matter what condition or the facade is in. i new of numerous masonry complex brick restorations all of which have been executed very well. if there were problems maintaining the structure, they should have asked for guidance from the city. that is the law. the 2016 permit applications did not know they had already knocked down the facade. in 2001, the planning department actually denied the request for a gym, a very upscale-type business that the mission really doesn't need. however, the board of appeals in 2002, it was overturned, but that vote did not authorize the destruction of the theater facade. it's completely unauthorized and illegal. i just found out that the koco

family owns another theater nearby. the community will be stand for this -- will not stand for this, and i think it's important to send a message through the planning department that this message should further discourage this type of action in the city. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hello again. my name is lucia, and i'm a community member. and i was not born or raised here, but my dad was born and raised here. and even though this theater has been gone for years now, this theater is still loved and remembered as if it was still here today. it is now in our oral history. tales of this theater is now being handed down from grar grandparent by memory. if there were problems of trying to maintain the existing structure of the theater, the

owners needed to ask guidance from the city. that's the law. i ask this board to uphold the decision of the planning department and to continue revoking the permits for this development. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hi. my name's brittany henry. i'm a community member and i also work with impact hub, which is an affiliate of u.s.m. i'm a third generation bay areian. i've grownup in the bay my entire life. i've only lived in the mission for a year, but i've come to love the culture there. coming to the mission and seeing how much preservation is going on there really warms my heart just because i think it's really important that we preserve culture. it's important that a community

is able to look around and see themselves in it. these things just can't be passed long in tales. people need to see actually themselves within the buildings, been the community -- within the community, within the culture that's in the space. so i won't take up much of your time. i just wanted to lend a story. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker. >> hello. i'll be -- i'll be quick, as well. my name is monica, and i'm born and raised in mission district -- >> clerk: i'm sorry. it's difficult to hear you. do you mind? >> okay. hi. i'm monica born and raised in the mission district, and i support the planning department's decision to revoke the permits. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hello. my name is zachary wisenberger,

and i support the revoking of the permits. if you approve these permits, you would set a dangerous precedent and make it even more dangerous. and i also support the planning department's decision to revoke the permits. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> good afternoon. my name is eric arguella. and i am with calle 24. i just wanted to start to say that we do support the planning determination, and we hope that you uphold their decision. i think we need to start all over again. you know, it's really hard for us to believe that the family

did not know that this is a historic theater. the mission street has been known for its theaters for many decades, and we rivalled market street at one point, and we still do, so it's hard to know they didn't have any idea. the mission street across the street and the grand theater. there's many that we know are historic and been there for many years. also, this is not the first time that the cort family has been involved in something controversial in the neighborhood. at one point, they removed a large mural in the mission. there is not the first time for them. they very well know the neighborhood and what type of profits they can make in the area. they've been buying and selling buildings in the area so they're very well versed in construction and what they do. we just want to make sure that this isn't going to set a

precedent, to come in and say they didn't know anything, and to try to get the price that they want. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> hi. i'm a resident of the mission district. i feel strongly that the removal of the facade does exceed the scope of what was given to the owners, and i strongly support the planning department's decision here, and i implore you to do the same. i just want to go on record and say i don't support the development. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> rick hall, cultural action network. i'm just here to say uphold the planning department decision. cultural action network works with antigentrification efforts in the mission, and there's nothing more gentrifying that wiping out the history of an

area and the theaters are very important landmarks, and frankly, this one should be restored. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> good evening, again. peter papadopolous with the mission cultural agency. we are in the middle of a crisis, and i don't think that that is per year line of question -- your line of questioning, your decision making crux. your decision making crux rests on the fact that this significantly exceeds the scope. in fact i just came across this body of course is the body that initially allowed the project to go forward. those permits were only for the

adapting the use of the existing structure for minimal change of the exterior of the building. that was almost 20 years ago. now we're in it a whole different standing. it had holes punched in it in 2009. it was left open to the weather. 2010, it was declared a historic resource, and then suddenly, 2012, we see that it's knocked down, right? so we have pictures, which you can certainly provide that are available on-line. you can find them from flickr and such from 2012. it was in reasonably good shape. as we hear, there's a very well known procedure for how they would then go forward and they want today ask -- wanted to ask for that demolition. that permit wasn't granted per

