four more bedrooms, and removing pre-existing parking spaces makes no sense. there is no planning policy that suggests that make sense. there is been two environmental reviews of this project, two categorical exemptions that have determined there were no significant impacts. there are no environmental impacts for that ordinance, so no environmental analysis that would show that there was going to be some harm by creating these additional parking spots. i want to leave a few minutes for mr. wilson to speak so he can tell you about -- i can be available for questions. >> good evening, commissioners. i am an architect -- >> can you please assist with the microphone, maybe?

>> like this class. >> yeah. >> okay. i am an architect, i have lived in the city since 84, and i have lived the last 16 years in north beach. my practice has been mostly in oakland, but i do own a house on 1224 kearny street that i designed and built, and that is close to 140 jasper. my son and i bought 140 jasper from the wong family who had owned it since 1946. we purchased 140 because it is quite a unique property. it is on a dark alley, which's extent tech was built in 11 and nothing has changed. -- >> i'm sorry, the people can't hear you. please speak into the microphone. >> okay, get closer to the microphone. provides a new building as well as the opportunity for a new

building, as well as an old building. we are renovating an old building, and it provides parking, so there is no other site in north beach that has those opportunities, so this uniqueness is what has sustained me for this ten year ordeal. a bad faith negotiation about parking, end about demolition, of endless notifications of planning requirements, each request taking six months, the reversal of opinions have added years to the process. yet all of the issues were resolved by the spring of 2017. the staff talked about a 311 notice, and negative deck was issued, we had a successful variance hearing -- >> sir, your time is up, you will have time in rebuttal. >> well, thank you. >> thank you.

>> good evening, again. i'm from the planning department staff. again, i want to focus or begin by focusing on the very narrow issue in front of the board in this case. before you is an appeal of the letter of determination which was sought by the appellant to answer, quote, whether the installation of a garage as part of the proposed new construction of the single family home would be permitted. the appellant judge a brief testimony touched on much of the project's history and their interpretation of that history, however, the matter before you tonight is not a question of the quality of the development proposal or the soundness of any policies that are impacting the issue. the letter of determination that was issued was not a value judgement of the overall project. the only question is whether the zoning administrator correctly interpreted the planning code as it existed on october 24th,

2018. to that one relevant issue, i think it does a very good job of clearly explaining to determine that no parking maybe provided for the proposed project. the basic factors of that determination are as follows. ordinance number 196-17 took effect in november of 2017, and it amended the code such that the garage entry on alleys within the telegraph hill, north beach residential special use district are prohibited. the subject property is located within the telegraph hill residential special use district pick the planning code defines an alley as a right-of-way less than 30 feet in width, and the subject property is located on jasper place, which is only 17 feet wide, and there is defined as an alley. the definition of a development lot includes a lot that includes a proposal for new construction, it also clarifies that

pre-existing access to offstreet parking and loading on development lots that violate the restrictions of section 155 r. may not be maintained for the subject building permit provides new construction on the undeveloped portion of the subject property. therefore, because a perk of her -- proposes new construction on an alley lost in the residential special use district, that already contains a noncompliant curb cut, the provisions of the planning code clearly prohibit the inclusion of a curve get within the proposed new construction. the ordinance language is clear that garage access is not wanted in new projects, an existing curve shots must be removed when significant new development occurs. while i won't address any issues -- every issue raised, i will raise a few. or address a few. first, we discover the concept of the law of the day many times here at the board.

essentially this means that a building permit is subject to the planning code as it exists at the time of the permit issuance. if the code changes between the time of the permit is filed and when it is issued, those new provisions will apply, unless specific provisions are included in any ordinance that amended the planning coach code. no such provisions were included in the ordinance, which created the parking provision at issue, and the building permit to construct the proposed project has not been proposed by planning or issued by d.b.i. therefore, the new parking controls are applicable to the project's current permits. second, the appellant raises the point and the determination issued in 2014 that also addressed the parking controls for this project. however, that determination was based on the planning code as it existed in 2014. any letter of determination is essentially a snapshot in time and the issues that apply to the

