was managed by somebody else. it was really messed up, so i have to involve. and i live on-site since 2005 in a one unit. i use the other separate unit to put my personal belongings, and in 2006 or '07, we -- i start to notice that there is a huge need for one bedroom unit when couples, they need one bedroom, or even for single seniors, they always wanted privacy, not just a studio unit. so i convert four -- i mean, combine two adjacent units into one bedroom unit with two bathrooms, 'cause each unit consists of one bathroom any way, so we have four one-bedroom units. and also, on one floor for

dementia residents, on that floor, i don't have too many public area for my dementia residents. so i convert one unit on a corner to -- in order to provide comfortable lounging area for the resident and their family, and also, i can have natural light windows for them, and it very well. on -- and it works very well. on the other floor, i also take three units on that corner that -- to provide more lighting and provide karaoke and -- 'cause chinese community, they want a community floor to sing and play mahjong. and also in 2007, that time, i

found out that this be a lot for me to work on this, administrator on-site 24 hours. so i get another person, administrator to work with me side by side, and he's my son. and i'm grateful for that, that he's willing to work side by side with me, so i connect four units, vacant units on the top floor that has been vacant all the time to put in a one bedroom apartment for him so he can work with me together 24 hours on-site to handle emergency situations such as power outage, water outage. fire alarm went off. especially resident night time, they fall. we are 24 hours facility, require around the clock manager on duty. so that is my management style,

and also, now it's validated by the state regulations in 2014, that is required by law, have a manager/administrator on-site 24 hours. in 2017, i decided i deserve a decent unit, instead of one studio, so i connect five small units to become one bedroom unit. one bedroom, one kitchen, and a bathroom and a closet. i need a kitchen 'cause i haven't been cooking for a long time, so i feel like that is what i want to do. but unfortunately, i didn't know that -- that's my fault -- that i required to go through the planning department to -- for all this kind of connection. but all these walls are

nonstructural. we just move walls, nonstructure, to connect units together, and they'll easily be reversed back when that use is no longer needed. so i'm here to ask for -- respectfully for your approval for my appeal, to allow us to keep the improvement that has been done, and i am -- we will willing to pay for the penalties for the -- for our permit being not processed properly. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. ryan patterson and sarah hoffman for the appellant. nice to see you again so soon. thank you so much for taking the time to make a site visit. i hope it was helpful. very briefly, there were two different sets of work that we're talking about in this permit application. the first set is improvements

for the residents -- amenity improvements, opening spaces up to allow light in, creating spaces for community spaces, mahjong, and karaoke. the second is creating administrator's and deputy administrator's unit. the deputy administrator's unit was completed sometime back, and the administrator's unit was in progress. miss wong has explained why those units are necessary. we're in agreement to scale back the administrator unit, remove one of the units and partition that back off if that helps. and i'll turn it over to sarah for a moment. >> okay. very briefly, sarah hoffman, pleasure to be addressing you. i'm talking about section 102 of the planning code and why these administrator units are

more aptly treated as an accessory use than an administrator use. it allows them to comply with state law, and the planning code allows for this use. happy to answer questions on that. >> thank you. >> i had a question. >> go ahead. >> no, please. >> mine's, at this point, a procedural question. didn't this -- does this have to go through occi first before it went to planning? >> there is related litigation ongoing which, i think, is separate from this permit application. >> no. when the redevelopment agency dissolved, their land use functions, which used to be handled in house, went to planning. their appeal functions, which used to be in house, came here.

was there a step that had to go through occi first before it went for -- by the way, i was at planning when this was -- this project was a referral from redevelopment from the vanness plan. >> i'm not aware of any intermediate steps there. i'm happy to look into it. >> curious. that's all. we had a former redevelopment commissioner here. >> yeah, but this wasn't on our -- we never had this surface in the five or -- service in the five or six or seven years that i was there. we were all focused on hunters point. fundamentally, this building was -- the agreement on this building was that it would be developed for a certain amount of housing units. fundamentally, the owner -- this was my argument with myself -- the owner chose to

abuse the agreement to build this building and reduce the amount of housing units, especially in the case, kp exacerbated by the fact that they're specialty housing, that they serve seniors, that they serve people with health issues. so why should -- why -- why do you dare come here to -- to talk about something that somebody did illegally that abused their rights that -- the right that was given to them by the city to build this in the first place? so they went -- they -- without permission -- let me get this straight without my question. without permission -- would you clarify this. the -- your client went and started construction to reduce the amount of housing -- i'm going to focus on the housing -- for very high-risk