se because it said they needed to go and get their permit for what that permission was. that's ostensibly where we're at, which is in order to get a permit, you need it to get approval. they didn't get that permit by submitting a whole new conditional use application and plan. so yeah lastly, the one thing that i wanted to say, i do think it's important that -- the zoning administrator pointed out when they did submit their most recent permit applications, it did not even include that they had already demolished, and i do think that that is significant. that even when all is said and done, they could have come clean and come forward and said here's our proposal, and they did not do that. so we would ask that you uphold the planning department's decision to revoke these

permits. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. my name is louie cornejo. i'm a small business owner who happens to do business in the mission. i happen to own a commercial real estate company, and i happen to work with buildings like this and specialize in real esta retail. i've been in san francisco since 1993. i'm grateful for landlords like vera who keep rents low for small businesses like mine. actually, vera is the only landlord that keeps rent so low that she houses artists that are all living in the city at 1890 bryant, the only building in the city that's for artists. they leased the building for city college, and city college pulled the permits to built a film school. if you speak with them, they're

paying very low rents. the building that i'm in is an office building on 22nd, probably half of the tenants are nonprofits. so i hear a lot of feelings and you know, i think it's only fair that we try and stick to the facts, and it feels like to me, being in real estate and seeing this all the time that this is more about the use change than historics, and i think because of that, they should let the permit continue. the use was approved for a gym. sadly, theaters are closing everywhere. i mean, it's not a mission thing, it's all over the u.s., and gyms seem to be the only business that are thriving. thank you. >> clerk: thank you.

>> in the last 15 years, 8,000 latino families from my neighborhood gone due to the ellis act and people with money that can come in. 12,000 families from the bayview, and black families are at 3% in this city. 15,000 day boys and girl -- 2k3w ay boys and girls from the area. that's -- gay boys and girls from the area. that's 37,000 san franciscans that we don't have anymore. if we don't stop this, we're rewarding this kind of behavior. the cort family has always been like this in san francisco. please up hold what the planning wants. >> clerk: thank you.

[inaudible] >> i come to you to -- by not -- by not -- i come to you to not approve the proposal for -- for having the gym in its place. and i say that because in the latino for me is a historical place, and i say that because my dad used to work there. and seeing that the building is the facade, the art, the building gone makes me cry. also, it -- i just want to say that the -- i'd rather see the building reinstated, and when i

say that, i'd rather see the theater get reinstated and not a gym. >> clerk: thank you. you can fill it out afterwards. go ahead. >> my name is bernar bernardo fernandez. i went to that theater, and a lot of people like me can say it was like a baby-sitter, because we went there when our parents had to work. this family owns a lot of property in our neighborhood, and they have been a bad tenant. there was a mural that was painted by two campesanos on one of their building that they gave permission to, and they went and painted over the

entire mural, a historic mural. they sued, and they lost. they own a bayview building on 22nd and mission. in 1996, when the dot-com boom came through, they evicted everybody. only spanish language radio station, they evicted them. they evicted everybody so that a dot-com business could move in there, which eventually, they, you know, as most dot-com bubbled and moved out. this theater, they never should have closed it. they should have kept it open. look in your record and see how many years this building has been closed. it's been a sore eye -- have you seen it? have you driven by it? if you have, you've seen a sore

that's been in our community. it could have been a site to build affordable housing. a lot of benefits have been given to this family, and they refuse to talk about any other options that the community could have used and especially in this time could have used. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. >> good evening. my name is norma garcia. i'm a native of the mission district. i work in the district, and i've a resident of bernal heights. the destruction of this is very personal to me. when i was growing up as a kid in the mission, mission street was my playground. it's where my families' friends gathers, it was where we shopped and lived. it was home to lovely theaters, the mission, the crown theater,