determination at that time. as we have discussed, the code was amended in 2017, specifically on the issue of parking. the inconsistency between the 2014 and the 2018 determinations only reflect the simple fact that the relevant planning code provisions were amended between those two determinations. finally, regarding the issue of a housing accountability act, i will defer to the city attorney to provide any legal advice on the issue, however, i will point out that the issue before you tonight is not an approval or denial of the project itself, although it is possible you could see such an appeal -- appeal such an action at a later date. instead, it's only a zoning administrator interpretation of the planning code parking codes. the prohibition of parking in the project will not reduce the amount of proposed housing and the subject properties that would permit an additional unit within the proposal. the planning code contains numerous parking prohibitions

are very streets for many years, in the planning commission has reduced the removed parking for many projects over the years. this is the first time i am aware of that the housing accountability act has been raised due to the reduction of parking, instead of the reduction of dwelling units in the project. just a couple of quick issues based on the appellant's points, the off-site language, in the letter of determination is a typo from the planning code. it is definitely meant to be offstreet. is very much intended about parking that is being provided on the development site. also the legislation that was passed in 2017 provides the part -- revises the parking controls and they need to work complete all required analysis after being adopted. it is the department's decision that the ordinance number are clear in their intent, and the provisions to prohibit parking in the situation proposed at 146

jasper place, and that the zoning administrator's administers -- determination is correct. i am available for any questions you may have. >> in the 2014 letter of determination, was the curb cut compliant? >> you mean the existing curb cut? >> yeah. >> it was determined that what was there it was legal, and it is allowed to stay there. there is nothing right now that would state that the existing parking, the existing curb cut has to leave, if not associated with a new development. >> this is where i am -- if some of these -- basically what you are doing is you are putting a tunnel up that will happen to have a couple -- i am simplifying it, but you are putting a tunnel up where there has always been parking, there has been a curb cut, there has been places for cars to park. the only difference is, you are

asking for a tunnel above which there will be housing and the access to that tunnel, which will house cars remains the same curb cut that's been there for who knows how long, maybe the entire length of time that the house has been there. this is what is making me stumble on this issue, and the wisdom, and maybe the over interpretation of the new item. >> those two issues there. one is of what your thoughts maybe on the policy itself, and the second issue is interpretation of the code. but what the ordinance date is actually a very common method is that when we have passed development patterns that we no longer support as a policy, we allow them to continue on if they exist now because they were done legally when they were

done. nonconforming uses, noncompliant structures, but once you start building something new, and there's an opportunity to change that, we want you to bring into conformity on that issue. the legislation was very clear. there are more controls placed on the addition of parking and very specific geographies and situations such as the one here on jasper place, and the code is explicit that even if you have a legal, nonconforming curb cut, if you develop that site, you don't get to put that curb cut back. it is very explicit within the code. i don't think there is a lot of ambiguity within that portion of the planning code. >> so basically this developer, it is not a dirty word, by the way, this developer is penalized by time, because in 2014, everything was okay, and 2018 ask somebody waved the magic

wand, and what was okay from for years before, is not okay, and the developer is sol -- the developer is s.o.l. >> it is not that common. most of the time, there aren't grandfathering provisions provided. >> is there an opportunity, final question, is -- in a case like this, where i see hardship, and i think of the list of the variances, is this something which would be subject to a variance? >> it is interesting because the way we treat nonconforming parking is a little bit different than we treat nonconforming structures where

you would get a variance for an addition to another year rear yard. the planning codes treat successor parking almost like an accessory use, and in that sense, when it puts limits on something, it basically says if you do more parking than what is permitted here, that is a new use by itself, it is basically like a public parking lot. so the short answer is no on the variance. with her perhaps be some other path forward through the planning commission, i don't know the answer off the top of my head, but it would not be an option to obtain a variance. >> thanks. >> can you help me understand, what is triggering this is a proposed development, is of the amount, the size, the scale, just that it is new, some portion of it is new, even though there is some existing. >> with the code says is that if you are going to be a development lot, that triggers these new controls.

what does it mean to be a development lot? it can be one of a few things. it is any project that includes new construction. that captures this project because they are proposing new construction. if you are going to do an addition, that increases the gross square footage of the building by more than 20%. it's a pretty common lead to capture these new controls. when we have new controls, implement a new policies, we don't want to catch every tiny project. but if you are doing a significant amount of work, we want you to bring it up to code. another trigger for a development lot is if you are changing the use of more than 50% of the building, that is a large enough cake -- change of use that we don't trigger the new controls. >> thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? if mr. duffy would like to contribute, we welcome his

comments. okay. >> i'm just checking. >> okay. 's or any public comment on this item? >> will you have public comment? >> public comment. >> who is here for public comment? so five or six people. are you a family member? okay, because you need to speak during the rebuttal time. if you are here for public comment, if you could line up against the wall, and please remember to give a speaker card after you are done speaking. >> okay. who is the first speaker for public comment?

