just don't abuse it. >> thank you, inspector duffy. >> thank you. >> we will now let planning speak since they are after building from now on. >> welcome, planning. >> the issues raised are related to construction and to the foundation issues. with regard to planning issues, there was a discretionary review. we did not take discretionary review as compliant. one of the issues in the brief regarding square footage of building was noted they did obtain the permit to legalize the ground floor space that was review and approved by planning. the size of the building and square footage is not expressed. with that i think it does appear

to be code compliant for the purposes of the planning code. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none we will move to rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> the room downstairs, they are legalizing but they had previous owners. they had some excavations as i showed you, i think. they had some excavation right here. this is the same as -- it makes me concerned. i don't know in the neighborhood where they have excavation and do the work together. this concerns me a lot knowing they have those. there is another one or so on the other side.

the engineer never spoke about that. he only spoke about this one. i am really concerned about that. i believe those landslide houses are less than 30 feet from my home so it is right across from me. martin davidson is right behind. i am asking if you can get the third-party engineer to check the settlement crack and check the plan to make sure everything is safe. also, if they have insurance during construction and after construction. also, i would like to get more notice because i can't have any communication with them. they don't respond to me. i don't want to keep appealing for them to respond. thank you. >> i have a question. are you done? >> yes. >> you have seven complaints in six months. i assume they are from you. >> not from me. >> the previous people.

you are aware there was work done without a permit and excavation and rooms were done why didn't you file a complaint in the past? >> i never knew. i just knew recently. >> how did you find there was work done to the property? >> i had a professional tell me about it. >> how would the professional know if there was work done. >> because the house was on sale and people can go check the house, i'm guessing. the house was on sale. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the permit holder. you have three minutes. >> i won't take too much time. with regards to the special inspections question. there is a special inspections checklist that does include the shared walls elements of the project. >> is there any foundation work

that requires special inspections you are doing foundation work. >> it is associated with the new shared walls it is part of this special inspection. >> thank you. mr. duffy, anything to add? >> second thoughts. >> just the legalized area under the permit. it is on the 14th of december 2018. that could have been appealed as well but it wasn't. that was to document and legalize the space of the media room and bathroom issued 14th of december 2018. that is still valid. that wasn't appealed at the time. >> can you talk about the process of legalizing space. what do folks have to go throu

through? >> hire an architect and get plans and within the building envelope then get d.b.i. in there and planning. building inspector and electrical and plumbing make you open up walls to verify electrical work and plasming work. you remove some -- plumbing work to make sure it is up to current codes. >> there is field work and over-the-counter permits? >> yes. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, nothing further. okay. the matter is submitted. >> i think that this has been properly vetted, gone through the process. i think it was explained clearly from both departments as well as project sponsor engineer.

i would deny the appeal on the grounds the permit was properly issued unless there is further debate. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny appeal and uphold on because it was properly issued. >> that carries 4-0. the appeal is denied. >> anybody need a break? we will take a welcome back to the meeting of the board of appeals. today is may 15, 2019. we are now on item number 8. this is appeel number 19-043. jennifer oliver and harvey hacker versus the planning department. subject property 970 tennessee

street protesting the issue answer on april 11, 2019 request to suspend permit no.s and 201904097495 because they were issued without review by the planning department. the scope of work for the bp nos including interior renovations at the first floor for a new accessory lab, offices and accessible bathrooms, review is required to determine if the proposal constitutes a change of use. the scope of work for bp numbers including new openings for property line windows as this

property is in the boundaries of the dogpatch historic district any exterior changes require a certificate of appropriateness. we will hear first from the appellants. >> come on up. >> mr. hacker. >> abougood evening. i am harvey hacker, project architect. i will give you a little background on what this building is. it was one of a string of industrial buildings in the dogpatch area that were operated for various purposes by the clothing manufacturer espri. it went through different owners and ended up being owned by jen

oliver, the present issue. there are two sets of permits at issue here. first is the use of the property and whether the interior remodel application should have been reviewed by the planning department. i would like to take that off of consideration because of business relations between the tenant that that work was being done for and the building owner. that permit is going to be withdrawn and it is simply not a question so i believe that moots any questions related to it. but the second thing is for new openings in the property line wall to the adjacent lot. the story behind that is a developer has under construction a multi-unit housing project on