ci cine latino, and the only one that remains is the theater mission. i have many happy memories of being in the theater watching matinees with my brother. it's where i began to appreciate detail, art deco design. it was there, it was beautiful, and it's gone. i ask you that question, too. have you been by the crown theater, the former latino? it's an absolute eye sore. it's a shame, and you know what? the mission district has lost a landmark, but the city of san francisco has, as well. what would we say if the same thing happened to city hall, if

it were stripped and covered with board? we would never allow it, so please, deny this appeal. >> clerk: thank you. >> yes. my name is josette moie, and i'm the owner of the building next door to this building. i sent a letter up to the board stating my feelings about this property that has been a garbage bit, an eye sore, for 20 years. i bought my building, and remodelled it and had several businesses in it for the last 20 years, and the building next door was never taken care of. it was horrible. the workers through chunks of cement on my roof, they cracked one of my sky lights. there was graffiti all the time because of the scaffolding being left for months, so they

would climb on the scaffolding of my building, and it cost me a lot of time to clean it all the time, ongoing, and i would like to know what is happening with this building, because obviously for 20 years, nothing was being done about it. and i would really like to know what the owner is planning to do to remedy this eye sore which was plagued the -- has plagued the block for 20 years. i applaud the planning department's decision. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. my name is richard ainsland. i have a business next door door, and i've been there about 14 years. having a business next door has really been a financial burden for my business. it's a complete disregard for

businesses in the area. the facade has been destroyed. they put up a scaffolding around it and allowed people to get on top of the building, my building onto the marquis, graffiti it. i guess numerous citations from the state for graph tiffiti, w is a real pain to get it. you get a citation, you've got to get it cleaned up, and then, you've got to document it. and then, i was told that miss cort didn't really care about my problem. they put up a wall. i paid 7,000, had the front of my building painted, a sign above the marquis, and that was totally destroyed. i have to go up on a 20-foot ladder with my little paint can and try and paint it over. so then, they cut the wall in

half, and people just through garbage and garbage and garbage there, and then, we had a rat infestation there. i could no longer have sidewalk seating on my restaurant because the rats were there, running around. i had to have $350 every month just to have an exterminator. she just renews permits every year because she has more important projects that she's working on in san francisco. there's got to be some kind of commitment for completion. >> clerk: thank you. any other public comment? okay. we will move onto rebuttal. mr. meyer, you have three minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. i don't know if i'm going to be

able to respond to every comments made over this long period of time, but what i can say i agree it's an eye sore, and i agree my client's been waiting two years while planning's been thinking this over, and we're still waiting today. and if you do anything other than reinstate the permits and have it go through the proper process to restore the facade, and to move forward with the project, the question of whether to revoke the permits is different than the question of whether something should be done here. and -- and whatever the remedy is -- and that can be a penalty or it can be whatever the city attorney believes its remedies are, revoking permits is not that remedy here, and they have not gone through it properly. and in the -- the situation is -- and planning department has been a little confusing about this, too, and i'll

explain the legal situation of -- explain. the legal situation of a historical preservation is different than a landmark. a landmark, there's notice, form 523 a, 523 b. it identifies every aspect of that building that's historical. the owner is notified, and it gets put into the ordinances of this city. that did not happen with 2551 mission. it's never been a landmark. it was never a landmark in 2001. there's not a planning code section that says when something gets affected on a potentially historic building, revocall permits. that is -- revoke all permits. it's not in there, and planning's not been able to

identify that. people's defensiveness at it. whatever it may be, the question is, did they have the authority to do this? is it in the planning code that they're enforcing this? if -- have they timely done it? no. will revoking the permits get this project done or get it to what they want it to look like? no. so what needs to happen is this unlawful action by the planning department gets reversed, and we direct something to happen in the planning department to pick out what the facade awa's going to look like and pick an appropriate remedy for the situation here. >> clerk: you have 15 seconds if you wanted to add -- >> i guess that's it unless you have any questions. >> president fung: counselor, i asked you a question earl

