inspector and at the time the property manager came down along with the owner of the massage establishment. and they were being notified that way but mr. [inaudible] was the person who actually signed the report at the time

but knowing that mr. jeffrey polk was there, he was notified. and the second time in march, march 2nd, 2017, there was a follow-up inspection. there were five of us inspectors and mr. jeffrey polk was there. mr. pen -- [inaudible] wasn't there, so we signed the report and notifying him this was a second inspection that the violation occurred again. >> who signed? mr. polk signed or the other -- the second time, please. >> the second time was mr. polk. he was identifying himself as mr. polk, otherwise i wouldn't know he was there. >> have we seen copies of these signed documents? >> [off mic]

>> does the department have it? >> yes, both of us have it. >> can you show us on the overhead that document? not his, yours. >> oh, the original copy? >> yes. this was like the notice of violation on march 2nd. so as you can see, one of the

senior inspectors also signed but we can't all sign. >> can you move it up? we can't see the signatures. >> the notice of violation, there's no signature for the owner or representative of the property or the manager, i mean, the owner of the massage establishment but because it was understood among the -- >> can you speak into the microphone please, ms. kim. >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. so here is march 2nd. this is mr. geoffrey polk's signature right there on the inspection report. >> you are saying that's his signature? >> well, i can't say that's --

i remember someone signed. but i'm not a handwriting expert so i can't tell whether that is his true signature or not, that's not for me to determine. >> thank you. any other questions? >> when he signed, ms. kim, did you ask for some type of identification or business card? >> he identified himself. it was very dark inside the room. the front room was really red, neon light and also very dark. i believe one of my co-workers was asking for his identification, he also announced himself as mr. geoffrey polk. >> when you said identified himself? >> he announced himself.

he said it out loud. >> okay, thank you. >> okay, thank you. are there any more questions? >> president f. fung: we will allow the requester to counter this one point. >> thank you. i realize i have a right of rebuttal on this. geoffrey polk is here tonight to say he reviewed this document and his signature appears nowhere on it. >> can you speak into the microphone, sir. >> please speak into the microphone. thank you. >> it's notice that provides an opportunity to be heard on what someone is being accused of. here, there was no process for the property owner. >> we understand. thank you, sir. >> so did you say the property manager was going to speak? you said he was coming up? >> i'm geoffrey polk. if i may, i could repeat that i

did not receive a written notice of any kind on march 2nd of last year. i was definitely present with numerous inspectors at the massage parlor. and i have recently had an opportunity to review the inspection report generated on march 2nd and there's no signature that looks anywhere like mine or initials that look anything like mine. i have a very legible signature where you can make out all the letters, geoffrey polk. and when i initial, you can see a big g. and a big p. the contents of the inspection are such as i would say shock the conscience, and if i had seen this inspection report on march 2nd of last year i would have probably have called the owners the same evening.

there's some egregious things here. the content is entirely new to me. based on my practice, i would have originally, if it was something maybe not so egregious, i would have reported it the next day to the higher level of management and owners. at the very latest. but i did not. >> president f. fung: thank you. >> i have a question, mr. polk. are you an on-site building manager? do you live on the site? >> at the time i did. i moved out of san francisco on december 2nd of last year. >> and when this happened, where were you in the building? >> i was in my apartment on the fifth floor. i got a call from timothy meade, the operator of the massage establishment. he asked me to go down and close the doors. because of a misunderstanding. he thought the doors were, that everybody had left and that the doors might have been inadvertently left open.