>> thank you, members of the board of appeals for taking the time to be here today, and for listening to us. my name is anneke. peter wilson, the architect, and part owner of this architect is my father-in-law. my husband is also an owner of this property, and we lived there together. my husband grew up in san francisco. >> i'm sorry, if you are a family member, generally -- >> i can't speak in public comment? >> if you are related party to the family member. >> i apologize. >> no problem. next speaker, please. i'm assuming you are not related , i'm just kidding. >> my name is sarah, i am here to read two letters in support of the application. one letter is from brent mcdonald. as a neighbor of jasper place,

my wife and i support mr. wilson's right on the garage on jasper place. the parking and drive cut is existing, and has not caused any issues since my arrival in unit 2003. i expect this was the basis for the zoning administrator's letter of determination in favor of mr. wilson in 2014. as i understand it, a letter of determination is something the designers can take to the bank. this smells of political pressure. the zoning administrator to issue a letter of determination in 2014, and then attempt to resend it in 2018. please do not succumb to political pressure, rather do what is just. it should be noted that this letter in favor of mr. wilson was not solicited, and he will likely be surprised because in the past, i have written the planning department of requesting a reduction in the upper story setback height in

regards to this project. this of course, was a separate matter. please present this letter to the members of the board of appeals. the other letter is from a san francisco resident named mark press. dear board of appeals members, as a resident, i find it unreasonable that the city punishes the creation of much-needed infill housing by requiring the elimination of existing parking. this unoccupied property would be an asset to the neighborhood, adding additional units managed by a family with strong ties to the community. i asked the board to grant this appeal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. you can go ahead. you have three minutes.

>> my name is michael mccoy, and i am a friend of the wilson's. i am also a former tenant of theirs. so i don't know how many tenants you have at the board early to come downtown san francisco and speak for their former landlord his, but here i am. i know you have all been talking about zoning details, and i will not get into that right now. you all are the experts, however , i will talk about my experience living with the wilson's. you have probably interacted with them as developers and as business people, and as professionals, but my experience with them has been as friends, landlord his, and neighbors. i have heard about this project

since before they even closed on this building. escort and's friend, i have seen the enthusiasm they had for this project. i've seen the work, the attention to detail, and the earnestness that they have pursued this with. i see they have not just checked off all the boxes as -- boxes, but this is a project they have put a lot of energy into doing the right way. i can tell you as one of the tenant his, i graduated from college, i was working as a bartender, and they offered me a room for $700 a month. this is in north beach. this is maybe ten years ago, but nonetheless, i was born and raised in san francisco, i couldn't afford to move back there. i wouldn't have moved there had it not been for their reasonableness and generosity as landlords, and after me, i think there was a succession of seven

more service -- service industry workers who are making $15 or $20 an hour, line cooks, bartenders like myself, servers back to the wilson's rented to. i don't think they ever hiked up the rent that much. when i went off to grad school, they let me store my stuff in the basement for years. i want to cast some light on their character which you have not had an opportunity to see over the last decades. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, my name is nick. i am a decade-long resident of san francisco, and a five year previous resident of the north beach area. i would like to bring up the fact that this is a development project that will not fully develop the prince of the

property and maintain an increased amount of light into the neighboring properties, which it creates a more hospitable environment in a congested area like the city. north beach is a congested area that does not have a lot of pre-existing parking, and can sometimes be difficult to deal with as a resident. this pre-existing space for this -- if there is pre-existing space for this to take place in terms of parking, and it is already available in the infrastructure. all of those facts would say to me that this is somebody who is coming in here that is attempting to preserve the pre-existing condition, and livability of the area, as well as, from what i understand, preserve the façade of the building, the historical significance, there are already developers that have a sensitivity and architectural

ability to do this. they are checking a lot of boxes to make this a better place for the people that are living there and then, i do know the wilsons, just in being part of the community of north beach, gordon, specifically, the son who is living there now, and i can just say that they really have grown up there. they know the place, they've invested in the place, they have lives there for a significant period of time, and they don't strike me, in any way, is people who are trying to exploit it and take the money and run. i think that they have been invested in a long time, and i think they really care about what they are doing, they care about north beach, and the care about the building and the future people that will be there as well.

