would be willing to consider the buyout form. she offered the form. i forget what it was called. it would allow us to start into a conversation about a buyout. i never did proceed with that. also it is interesting to me, at the time that she called out that as one of the tenants, i was actually one of the few that was paying close to act rental rates. again, to underscore why were we alarmed? there were permits issues that are no longer -- i'm sorry for the language but have been cancelled. but the permits stated there was going to be redirection of stairs and there'd be no occupants in the building, which of course, is not true. many of the occupants are here tonight. we have been told that we would verbally -- we have been verbally told that we would move and it has not been issued. there has been no permits that's

been issued as of yet. >> thank you. your time is up. you will have an opportunity and rebuttal. is the permit holder -- is a representative for the permit holder here? if you could please approach. if you could identify yourself for the record. you have seven minutes. >> i really don't have anything to say other than i represent gerald who is -- my name is brian patrick. he is the owner of the property and i represent him. >> okay. >> with regard to the permits that is at issue, this is a simple interior model of a kitchen. >> okay. you still have -- how we started the clock? okay. you have time if you want to address the concerns. >> there was a lot -- i have read the brief that they submitted.

i have listens -- listen to tenants process fears and concerns. the process is going to be respecting. tenants rights will be respected there is nothing -- we and fully -- we fully intend to comply with the law. >> are you done? >> i'm done. i have a question and i'm sure everyone has several. first of all, how long -- how long ago have you been retained by this particular permit holder or landlord? >> in what regard? >> have you been there representative for more than three weeks? >> this is a client who has more than this case in our office. so it depends on your question. >> how long have you been representing this particular property? for this particular property, maybe since a summer. >> is a reason why you did not submit a brief? and follow the rules of this body?

>> yes. we found that the could have been an issue that the architect made a mistake with regard to how the two permits that were full -- pulled off were noticed and rather than go through and fight something that was improperly noticed, we were going through the notice procedures so everything is done property -- properly. >> so you read their brief and have no response and you agree to what they've said or did not say? >> i'm sorry. say that when we're time. >> in this particular board, you are not required to, but it is generally recommended that you supply a brief and it is in response to the appellant post s. brief. did you read their brief? >> i did. >> is there a particular reason why he did not respond to that particular brief? >> we felt that there was an error in the procedure that we were going with those two

permits. we cancelled the permits. we are starting over to make sure all the notices comply. >> okay. anybody else? >> what unit is a kitchen remodel for? >> i think the kitchen is unit five. >> is there some particular reason is being remodelled at this point? >> it is a vacant. the owner wants to remodel it now. >> vacant. thank you. >> do you have any response to the appellants who have asserted that there is an office being run here versus having the unit -- >> there is no unit on that property. >> i have one more question. and the pictures that were in the brief and that were put on the overhead, evidently there has -- there are windows on the property. is very permit history that i see in the pictures? >> i cannot speak to that.

if there is, i was not -- >> i will ask the department. thank you. >> any further questions? >> will now hear from the department. okay. planning. >> evening. and hear from the planning department. briefly for item seven b., for that subject building permit to, they did not review or sign off on that. i wanted to clarify that consistent with some of the public comment, we had received a referral from the city post s. attorney his office in august 2017 that unit number five is used as an office space instead of a unit. that complaint case is opened. it was investigated for a good period of time and in august of this year, the planning department did issue and n.o.v. and required that it be updated.

the permit for item seven b. was to essentially, even though the language is to renovate the kitchen and the partition walls, my understanding was to replace the kitchen and reintroduce a dwelling unit use into that space and formally remove any illegal office space that had been there. because of that, on september 25 th when this permit was issued, that enforcement case was closed. so i want you to be aware of that. because it has implications for what happens with this permits. making sure it is properly abated. >> you are saying there is n.o.v. issue because it was found there was an illegal office use being used at the location and this is to rectify