the adjacent lot which includes as part of his approved plans a 30-foot wide pedestrian walkway leading through the entire lock from tennessee street to minnesota street. when it became clear that was an opportunity, jennifer came to me and said let's take advantage of that and make windows on the property line wall facing that walkway. we then sat down with the building department and had a formal preapplication review where the fire department and d.b.i. approved those property line windows given the fire rating of the windows. we believed that in addition to providing more light to the interior of the building we were

regularegular having a differeny of communicating openings between the property and adjacent building now demolished when they were both occupied by as spree. we had to make an agreement to complete the work within a verystrictive time schedule to meet his marketing plan. we applied by the permit and it was issued by the d.b.i. because of dbi not properly routing it to planning department which was a mistake. we didn't realize it was a mistake. permit in hand, contractor was hired, a set of quite costly

fire-rated windows were ordered and custom manufactured and are now on site. once we found out the certificate of apappropriateness worry choired we immediately applied for it. that is underwear. -- is underway. because of the time of year we are at right now the next meeting which we had hoped to get on the agenda for the historic preservation commission has been canceled, and the next time such a meeting is available is july 19th. it is not certain that we can get on that agenda, andy -- and the delay will mean that the property owner cannot meet her

opligases to the add jay -- her obligations to install the windows in line with the marketing schedule. what we are requests is permission from this board to reinstate the permit which was granted for the installation of the windows with the understanding that we will continue to pursue the application that has been submitted and is now in process for a certificate of appropria appropriateness. >> i have a question. if we were to go that route and you were denied the certificate, then what? >> i knew you were going to ask that question. >> you should have the answer ready. >> i do have the answer ready understanding that concern, we would agree to modify what was

done in any way that is necessary to conform to the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness. >> to make sure i understand, there are four permits. one of which you are saying is withdrawn or two withdrawn? the tenants and the landlord of that subject permit have parted ways. >> the permits withdrawn are the two permits that relate to interior tenant improvements. >> restrooms? >> restrooms and accessory laboratory soace. what we would the actual procedure that would have to be followed because the tenant before problems happened with the relationship, the tenant had already initiated construction on those permits so what we

would do, i believe the correct course would be to obtain another permit to restore the building to its former condition patching up the excavations that had been done for plumbing and so on. >> then there is the permits related to the windows. >> yes. >> there are four permits but two groups. >> first is to install six windows. second one based on a design change is to retain six windows but transpose some positions and install one of the windows in a different space on the façade, essentially the same scope of work. >> thank you.

>> we will now hear. >> i would like jennifer oliver to talk about her time relationship with the adjacent property owner. >> she has a minute and 50 seconds. >> i am jen oliver and i am the property owner. not too much to add to what harvey talked about, but i engaged in an agreement with the developer. he was really specific about the timeframe that was required to get this done, and they are going to start pre-marketing. i told him and i committed to making sure that we were done with the construction by the end of july. he really insisted it be done in june, which we were on pace to do.

it come as a surprise and puts me in a difficult position legally with this group next door, a massive development at 100 units. they are all over me about making sure that i meet the timeline. it is definitely a concern that this surprise came after i had pulled the trigger when the permit was issued. i went ahead, signed my contract with the contractor and i ordered over $50,000 worth of windows that are now sitting waiting. >> has any construction taken place? any openings in the wall? what is the state of the façade right now? >> so there are three openings from the esspree days closed in. we didn't cut the new openings

yet, no. the tenants that came in completely tore my building apart. i have many challenges going on. >> can you talk about the use of the building today or what it was immediate past uses and what it is looking for in the future? is it empty now? >> it was in 2009, i think, we got it re-zoned with the amnesty program so it is an office. and the group that was moving in, their offices with an accessory lab. they had some kind of internal melt down between the founders. the person i dealt with was gone. the person left didn't want the space any more. there is a lease in place. >> they are not currently occupying this space? >> correct. >> is the lease still in place with that company?

