>> i'll speak since i'm here and braved the storm. i'm co-chair of the maritime congress. just following up and one thing the committee feels strongly about is to recognize value of the deep water berth at 30, 32. the entire water front is one of our points at the discussion of the work group when we were looking at the rfi. the criteria for any proposal going forward is maritime berthing availability. there should be enough flexibility to dock a boat whether it's large or small. we think if you do go forward

with whatever proposals of the value of the maritime birthing be included in that the commerce committee fought hard at the discussion of the golden warriors proposal to maintain a portion of the maritime use but they ended up choosing a site that was fortunate. that's my major point. one other thing, the last commerce committee we saw the increase in cruise calls is fabulous. we may need another terminal. >> thank you. any owner -- other public comment on this item? seeing none, public comment is

closed. commissioner. >> you were here when the other two projects didn't come through -- >> the other three. >> i've asked with the future of 30, 32. i hope we can find way to use this. instead of sum coming to the fact -- succumbing to the fact we have to tear it down and to find a use, i think the fact we lost the warriors in some way maybe it was a blessing in disguise in the sense that whoever comes in to develop this will not have to have the same substructure cost because it was obviously a huge weight in terms of supporting an arena of that

level. different uses will require different substructure cost. i support the recommendation to go out again because i think we're hearing noise in the community there's interest of different types of opportunities to look at piers 30, 32 again. so the recommendation you've made in terms of competitive bidding, which i guess, i want to understand, you said could lead to sole source if there was only one bidder, correct? i'm trying to get clarification? >> there's two different options. the noise you're hearing rose to the level of sole source. if we only had one response we'd bring it to you. i don't think it's moving to the sole source. we invited the world to bid. it could result in an outcome.

>> what you said as far as seawall lot 330 they would be included in the r.f.p. but analyze separately. i'm trying to understand what you were trying to convey. >> i think the real crux is you should consider the two in the sense of seawall 330 a positive land value and 30, 32 has a negative land value. we wanted to see those two pictures in terms of here's the proposal for seawall 330 and not just assuming the value goes to the project and we never see what it is. if someone came in and had this expansive idea for the two uses comply -- complemented each

other we didn't want to force two processes. >> in the past they've been talked together. 330 was the economic engine to help support 30, 32. i wanted to understand the difference in the guidelines or leave it up to the responder to say this is how we view the two sites. >> i disappoint -- don't think it's possible to do 30, 32 for the mixed use. some may say there's a project that's non-economic and have an investment or a big museum of some kind or a big extravaganza they think they can get investments for. there's a transaction model that

doesn't require direct subsidization. we just think it's a long shot. i think the recommendation to you was to considering the two sites separately. if the goal is to develop the two sites, it seems you'd consider them separately to allow for a set of options to include taking 330 and saying that proposal makes sense to us but the other part doesn't. or a package that does make sense. we want to look at them granularly but still want the opportunity for someone to come in with something both sites. >> okay. it's easy to see 330 could go.

that's a valuable site. we'd leave it open and flexible and look at in response. it's unlikely someone would do 30, 32 without 330. >> we found the value of seawall lot 330 could in the under write the negative land value of 30, 32. so pier 30, 32 could be developed with some other sub -- subsidy that's not any

additional subsidy. we want you to understand the full financial picture of developing piers 30, 32 and the cost to the port of doing so. on this i would support going forward. i don't think we think business as usual is the answer until we exhaust a competitive bidding process to find other solutions out there. that's my position. thank you. >> threw for this report. -- thank you for this report. i appreciate the reports and appreciate the comments from ellen and melvin and i guess we have to figure out how we'll subsidize that.