individuals without permission and in complete breach of the -- of the d.d.a., is that correct? >> much of that is correct, and we're not here to excuse what was done. >> so why should, especially the housing piece, geary is -- i'm a little bit mellower on it, but the housing piece, why should myself, looking at this, show any compassion whatsoever for your client when they arbitrarily and against an agreement with the city that allowed them to build this thing in the first place, why should we not make you put this back together again and put the original amount of housing back in, especially in this housing environment and especially with this constituency? tell me, what's your motive there, sir? >> well, i mean, the motive is i come into this very recently

to try to fix the situation. i think it's important to understand that more units were built at the property than the development agreement required. there's actually quite a spread between what was required and what was built. many of those units were vacant, unfilled. in fact i think there's been 50% vacancy the entire life -- >> excuse me, but wouldn't that fall as a business inadequacy, that the developer, through their inability to manage their business successfully, were -- was unable to fill those units? i -- that -- that argument went right out the door with me, but that's -- continue. i'm sorry. >> sure. well, i think that's a legitimate concern, but the answer is this was not taking housing away from any residents. in fact, they've been unable to fill those units, so they took

a small number of the units and converted th converted them to residential amenity space for the residents who were there to try to make it more attract tiive for residents to come in. the nine units on the top floor which were converted to the administrator unit and the deputy administrator unit, so they could live on-site, which is now required by state law. they should have gotten permits ahead of time, but we're doing what we can at this point to get permits for that. and i think that work actually is legitimate. obviously, they need to go through the right process to do it. >> is it your -- it is your interpretation that the state law is that the administrators should be required to live there on a -- on a permanent basis where i could look at the -- and i -- i'm not an expert in this area, but i

looked at the same piece of paper, and apply it to my own hospitality businesses where quite often, the administrator, otherwise known as the general manager, where there is a unit for a general manager or a manager on duty to reside for the purposes of providing reasonable protection for the guests in -- in that hospitality unit. and by the way, you have a hospitality unit here. it's the same thing, it's just different kind of customers. so i -- why is your interpretation that it should be permanently occupied by, as the law is, permanently occupied by the administrator as opposed to being occupied by a manager on duty to ensure that there's 24-hour coverage at the hotel -- sorry, at the -- at the building by a

manager? >> right. well, i think there's a lot of similarity there. we're talking about an accessory use, residential use that's accessory to the institutional use in this case. my understanding is it's a technical term that requires an administrator to be there 24 hours a day. >> so that would be your interpretation? >> yes, sir. >> thanks. >> thank you. we'll now hear from the planning department. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. subject property at 1033 vanness off is located in the r.c. 4 zoning district and 130 v. height limit height and bulk district. it's located within the vanness special use district and was previously located within

western addition a-2 project area and was previously land that was owned by the city back in the late 90's, the city entered into a competitive process to seek redevelopment of the site. the appellant won that process and entered into a contract with the city to buy that property, which was about 12,353 square feet for about $2 million. this was back in 2000 with the purpose of developing the property with 20 beds of initially convalescent care later changed to dementia care on the second floor, and 112 rooms to service 112 occupants on floors three through nine. the project was subsequently completed in 2004. as part of the -- one of the

requirements of the contract was initially that 20 of those units be affordable units. the -- initially, when the project went on-line, it's my understanding that they tried to rent the units for more than what the below market rate was allowed. they discussed this with redevelopment agency staff, who said that you need today go back to the redevelopment agency commission to seek another change, and there have been multiple changes to the contract over the years to increase the amount which they could charge rent. they did so in 2006, and from the minutes of that redevelopment hearing, interesting the vice president of the commission at the time is now our mayor breed, and she did note during the course of the public hearing that her mom had been a patient there, had stayed there. she was wondering if they had ever offered the units as affordable units because there was never any mention of that when she had visited the establishment.