earlier about the out-of-scope work that was not permitted. you indicated it was in addendum four. zoning administrator's indicated that it's not in addendum four. >> well, i think the zoning administrator is not the person who is involved in this project when the submittals go in, and when that happened, i've been assured by vera cort and the architect everyone was well aware of the condition of the building when those submittals were done. it's not a secret. it's open and obvious -- >> president fung: so my question is seeking a permit for the work that was out of scope, i asked you if there was an addendum for it, and you said it was. >> maybe i'm getting it technically confused, but the facade is on addendum four. if it required demolition to

acquire that look, that would be part of addendum four. so it would not be hidden from addendum four in any way. >> president fung: okay. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. there is a disagreement here between the property owner and the city is the methods to achieve that. we've identified that since they have exceeded the scope of the permit, they have invalidated that authorization. they need to obtain new permits, they need to go through the proper process which includes the conditional use authorization required for the demolition of the movie theater, and with that, we can move forward. we have given this direction to the property owner over the last several months. we have not received any response as to how they would pursue that.

they've chosen to go through with the appeal tonight, and we are respectfully asking that the board uphold our revocation request. we've never stated that this is a landmark building. this was not designated as a city landmark. that is not our position, so i don't exactly know why the appellant was raising that. there was additional review done that is required for the demolition of that facade. it would require additional environmental review which cannot be done now because the his torque resource has been removed by the owner without proper permit. in response to president fung's question about the designation of this, i can put on the overhead of the survey of the property which i believe was done in 2008, if i can have the

overhead, and i'll go over some of the details. >> the foundation is reinforced concrete. the primary facade faces west and includes five structural bays. the ground floor is boarded up, and angle marquis is cantilevered above the ground floor. capped capped and molded rosets, and the building does appear to be in poor condition due to general holes in the north wall, and this survey was from january 2008, so even before

the work they did to open up the facade of the building. this is a historic resource, no it is not a landmark. prior to the designation, it would have been a possible historic resource, and any demolition would have had to follow those facts. >> commissioner honda: i have a couple of questions. >> president fung: i have a couple of questions. >> commissioner honda: why don't you start this time, mr. president. >> president fung: the suspension and then the revocation was predicated by work that was not permitted. the -- and what the project sponsor has submitted includes

nothing that relates to that work. yet, the process that you are outlining required them to then go through a c.u. process because because of a legislati was passed much later than the original on the theater definition. i would have thought that the suspension and the revocation is because in the nonpermitted work. and then, of course, if they submitted it, what they were intending to do with that, the planning department could either reject it or approve it accordingly, right? why is the process, the workout for them, a c.u. process related to that legislation on the theater, which we're

familiar with? >> the conditional use requirement for the removal of the movie theater was adopted, i believe, about a year after the board -- i think it wasn't several years after, but it was shortly after the board had heard this back in the early 2000's. and we believe that they are subject to that requirement because they have lost the rights to the permit which they did obtain because they exceeded the scope of that. also, the conditional use authorization requirement stated that if the c.u. was required for either the change of use or the demolition of the theater. we have a change of scope here where before, it was a change of use, and they could argue that they were grandfathered under that for the change of use, but now, the scope of work has changed really to be the demolition of the theater, which really requires the conditional use authorization, so for those reasons, we

believe they need to go through the conditional use authorization to go through the scope of work, we think have exceeded. >> president fung: so based upon all of the nuances these days, especially in commercial districts, what could they put in there? >> anything that's allowed in the nc-3 zoning district. >> president fung: there's restrictions. >> yeah, but there's still a variety of uses that could go in there. i can't pull up the use tables. >> president fung: but for this size -- besides which, the fact that it has to go through a c.u. is another year and

something. but the type of uses, they couldn't do an entertainment use, i'm guessing -- but any way, you understand where my question is going. what could they do here? >> i mean, i can pull up the planning code use categories and cite those uses, but they could seek to authorize the current use. they may be able to get approve for the gym use, but they would need to go through the c.u. process. >> commissioner honda: so along the same lines, going through this brief, which is relatively long and having theaters come before this board before, i mean, if we -- if we took the permits back of everyone that exceeded the scope of their