i think my questions are more around if we were to put this out to bid and lad -- had to do seismic upgrade what would we be investing into this? would we keep the pier? have we thought about that at all? >> we have but not in a fully analyzed way. we thought about intermediate leasing where we maximize public entertainment venues the less acres we thought about ways to retain some of the pier and get out to the deep water berth. we don't see a revenue model

that paces back from the model of the deep water berth but now that we have so many ship values we are looking where a secondary cruise may go. we thought about a lot of various options and are responsible for the pier and we were to demolish all the pier it's a cost burden we bear and we have to secure the seawall and make sure that area of the waterfront is strong for earthquake. i think the deep water is value to the site for maritime operations and from a city perspective for emergency response you can see how the site could be extraordinarily valuable but the cost of the pier is what always overtakes the conversation. >> how can it be added to the water transportation system for

various uses? >> there was a report that looked at krfrt -- consistent uses and there were negative numbers and we can dust that off and look at it again if you'd like us to explore that option or prepare a solicitation and see what the market has to say to us and then think of our own options. whatever the commission prefers. >> my position would be for to you come back and bring us solicitation proposal with the guidelines.

>> if we lad to invest in the -- if we had to invest in the pier with the seawall and upgrades and sea level rising, what cost at. money would we have to invest. >> we'll have more on the cost of the linear foot of the waterfront. >> i'd like to step back to the mall plan assessments which are by no means precise but there's the sub structure not holding weight. if you look at the amount of money from parking on the pier about $1.5 million, you can

imagine some investment to allow us to grow. that would buy some time. because it's such a revenue source we kicked around the non-development path to get us to more special events and activating the area. if that's the direction you give us, that's how you leverage the good revenues we're making now to a thoughtful plan that maximizes the maritime value. >> i think we would benefit by understanding what the cost of

the substructure and the seismic and upgrading numbers going forward before the solicitation. the numbers you're presenting today how current are they? >> i think they're from our most recent capital assessment but that's a planning document that says there's no design i remember to remove pier 30, 32 was a number and it's probably higher today.

>> can't we do both? can't we work on the solicitation and you come back? >> i don't think we'll have it by the next meeting but what i'm hearing and synthesizing is we should talk to our maritime group and think of how you want to position the berth and talk to our engineering group to get a better sense of what the costs are and go to the advisory groups and talk about the solicitation criteria. does that make sense? >> just don't take six months. [laughter] >> we might take six months because of the engineering analysis but we'll do the best we can.

>> i'd like a sense of the numbers. what i heard is to the cost is very expensive to retrofit. i think we should get our arms around the numbers first and then look at the correlation between this and lot 330 and that's a better way of analyzing and i believe the last number i heard for 33 0 is roughly $35

million. the value is specially greater, if it is substantially operator th -- greater than the project is feasible and then we'll know how to go forward. >> fair enough. >> thank you. >> clerk: item 10, new business. >> is there any public comment on new business? commissioners, anything? no new business. >> may i have a motion to adjourn? >> i will make a motion to adjourn in the memory of jeff adachi. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor?

the meeting is adjourned. adjourned. >> shop & dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their shop & dine in the 49 with within the 49 square miles of

san francisco by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique successful and vibrant so where will you shop & dine in the 49 my name is jim woods i'm the founder of woods beer company and the proprietor of woods copy k open 2 henry adams what makes us unique is that we're reintegrated brooeg the beer and serving that cross the table people are sitting next to the xurpz drinking alongside we're having a lot of ingredient that get there's a lot to do the district of retail shop having that really close connection with the consumer allows us to do exciting things we decided to come to treasure island because we saw it as an amazing opportunity can't be beat the views and real estate that great county starting to

develop on treasure island like minded business owners with last week products and want to get on the ground floor a no-brainer for us when you you, you buying local goods made locally our supporting small business those are not created an, an sprinkle scale with all the machines and one person procreating them people are making them by hand as a result more interesting and can't get that of minor or anywhere else and san francisco a hot bed for local manufacturing in support that is what keeps your city vibrant we'll make a compelling place to live and visit i think that local business is the lifeblood of san francisco and a vibrant community

shissler. kleinm >> clerk: good evening and welcome to the february 27, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight. he is joined by vice president rick swing, commissioner ann lazarus, commissioner darryl honda, and we expect commissioner brad tanner shortly. at the controls is the board's legal assistant, gary quintara. i'm julie rosenberg, the board's executive director. we will be joined by agencies that have cases before the board today, can scott sanchez, also representing the planning department and planning commission. joseph duffy, senior building inspector, and chris buck with san francisco public works. the board meeting guidelines are as follows.