thank you very much. >> thank you. >> good evening. i am a lifelong friend of the wilsons. i i'm a native of san francisco. i still live in the city. i'm also -- i also have a professional relationship with the wilson families i am one of the realtors that sold him the project. and what i wanted to address is more along the lines of the housing issue in san francisco. and how a lot of these individual ordinances within certain zones in the city are exacerbating the problem, basically because of -- exacerbating the housing issue because of the cost that imposes upon developers. aside from the fact that has rdb pointed out that these individuals have a long history in the neighborhood, they are not profiting towards this.

i have no dog in this fight, so it will no dough shall not affect the property at the end of the day. it will affect the ultimate rents that they are able to get because they don't have parking, which goes to the bottom line of what is viable development for them to take on as an economic question. i urge you to consider the practical application of this, and how -- what is most important to the city at this time, and i think, based on my experience over 15 years that it has to be the housing issue, and it is not appropriate, or if it is not financially doable to build these without the rents to stabilize the property and whatever in the building costs, that it can't be done, and i thank you will run into this issue a bit. that is not to mention the point that it is already there. it has been used. the ordinance speaks of blocking being the issue of an alleyway, practical application, if i have

six cases of groceries, i'm not going to park six blocks away and walk them up, i will block the street so i can unload them and put them up. that is just how people do things. as far as that argument is concerned, again, i urge you to address the practical application of that argument and how it exists within a 17-foot wide two lane road. i would rather see my neighbor pull off the road into their garage, i'm not block traffic, them to block traffic to unload groceries for five minutes, but again, the question is for housing. it is simply the fact that we need to make it easier for developers of existing residents , as well as larger projects to mitigate the housing crisis that we have. so it is a question of what is more important, and i think that these guys have shown that they are committed to the neighborhood to, to the betterment of the neighborhood,

as well as to the project, and i think they are a victim of time in this situation. so thank you. >> thank you. >> hello, thank you to listening to my comments. i appreciate your time and consideration. my name is julia, i am an architect. i'm a colleague of peter wilson, a long time colleague, and i consider him a mentor. i am very familiar with his work. it is my professional opinion that peter wilson is the hot and architect with the highest calibre, with a long track record of completed projects. he is sensitive to site and context taking into account extort it -- historic character, pedestrian and transportation flows, and environmental site characteristics. i want to tell you about the market tall in the neighborhood of oakland, because it is a key example of his architectural philosophy and a static. peter and his development partners on urban design an

opportunity to create a community argument --dash anchor that would enliven the neighborhood adjacent to the b.r.t. station. they carefully considered, as i just mentioned, pedestrian as i'm, traffic flows, the needs of the neighborhood, into the state, the market hall is listed on real estate listings, people come there from all over the east bay. i think this speaks to peter's expertise and excellence in both building design, which i can speak to more specifically in relation to materials and proportions, but also in relation to his interpretation of city neighbourhoods in urban design, which is key in this case. given this example, in my experience of his work, this project will be an asset to north beach. it will be in harmony with historical context, and adding beauty, richness, and new life. has long track record of revitalizing urban neighbourhoods shows that his interest in the parking component is to be trusted as a way to meet his client's needs,

was also -- while also keeping with the transportation dynamics that work best for the streets and neighbourhoods. thank you. >> thank you. is there any more public comment on this item? okay, seeing then, we will move on to rebuttal. -- seeing none, we will move on to rebuttal. >> i was hoping to hear them speaking about their experience and lifting -- living in the units, but there is to do much for me to read. first of all, i want to point out that what he is referring to as a typo in that is not right. it is off-site because it was intended for off-site. i was at those hearings when the issue was being made to. if you look at that paragraph, you will see that on street is referenced elsewhere in the paragraph. if they wanted it to say offstreet, they would have said