>> there is another lessee and they are leaving in a couple months. >> do you have an idea of the future use, another office? >> an office hopefully. i am not going to give up that use so yeah that is the hope. we are aggressively marketing it. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the zoning administrator. >> i thought building was first. >> not on this one. acting zoning administrator. the property at 970 tennessee is within the urban zoning district it is in the dogpatch district. there are two issues. one which has been resolved the use issue. to recap, they did receive a legitimate for the office space a few years ago. that was put in place as part of

the neighborhood re-zoning to allow offices that may be didn't get proper mitts at the time when the -- permits when it was allowed. it allows them to retroactively get permits to legalize the use. that he completed that and paid the fees and got the permits. the permits that were reviewed and issued by dbi last year should have been routed to planning department. we believe it represents a change of use. it is represented on the plans as office with accessory lab. if you look at the plans there is more lab space than office space. our concern it was change of use from office to lab. it is permitted in the zoning district but needs a change of use category. also to abandon that which they did seek that. i spoke with mr. hacker about the proposal that the tent

walked away -- tenant walked away. they could go back. some work is started. they need to do that. they need to reestablish the office space and continue with an office tenant. the other issue are the windows. the new window openings on the property line that now they can do because the building next door was demolished there is a new development there and mid block pass-through. they are seeking to put the windows in. the first permit for the windows to install those openings was submitted in february but not issued until april 5th of this year. after that permit was issued a few days later on the ninth they came to revise the previous permit. the first permit to install the windows should have been routed to planning. they were not. the second permit which they

sought to revise the first window permit was properly routed to planning. this is where staff said we have a permit to revise the windows. they looked to see that the previous permit to install the windows was never reviewed by planning. we issued the request on the 11th. the main permit was issued on april 5. we suspended it. it was within the normal appeal period. mr. hacker explained the timing constraints. we understand. we don't have a process to allow people to go and do work. the openings haven't been created yet. to allow them to install windows without the proper sma, -- cma. i did speak with staff about the hearing. we have a complete application now. i saw e-mails about the final

details as of today or tomorrow we should have the complete application to be assigned to the planner. we can fast track as much as possible. the next hearing date is the giving the notice constraints that would be july 17th hearing. the hpc only has one hearing each month this summer. june, july and august has only one hearing. the 17th. that is achievable on the 17th. what the process would be, assuming the hpc does authorize the cma. after that we could release suspension on the window permit anal allow them -- and allow them to proceed with the window permit. mr. hacker in the brief it was not issued. i.it is the one that brought ths

to our attention. i am available for any questions. >> one question. this is a matter of opinion. it is my understanding this is a walkway between two buildings, a new walkway between the apartment complex and the formally industrial building? >> yes. >> there are windows or doorway or something from the new building that look to the walkway, i hope? it is not just two walls that people would walk down. it seems from design perspective that having windows that can allow eyes on a walkway mid block would be preferable to having a blank wall. i think of a safety standard. i don't know if i would want to walk down. that is a weird walkway in the middle of the dogpatch. >> i don't think that -- in discussing with stephanie we don't have the complete application so i can't tell you

staff recommendation at this point. in reviewing with them the main concerns were getting around the finish and assuming we have a proposal with the proper materials which it sounds like they have been ordered. i don't know if there is an issue with the materials how much could be changed in the field. that was the main issue and you know we get to the point where we can support it, this could be on consent at the hearing on july 17th. i understand the deadline for doing the work, we have the question whether or not the work could be done from their own property and windows installed from their own property. it is difficult to make the openings and not have the impact on the property. that is where we are. >> okay. scheduling seems to be one of the challenges here. we are the middle of may and the

soonest to be heard is two months from now. it seems a little -- i don't want to say absurd but it seems long. >> i told mr. hacker if he had the application immediately we might get him on the june calendar. they worked as quickly as they can on the application. today we are talking about signatures on the appropriate documents. there is noticing requirements for the hearing that we wouldn't be able to make the hearing in june. >> maybe i can ask the question that i imagine would be on the mind of the project sponsor which is not that helpful. how does this happen? the architect, product sponsor are doing everything, having meetings, getting everything signed. nobody says wait. windows planning, it gets missed. now they are stuck holding the