and to our record to date, we have no evidence that any of the units and now 25 of those units are to be affordable units. we have no evidence that any unit has ever been properly advertised or rented in compliance with the b.m.r. requirements that are contractual obligation on the part of the appellant to meet. over the years, we know there were changes with the redevelopment agency disappearing in 2012. the authority, as president fung noted, did get distribute. the land use review went to the planning department. the affordable housing requirement went to mayor's office of housing and community development, and ocii was created to deal with the d.d.a. -- development agreements and implement those contracts as the years continued. in 2015, the mayor's office

notified the property owner, the appellant, of their requirement, reminding them of their requirement to rent these units, has never been successful in getting that requirement satisfied. after multiple notices, the appellant did reach out to the planning department, and i discussed this with melody, one of the appellants, about the idea of converting the building to student housing. they said that it was not really well utilized as residential care facility. at the time of the 2006 hearing at redevelopment agency, they said it was 40% occupied. they said that raising the amount they could charge for even the affordable units would allow them to fill those units very, very quickly. that was the testimony at the hearing, however, no such quick occupancy of those units resulted. even on our site visit this week, i asked about the occupancy and it's still about 40%, which i think is hard to understand.

in 2016, there was a report stating that we need, a very high demand for residential care facilities. we need to facilitate the approval process for that. actually just this week, former member of this board, now a supervisor, rafael mandelman introduced legislation to make it easier to convert or easier to provide residential care. and i also should note the property next to this, was approved in the last couple years for residential uses. they recently came back in for a permit to convert that to residential care facility entirely. so we think we can see there's a very clear demand. it's inexplicable in my mind why this is only 40%.

the appellant never made mention of the d.d.a. in any of their contractual obligations. we did include in our letter of determination response that they need to contact mayor's office to work out that requirement, that they need to satisfy that obligation that they're faced. in 2017, there was a task force visit with the city attorney's office, mayor's office, bept of dlg inspection, and they -- department of building inspection, and they found work that had been performed over the last decade, including the merging of the deputy manager's unit, which i understand is the son of one of the occupants. i will note on the site visit yesterday, i did see the office of that deputy director, and i did see their license that was displayed, the state license actually expired last year, so they're not -- as i understand, currently licensed by the state.

i did speak with the appellant before the hearing, and they indicated that is a fairly easy process to get done, but it sounds like there's been no effort to get that done, but they may now and seek to do that. so last year, the planning -- after the site visit that had found these numerous violations, they submitted the prior building application to legalize. they could have converted back to what was there, what was supposed to be there under the d.d.a. and under the previously approved building permits. they sought to legalize what is there now, and this was heard -- we did a staff initiated d.r. because we felt so strongly about the inappropriate alterations that had been made, and the planning commission heard and denied this permit a few months ago and now appealed to you, this board. [please stand by]

>> it would certain that certainly, they were not -- they did not exceed the number of

units required by the d.d.a.? >> no, they are counting the rooms on the second level and adding that to on floors 3-9. there were supposed to be 112 by the information i was given from the appellant and there are 111. i think they have another 12 rooms on -- 12 or 13 rooms on the second-storey but that is summed to be 20 beds asper the terms of the d.d.a., there are no extra rooms to play with. that is not the case. what they're proposing is not in compliance with the d.d.a. >> would you consider that in this environment where there's a shortage of housing in just about ever category, whether there's a special needs or just workforce housing or low income housing and even highrise that not having these extra beds,

regardless of the administrative ability to fill those beds, that not having these beds as the d.d.a. required it is a significant hardship in the city of san francisco? >> i absolutely agree. the proposal would be non compliant with our requirements of the d.d.a. just looking at what they proposed and the residential units they have proposed are not code compliant. the residential care facility is not a residential use under the planning code. it's an institutional use. under the planning code, there are certain instances where dwelling units can be added as accessory units, this is not one of them. it's very explicit where you can have dwelling units as an accessory use and it's not a use listed. we have to consider these as separate residential units.

ray rear yard is required. the unit of the deputy director cannot comply it the exposure requirements and it has wonderful views and it's well done, it doesn't meet the code requirements for exposure nor do the units meet the open space requirements, what they've done for the dwelling units in addition to the planning commission and pro pro at decision to say you can't merge any of the units, that would be in violation of the d.d.a., this this is a use in demand and it doesn't comply with the planning code. >> final question, the do have information with the requirement that administrator has to live

on the property full time versus the must be a manager on duty who is living at the property at all times to take care of urgent and emergency needs? >> i've just reviewed the language. i think as the planning commission did, as others have and my reading of that is that it does not require someone to make this their residents. it does not require a manager to make this their home. again, the timing of this i think this legislation came through in 2014. this illegal work came through in 2007. when they said, they were talking about in terms of the affordable units, we can't provide the affordable units because of the financial hardship. at the time, they took units off of the market and had the money to do illegal renovations to the building and to continue the illegal renovations because the site visit that occurred last year, one of those suites, the