the board requests that you turnoff all phones or electronic devices so they do not sound off during the meeting. meet hold any conversations out in the hallway. i just realized all three cases have been continued, so basically -- the first case, it's for vote only, and the other two, the parties will get three minutes each. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, board rules or scheduling, please speak to staff before or after the meeting or visit the board office. we are located at 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast life

on sfgovtv, cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast fridays at 4:00 p.m. on channel 26. the video is available on our website and can be down loaded from sfgovtv.org. now we will swear in members of the public who wish to speak. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish the board to give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if you are able, raise your right hand and answer or affirm. okay. do you answer the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. okay. public comment. this is an opportunity for members of the public to speak on items within the board's jurisdiction but not on the agenda. okay. is there anybody here for

public comment? we will move onto item number two, commissioner's comments and questions. okay. we we will move onto item three, adoption of the board minutes from february 20, 2019 minutes. >> president fung: do i have any comments? >> commissioner lazarus: i move to adopt the minutes. >> clerk: okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion is adopted. we will move onto item number one. appeal 18-164 richard haul versus san francisco department of public works department of urban forestry, appealing the issue of sept 6, 2016 of a public works order.

this was order number 200294. note, on february 6, 2019, the board voted 4-0-1, commissioner tanner absent, to continue this matter so the department can provide for information on the trees and the source of funding for the trees. on february 20, 2019, the board voted 3-0-2, commissioner tanner and commissioner honda absent to continue this appeal so that commissioner tanner and commissioner honda can participate in the vote. so commissioner honda, did you -- >> commissioner honda: i did watch the video. love hearing commissioner swig. >> clerk: okay. so there is no further testimony by the parties as this matter was continued for the purpose of a vote, so however, commissioners, we do need a motion. >> president fung: any comment? >> vice president swig: who made the motion last time? >> clerk: well, you wanted to

make a motion to grant the appeal -- >> vice president swig: oh, grand the appeal with the -- grant the appeal with the condition the trees are still funded and installed within 90 days, i think it was? >> clerk: three months, yes. >> vice president swig: yeah. >> clerk: and i think we designated that they should be replaced with two larger stature trees. so we have a motion from commissioner swig to grant the motion and uphold the -- >> commissioner honda: i have a question. so what is the enforcement for them to actually install? what happens if they don't do it within 90 days? >> vice president swig: we arrest mr. buck. >> commissioner honda: i take him off his faceboomy facebook. no, that was a serious

question. what happens after 90 days? does the permit get removed? >> i believe someone could probably file a lawsuit. >> commissioner honda: okay. just checking. okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion have vice president swig to grant the appeal and uphold the public works order to replace the trees with two 36-inch magnolia trees within three months. okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0. okay. we will now move onto item number five. this is appeal 18-1255, james shissler versus department of

public works. -- which will face onto a rear yard with a laundry decks and spiral stairs resulting in less than the 25 foot unrestricted open area required for dwelling unit exposure. this is case number 2016007339. note, on january 23, 2019, the board voted 5-0 to continue this matter to february 27, 2019, to allow timet for the appellant in consultation with the zoning administrator to prepare findings that will support granting of this variance. welcome, commissioner tanner. we will hear first from, i believe the zoning administrator. do you have anything to add? okay. commissioner -- >> president fung: you write beautifully. >> clerk: mr. shissler.