bag on what is the city's error, in my opinion. not necessarily planning but the city at-large. >> two things, one, the permits should have been routed, d.b.i. staff should have noticed it would trigger planning department review. it was done on the second permit, not the first permit. i understand that they had a commitment but the permit was not issued until april 5th. we suspended the permit six days later. within the appeal period for bringing matters before the board. not as if it was issued six months ago. now we come to tell this information. it is approximate to when it was issued and within the regulatory timelines of the city. that is not a good enough answer. >> similar question, mr. sanchez. you don't have the staff recommendations.

is it your opinion this would be approved? >> i think we still need additional details on the material, but i think it sounds like the size of the windows aren'ten of an issue. it comes to the finish. there are different options. >> no one is throwing darts here. >> if i can in my opinion, i will go out on a ledge here to see the department supporting this. we don't have final. >> i get it. as my fellow commissioners said understanding the permits issued in error the city is indemnified from they are not responsible for. it would be nice to see since there are constraints this gets fast tracked through, depending on what this board comes to. >> i made that commitment to mr.

hacker a couple weeks ago. that remains. i have talked to staff about getting this assigned as soon as possible. that will happen. we will do our best. we can only work as quickly as we get the information. >> thank you. >> just a little question for clarification. so the two permits that have to do with the interior stuff. what are we doing with those tonight? >> i think they can remain suspended and then as the permit holder picks up the next course of the revision permit. once that is sought we can retain it, we can release suspension on the permits. they will be superseded buyer be new permit.

they don't want those permits any more. >> in the issue of an appeal on those permits, even though the project sponsor says we are not interested in those, how do we administratively deal with that tonight segregating those from the other two? >> the suspension remains upheld. the suspension is an action placed by the planning department, request to d.b.i. by the planning department. we can undo that. if you uphold suspension we can deal with that with the permit holder at a later date. >> deny the appeal and sustain the suspension as properly done? >> if the board is inclined to move forward to allow them to do the work under the permit, that would not be our advice because they haven't obtained the certificate of appropriateness. >> the interior stuff.

>> i am saying we would suggest that you just deny the appeal out right and allow the appropriate process to occur. that would be our recommendation. deny the appeal. >> what is bugging me on the other two is having an argument with myself here. is clearly a mistake was made by d.b.i. at one point. i know mr. duffy is perfect but others may not be in his department, and it was discovered later. at the other part of my conversation with myself being on a hard liner standpoint is why if the property owner made an agreement with somebody, you know, basically wrote a check

that they can't cash what issue is that of ours and why should that be a concern of ours other than golden rules do unto others as you would like to have done to yourself. how should we take that under consideration? is a commitment made by a property owner to somebody else without having clarity they can get a permit should that be an issue of ours at all. even though sympathetically we would like to be nice? >> our position would be, no, we don't take into consideration private agreements. there could be people worked out a deal together about construction timelines or settlement agreements. the city does not enforce private agreements. if they have a private agreement

about scheduling. this is a hearing before the board of appeals and you are taking into consideration the argument that the appellant is giving you why they think the permit should move forward. i don't want to speak to what the board can't or can't consider or should or shouldn't consider, as the planning department we are not involved in enforcing or regulating private agreements. >> if we choose to put the private agreement aside and say that was a private agreement, that has nothing to do with city activity, from your point of view we should be focusing on the basic fundamentals which are this permit has to go through -- your accommodating this permit as best you can. it still has to go through some

hoops based on reasonable and customary practices and you are going to do your best t to see f a fairview is given to this permit based on the law and if it is approved or not is a matter of proper process, correct? >> we have to enforce the rules. i don't see this as an area the department has discretion to allow them to do work under a permit where they haven't obtained entitlement. >> we have to abide by those rules as well or we under mine the whole process, correct? >> as unfair as it may seem, we will do our best to get this through the process as quickly as possible. >> thanks. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none we will move to