five rooms into one, that's in a state of construction. that's more recent activity. >> thank you. >> i'm going to clarify. commissioners using the terms beds you use the terms rooms. they were interchangeable. is the d.d.a. specify which one? >> it specifies units and it also -- it should be for residential care containing 112 efficiency units, which will accommodate a total of 112 residents on the third to ninth floors. and a 20-bed licensed respite care unit on the second floor. >> so the second floor is 20 beds, it's not 20 rooms. >> that's correct. >> that could be co could be ale

room? >> right. >> the third through the nine is 112 that is required says units, right. so one would assume those are individual rooms. >> yes. it does specify, it's 112 efficiency units which will accommodate 112 residents. so one to one occupancy. even in the affordable requirements, it's more explicit stating they must be single occupancy. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. duffy. >> commissioners, joe duffy d. b.i. i don't have too much to say. just could confirm there's a notice of violation for the work that was done without a permit. as you know, the permit good filed and subsequently denied. the case is currently been

referred to code enforcement division for a hearing. that will be probably coming up soon on the directors hearing which could end up with an order of abatement for the building. i don't really have much to add. the notes of violation was in the brief. it's lengthy. i don't think you need me to read it out. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? any public comment? how many people? if you can please get close. can you come down to the front and have a seat, thank you. >> director green. >> i'm doing well, thank you. for the record, chairman, commissioners, staff, my name is gerald green. i am here to support the appellant. as previously been exhibited by

your problem-solving skills, my intent is to first of all try to at least contribute some means of a compromise, some means of a solution here. i'm speaking to commissioners swig issue about why we should be here. i believe that the redevelopment agency created a business deal and having the d.d.a. being consistent with the d.d.a. is one way to demonstrate success but i also believe there are other ways that you can make this a successful project. i think the city did a business deal. i agree with commissioner fung that it probably was the case that that should be considered first and that business deal should be re-evaluated. we have a building permit that's before you. this building permit is being used as a means to solve a problem that is operational and physical. i believe there is a way to find some physical solution to this, to make this a more successful

project. it is clear that there is something here that is unusual. the building is not completely occupied. it hasn't been occupied. and i think that there's better ways of being able to establish this will successful project. this permit and your ability to find some middle ground here. i think it's one way of helping in that matter. it's been separated that we have work that's done related to trying to comply with someone's interpretation as well as trying to make this a better project and you should keep that in mind. you have the ability to at least try to find some physical solutions here and take this permit and be able to do that. maybe a way to do this is to continue this, allow them to go back and re-evaluate and try to redo this deal in some way or another. and then come back and try to find a better physical solution. i don't think requiring them to go back to the 2004 condition will result in a successful project. nor will it result in occupancy.

thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. i just noticed this one calender, my mom fell about 12 years ago and broke her hip. she was 88 or 89. she was in a hospital for a week and screamed and yelled and said get me out of here, i want to go home. she went into assisted living for a couple weeks. we found mel's place. i took care of my mom. the place wasn't fully occupied then, 12 years ago. she stayed there for a year-and-a-half. they took care of her. when she left it wasn't occupied fully. they did take care of my mom. she left because she wanted to go home and watch fox news and she commented she was the oldest person there. most of the people were in their 60s and 70s and she was in

her 90s. they've never been fully occupied. i don't understand it because it's a wonderful facility. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is bruce beauman, i'm here not to speak from a code standpoint but to speak from my heart. my parents were both residents of the avenue. my father was there for four years in the dementia ward where he required 24 hour care. my mother was there and in hospice when she passed away there. i truly believe the avenue extended my father's life. they gave my parents the dignity and the honor to move onto the next stage until life. i'm here to ask you to look at this facility and understand

that it is a special facility that provides the kind of care that you cannot find in a large corporate institutional chain facility. it's a small -- we can almost call it mom and pop type of operation, where you walk in the front door and mel greets you. i recall fondly ever time theresa would walk up to my father, his face would light up and he would feel happy to see her. so please, do what you can to try to work with the avenue. do what you can to resolve these issues. this is not a hotel. this is a place where people get care that they deserve. thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none. we'll move on to rebuttle. from the appellant. you have three minutes.