offstreet. it says off-site. this is not a mistake. secondly, to answer your question, mr. swick, the only reason he described the curb cut as noncompliant is because the amendments that occurred in 2017 and 2018 made it noncompliant. it wasn't noncomplying until then. it was absolutely complying. thirdly, i want to point out that in 2017, when this was happening, we were in, as you heard from mr. wilson, we were about ready to send out the 311 notice, and his proposal came up, in the planning department staff said we should probably delay your application because this ordinance is going to come through, and we don't know how it will impact your project. we were delayed at that time, and now we are suffering as a result of it. the other people who spoke here talked about mr. wilson and his

work. i also want -- if there are ten years of history in this. we go through a lot of things, with a very early issues on this was making sure it complied with the historic district and the preservation of the existing building, and the design of the proposed building that were considered significant or significantly considered with the district so that we could get the categorical exemption and find no impacts. i want to emphasize, once again, it makes no sense. there is no planning policy to remove three parking spaces while you are adding two dwelling units. i want to point out to, you will see there is a reference to a single-family unit. the only reason there is a reference to the single-family unit is because when the first draft of the legislation came out in 2017, it was anticipated that a single-family unit would be allowed to have parking, and only in a last-minute change in the ordinance did they change it

to exclude any new parking. this is a catastrophe, and it doesn't make any sense. thank you. >> i have a question. your brief deals with -- with quite a few of these issues on a number of them, on a legal basis, your oral presentation focused on -- initially on whether this is new or not, is there anything in the legislation that will differentiate between the creation of new parking versus the acceptance of existing parking? >> i think there is.

the ordinance that was passed does discourage new parking, and i want to also point out, some of the testimony of the time of the hearing to this, the supervisors from this district, and this goes back to other supervisors, who are concerned about what was occurring in north beach at the time, ending telegraph hill, where people were taking existing residential buildings, and were removing a lower unit, and adding parking, and using it for off-site mac uses, people and other parking spaces, other commercial spaces, in fact,, this ordinance was added and the north beach commercial use district provisions. that is where it started, so that is what -- that is what because some of this period that is why it says off-site. that is what it is about. i hope it explains -- i hope it answers your question.

>> thank you. >> thank you, again. like a lot of comments we have her tonight from the appellant and supporters, a lot of people disagree with the policy of the legislation, and are disappointed in the public nature of the project that was ongoing, and the rules were changed as it was going. just to clarify, this letter of determination, the zoning administrator did not have the discretion to take that type of other stuff -- there are other issues to bring into account. the policy was what it was when the legislation passed, the zoning administrator did the interpretation, on the letter of determination could only interpret the planning code as it was adopted, and as it was written. i agree with the appellant in a couple of his statements which is that the 2017 legislation did

make this curb cut nonconforming in the way that we discussed, and that the specific provision that prohibits this type of curb cut being replaced was very purposely added near the end of the process, but that all just supports the fact that this was purposefully included as part of the legislation, which is what we now have to implement. whether or not someone thinks that is bad policy, or thinks it is unfortunate that this project got caught up in that, those are valid concerns, invalid positions. they are not things that can be considered by the zoning administrator when determining whether or not the coat, as it is written and adopted at that time, applies in a certain way to a project. so i want to be clear on that. i also want to be clear that the letter of determination in question tonight is not a reversal or a change of possession from the 2014 letter of determination. again, the code was different than it is now, so the determination, by definition,

had to be different, it had to respond to a different set of parking controls for this property, and that was the reason those determinations were different. it was not a situation where the same question was asked for four years apart based on the same code and the zoning administrator came up with two different opinions, that is simply not what happened, and then lastly, i am not going to read all the language in this section, i'm happy to do it if you want, the off-site language is absolutely a type -- it absolutely makes no sense in the context of that paragraph or the entire legislation. i'm happy to answer any further questions that you may have. >> i have a question. thank you. the suggestion is that the ordinance was aimed at new parking. do you have any comment on that aspect of it? while it may not be stipulated