permit, we would pretty much be taking e taking everyone's permit every night. we had a conditional use permit, that didn't authorize them to take the trees, and they took the trees. what should we do? this carnage of the building took place in 2011. this is 2019. what was -- i was trying to figure out what was happening in eight more years -- i'm sorry, before you answer these questions. if we start the project all over again for the size and scope of this project, it's not going to get approved for a minimum of five years, unless there's some kind of fast track that the planning is going to give inform this special type of project, this project's going to sit dead, the alhambra, alexandria in the richmond district, where things are literally falling off the

side of the building. so what benefit does it do to the community to stop their permit rather than making the permit holder just replace the facade as it was initially? >> well, i think the issues here are the length of time that this has gone on for, which we agree is problematic. we don't want to see the property tied up for longer. we can seek to expedite permits that seek to legalize work. that is something we can do through the permit review process. we believe that exceeding the scope of the work here and the way that it was done does invadate tinva invalidate their previous conditional use requirement. >> commissioner honda: so why did it take seven, eight years to get to this point? >> i think the department did

not receive complaints about this until more recently, and then, when reviewing the architectural addenda, and my conversations with staff says the architectural addenda did not show the site as being entirely demolished -- >> commissioner honda: but they got caught in 2011, right? >> no. no. >> commissioner honda: that's what i read in the brief, right, that the work was done in 2011. >> that was when the work was done, but they were not cited at that time. >> commissioner honda: but it was known that the work was done. >> not by any city agency. no city agency made a determination at that time that they exceeded the scope of the permits. it wasn't until recently -- >> commissioner honda: when more recently? >> it was probably late 2017 when the city became aware from neighbor complaints that they had exceeded the scope of the work. >> commissioner honda: i mean, not to doubt you, mr. sanchez, gu i am but i'm findi-- but i's

only been an eye sore. i don't understand the benefit it does to the community to have blight on there for another five to eight more years. that's truly my concern. and we have seen theaters come here before, one on divisadero. the theaters i went to, they're all gone. one's a gym, one's a condo. they're all gone. to me, you know, bad players, good players, but could have such an iconic property in the heart of the mission just sit there and rot away, to me, it does not -- does not help this process. >> but we also don't have any guarantee that the work will get down know, as it is.

it's almost been 20 years that the work has been started. we don't have any guarantee that this'll be resolved. >> commissioner honda: but if we condition the permit, they can't go forward unless that's done. >> they can go through the proper process. [applause] >> president fung: excuse us. come on. >> commissioner honda: rick, do you have one? >> vice president swig: so my family's been in san francisco since 1945 in the real estate business, and it sickens me when i see real estate owners behaving with complete disregard for any community, and on behalf of the real estate industry, i'm really sor fee f y for the neighborhood -- sorry for the neighborhood. i'm still mourning for the fox

theater where the city attorney has his office, so i'm very sensitive to historic resources. they should never have been demolished or treated badly. here's the -- i think commissioner honda really frames this. it's a terrible thing what's happened to this community. it's a terrible thing what the land observer has subjected the community to through whatever, disregard, malicious intent, it doesn't matter. it is what it is. the problem is that -- that commissioner honda's right, you know? so what. we do the right -- "right" thing for the community here and require the landowner to do the right thing, which is to wipe the slate clean. i said this before and get on the right permit track, but this is -- this blight is going

to be there for another five, six, seven years. so my question to you is -- you know, and it's too bad, it's really unfortunate, as you just commented on, that the community did not standup prior to this for notices of violations, for rats, facades falling onto neighboring buildings, and folks don't understand their rights and they should standup and file notice of violations with d.b.i. that's really unfortunate in this case, but scott, what -- you know, what can be done -- what can be done if we -- if we take your advice and -- and -- and i'm not denying that you're giving us good advice, but if we take your advice, and it's another five, six years of rats, blight, falling facades,