this? >> i do not know what it says and i don't think it specifically references that purpose but effectively, that was part of the purpose. >> are you aware if there is currently a kitchen on the premises that was -- or the kitchen was removed and now they need to put one back in because there is not a kitchen? >> my understanding, and i can look again, was the kitchen had been removed. but i can double,. >> thank you -- but i can double check. >> thank you. >> i will just call you the zoning administrator. >> that's fine. >> wouldn't that also -- you are not allowed to remove a rent controlled unit in san francisco and by removing that kitchen, wouldn't that also trigger that as well? >> if you are proposing to remove the unit, legally. that would require a conditional use authorization from the planning department. in this case, the unit had been

converted without permits. the option for the property owner would be to legalize it through the appropriate means or abate the violation by reinstalling the residential use of the unit and that was the roots they went. >> okay. thank you. >> we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> it's always good to see you. we don't see very often. i missed my dinner just to dress up to see you guys. >> you are so sweet. >> what do you want to know? >> we will get a new bites -- lots of bytes at this apple. but other than what you have to say, i asked is there a chance that you had looked at the permit history prior before coming to our hearing? could you give us some insight

of that permit history of the property? >> they have permits going back to the ats. reroofing, kitchen cabinets, things like that. nothing major. they have a seismic retrofit permit filed along with the two new file permits for the back stairs. >> i noticed in the pictures that were shown on the overhead, that those are newer style windows. they look like they were vinyl. did you see any permit history for those? >> i did not. >> the other question is, if it is on the seismic retrofit and it is on voluntary, it is required. >> this might be under the mandatory. >> because it is five units plus >> gas. >> wonder they need to comply with that? >> i think it is any day now. >> that is what i was thinking. >> thank you. >> while you are up there? -- >> was there a kitchen in the unit? the council said it wasn't an office.

>> i never gained entry. i was just made aware of this through mr teague because it was the planning department action. not a building department action the only verbiage they have on the new permit now is to remodel the kitchen, so to speak. >> but we would be just putting it back in the kitchen. >> if there is no kitchen, how can we remodel it? and if there was a kitchen there and there is no kitchen now, would it be your assumption that an illegal action occurred and the kitchen was removed illegally? >> that is why they got the notice of violation from the planning department. >> do they have a tiny kitchen and there? i don't know. i have never been in the site. do they have a makeshift kitchen in there and pulled out the larger kitchen? i don't know. >> does this project require drawings? >> yes.

>> and this was otc, right? >> joined the backstairs or during the kitchen? the kitchen there just putting in cabinets. >> it is not a demolition of walls? >> if they are demolishing walls , the only thing that would be required is the notification if they are distributing lead paint. >> or are there drawings? there are? >> there should be drawings. >> are there? >> no. it is very rare that we have a builder like this. it will be fun. have you seen any plans in regards to the required seismic retrofit? it is only a file permits right now. >> are you aware -- usually when you do the a.d.u. you have the benefit of adding a d. use additional dwelling units. are you aware if they are planning to -- do they have a.d.u. his -- a.d.u. his?

>> would planning have any more information regarding that question? thank you. >> it's party time. [laughter] >> okay. we are now moving on to public comment. >> i think the zoning administrator has further comments to add. >> okay. >> thank you for inviting me back up. i want to clarify since there was questions about a kitchen. i apologize. it was not clear through the permit and through our system that the permit on appeal was effectively for the purpose of this in some parts. so i wasn't interested until this evening if that was the case. again, in august of last year, we received a referral from the city poston his attorney his office that this was being used as a business office. there was an expansion -- inspection. they confirmed that and they

conferred with d.b.i. and they did access it. they determines there was a location at that time. kitchen was installed by july 13 th of this year. but in august of this year, additional complaints were received that even though the kitchen had been installed, it was still being used as an office space and not being used for residential purposes. that led to the issuance of the notice of violation that even though the kitchen had been reinstalled, it was actually not being used for residential purpose and was being used as an office space. that helped clarify that if there is a kitchen in there to some degree, how that kitchen is laid out or set up or included is not clear. >> what is the penalty for candy -- continuing to use the space as an office outside of code? >> for any violation in the planning code, if you fail to abate the violation, the maximum penalty is up to $250 a day from that point on, as long as the violation continues.