>> i want to clarify a couple of things about the hotel. our business, assisted living, is not just a regular apartment, it's for people who come if they have a need to be cared for like medication and dementia care. those are very limited clientele. it's not just you come in a room and board. to answer the question of commissioner swig about why does this not fill up for the entire last 14 years and we are stuck. the below market we have problems of the market rate, you know. but for below market, even that wait was set up by d.d.a. and it's still an forward abl not ar people that qualify because they have a limit of how much income to qualify for level care. it's a very complicated calculation and during a couple meetings with city attorney and also the mayor's office and

office solution how to resolve it. they don't listen. my goal is, i think also the goal for the public is how to fill up and help seniors who need help. not only we, avenue, are private. we have to pay taxes. we have to pay everything. benefits and everything. even the city-owned facility is 100% non-profit and they buy the land for $1. they're not sold out. they're not sold out. they have a problem to fill up. for the those living on site they are non-profit. the add minutes straigh adminise the the entire staff live on site. it's required. so other thing i want to clarify about 20 beds or 20 rooms. the 20 beds of care please give me the definition of

convalescent care. if that is for convalescent care is i really have no clue because we are non medical building. we are not supposed to save the life that you can make people who require convalescent/skilled nursing/rehab. those people have to go to those really medical building. we are residential. so we provide 20 beds on the second floor. we can be dementia care. so we do have 124 units. we provide 20 people beds. we are licensed for 145 beds actually. we can put them anywhere in the building. as long as that is compatible and then we can manage the care. >> any questions?

>> i have a question. why wasn't this attempted to be negotiated out with the city attorney's office or other interested agencies before it came here. you are asking for authorization of permit, which doesn't match the d.d.a. >> the answer is this is currently in litigation. i hope they can work something out. the permit is separate from litigation. i don't think it's the case. even if the permit did conflict with the development agreement, that would be something that they would come back after the permit and ask for an amendment

of the development agreement. it's also entirely possible to the extent there is conflict to amend this permit to remove that conflict. if they're shy by a unit, a unit can be removed from the administrator unit. >> what you really want is for us to continue this case. then the fines will continue to be deferred. >> in all cander, i think we would like to have finality. but we would like to have this permit. >> ok. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, mr. patterson. could you, since i was on the site visit, can you give me the square footage of the two on-site resident manager's units. >> all our units start from 180 square foot to 250.

>> for the two administration units. what size are they now? >> the one with four units combined around 800. the one proposing for the five units about 1,000. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> i think the commission is going in the appropriate direction questioning in hasn't the d.d.a. been amended. this is a contract that the appellant signed with the city. it has already been amended numerous times by the appellant as they've made changes throughout the project. why did they stop doing that and then start doing work without benefit of permit? i appreciate the comments about the success of the unit and ensuring success and whether the improvements could increase the live ability of it and improve the occupancy rates of it.

but to keep in mind, the illegal work has been done for about a decade and that has not had any notable improvement in terms of the occupancy. when we viewed the site yesterday we saw the four double rooms that were meant to be for couples. they were all vacant. i appreciate that there are success stories with the clients who have used the facility and that it's been a meaningful place, but i do have concerns that we have a project sponsor that has shown a disregard for the residents that are under its care by performing illegal work. not only, you know, at the penthouse level, where we have one set of five rooms that's gutted to could be merged together with exposed wires and plumbing. no permits for that. but even on the rooms, i noticed when we did the site visit where they merged the two rooms together on the inside, they sheet rocked it where the door was. on the outside, the door was

still there. so i'm wondering, what if you are a fire fighter and you are coming through and you need to check that room and how does the door work when there's sheet rock behind it. it's questionable some of the action that's have been taken here. aside from the failure to provide 25 affordable units as they said they would, almost 20 years ago. for those reasons, i would respectfully request the board up hold the planning commission's denial of this and i do agree that if they want to work this out with the proper agencies they can go back and seek to have an amendment of the d.d.a. that's a more comprehensive and appropriate and direct approach. i think what we've had for more than a decade is a lack of direct approach on the part of the appellant and tackling the issues head on. getting the permits and if they need to revisit this now, they can do it with the appropriate agencies, revice the d.d.a. and come to terms with the