graffiti, etc., etc.? everybody continues to suffer. how do we prevent that? what steps can the city do to start penalizing this landowner for disregarding, abusing and acting inappropriately in their community? are there laws to protect the community? you know, i know what they're doing because i've seen the bad act before. so we'll just sit around. we'll wait till the building's blighted. we'll wait until the building becomes beyond repair, and then, the city's going to red tag it and tear it down. they win. they win. that's -- that's what i see coming. it doesn't make me happy, but that's what i see coming. the right thing is to make them right and to get them to start

the permit process all over again. i'd love to say that, but -- but be careful what you wish for because without the city having the teeth to bite into the landlord and making them act appropriately, the community will continue to suffer, and the landlord's going to win any way because there's going to be an earthquake, there's going to be some fatal flaw in the building structure that's going to allow them to be red tagged, and it falls down any way. sad, sad, sad, but true. give me your comment on that. i mean, what's -- it's reality versus what i believe to be the right thing, which you're supporting. i believe reality may win here. it's sad, but give me some feedback on this, if you would. >> our solution is there's no good solutions here, but we've outlined what we believe is the

best solution. >> vice president swig: why, if there's no plan. if we do what you're asking, and there's no plan -- i don't see a plan. i don't see a building, i don't see an entitlement to build a gym or a legalized situation right now. and we're at jump street right now. without a plan, this is really a horrible thing. >> commissioner honda: you want to let him answer the question first? >> vice president swig: yeah. >> there are no good solutions. but whatever it built on this site, it will last for generations. whatever is built there, it needs to go through the proper process, input from the community. >> vice president swig: i agree. >> and this is the board's decision now. we've given the decision of the planning department which i've spoken multiple times with the director of this.

this is the position of the department, which we believe is the appropriate path forward, and it's up to you whether you agree with it. >> vice president swig: thanks. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted, and as a reminder, the standard is error or abuse of discretion. >> vice president swig: can i ask the city attorney. how far -- it was suggested that the conditions -- if we uphold the appeal and allow the permit as it stands, what conditions may be placed on this to -- to facilitate, to force completion, to facilitate the completion of the permit as it has been rendered? what -- where do the conditions

have teeth? what can we do? >> what's before you is the planning department's request that d.b.i. revoke these permits. i think you have to find whether or not -- it's up to you find whether or not the planning departmenter erred or abused its discretion. if you were to overturn the zoning administrator's decision, then, it would go back to d.b.i. and planning to -- for the project sponsor to come up with a solution.

[please stand by] . >> -- very easy terms and conditions of support for that. there was abuse of the permit and the permit holder went well beyond the scope. that's easy. but if -- if we do -- if we do

that, the community has to under that we -- there are no teeth. there are no teeth in this whatsoever. all we're doing is continuing the blight, is continuing the rats, is continuing the danger, and that's a very sad thing. if we don't, then, we give in my opinion undue license to the property owner to continue down a path towards a situation where the building's going to disappear, so that's a loss. but i -- so understand the community, i would like to make a motion that we uphold the direction of the zoning administrator -- >> commissioner honda: i haven't spoken yet. would you like to -- >> vice president swig: yes. fine. but i would support the zoning administrator, even though it's a loss.

>> commissioner honda: i agree with both my fellow commissioners. this is a really tough spot, and i think you as a community which will probably be at the mission high school hall tomorrow at 4:00 to 8:00 should be careful what you ask for. you know, this is a generational family that has done stuff for long times, and they probably have the ability to outwait you. so by starting this process all over again, you're going to see blight there for quite sometime. even if it's approved in five or six years, then, it's another three to four to get built. so i will -- there's nothing decisive that would cause error or abuse myself, but again, be careful what you wish for. >> commissioner lazarus: i would just add i think there's been sufficient conversation to

persuade the community, if there's health and safety violations they should be addressed aside from this. so i -- i will be supporting the zoning administrator. >> commissioner honda: and one last thing, sorry. i generally do not support vacancy controls, but in this particular case, i would wholeheartedly do so. >> president fung: is there a motion? >> vice president swig: sure. motion to uphold the zoning administrator's recommendation and position based on the fact that the permit holder exceeded the scope of the -- of the permit. >> clerk: okay. so i think what you meant to say was you want to make a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation request. >> vice president swig: absolutely. and also, i don't know how we can put this in, but i like commissioner honda's piece