that way, do you believe that was part of the motivation? >> that was definitely part of it. this is a fairly large piece of legislation. this wasn't a small piece, this was a fairly large piece of legislation that covered a lot of items, i believe the planning commission case report was over ten pages long, so this is one component of it. in general, in this part of the city, it absolutely created more restrictive parking controls. that was definitely the theme overall. the appellant was correct that part of the controls were to prevent the loss of existing affordable units to new parking garages that were being added to, but as was mentioned in the letter of determination, the planning code is very clear. in this situation, if you have a noncompliant curb cut, and you go to develop that lot, you may not replace that noncompliant curb cut. the code is very explicit. i don't think there is a lot of ambiguity in the language, and

therefore i don't think there's a lot of ambiguity in that policy. >> before you ask a question, take me back on that. it is the same question i asked of the appellant's representative. when you use the term that it is explicit, does that mean that it is specifically stating that an existing parking use, under the new ordinance, would be prohibited? >> yes. >> an existing -- >> it basically says, i read it in my first presentation, and it is quoted in a letter of determination where specifically says, within 155 are, if you have an existing curb cut that is nonconforming to section 155 are, and may not be replaced.

>> all right. not that you can drive over a sidewalk without a curb cut. [laughter]. >> i don't think it actually says that. >> it says you cannot have garage access. it uses multiple terms to make it very clear. you cannot have garage access, you can't have a curb cut, you can't have vehicular access, and uses different terms. thank you. pre-existing access to offstreet parking and loading on development lots that violate the restrictions of section 155 art may not be maintained. so as we mentioned, this is a development lot, because they are proposing new construction, and the provisions make it very clear that an alley in this su d., new curb cuts, new garage access, are prohibited.

>> sorry to interrupt, but i wanted to piggyback. do you have questions? >> sure. if this was my project, i would be livid. so what we have here is an unintended circumstance pick this reminds me of the bernal heights, a little bit of the bernal heights item that we had three or four months ago, where there is a formula in bernal heights that says you can't expand if you are building so large. i can't remember the chapter and verse, but it was intended to prevent oversized apartment buildings, and here it was, we are talking about a family that wanted to stay in bernal heights

>> we had a formula that was aimed at apartment buildings, and it allowed us, we moved forward and through that to give the opportunity for those folks to stay in the house, and put a moderate extension on their home, but here is an unintended circumstance. clearly, at a garage, there were people taking a residential space, and putting in garages, and the intent of this was to stop that bad behaviour and this happens pick second of all, so here is the option of the developer. the developer can say to hell with it, i will not do this, and

so what will happen? the curb set stays, the three cars that park there on a nightly basis will continue to park there because they have forever and ever and there is no law against that, and what the city of san francisco has lost its two additional units of housing. is that not counterintuitive? so how is there a way -- i understand is that the rules have changed suddenly, and in the middle of running the race, which was supposed to be four lapse, it is suddenly 20 laps and i unfortunately can't swim more than two laps, so that takes me out of the race. so what happens here? here is something that is a letter of determination. staff members say, as they are moving towards the finish line, and ready to go, well you better hold up. in fact, potentially create an opportunity because the

legislation changed to stop this thing. we will lose potentially to units of important housing, and really, if it doesn't -- three cars are still going to park there any way, because they have for 50 or 60 years. maybe there was a horse and buggy there before. so i was stuck in the water because unintended potential legislations are getting in the way here, or as you say, your letter of determination is come -- compliant to law, but maybe, that may not be exactly right. so what can we do in this case to add two units of housing to the housing stock in san francisco, and sustain parking which has been there for 30, 40, 50, 60, maybe 80 years? >> i do my best. i think i live at a disadvantage because i can't confirm or deny

whether or not it was or was not the intent of the board of supervisors to create the situation. i think the language they adopted, in the policy was a clear intent. i don't know if this is an unforeseen or unintended consequence situation. this may have been foreseen and purposeful set of provisions that were adopted, and it was very recent. i also don't have any knowledge to confirm or not confirm whether or not the lack of parking would prevent this site from being developed for one or two housing units. i just have no way of knowing whether or not that is what the outcome would be, or would not be. i can confirm that the zoning administrator made a plain reading of the code, which had recently been met -- amended, and the intent is pretty straightforward, and made a very straightforward by the book interpretation of the planning