>> even with the permit, the notice of violation can be satisfied by the office use could continue. what would happen then? >> it cannot continue, essentially. it has to be used as a dwelling unit. now that the notice of violation has been issued, and it was abated, because of this permit and assuming some other associated documentation, the notice of violation has been issued. if the violation continues, than these can begin to approve. >> thank you. >> i have a question. sorry mr teague. the property, evidently, by the tenants that are on the property , say it has been vacant since 2015. in san francisco, we do have vacancy controls. aren't they supposed to -- and then the other thing is, they are a block book notification -- is there a black book notification. >> not that i am aware, but i can check.

>> is bbn only good for building permits are planning staff? >> it is for any permit or any other application that requires review by the planning department. >> if there is not, it is recommended somebody gets a b.b.n. so if the owner were to file any permits that they will be notified. >> true. but only if it requires planning department department review. this permit, this is subject -- he did not require planning department review. it would have not triggered the notice. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. okay. >> there are plans. two sets to appeal the kitchen. sorry about that. i misread it. >> thank you. we will now move on to public comment for this item. okay. if you can please approach. how many people are here for public comment on this item? okay. may be not to eat too many. if you can be prepared to speak. go ahead.

>> my name is john. i am a neighbor at 90 alta and i was going to represent diane english for seven a and seven c. but since that -- we are not doing that tonight. i just want to make clarification on this remodel in unit five. the notice of violation was for an office and they complied with that notice of violation on the permit. the permit application to comply with results. they put a kitchenette unit.

a refrigerator. so the original part was nice cabinets and refrigerator, stove , you know, normal set up. and to comply with the notice of violation, they put in a kitchen , sink unit and a refrigerator. that is why the permit was abated. i don't know. oh,. overhead. it is not showing up. i'm sorry. anyway, so this new permit here for the kitchen remodel is actually, everyone keeps saying it is a kitchen but it is actually the reading of the permits as kitchen and bath replacement. a renovation of kitchen and bathroom replacement of a partition wall. so they said they did have plans

for that. i can testify that right now that the apartment is totally demolished as far as walls go. they tore out walls and they tore out sheetrock and it is in the middle of construction. i want to clarify that situation >> thank you. >> you are saying the property has been demoed prior without a permit? >> it was probably demoed with this permit but they have not done any work to restore it. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. public comment. maybe if you could come forward to be prepared. thanks. >> thank you very much. my name is roxanne davis. i live at 40 alta and i have been there since 1981. this is just to show how duplicitous the owners are. the units that -- the whole thing with the office, a tenant

died and then they called it a temporary office that they tore out -- the reason they tore out the kitchen. they tore out the kitchen and put in seven or eight computers. we paid our ranch they are. it was the office for almost three years. -- we paid the rent they are. it was the office for almost three years. out of the 12 units, they have four of them and they are keeping two off the market and the owner, when he moved in and bought the property, he was really dismissive to say this is just an investment property. [please stand by]

e >>clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> teresa flandrick. i actually work at senior and disability housing and policy. this whole situation here came to me at a point where i'm actually very familiar with

jerald balzer, the owner. back during the first dot-com era in terms of he bought a home on my street on lombard, and he pushed everyone out, saying there were renovations. and one person fought to get back in. but with these remodels, this building became commercial rentals for many years. the neighbors still look out across the street to what's going on. this was very important to our tight knit north beach community. when we see also with balzer riding on his secretary of state statement -- see, he owns several buildings. the problem is is he's also said

that he has an office in 567 lombard. this is, again, the seven unit residential building on lombard street. so he has that address in one place, he has another address as his principle business address being 517 lombard. he also has a service of address address at 429. he immediately upon buying that tried to negotiate buyouts with the tenants. the building is now vacant, the four tenants that had live ind that building. this building is empty, but this

might be his other business address as well as his 567 lombard and 579. so the point is we see all of those inconsistencies. how can you have so many different addresses, and which are your actually business places, and does this mean units at the lombard street building are also being turned into office since they were -- had to close down the alta street one. so i just really want you to please make sure you are monitoring this? the joint commission, the planning commission, and building inspection, they talked about this exact same thing on april 12, alterations without building permits.