rebuttal. mr. hacker. >> thank you. i just want to add a few details to the correct description mr. sanchez gave. the permit was -- i'm not sure i remember the exact dates right. we received a signed off permit in february. the reason it was not pulled, the reason the contractor didn't come in to pay the fee until april, was that upon approval of the permit it was only at that time that i was able to advise the property owner to solace it

is birds, select the -- solicits biddings, select the contractor and when he was ready to roll he would incur the cost for the permits which is quite the usual procedure for over-the-counter approvals. so that for all of that time we were confident in th the legitiy of the permit and acted accordingly. i understand that of course the planning department doesn't have the authority to waive any of the normal requirements, which is exactly why we are in front of the board of appeals to ask you to consider the unusual circumstances we are in right now. the present application for certificate of appropriateness

turns out that once you start to do it, there are a lot of steps that feel like quicksands. for example we submitted everything in the proper intake procedure and there was a five day lapse before the intake person could issue an invoice for the amount of fee we had to pay to go to the next step and so on. we are doing the best we can to follow those procedures, and i think even if we were to receive approval from the historic preservation commission at the july 19th meeting, it would be too late to realistically meet the commitment jen has made. >> thank you. i understand the commitment with the adjacent property owner. my assumption, i want to make sure i am clear, is that he was

like, okay, sure, you can do this construction as long it is before i have folks moving in and after which you will not have access to this walkway. i am not sure if it is public or private or who owns the walkway. what were the terms agreed to? >> let me clarify it is 30 feet wide and 200 feet long parallelling the common property line from one street to the next street. what the developer was planning to do was erect a free-standing screen wall that would provide something that his tenants look out on that would completely hide jennifer's building from view. and the reason for the time constraints is he wants to have

time to engineer, bid and construct that wall before he begins his aggressive marketing activities in august. that is what the schedule is about, and he has actually been reasonably accommodating to this point as we explained the situation, but i think we kind of pushed the limits of what we can make happen. >> the walkway is owned by that property, part of that parcel? >> exactly. i don't know if it is of interest to the commission, i have a rendering of the view down the walkway that shows the windows on both facing buildings. you don't need the picture to imagine that would be a substantial benefit to both property owners. >> go ahead and put it on on the

overhead. >> it is an image on an iphone screen. how can we do that. >> place it as if you are looking at it. >> that rendering with the windows. this is it without. >> back to the blank wall, please. >> thank you. you have 23 seconds to add anything. thank you. you can be seated.

okay. mr. sanchez. >> just to clarify the timeline of the window permit. it received the last approval from d.b.i. march 18th. over-the-counter permits came back later on april 5th. had it finally approved and issued the same day, by the records. thank you. >> if thank you. so commissioners, the matter is submitted. the standard every view is error or discretion. >> did you have anything further, mr. duffy? >> i have a question for the director. it looks like you moved this hearing up sooner than originally scheduled. >> we had a space available and given the circumstances i thought we would try to hear it

and it was fine with the planning department. >> i just wanted to point that out. it looked like a nice effort to get this moving. >> i think that we are really not able -- since the department is going to work on getting this done as efficiently as they can maybe we should not make a decision this evening and punt the ball until after the june or july 17th meeting. >> that would be the same effect as suspension. >> if they get the certificate of apappropriateness it moots the issue. >> do you have any recommendations? >> i am sympathetic. i don't see how we get around this. >> i agree. i do feel that, you know, there

is some responsibility from the city even though they get fully indemnified. i will let someone else make the motion on this one. >> i think it has the same effect. if we deny the appeal, then they will continue with the process. if we kick the can post july 17th, we are doing the same thing. i'm prepared to make a motion which one does my fellow commissioners think is more appropriate in the circumstances? maybe i should ask mr. sanchez for the benefit of yourself with

the intent to make this as beneficial as possible but within the guidelines under which you operate, which is the best direction for us to take on this given they both result in exactly the same thing? >> between taking an action tonight and denying appeal or continuing this out to a date after the hearing, it is better to take action now. because then the appeal is resolved and once they get the cfa we can release suspension of the permit. if the appeal is in effect we don't have jurisdiction and couldn't release the suspension. they need to withdraw the appeal and we need to release the suspension. i think it would streamline it to have the action made tonight. >> the motion will be deny the appeal and the action of the planning department was completed properly. >> zoning administrator did not