about a recommendation to the planning department to put on notice the health department and other related departments to -- to pay attention to this building -- for illegal acts or whatever. >> clerk: okay. we can add that, i guess. >> commissioner honda: there's no teeth -- >> vice president swig: no, but we've done worse. >> clerk: they're on notice. so this is a motion from vice president swig to deny the app appeal and uphold the revocation request because the permit holder exceeded the scope of the permit and to request the zoning administrator put other city departments on notice of other violations. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay.

so that motion carries and that appeal >> clerk: welcome back to the february 6, 2019 meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on items 11-a and 11-b. thank you very much for your patience. this is -- these are appeal numbers 18-162 and 18-163, carlos bocanegra versus the department of building inspection. subject property is 2435 to 2445 serveth street, protesting the issuance on december 5, 2018 to 2445 16th street l.l.c. of a site permit. the permit is to demolish an auto repair shop, and erect

seven stories, one basement, type one, mixed use building. and before we begin -- >> vice president swig: i would like to disclose that i have engaged in the past with braun and martel, but that would not inhibit my ability to make a fair judgment on this case. >> clerk: mr. boeing anegleca have 14 minutes. >> i'm going to start with several errors that were made by the planning department and d.b.i. as a result of issuing both these demolition and building permits. i'm going to be talking about

shadows, so i wanted to talk about ceqa findings around environmental impacts. according to section 2101, there's the legislative intent of the ceqa guidelines is to maintain a high quality environment, now and in the future. and taking all actions necessary to protect, rehabilitate and enhanced environment quality of the state, and to take all action necessary to provide the people of this state, which would be the people that are going to live in and around this neighborhood with enjoyment of the aesthetic natural scenic and historical environmental qualities that exist. and i'm going to contest that at least those historical qualities, and the environmental and nature scene -- natural, scenic, and environmental impacts exist.

as well as to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony to fulfill the requirements of future generations. i believe the permit holder is going to say we're past the point of looking at this from an environmental review-ceqa standpoint, but according to section 21166, no subsequent or supplemental environmental impact report shall be required by the lead agency or any responsible agency unless one or more of the following events occur. and the one that i think is most relevant here is definitely the subsection c which states that new information that was not known and could not have been known at the time of the environmental impact report was certified as completely becomes available. right next to this project, i'm not sure i can project it, but right next to the project is going to be a nine-story building coming up.

the property address is 321 florida. it's at least double the width of the current proposed project that i'm appealing right now and would be casting a shadow on franklin park square. and now, they are putting their project forward, it is a foreseeable project that is moving forward, that this could have a detrimental effect upon this park and more importantly, the children that attend this park and count on it to be a free and open space and with proper sun light. and just to add onto this, part of the section also states that the discussion should be guided by the standards of practicality and reasonableness when reviewing these new impacts. and so i'm going to start real quick with the importance of open space and why it's so important. i notice that that was brought up by the appellant, and i

think we have to make sure that we are very cognizant that this park is especially joyed by many kids -- enjoyed by many kids, a lot of low-income, colored children who do not have a lot of park space in the mission. we're one of the few spaces in spi san francisco to have park space that is publicly available. public spaces whether playground, picnic fields or even just engaging fields can give neighbors a realm in which to get to know each other and giving children a place to play. it can help address environmental justice across communities by providing accessible and low cost opportunities to san franciscans regardless of income level. more importantly, the provision of open space in areas with high concentration of density,

poverty, youth, or seniors can for thursday, february 14, 2019. i will remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate outbursts of any kind. please silent your mobile devices and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. roll at this time, melgar. >> here. >> vice president koppel. >> here. >> commissioner hillis. commissioner moore. we do expect commissioners fong, johnson, and richards to arrive shortly. first is items for continuance. item one for the accessory dwelling units and new construction planning code and business and tax regulations code amendments. item two,