>>clerk: okay. is there any further rebuttal? okay. miss duffy, you have three minutes. are you going to take the rebuttal time? >> yes. >> sue hester again. i'm asking this board to continue this item to january so that briefs can be prepared, given the craziness of this situation about unit five. unit five is office and not office, and the developer is doing construction and has had a lot of permits that he's applied for. this owner seems to be very proficient in doing over the counter permits that never get routed to planning. planning commission has jurisdiction whenever uses change, has to go to planning. they just ignore that, do it on

their own. there needs to be an opportunity to give this board the information on what is happening on unit five in the context of this really ridiculous stairway evictions that weren't real until today, when they got a permit to cancel the permit. i ask you, you have jurisdiction over b, which is unit 5 and 50 -- 50 alta. planni planni planning should meet with the neighborhood people and understand what the hell is happening. there's all kinds of end runs being done on this property, on other properties that are similar to this by this same owner, evicting the tenants. we're losing housing in this manner that is bit by bit, but

it's real, and the people are moved out of the city. and you have the ability to say what happens on unit five? i ask you to continue this hearing until january if it's convenient for you, just to have briefing done that no one was able to do because all of this stuff at the last 24 hours was not briefed. the developer has never submitted a brief, he just gets permits from d.b.i., and he gets permits from d.b.i. without plans. we don't have plans. thank you. >>clerk: thank you. okay. is the permit holder's representative, it's rebuttal time. do you have anything to add? >> commissioner honda: i have a

question, counselor, please. so, sir, i understand that you did not supply a brief for a and c because you felt there was inconsistencies in that. is there a reason why you did not supply a brief for item b in regards to the kitchen. do you not need a kitchen? >> i'm sorry. is the question -- >> commissioner honda: why did you not supply a brief for item b? >> i didn't feel i needed to supply a brief. i was instructed by the client not to submit a brief. >> commissioner honda: how many ellis acts are you in the process of doing or have you done recently with this client? >> i haven't done one ellis act for this client? >> commissioner honda: okay. and is that a service that you would normally provide for him? >> our firm provides ellis acts for our clients.

>> commissioner tanner: were you aware of the acts received in unit five? >> i was aware there was an m.o.v. but i was not involved. >> vice president swig: you seem to be representing a client that you know nothing about. everything you say, i don't know anything about. let me get more specific because you're asked how long you represented the client. i believe you said sometime in july or august? >> well, that was for this assignment. you're asking me -- >> vice president swig: okay. thank you. i didn't say anything, because i'm kind of upset. is there somebody in your office who has represented this client on this matter? is there somebody in your office who is aware of the n.o.v.? is there somebody in your office who has participated in ellis actions in this or other properties of this client? >> i'd have to go back and look at this client's file. this client has been --

>> vice president swig: thank you. obviously, you can't answer -- you're being disagreeable. >> no, that's not true. now you're asking me a bunch of broad questions. >> vice president swig: no, i'm asking you very specific questions. >> no, no, no, no. >> vice president swig: yes, yes, yes, yes. >> you're asking me of doing an ellis act for this client. i do a lot of ellis acts for clients. i don't know of one pending for this client. >> vice president swig: fine, then that would be you don't know of an ellis act pending for this client. >> fine. >> vice president swig: then that's your answer. is there somebody else in your office since you seem to know nothing about your client which has participated with your client on this property and participated in any activity who would have nothing of the n.o. -- nothing of the n.o.v. and any activities at this property? >> i cannot speak to the

meetings that mr. wiegel and this client have had, so i'm not going to speak to that. >> vice president swig: okay. >> commissioner tanner: what did you imagine was going to happen when you came here tonight? >> this exact circus that happened here tonight. >> commissioner honda: and i'm sorry. i've been calling you counselor. are you an attorney at law? >> i am. >>clerk: okay. [inaudible] >> president fung: excuse me. you can't speak from the audience, but you guys have the time. if you guys want to present something representing the permit holder, you're welcome to use your time. >>clerk: well, they -- [inaudible] >>clerk: right now, we are on rebuttal. how much time do they have left,

gary? [inaudible] >>clerk: okay. so we have three minutes for rebuttal. if you want to have the property manager speak during the rebuttal time, that's fine. >> well, maybe we better approach -- >> president fung: no, no, the question is do you want to use your rebuttal time? >> sure. >> president fung: okay. then start the clock. [inaudible] >>clerk: he was answer questions. please don't have a seat. >> i don't have a prepared statement. >>clerk: and if you could identify yourself, please. >> my name is renee england, and i manage property on behalf of jerald balzer and have done so for the past 11 years. i'm happy to answer questions but don't have a prepared statement. >> commissioner honda: i have a question. so how many ellis act has your client done. >> one.