code. >> can i build on the question? i think it is, what are the options, and how was -- how i would a developer move forward with the plans that have been described, which is obviously -- the plans and not before us, with a letter of determination that would enable the plans that they have discussed thus far. it seems to me the only option, or one option is -- that would allow the garages or the parking, would be to actually change the language of the code, which would be at the discretion of the board of supervisors, and all that entails to change the code. is that your understanding? >> absolutely. as we said, between 2014 and 2018,, if a new letter of determination is requested in 2019, and to that point that has been changed, then that new determination would reflect the new planning code language. >> can you help me understand

the thinking in terms of the operation that of the department to pause moving forward on the permit. it seems like a long period of time. that in that time period, the permit could have been issued, in the project could have been moving forward, which i would understand, at that point, it would be continuing. is that accurate quota ? with there be a letter of determination at this point? >> would there be a letter of determination at this point? >> my understanding is they had the variance hearing, however, the variance hearing was not done fully because there was a variance hearing for a rear yard variance -- variance i needed an exposure variance as well. there will be a need for an additional variance hearing. also, the zoning administrator had not made a decision on the variance, so it wasn't a

situation where the zoning administrator said, i'm going to grant this variance, and now all we need to do is draft a letter. he had taken it under consideration, and then it is not uncommon for the zoning administrator, if he is making a decision on a variance, that is very clear legislation that is pending, that will significantly impact the project that is in front of him. the board of supervisors will adopt something based on new policy. it is common for him to basically put a hold on that to see how it will turn out, instead of trying to beat the? , so to speak. in this situation, there were a number of factors involved. it would need a new variance hearing, be, there is no determination yet that the zoning administrator was going to grant the variance, and see, even if the variance had been granted, if the code had been amended before the permit was issued, which would take more time beyond that, it would have

applied still. all of those reasons factored into holding to see what was the outcome of the legislation. >> thank you. >> a follow-up question, i was going down that same path. wasn't known that the pending legislation was around parking issues? >> the legislation, again, it was big and involved many different issues, parking was definitely a large part of it. >> was there any direct bearing between parking and the variance issues that were before the d.a.? >> there was no parking variance sought. the only variance issues were rear yard and exposure. >> so i can make the argument then that holding up the variances, which had nothing to do with parking, when you knew the legislation was mostly about parking, was maybe a little unfair, and got them caught in this trap. >> there are two aspects of the parking that were being impacted. we have only talked about one, which is a prohibition of the curb cuts. but also the permitted parking

ratio is lower to, so the amount of parking that was proposed in the original project couldn't -- could have been impacted, and maybe reduced because they reduce the amount of parking that was permitted in the legislation in the area. if i remember correctly, again, it would be three parking spaces. i think under the new legislation, even if they could pass a new parking now, they would -- they could only do two parking spaces. so there's that components. there's also the fact that even if the new legislation was not going to impact whether or not the parking was code conforming or not, if the prohibition passed, and you don't provide parking, then that changes the physical nature and context of the project to pretty significant. it will result in a different project, which it has, since then it has gone down to a single-family home proposal.

>> last question. what happens if, based upon the last section you read from the legislation regarding the addition of a new garage entry, what happens if they left three parking spaces, the driveway, all alone, and built two units above it? so they are not providing the new garage. does that change? >> it does not change anything. you would have to do the actual construction to build that, which turns it into a development lot, and then the prohibition on any vehicular access applies. it is not just a literal restriction on curb cuts or garage, the intent is there should be no access to vehicles provided on this lot, and to

elaborate on that a little bit, that provision is not specific just to the situation. there are many different corridors in the city where we don't allow curb cuts, of course, there are properties on those corridors that have curb cuts. the same provision applies there. if you think neighborhood of a project on upper market that has a parking access, if they redevelop that site and build a new building, they can't replace that curb cuts. so that provision, and that concept in and of itself is not peculiar to this context, and this situation. it is to this issue overall. there are some places where we prohibit curb cuts and vehicular access, and if you develop the site, even if you have legal apps -- access, you can't put it back. >> you are saying the legislation was not geared towards this project. >> i am saying the legislation was large and covered a lot of issues. it definitely impacted this project.