[inaudible] >> commissioner honda: no, no, you first. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment on this matter? okay. the matter is submitted. >> president fung: the findings by our director with the cooperation and the support of the z.a. fits what i had intended when i brought this issue up. comments? >> commissioner honda: no. motion? >> president fung: if not. move to grant the appeal. >> clerk: want me to give you some language -- go ahead. >> president fung: and determine on the basis that the five findings. >> clerk: came with the adoption of the conditions, as well, do you want me to include that? >> president fung: yeah. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from

president fung to grant the appeal and overturn the zoning administrator's findings of the variance on the basis that the findings support the granting of a variance under planning code section 305-c. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries. >> commissioner honda: was that by error or -- >> clerk: pardon? >> commissioner honda: that was de novo? >> clerk: that was de novo, correct. so we are now moving onto item number six, and i don't see anybody except for joe duffy here -- oh, i'm sorry. >> commissioner honda: the appellant. >> clerk: i apologize. well, i guess it's concerning -- i don't see the permit holder. okay. item number six, appeal 18-145,

dan kleinman versus department of building inspect, protesting the issuance of a building permit to ying ngor lee. remain unwarranted structure approximately 8 feet by 12 feet near north property line at rear of building, revert back to original wooden deck. this is application number 20160164087. note, on january 9, 2019 the board voted 5-0 to continue this matter to february 27, 2019 to allow time for d.b.i. to make a site visit to evaluate the site of the retaining walls and with further direction to the permit holder to prepare a set of plans with the construction conditions, explain what

happens doing to remedy the concerns raised by the d.b.i. and planning commission . so i think we will hear from mr. duffy first. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm surprised the permit holder's not here. i assumed they were coming. i was actually at the site yesterday. i made a couple of visits to the site, and i thought they would have been here this evening, but i'll go ahead any way with, like, my update since the last hearing. the parties did get together and did formulate an agreement which i believe is signed and mr. kleinman can speak to that, but there were issues between the -- mr. kleinman and the permit holder. they met -- i went out there a couple of times, and i have reviewed the plans that were issued to comply with the notice of violation.

i'm happy enough with them. i would encourage the permit to be upheld at this point. we're also receiving some documentation from the neighborhood association who are venting their frustration at the blighted building and how long it's been sitting, so i think they did have some concerns about the facade of the building. part of the permit that's under appeal does allow for the removal of the stucco of the building and a replacement of stucco and new windows. that's part of the permit, so i think at this point, there will be some inspection issues that the contractor will have to deal with. i've explained that to him. there may have been some work that was done without inspection. we'll have to get to the bottom of that, but without the suspension lifted on the permit, we can't really do that. but as far as i'm concerned, i would hope that if the permit is upheld and the work starts that they'll get it done in an

efficient matter, that these people can get on with their lives. this building is an eye sore. the way they started this process is wrong, there's no doubt about that. they went about it wrong. they annoyed everybody, including ourselves at d.b.i. we have a revoked permit, but i do think in these case when's they do get through a permit process on a proper set of plans that is reviewed by building and planning, we end up with a decent product, and the next thing is to get them going again and get things moving along. i did e-mail the building director and copy the conditions on the blighted building, so i'm happy to answer any questions if anyone has any. >> i have a couple of questions. so even though went do have a set of plans, they have prepared a set of plans? >> yeah, i have a prepared set of plans. that was part of the problem last time.

they have done through a pretty rigorous drawings because they've got three sets of conditions, building unproposed. the planning wanted that, so we've actually three conditions on the plans, so i think the plans are a pretty good set. we are going to be paying attention to this project and if it is upheld. we think there are other issues, and if there are, we will deal with them in the field. i have warned the arc tech that i was deealing with, mr. chow. to i want thank the neighbors being very understanding on this. i think they did get their issues addressed in the agreement, and there was waterproofing that we're going to have to check, flooshing details and some of the money that they've spent on professional fees.