>> commissioner honda: and reporting o.m.i.s or client evictions, has he done any of those? >> not to my knowledge. >> commissioner honda: okay. and were you aware that they were using that particular space, unit five, as an office rather than a rental dwelling unit? >> i was using that space. the purport was that the -- purpose was that the elderly gentleman who had occupied that unit for 50 years without any unit renovations had passed away. and rather than keep another dwelling unit off the market, we chose to go in there while we tried to work out some logistics for remodelling that whole building and making it a better place for the people who currently occupy it w. was really not a habitable apartment in our opinion, not to the standard that mr. balzer likes to provide housing for, you know, for the residents of

san francisco. >> commissioner honda: do you help your client with the permitting process here in san francisco. >> no, not directly. >> commissioner honda: were you aware that that -- by changing that to an office was in violation of our city and county laws? >> no, and we really didn't change it to an office, but i understand the distinction at the time, and then, we did everything we could to comply with the n.o.v. by installing a kitchenette and ultimately just vacating it altogether and filing permits to completely renovate it so we could return it to the housing market. >> commissioner honda: and then, were you aware that a permit was required when you removed the original kitchen and converted it to an evening office? >> yeah. so there was a little kitchenette unit in there to begin it. it was an all in one contained -- it was a stove top

with an oven and refrigerator all in one, and most of it wasn't functioning. the refrigerator no longer worked, the stove elements didn't work, and the oven didn't work. so i didn't even think anything of it to remove it. and then, when we had to reinstall or got the n.o.v., we got another kitchenette type item and put it where that renovation was. >> commissioner honda: okay. and then, the question was has there been any work done to the property to your knowledge, period? >> yes. >> commissioner honda: and are you aware that permits were gotten on each one of those or you're not -- >> the only one that i'm aware of that didn't -- from what i heard of the discussions today was miss english, one of the appellants, before i started working there, i believe it was after shortly mr. balzer purchased it, took it upon

herself to install some windows. it kind of created some conflict. >> commissioner honda: looking at the pictures, i don't see just one unit, i see multiple units with replaced windows. >> it's a 1950's era building. we've rebuilt a couple of window frames, wood window frames that rotted from weather, but nothing else to my knowledge. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> how long have you been working with this company? >> so i'm an independent property manager, and he has been my client for about 11 years now -- just over 11 years. >> and do you have this other property and other properties, as well, that you manage? >> yes. >> thank you. >> and to clarify on the unit five, you said you're doing a bathroom and the kitchen. and is the intention then to put it back on the rental market? >> yes, absolutely.

once that work is completed. it may be logistically that stairs or some sort of service is interrupted, but ultimately, yes, that's what we want to do. >> okay. >> commissioner tanner: and were you or other members of the company using it as an office there? >> i was using it as an office space, yes. >> commissioner honda: thanks. >>clerk: okay. mr. kern, do you have anything to add? okay. commissioners, the matter's submitted. >> president fung: who'd like to start? >> everyone looks at me. >> president fung: well, i'm going to propose that we need to see the drawings, and i think we need to see what the scope of work has been done there, and how it matches up with the drawings, so i'm prepared to continue -- make a motion to continue this case.