so i went down and investigated and i found a big scene where the doors were open and there was at least one employee inside and numerous inspectors. >> thank you. >> all right, thank you. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? okay, seeing no public comment, commissioners, re-hearing request is submitted. >> president f. fung: who would like to start? >> i didn't hear any new information that would change my view of the last time, which is what i clarified in the midst of the hearing, which is that by having a lessee of this retail type, that the lessor, the building owner, should be knowledgeable of the liability

that they assume when leasing a piece of real estate to a massage establishment. so massage establishment obviously was problematic and was rightfully noticed of that by the health department. rightly or wrongly. but the law states, the building owner is liable. so i see no reason to continue the conversation. >> i agree with the point that you should be more diligent on who your tenant is. at the same time i believe there's new information, the person speaking refuting his signature was there, also i still contend the fact if the building owner should have had an opportunity the encumbrance is mainly going to be on the

building besides the permit holder has already left. >> you know what is before us is not the risk and rewards of massage parlors. what is before us is whether the due process was paid. i'm still of the opinion since i was the one in the previous vote that whether it was totally clear or not that due process was not maintained, the fact there is a little bit of a cloudy situation, i was prepared to allow them to speak. so i'm still supportive of my previous position and since the policy has changed, perhaps this is a throw back to allow us to clear that situation up. >> i would concur.

>> i'm going to make the motion again in the case of 1-4. >> i will make that motion. >> commissioner honda, we have a motion to grant the rehearing request. >> correct. >> on what basis? >> basis would be new evidence and the department has changed their policy after. >> okay. thank you. so we have a motion to grant a rehearing request based on the fact there's new evidence and change in policy in terms of providing notice to the property owner. president fung? >> president f. fung: aye. >> commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> [off mic] aye >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion to grant the rehearing request passes. do we schedule this point for a

future date? >> they will need to file within the statutory time period. >> understood. i will reach out to you tomorrow, mr. klein and we can figure out a date and the procedure. thank you. okay, so we are moving onto items 5a and 5b. they will be considered together. 5a is whether to direct the consideration of written findings for a case already heard by the board. this is appeal number 18-002, lidia woytak versus d.b.i. and planning department approval and subject property is 1033 and 1037 washington street. the appeal concerned protesting issuance on december 15th,

2017, to 1033/1037 washington street l.l.c. of the site permit and this permit was a fourth floor residential unit addition to the building, renovation of third floor entry, renovation of the basement, repair of the existing egress stair at rear of the property, seismic and foundation upgrades for 2016-02018496f. so the public hearing was held and closed march 7th, 2018. at that time the board voted 4-1 to grant the appeal and deny the permit on the basis of the building as non-conforming and out of character with the neighborhood. at the direction of the president this matter is returning to consider whether to direct the preparation of written findings to support the board's decision in accordance with section 8 of the board's rules. so each party will have 7 minutes to respond to this item.

and we can start with lidia woytak. the appellant. >> i'm glad you are going to look into this to right justification for your vote and this is what we are talking about. this is edwardian neighborhood, hand-crafted around 1910. this is a whole neighborhood. and here you have map from 1913

shows you all these properties built to a different code and they live in co-existence, people were happy living in those properties. they had a certain code. in today's standards they are all non conforming and there are many non conforming properties. san francisco building code is very strict about adding to non-conforming properties. just to show you what the applicant proposes. he proposes adding a huge modern structure, fourth floor. in the neighborhood his building is already the biggest. on top of it he wants fifth floor with a deck and 6-foot

railings. this will go around 60 feet all together. if you look to san francisco basic building code, they tell you over and over. for example, section 3051, it says you have to sustain an enhanced neighborhood. in determining what is a requested modification is reasonable, the city has to consider the extent to whether the modification might fundamentally alter it's existing modifications and here you will grant it to the applicant the huge modern build up totally inconsistent with the character and there are

many people who will want to build on their rooftops. if he has that right, me too. you will have a whole me too movement out of it. this is very important. also i want to point out it's not only rooftop addition. the applicant is going to excavate the entire bottom of the building. excavation will amount to 124 cubic meters. and then after, during the appeal time he started pushing the building down because he wants to push it down to 50 feet. also originally he said it's 51.