i think we've heard that last night. i believe he's already been reimbursed with that. >> commissioner tanner: and then, the original facade, is that going to require notice to the neighbors and continue that, will that be a separate permit? >> it's basically replacing current stucco with new stucco. the facade doesn't change except for the new stucco and the new windows. some of the neighbors thought it had been deconstructed and removed, but it hadn't been. the garage doors are actually still intact in the building. >> commissioner tanner: and what was your observations with regards to safety. i know part of our concern was with the excavation work that had been done, especially during the rainy season. it seems like nothing's been done so far, what would be your

opinion of the progress or lamb t there of at the site? >> it's been vacant for a couple of years. i wouldn't say it was top quality, but it met the requirements of the board. i explained that yesterday at the site meeting that if this permit is upheld, before any work takes place, d.b.i. are going to go out there and make sure, what did we see, what did we not see? in answer to your question, the building at the minute looks safe. and i -- mr. kleinman's not getting any visible damage to his property, which is telling. if he sees any cracking, movement, i believe we're going to have monitoring in place so if there is any movement, that is going to be addressed in the agreement. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> vice president swig: so i'm really happy that they reached an accord.

on mr. kleinman's behalf, i'm cynical on this. just the behavior is bad. >> commissioner honda: correct. >> vice president swig: secondly, in our first hearing, no brief was filed, no plans were offered. i believe in the -- in the first hearing, that there was a reference to the fact that work had stopped because the project sponsor had put the building up for sale which leads me to believe -- this is conjecture on my part -- but it leads me to believe that they're out of money or they don't want to put any further funds in it. and now, today, once again, we didn't receive any plans, which was a direct direct request and requirement for this hearing, i believe. and yet again, the project sponsor hasn't shown up, so it's all well and good that an

agreement has been reached. but my cynical nature latinas me to ask a question, the question that was asked in the previous item, what's the level of accountability here? >> i agree. i agree. >> vice president swig: yeah. so what is -- how -- how are we going to protect the public in this case, the appellant, for obvious breaches of a lot of stuff if indeed the agreement is not held and if -- if the -- the permit holder or the developer doesn't show up like he hasn't shown up today and he hasn't delivered stuff to us

previously. i'm very iffy on this one. >> all i can do is try. i went out there yesterday, and i spoke to him. regardless of the plans for the brief, i think we were looking for the approved plans. there is a language barrier. i find it sometimes trying to get through, there's a lot of agreement, but i don't totally understand sometimes that they fully agree with me. i, like, repeated myself several times to him yesterday about several things, but i agree with your concerns. you're welcome to do whatever action you see. what i'm just telling you is my updates were -- i'm surprised they're not here. as a matter of fact, i e-mailed them and said where are you five minutes ago? this is getting -- maybe they need representation. maybe they need someone that can represent them properly. all i know is when i e-mailed

him, and went out to him with the site, they came out with a neighbor. why they're not here, i don't know and it is a good question. >> vice president swig: yeah. in the last hearing, i found myself getting pretty upset at the general negligence of -- come on, it's been going on for two years. the abuse of the neighborhood, not to mention the next-door neighbor, and -- and -- and the general attitude and unresponsiveness to this body for providing the information necessary for us to make a decision. and -- and then to follow up -- to have a follow-up hearing where we asked for specific information, not to have that information, and now, not to show up.

my inclination predisposed and waiting for proper testimony, of course was i was prepared to humpty dumpty, which was to put it back the way it was before on a direction like that, with a developer who has not -- who indicated well, we're going to sell it before we finish it. basically, that's what i heard. where's the teeth here? where -- where's the -- where is the teeth here? and where is the appellant -- although they have a wonderful agreement, and they have trusted their neighbor to perform, what happens if the pattern of performance continues, shall we say? >> if you upheld the permit and it was returns to d.b.i.?