>> support that. >>clerk: okay. and we have january 23 or the 30. >> president fung: 23. >>clerk: okay. so -- >> president fung: does 23 work for both parties? >>clerk: do you want to clarify when you want the plans submitted? >>. >> president fung: yes. we'd like to see copies of the permit drawings, and we'd like to have d.b.i. do a correlation either through a site visit or review of the documents with what has been done on-site. >> may i ask a question -- well, first of all, mr. kern, can you step up. just trying to alleviate a car crash here, which is probably going to happen any way, so what the heck. how -- the new permits -- the

permits that were suspended or -- and administratively flushed down the toilet earlier this evening, when -- those have been reapplied for at this point? >> yes. >> vice president swig: all right. based on typical timing or your own vision of possibilities, when do you see those permits probably getting appealed? >> as soon as they're issued. as soon as they're issued. >> vice president swig: so i can see what's going to happening. i think if they issue them, we're going to appeal them, but think cleaned up the language as far as the verbiage. that was the reason they put down for the cancellation. >> vice president swig: regardless of that, you probably pretty much see that they're going to be appealed. so now i'll turn to president

fung. if these items are going to be appealed, shall we try to get them linked as they were originally, in their original form, to the overall -- >> commissioner honda: scope of the project? >> vice president swig: scope of the project. >> if i may, it could take longer to do it that way. i don't know. planning might want to weigh in because they might have to get involved with the stairs, if there's any difference with rear yard set backs. there's structural aspects that have to be looked at. i think the drawings that they would submit for the stairs would be a little more complicated and involved. >> vice president swig: okay. i'm just trying to see if we can prevent serial hearings so that we have these -- you know, so that everybody isn't coming back week after week on -- you know, on a series of hearings on the same -- on the same property where they might be linked.

that's all. so maybe i'm using common sense, which is fundamentally wrong. >> commissioner honda: can i jump in here, mr. president? the situation is looks like a duck, quacks like a duck. this permit holder has reached out for multiple permits. can we stop any permit on this project? >> president fung: i think we need to deal with the permits, which we're not doing currently. >> commissioner honda: okay. >> vice president swig: yeah. >> to answer mr. honda's question, we have an address restriction, so no permit can be issued until they're reviewed by us. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> it seemed like there has been work performed without permits prior to this notice of violation and trying to correct

it beyond just the office, removal of the kitchen. is there something to really investigate, like, what has happened here? i've heard there's walls taken down, and what kind of permit somebody needs to get for the percentage. >> i don't know if we can look back in time, but we can ascertain a site visit to see if it was within the bounds of this permit before it was suspended. beyond that, we can issue a notice of violation for the penalty of that work involved. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you. >>clerk: okay. so president fung did make a motion to continue the matter till january 23, 2019 so that the board could review copies of the permit drawings and d.b.i. could do a site visit for this

permit. so we would want these plans the thursday prior to the hearing. and are we going to allow any additional briefing? >> president fung: yes. >>clerk: yes? and with what page limits? >> president fung: this would be our -- on our abbreviated schedule, so they can have three pages. >>clerk: three pages. with exhibits? >> president fung: yes. >>clerk: so on the motion -- so that would be a motion to continue this matter to january 23 so we -- as i previously indicated the reasons. and on that motion -- [roll call] >>clerk: okay. so that motion carries, everyone is aware of the limitations in the briefing, and you need to serve the plans on the -- all the parties, okay? and the board, 11 copies

prior -- on the thursday prior to the hearing. >> president fung: okay. let's take a break. >>clerk: okay. we're going to take five [ gavel ]. >>clerk: welcome back to the november 14, 2018 meeting of the board of appeals. we are now moving onto item number eight. this is appeal just 18-131, subject property 898 north point street. serge etcheverry and etcheverry l.l.c. versus the zoning administrator, protesting the granting on september 21, 2018 to waterfront management, l.l.c. of a variance decision, a modification of a prior approval of a variance decision by removing condition number one, which required the portion of the subject property that was transferred from the adjacent lot through a lot line

adjustment to remain as pope ace in perpetuity. up to a maximum height of 13 feet. any decks and associated railings above this first story must be set back at least 5 feet from the shared property line. and we will hear first from the appellant. >> actually been quite a while since we've seen you, mr. williams. >> yes, it has. not long enough, but good evening, president fung, members of the board. steve williams on behalf of the etcheverry family, and they're the owners of 3030 larkin street, and they're the property