it definitely impacted. i can't speak to whether it was geared towards it or not, it was geared towards many different things. >> okay, thank you. >> unless there is a question. >> if the commissioners have no question -- >> i have a question. >> commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> would like to start? >> i will state my dilemma. the standard is the abuse of discretion. i don't really think that is the case, but i don't like the outcome. i'm not sure where to go with it how is that for punching? >> i would agree.

i think that, i wasn't present for these discussions, and was not participating went the legislation was discussed or past, but it is having one of the desired impacts, which is to reduce offstreet parking, and whether this is the intended consequence or not, it will make it more difficult or less appealing for folks to redevelop properties, because they may have to lose their parking, or lose access to parking if they currently have it. they maybe inclined not to do it, a redevelop in ways that don't provide parking. which could be good or bad, depending on your perspective. i don't believe that the zoning administrator aired or abused the discussion in this case. the outcome is unfortunate, and the timing is regrettable, to be sure. >> if the abuse occurred, it would have been -- i agree with

my fellow commissioners. if it occurred, it probably was not maliciously intended, but coincidental through the time that it took the zoning administrator to bind on the variance, and also unintended error in abuse with regard to the staff member who said well, we've got this new legislation coming up, why don't we just postpone it a little while to see how it all turns out? that is like standing in the middle of a freeway and judging whether a truck is going to pile into you at 75 miles an hour. it will happen, but as far as abuse of -- this is where we get caught. the law is the law, and and it was -- it was unfortunately

changed, whether it was intended to capture this were not, that is up to our congestion or, conjecture but that is the law, and the zoning administrator did his best to interpret the law as it was presented to him by the board of supervisors, so i don't like the result either, but we are constantly -- we are required -- >> one last comment. i will allow him one last comment. >> we are sympathetic. that is why i am -- >> i will keep it short. >> you don't have to find specifically that the zoning administrator had made an error other than he has read that one section, that sentence that i gave him. that is one sentence. the other part of the ordinance is inconsistent. this board has the ability to interpret to interpret this decision itself. it can say that the zoning

administrator did not take into consideration the entire ordinance and that provision, when you look at the purposes, you can say it is inconsistent. >> i'm not sure that buys us anything. >> at some point, if one takes that position, one would have to have findings of something. do you have a comment? >> did you make an error and abuse? >> will just throw him under the bus. >> i think -- unfortunately, the legislation was quite clear, and

being a resident of that district, i'm not sure i had ever agreed with that legislation when it first came out, but for different reasons. not necessarily for the generation and protection of affordable units. i don't think that's the case. you are talking about one of the highest priced districts now. a highly desirable -- it is not necessarily my viewpoint, either , or related to the rights to have a car young caring people who live in that district use a lot of means. the question in my mind is, you know, how far you want to legislate behaviour and the kind of rights that most people should have. but i think that is a different issue, which i am not going to discuss, at this point in time,

i am afraid that i am also -- i do not see any error or abuse in the determination. >> i make a motion, timing and license, everything, but i am going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the zoning administrator neither made an error or abused. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and uphold the letter of determination on the basis that the zoning administrator did not error or abuse his discretion. [roll call] >> that motion carries. >> can we take two minutes? >> welcome back to the february 20th, 2019 meeting of the board of appeals. we are now on -- moving on to item number 7.

this is the board's consideration and possible adoption of the budget for the next two fiscal years. we do need to have you consider the budget now, because the budget documents need to be submitted to the mayor's office. so i know you have the materials in advance. i think we can just do a quick refresher on the slide. >> okay. >> if you would prefer. >> basically, looking at slide three, revenue sources are the same as they historically have been. 96% of our revenue comes from surcharges for -- four% from filing fees. if you turn to slide four, our expenditure budget is currently the same as past years. most of our expenditures go towards the cost of employees, and other departments.

, for example, the wonderful work of the city attorney. he is quite a bargain by the way >> he said later on that there was a savings. our current fiscal year update, looking at slide number 5, we have been slow. the projection for the year end appeal volume is actually 60% below the ten year average. as you know, the volume of appeals fluctuates back and filing fees to represent only 4% of our revenue. moving on to slide six, an update on the current revenue, we are looking at a fairly large deficit. as a reminder, last year, and the