affordable housing they signed on to. there are detailed directions about what is expected when you need to provide affordable housing obligations and that was outlined in the d.d.a. i understand it can still be complicated but they signed it. i request you up hold the denial and bring finality to this and the city can move forward properly and get it resolved. thank you. >> thank you. anything to add? >> mr. duffy, i am assuming i should ask this question to you, given that it's the building and not planning. so, mr. sanchez just pointed out that there was exposed elements that are not only unpermitted but probably illegal. that there are -- that you walk

down a hall and i'm sorry you did not go on the site visit but i will trust the eyes of the zoning administrator. there is a door that shows from the hallway and if you were trying to get through that door in an emergency to save someone, you would find that you could not because it was sheet rocked over. these are illegal conditions. where does your department come in with something that would yellow tag, red tag or stop the occupancy of a building like this in this condition, especially with dementia patients. especially with seniors who probably lack the physical agility to move quickly during an emergency? >> we do have a notice of violation documents all those

conditions. it's pretty well written notice of violation and it's in the -- i was going to read it out. i was on the site visit as well. i did see the door with the sheet rock behind it. i brought it to scott's attention. it is an issue. i mean, there's no number on the door but yeah, there's just definitely an issue. we have a notice of violation. it's going through our code enforcement process. they need to take care of it. the earlier the building that is under remodel on the top floor it's away from the residents of the building. i don't think it inte interfereh the life safety in the building. the work has stopped. they started the work without a permit. it's in demo stage. you have the unit and you see metal studs exposed. that area would not be an area that the residents could get to. i'm not that worried about that. the door probably something on that door would be helpful to

them. i did give it some thought. they may want to pull a notice on that door that there's no access to unit from this door or something like that. i can speak to them off line and get that on there. on any doors there's sheet rock over. >> where is the tipping point where the building owner, also in this case the operator of the business, where the license gets pulled and they have to close this building for operation because there are dangerous conditions, especially in consider of doing all this work without a permit. and god knows what is behind those walls. >> we leave that to the attorney

office. i believe the case is with the city attorney office. it was through one of their task forces that we were in the building in the first place. i'm not sure what happens to licenses and stuff like that. we document the violations on the code. >> i don't know if this is your question or mr. sanchez's question. in the process of up holding the denial of this permit, where is the part where we require ha humpty dumpty gets put back together all over again in the fashion according to the d.d.a.? how does that happen? >> well, that would be a new building permit, in my opinion. it would have to be. the opening is on the notice of violation from d.d.a. to revert to legal condition which was on

the c.f.c. when the building got built. or apply for a permit to legalize the way you have it and they did chose that path and that permit has been denied. that where they are in that case. mr. sanchez is happy to comment on that as well? but that's where i stand. >> they chose that path. it's just been denied by planning, that's all. >> correct. what's going to happen with -- >> the permit would have legalized all of things that they did. >> i understand that. how do we -- in denying if they were to deny the permit or deny the appeal, where is the point -- what's the next step to get this put back together in the way that it should be according to the agreement that the developer and owner -- >> i don't think this is the question for mr. duffy. >> well, all i can tell from is we will keep our enforcement going on the notice of

violation. that will lead to further code enforcement processes. planning may have an enforcement case. the city attorney may have an enforcement case so there will be pressure coming from after agencies are dealing with this. >> if we don't believe that this permit is appropriate and to deny the appeal, tha then we dot have to worry because other forces will be at work to try to put the building back in order in the way it should have been in order in the first place. >> i give you an example of that. when the permit was filed, we held a notice of violation. when it was denied, we kept going with the enforcement. so the enforcement will go on anyway. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you know my thinking was along the same line. for a different reason and probably a different end point. this permit and the actions that

we're going to take today, really are not the consequencal ones with respect to any type of a resolution of the issue. no matter how it goes against the property owners. there is no way for myself to be able to grant a permit that then changes the conditions of a d.d.a. i'm not prepared to do that. on the other hand, i'm not prepared to do something that doesn't help to try to find a resolution. where the institution then goes down. i'm not saying that it would. i'm just saying that you know, if there is no resolution, then we lose the community assets in

some sense. what i would propose is that we continue this case. our actions really are not very significant and they should follow what the larger decisions and either settlements that may occur and then we'll act upon it at that point in time. >> are we in the discussion point yet? >> yes. >> ok. >> i didn't get a chance to say it. >> i just started first. >> compared to everybody else. >> the matter is submitted. >> you asked -- you mentioned i wasn't on the redevelopment agency commission, which i was. and i quickly said the most of our focus was on bay view hunters point and that area, probably those were the ones that are most memorable in my mind and were the greatest scars