that own the subject variance. waterfront management, l.l.c., does not have standing to make the application that's in front of the board. a variance is entitlement that belongs to the property. this seems to be a lot of confusion from waterfront and the acting z.a. on this point, and their briefs did not address this at all, other than to say the z.a. has ability, but this isn't their property area. this is brief 20. 11 was the original etcheverry lot, and 10 was the original waterfront lot, and this is the area that they gave up that the etcheverry owners that that

owner deeded over to the waterfront owners. and it served as the open space for the property since that time, for the last 47 years. if you looked at the original configuration, lot ten was too small to develop, and the owner at that time specifically asked if he could use this area from lot 11. and he agreed, at a huge discount price, because it couldn't be developed. and he had already built the application -- the apartment building, so he said yeah, and that's why they both decided to share it. so the transfer of that portion was made strictly conditional, strictly conditional on that lot remaining at open space -- as open space, and it has done so

because this lot was too small. the corner property did not need a variance, and it was not granted a variance. it has no right to effect this particular variance. as the idea that it was held jointly or the variance somehow is belonging to both properties is just not true. it's simply incorrect. so if you look at the variance, it was granted specifically at 3030 larkin street, and it can only run with that property. and that's why the department has been completely unable to come up with any similar cases. i served a sunshine request saying, you know, you did not use my argument of outstanding to make this application. show me one other case where this has ever happened, where a neighboring owner has been able to change a variance owned by a different property. that does not happen. a variance is a permit that's issued to another property in lieu of other permits.

so just as the variance runs with the etcheverry property, the n.s.r. that was put into place as a condition of the transfer of it also runs with the waterfront property. and when waterfront purchased their property in 2009, they were given actual notice, and they admit that in their brief for the first time, that they did receive notice of that n.s.r. in 2009, and they had it again in 2015, when they submitted another notice for the etcheverry variance. the title report that waterfront got also said that. so if you look at exhibit 15, you'll see that the variance is clearly in the city's records,

it's on the map. it's listed specifically, and so this is a case of fundamental fairness to give both parties exactly what they purchased, and what they received statutory notice of. so in addition to the notice and the standing issues, the new variance decision is fatally flawed, as well. first, it sites the existence of the variance in the n.s.r. as the hardship. if you look at exhibit 2 on page 4, you can't do that. you can't buy a piece of property that has an n.s.r. on it, has a variance on it, and has a notice of that, and then say noeroh, that's a hardship. i need a new variance. second, the job of this board is to determine if there's substantial evidence somewhere in the record in front of you that supports the findings of the z.a. and whether the

findings meet the threshold that's been met. the new threshold is based solely on parking. there's nothing, i mean zero evidence of any kind that supports that decision, zero. it was never mentioned in the application, it was never mentioned at the hearing, and none of the briefing mentions it at all. and to grant a variance on parking for this new project is directly contrary to all of the new city policies. and in fact in two weeks, all of the minimum parking requirements are going to be completely eliminated. and specifically, this is in the waterfront special use district. section 161 creates an exception for this. you don't even have to have parking there. so to say that this doesn't cause harm to the neighbors, to say we can grant this variance because it doesn't cause harm to the neighbors is completely and utterly wrong.

this is going to cause devastating harm to many of the next door who are here tonight, long-term rent controlled neighbors that are in the etcheverry property of the one of the properties in the back, and the occupant of that is here. one of the apartments in the back is going to be rendered uninhabitable space due to exposure issues, and that's not been addressed by the department at all. so you know, this -- this new variance that was granted should have never been taken in by the department and should have never been granted. i hope you had some time to spend with my brief. i know it was a dense one, but this was incredibly important to the etcheverry family, and they're entitled to have that variance. it's in the city records, and they paid for it. thank you very much. >>clerk: thank you. now is the attorney for the

determination holder present? maybe you can raise the microphone, too. thank you. >> hi. jeremy schab of schab architects. the hu's request that the members of the board affirm mr. teague's decision. the hu's purchased the property in 2009, their site permit was approved by the planning department in october 2015 and issued in 2016.