he said he found an attic, the attic is not on his maps. he said he will demolish the roof and ceiling to get extra feet to squish the building in. this is getting terrible treatment from all sides, from the bottom, from the top. and if he builds it up, our residents will be terribly impacted. the light will be taken away from them. the air will be taken. how would you like your neighbor to build up 15-20 wall next to you, next to where you live? i'm sure you wouldn't like it. now he said he already got

zoning adjustments. if you read the variance letter, it clearly says this adjustment is subject to all san francisco building codes, applicable building codes and to the most restrictive interpretation should prevail. look at section 134. the minimum rear yard shall be 25%. look at section 172. no structure shall be enlarged so as to have a great height of lot area shall require open space. no existing structure with setback shall be reconstructed or enlarged. then you have section 253.2. a setback of 15 feet for

building on any lot touching washington street. this is a sceneic corridor, it's going to ruin the sceneic corridor. and read section 250. the most restrictive requirement prevails in standards for height, bulk, flow, setbacks, open space. and then section 253 says that any building over 50 feet needs to be approved by the planning commission. so this is on top of the applicant is approaching the project in a blind manner. he signed originally he will do environmental review. this lot, every non-conforming lot needs to undergo environmental review. [buzzer]

didn't do geotechnical report, or soil report. are you willing to compensate us? is the building department going to compensate us for the loss of time and money? so this is a serious matter. we are dealing with a very vulnerable building. and i appreciate your attention. [buzzer] thank you very much. >> i have a question. so, as you mentioned, it's important to you and it's a very serious matter, when they were having the pre-application meetings, did you attend to those? >> i was never informed about pre-application matter. >> how about the 311 notification that goes out -- >> i got only information i got was about

>> during the 311 notification, they tell you the plans -- >> finding, what was it, i forget the word, it starts with "d". >> so you never received the plans of their project? >> i objected. i talked to the owner. i talked to the planner on numerous occasions. i exchanged email. i expressed fully my view. and then they said on 311 notification, that i need to do some sort of filing, i forgot the word. >> discretionary review. >> discretionary review, thank you. and i started looking for a lawyer. i contacted, because my whole family, everybody advised me you cannot take it yourself, you need to take a lawyer. i started looking for a lawyer. i called a number of lawyers. i called mr. steve williams.

i called mr. gladstone, i talked to several other lawyers and they all said we are not interested. they quoted me a price at the time i couldn't afford it. >> so d.r. you could do by yourself, you decided to not go forward with the discretionary review. >> i had no idea what it was. this is the first time i'm going through the process. i had absolutely no idea what it was. and i thought, i expressed -- >> okay, thank you. >> so next we will hear from the permit holder.

>> good evening, commissioners, todd mavis, project sponsor. commissioners, i'm a long-term resident of san francisco. over 20 years. my partner, he grew up in chinatown san francisco. we both care very, very much about the city and especially chinatown. i'm going to try to restrict my comments today specifically to just item 5a and not necessarily address the merits of our project. but just whether or not as prepared on the agenda, 5a, whether or not written findings should be written with respect to the decision taken by this board last month. we think that a request for preparation of written findings

should be granted only if the findings are limited to the permit, the appellant asked and requested to be revoked. which was 1447382. the appellant never asked for our site permit to be revoked. in her written request for appeal, and in all of her oral testimony, in total of six times, she asked for permit 1447382 to be revoked. we think it's important then that based on what her request was that only that permit, which was a request by her, that one be addressed by this board. otherwise, it would be better for this board to grant a

rehearing for the revocation of our site permit and grant a new hearing, or reopen the hearing. otherwise we would be facing as permit holders, manifest injustice. we have diligently followed this process for the past two plus years in obtaining our site permit. through the planning department, the building department, through the variance process. and then paid all of the fees that were requested by the city and by other agencies like the school board, like p.u.c. in order to obtain the site permit. before construction could begin. in order to obtain the site permit, these different agencies requested that we pay these fees in advance before construction begins.