well, our performance would end up enforcement and dedication. i saw for sale sign on the property, but i didn't see them. i agree when whith what you're saying. >> i understand it has to do with the j-o-b that you were involved with. we had one a couple of weeks ago where if you say no, you lose, if you say yes, you lose. i feel the same way on this one because if we deny the permit, then -- and we find for the appellant in the face of an agreement, again, there are no teeth, the poor neighbor still has an unfinished building with

no resolution. what is the resolution? >> we still have the building permit in place. we could refer it to the city for prosecution. we have a litigation committee to go to the city attorney's office. that would be something that we would have an option on our notice of violation, which is completely separate from the permit. the permit is to comply with it, but the notice of violation not complying with, we could refer it to the city attorney's office. >> commissioner honda: sorry for popping in. this property has hit the radar for a lot of reasons. i think our best option is d.b.i. unless we want to see a blank canvas next to the house for the next couple of years. >> megan told me they were going to do about it. >> commissioner honda: they didn't have much to say the

last time they were here. >> maybe you should here from mr. kleinman or mr. -- whatever, when you're done with me. they've met me twice out there, and i encouraged them to get together and do an agreement, which i was told they did. in my opinion, in my work, getting permits -- if the permit -- if the plans are okay, and they seem to be, and the permit is what it's supposed to take care of, i'm more in favor of it going ahead and trying to force them on our end of getting this work done and getting the neighbors off our backs. it's ugly sitting out there in the middle of the block. >> vice president swig: should we be concerned since the property is for sale. it wasn't a falsehood, they, in fact, have the property for sale. what should we be worried about in the neighborhood on behalf of the appellant?

would they be successful if we say we'll hold up -- not hold up, we'll go with the agreement. what should we be concerned with because if a sale goes through -- if another agreement goes through and a sale goes through, what happens in the hands of another owner may go for another two years. >> well, d.b.i., from my department's view, an agreement between a permit holder and neighbor wouldn't have anything to do with me. that's not my job. that's a legal question, so any agreements between them is their own agreement. it's sm it's nothing to do with d.b.i. >> vice president swig: no, i understand. but if the building was sold, a new buyer would not necessarily be interested in doing what the previous owner had solicited a

permit. >> commissioner honda: they have no choice because california's full disclosure, so anything that's pertaining to the property would have to be disclosed during the transaction. >> vice president swig: i understand the disclosure piece, but that doesn't mean that there's going to be follow through by a new owner who may have a complete separate new vision for the property. >> commissioner honda: but the notice of violations -- >> vice president swig: oh, the notice of violations will run with the property. >> the agreement is between the current owner and the neighbor. >> commissioner tanner: one more question. sorry to belabor this. you mentioned that they have plans, but part of the work they'll have to do is unwind some of the work that's been done on the site. so the plans reflect that unwinding or there's more work that needs to be done to ascertain the -- >> no. the plans show three conditions and part of the wording is to up do unpermitted work.

they're going to have to undo a deck and some other stuff that planning required. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i share the frustration that senior building inspector joe duffy expressed, as well as vice president swig. this process has not been followed by the project sponsor, the property owner. it was very frustrating for our staff, our enforcement staff, it was like pulling teeth to get plans that we believe accurately depicted to the best of your knowledge the existing -- best of our knowledge the existing conditions. the scope of work calls for the facade, the stucco to be

replaced, otherwise maintains at it was before, with windows replaced, match those that were there previously. i think it's been frustrating for everyone, for the neighbors, up through this point. it's more frustrating when they don't engage with the board's process, follow what the board has asked them to do, show up at the hearings, file brief, i and i do have concerns that they will not follow the issues. but at least d.b.i. will have the enforcement process to compel compliance from for any owner or any future owner. but otherwise, available for

any questions. >> commissioner honda: you look nice and relaxed. >> feeling very good. thank you. >> i just received an e-mail to say from the permit holder, someone drove into his truck on his way here, but he's running late, so i just got that message. >> clerk: okay. should we hear from mr. kleinman? >> i was going to say we have an agreement from mr. lee indicating that he had three things he was going to address. when they finish construction, any stucco wood or paint that