are still present. there was some wonderful, wonderful work done by the redevelopment agency with regard to specialty housing. that was senior housing, affordable housing, housing that provided special services to special needs individuals, special needs doesn't mean that they were ill or anything, they just had special needs and required special services. there was a developer of those projects that we owe the citizens of san francisco should be very proud of. the developers and the operators which were selected by fulfill their notes and to my knowledge

we're always found more demand than there was inventory for those projects. and so where i'm having a hard time having any sort of compassion for this developer or operator is with reference to those very, very successful projects which are in equal locations, which have the same size modules, et cetera, et cetera. that is where my energy is coming from at the moment. i would -- i guess i would agree with you, president fung, that a continuance to find a better way might be the best way to go. but there's no way that i would support the appeal.

>> i would expect something to come back that's different. >> yeah. >> i'm having a hard time with the entirety of what has gone on here. there wasn't any discussion and all about the effort to convert it to student housing just a couple of years, which speaks to me of a lack of commitment to this as well. i understand your sort of trying to sequence things but i don't know that denying this appeal is going to make a difference in the long run. i'm not prepared to continue it. >> i can go either way. i did do this site visit yesterday. i'm extremely concerned with the business plan and motto of this particular facility. the fact that the zoning

administrator or one of the department either joe or scott noticed that even that the facility care licenses had been expired. i can go either way. i think that more importantly, the district attorney has other plans for this particular facility itself. but i do have a concern on how it is run. before me is the permit of the illegality of the work that was performed, which we know at this point was not performed with permits. >> planning department. if the board does vote to continue, i would like to know

if the board has an expectations from the city agency what should happen in this time? should they take steps to abate the violations out there now? if the board does deny the appeal, that doesn't prevent the applicant from moving forward to still working with the city. if anything, in my opinion, it will crump it. >> it doesn't but also it doesn't affect the long-term resolution at all. whatever our action is. i wouldn't have an expectation. this board and it's power as stated by the councilor on the previous case, was really true at one time. it's less true these days. you know, when we had the ability to review and either

change conditional use which is not far off of what a d.d.a. is, there it was entirely different. i'm just saying that the actions of this board, whether you want to take the high road or not, really has very little impact because the actions of the city attorney and their lawsuit and perhaps sediment at some point in time is really what is going to bring it. and then we'll pick up the very minor pieces. this board could assist in that, you know, whether it's the processes of certain types of permits or things that occur. >> there's a sediment it would never come back. >> they might require some further actions. >> it would be a building permit application that they could file and the departments would take the appropriate action on -- i'm just concerned there's --

>> if it came here it probably would be issued much faster than if it started out as a new permit. >> let me ask you a question -- because you've been down these roads before and you are going to have to handle it one way or the other. if we deny the appeal, then what happens in your mind or in reality, what is the next step? what is tomorrow going to look like on this item? if we continue this, what will tomorrow look like? >> it leaves the violation unabated. taking action tonight will give a very clear direction to the appellant about how to proceed and that is to abate the violation. the violation will never be abated adds long as this permit is continued. that's one of the concerns if the decision is a upheld.

the n.o.v. gave two paths. revert back to what was there before, that addresses the violation or legalize it. they sought to legalize it. they will continue and have that illegal condition until the board continues this to the call of the chair. i would prefer to have the matter resolved and then if there could be discussions between the appellant and the city about how to resolve it. it doesn't for close if the board up holds the denial. it doesn't -- >> so your view would be denial of the appeal would give yourself, mr. duffy and other departments the teeth to get this project back in order more immediately than kicking the can further down the road. >> it gives certainty to all parties. >> ok. >> was that your point of view

too. why we should just take action? >> yeah. >> i think i would lean towards commissioner lazarus point of view. >> would you like to make a motion. >> i move to deny the a we'll ap and hold the decision of the planning department on the basis that it was the appropriate decision. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to denial the appeal up and hold the denial of the permit on the basis it was appropriately denied. president fung. >> no. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> vice president swig. >> aye. >> with three votes that motion passes. the appeal is denied.

that concludes the hearing. >> the meeting is over. order. good afternoon, welcome to the san francisco historic preservation commission regular hearing for wednesday, octo3r