our addendum drawings were filed in february 2017. that april of 2017, we discovered our site is hindered by an n.s.r. requiring the northwestern part of the lot must remain open as open space stemming from this old variance decision. in 1970, our adjacent owner to the north wished to subdivide his property. george imperiali wanted to sell a large portion of his lot, and arthur court, the preceding owner of our property wanted to buy that property as mr. williams stated. the subdivision would cause 3030 larkin to be in violation of several requirements, yet a variance was granted. the 1970 decision transferred an area to our ownership as an area to remain an open space in

perpetuity. that's depicted here. 3030 larkin, the appellant's property is now over here. subsequent lot adjustment created a new lot, lot 22, and that created our new parcel, 24, which is the subject site. to address mr. williams' concern, the variance was on all of this property. we now own this, so we have standing. i don't know how that's hard to understand. because of all these reassignments, the records were muddled to say the least. before preparing plans, the architect and i went and searched at every building permit on the hu's property. we looked at every building plan and researched the entire city history. the simple fact is that neither the hu's, the architects nor variance city employees saw the

recorded restriction. at that point, the hu's acted in good faith and notified the planning department that there was a discrepancy. here's the p.i.m. map and project planning application that i printed out yesterday. we sought this variance to modify that old condition of approval. had we known about the n.s.r. back in 2014, we still would have pursue this had change. our hardship is not due to overlooking the n.s.r., assist based on the excessive size of the open space and the corresponding reduction in the buildable envelope. this is our proposed site plan right now. this is what it looks like with the recorded n.s.r. area in the

hatch. at a hearing this requirement would mean cutting 10 foot from a number of residential levels, the ground floor and basement would be reduced by 30 feet, effective effectively eliminating almost all of the commercial and parking levels. this may make a small mixed use project economicallien feasible. at this time, the hu's have a fully entitled project and are fully ready to bid construction of the building. another change may take years. this amount of hardship warrants the variance modification. one main ambiguity is the definition of open space under the n.s.r. the 1970 decision states the apartment building on lot 11 is not developed in a manner using open space that would be transferred to lot ten other than as light and air to windows on the south side of the building. the transferred area was never usable open space as we currently understand it. instead of the promised open

plaza, the area has served as a surface parking lot. it does provide light and air to the etcheverry building. we understand mr. etcheverry is concern to light and air in some apartments in 3030 larkin, as would be the case in almost every development. without such an easement there is no statutory right other than what the planning code acquires. our plan had provided a fully compliant 20 foot year yard and yet we have continue today revise the plans. our latest building plans which were attached to the variance decision show a greatly reduced volume in the rear of our building. this was the approved building, and this is what we have currently worked on with the zoning administrator. sorry get that above the closed captioning there. we've moved the -- removed part of the commercial space and

replaced it with residential, so we have a full 20-foot rear yard with appropriate deck set backs. perthe z.a.'s new decision letter, the revised plan is consistent with the letter and all sections of the planning code. the city and its residents are not wronged by this modification. mr. etcheverry's building continues to have access to light and air and his 1970 variance still exists for his noncompliant building. unlike the original decision, this project seeks to remedy code discrepancies instead of creating them. that variance created self-imposed hardships. you have seen letters of support from 24 neighbors, some of whom are here to speak tonight. there are many reason for the board to affirm this vision.

if major reason for the open space was future commercial development, this restriction is no longer valid. most importantly, given the hu's proposed kblg complies with alternate and current planning codes, we ask that you uphold our variance. >>clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the zoning administrator. >> good evening, again, president fung, commissioners. cory teague from the planning department. this is an interesting case. i know that you have three lengthy detailed briefs that were submitted. i really do hope that you read them all. i'm not going to even be able to come close to address everything that was raised. i would disagree with the appellant's statements that the decision letter and the briefs submitted by the planning department do not address any of the issues raised. i feel like they address all the

issues that have been raised. the variance decision letter was more detailed and lengthier than a typical variation letter precisely for this reason because it is a complicated situation. i will just try to give a little bit of background and information and will definitely be available for any questions you may have and try to cover as much under rebuttal as i can. the proper here is 898 north street. it's currently zoned c-2 in a 40-x height and zone district. it's a multiunit residential building that fronts only on north street which is not part of this proposal. as was discussed originally, the property owners submitted a building permit for demolition of the commercial building and new construction of a five story unit and because this property is located in the c-2 district, a commercial district, assist n