was damaged on our side would be brought back to the condition it was before the construction. i am not that naive in that i realize that that agreement and 1.85 will get me a cup of coffee at pete's. what we're concerned about or what we hope is that none of this is done without d.b.i.'s agreement. two issues. one, we're trying to avoid obviously spending $400 an hour on legal costs, which it may have to come down do, which i agree with the board in a that we don't have a lot of confidence in them completing what they're supposed to do. the important issue is none of those are cosmetic. the facade in the front, the stucco, that's wonderful, but what we're concerned about is the structural integrity of our home. these are things that are

significant beyond just their violations. these are safety issues, and that's why i'm relying on the city to ensure that we have a safe building. that's really all i have to say. i have a copy of the agreement. i don't know if that's worth entering into anything or just keepin keepi keeping. >> commissioner honda: are you fairly confident with the agreement that you made with the property owner? >> the parts with teeth, yet. >> clerk: president fung, do you want the agreement? >> president fung: there's nothing we can do with that. and hopefully, they fulfill their part. >> well, if push comes to shove, it may come down to legal enforcement. >> president fung: understood. >> commissioner honda: but hopefully not, and hopefully, when it gets done you'll have a nice home. >> a safe house. >> commissioner honda: a safe

house. >> clerk: so i assume we're not going to wait for the permit holder. >> president fung: no, we're not. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner honda: i'll make a motion -- >> president fung: well, just a quick comment, commissioners. you know, i think the frustrations we felt on the previous one was definitely -- the previous case was a loose situation. the only partial win that can occur over here is they complete this, get out of everybody's lives. >> vice president swig: yeah. >> president fung: and i believe that if it would provide any level of comfort to the appellant, i'm pretty sure that the building department are going to ensure, are going to ask for certain things. they'll probably have to x-ray where the reinforcement is. they want to make sure that they put in the appropriate -- we discussed that last time, and things like that.

i -- just from a professional point of view, i'm not too worried about the retaining wall itself if that level of fo foresight had been put in. >> commissioner honda: i concur. this was similar to the project that was in twin peaks. no one wants to be next to a certi cemetery of a building for ten years. >> president fung: do you have a motion? >> commissioner honda: yeah. motion to deny the appeal. >> clerk: i recall language time inspector duffy said maybe some language should be cleaned up about the deck. d do you think that's necessary? >> commissioner honda: i thought the deck was addressed. >> clerk: well, the language in the permit was revert back

to original deck and he suggested saying legalize the deck, but that would be granting the appeal -- >> president fung: mr. duffy, could you clarify that. >> yeah. joe duffy, d.b.i. there was some questions about the plans being shown correctly on a window and a deck. we didn't have the drawings, so i think the drawings did take care of that. >> commissioner honda: the last time, they said there was a deck, they'd restore it to the previous, but there was really no deck there prior. >> there are photographs on the plans that show that existing condition. sorry you weren't given them. that's the issue and the missing part. >> president fung: so you don't feel the need to have that? >> no, i think the permit's addressed. i do think in this case, if this permit is upheld, we are going to have to go out there and get, you know, as you said,

make sure the inspections were done right. if there's anything else, we want to give it a good once-over. but i think they're in good shape. >> commissioner honda: you warned them they should not come before this board again. >> i know. i've said that -- or me. they're on the radar. >> commissioner honda: okay. so deny the permit -- >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner honda to did he pa nye -- deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion passes. and one last thing, we will be

adjourning to august (1) five, and that concludes the hearing. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years. [speaking foreign language]

[♪] [speaking foreign language] [♪] [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] [♪] [♪]

>> ladies and gentlemen the chair's called the meeting to order. can you please turn off your electronic devices as they tend to interfear with the equipment in the room and please rise for the pledge of allegiance. i pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of america. and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under god, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. good evening. this is the february 2