so in other words, to our detriment we relied on this process to be fair and transparent and we paid these fees in advance more than ns of thousands of dollars in order to obtain the site permit. then the variance we obtained from the zoning administrator was appealed by the appellant to this board. and last year in march of 2017, this board heard that appeal and did not grant the appeal of that variance. so therefore based on that process, after following the process and relying on it, suddenly to have our site permit yanked away from us, we definitely feel is an example of manifest injustice. and clearly through the detrimental reliance that was shown by paying fees, not only to the city and other agencies but to professional service organizations, we felt we could rely on that decision of this

board, as well as of all the agencies we worked on that we could proceed with our site permit, that we obtained it correctly. the site permit drawings i would like to emphasize, we would like to emphasize, did not change from the variance drawings this same board saw. and the appeal of those drawings was heard by this board and it was not granted. the variance was upheld in march of 2017. therefore, we feel, it would be manifestly unjust, at this stage, after the site permit has been issued, with the same set of drawings. and that was confirmed by the planning department, that no changes were made, that we followed a process that allowed us to obtain a variance and obtain a site permit that

didn't require changes to it, to have that suddenly changed and decision to be changed would be unfair. manifestly unjust. we should be allowed a rehearing and to deny that to us would be manifestly unjust. so therefore, we would ask that you please allow us to have a rehearing, rather than issue findings which support a decision which we don't think is fair. we also submitted an extensive brief, which lists nine different reasons why we should be granted a rehearing. at this time i won't go into all of those or repeat them now but obviously if you have any questions about them, we would be happy to answer those questions. regarding again the merits of our particular project, whether or not it intensifies, whether or not our project intensifies a non-conforming building, we

would certainly like to address if we were asked and could definitely answer questions about that, about the variance process and why we think the zoning administrator was correct in issuing a variance he did not think significantly impacted the neighborhood, our adjacent neighbors or especially the appellant. thank you very much. we are open for any questions, if you have any. >> okay. no questions at this point. so why don't we hear from the department representative, mr. cory teague. >> good evening, president fung, commissioners, cory teague, planning department staff. i will be brief given the nature of this hearing. i will reaffirm the building permit in question was

appropriately reviewed, did obtain a variance, appealed and subsequently upheld and the permit was determined to be consistent with the planning code and all relevant design guidelines and issued appropriately. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> mr. teague, i have a question. perhaps you can frame for the board, within the range of entitlements that happens on any project, what reliance then is between a variance versus a site permit? in terms of entitlements? >> well, there are obviously different authorizations. not all site permits require a variance to be obtained in order to be approved. but the necessity to obtain a variance doesn't negate to be approved, obviously you have to

get that first. in this situation and every situation they look at, whereas site permit it has to be relevant to all that pertain to that project. >> thank you. >> okay. inspector duffy from d.b.i. doesn't have any -- >> i have a question, mr. inspector. >> mr. fung. the reference made by the project sponsor on the permit number, i'm looking at the application which was the number he referred to. but your permit numbers usually start with the year, doesn't it? >> yes, that's correct, yes.

>> so the number that is on the application filled out by staff? >> it is, yes. >> and it's a tracking number versus a permit number? >> well, the application number should be 2017-2016, should start with, it should always be that. >> take a look at your package. it says permit is 1447832. >> could you repeat the number? >> 1447382. >> that's the receipt number. it's a permit number. but that's just for financial purposes. it doesn't show up anywhere in any of our tracking systems. our permit tracking system would give you the application number.

that permit number, it's on everything, it's confusing a little bit. but you won't find that anywhere unless you have micro film copy of the permit but it's nowhere in our permit tracking system. it's more for our central permit bureau but we wouldn't reference it for tracking the permit. >> so if you went into your computer to look at the research and you entered that number you won't find anything? >> only on -- the only time i've ever seen it personally on an actual permit application but if i print anything from our permit system details report, even the online version, i don't think you will find anything. it could be online but our permit tracking system, you couldn't track the permit with that number. it wouldn't tell you much about it. you wouldn't be able to find it. >> how about the reverse. if you entered the permit

number, would this number show up anywhere? >> i've never tried that, to be honest with you. the building permit, we would use our permit tracking system and it gives you a permit details report. i have never seen them show up on a permit details report from our permit tracking system. the only time i've seen it is on an actual permit tracking system. i imagine it would show up on the receipt, probably would show up there. but the permit, anything that is on appeal is done by permit application number, is your number. i'm wondering how we got this appealed then, if it's not an actual permit number? >> well the permit was done through the application number, as all of them are. >> and