error. >> if are you making that motion? >> would you like to make that motion. >> move to deny appeal on the basis the zoning administrator neither errorred or abused discretion. >> the wall they are proposing to build is that over-the-counter permit? >> it would be a separate permit. if a permit is required this would be a temporary screening wallna would be separate because it is on a separate property. >> i am thinking about property. part of what i see is there is a point whether they get the certificate of appropriateness or not, the windows may not happen if the adjacent property owner decides to build the wall. they could build the windows to the wall but it cuts off the effectiveness of anything we are doing or what the planning department is trying to do.

i was curious about the timing. thank you. >> i see a lot of people. is the project sponsor for the next project here? no. >> we have an outstanding motion to deny appeal and uphold suspension request on the basis zoning administrator did not error and it was properly issued. on that motion commissioner honda. that motion carries 4-0 and the appeal is denied. we are now moving on to item number 9. appeal 18-140. the zoning administrator subject property 1686 market street. protesting issuance on october 12, 2018 of notice of

violation and penalty decision alleging violation of planning code due to noncompliance with code section 174. property owner and tent are not in complaint -- complains. this is 2007. motion 17939 to legalize expansion of the subject full-service restaurant specifically condition of approval 7 requires noise and odors shall be controlled so as to not to present a nuisance. this is complaint 2018-004-4466. >> executive director i have a conflict on this issue. we have a procedure as dictated by the ethics commission that in the case of the recuse sal which is what i am going to do to recuse myself.

a full explanation be made before i become absent from the rest of this hearing tonight. in review of this item, i notice that an interested party fic-m fic-mcm72 golf street lp upon review. that sounds familiar. upon further checking sic refers to a family company in which i am a principal, and that there is a joint venture between that company and mcm, which is mossser, referred to in the brief, and there as an interested part of the interested party, it is appropriate that i recuse myself due to a potential or actual conflict of interest. i filed this was noted this address was noted my form 700.

it is not anything hidden it wasn't noted prior to the hearing. it is appropriate that i recuse myself and follow the direction of the ethics commission. i will do so. >> thank you. we will wait until you exit before we start this case. >> thank you very much. have a lovely night. >> madam director since we are missing a commissioner what is the procedure at this point? >> we only need three vicinities to grant an appeal. it is -- three votes to grant an appeal so it is fine. >> correct. >> i will designate commissioner tanner as acting president for this item. >> thank you.

i think we are ready then. >> if it requires three and there is -- we can't do anything. it requires three. could they hold over for a fourth commissioner. >> why don't we see what happens? >> going forward. >> we don't have another commissioner. let's see what happens tonight. >> i also want to clarify for the record given the appeal affects the property owner they will be given equal time and they will present jointly with appellant the tenant of the subject property. that is 14 minutes joint time. >> good evening. i am justin. i represent the property owner. >> hold on. i forgot to make a discloser. i am a partner in a principal. this will have no affect on my

decision. >> in representing the property owner we work together with the appellant and authorized to act with regards to this appeal. before the details a representative from espetus is here to talk about their business. >> good evening, everyone. i am the general manager for the steakhouse. we have been in business since november 2003. we provide jobs and opportunities for more than 10 100sf residents. it is our interest to foster a good relationship with neighbors which we have been doing for the past 15 years. it is my belief that our existence in that was a contributing factor to have the building build there in 2009. we are proud of how much better

the area looks. we make it a purpose to clean up the sidewalks daily, picking up needles and human feces. we want to keep everyone happy. we are a small business trying to stay afloat in the city. we hear what our neighbors are saying and understand their complaints. we apologize if it is taking this much time to come up with an acceptable solution. we have been doing our best to solve this problem. we have put a lot of efforts on the best solution nor every one. unfortunately it is complex and pricey. i do sympathize with our fellow neighbor who earlier said that the apartment should jump into the opportunity of buying a low income apartment. i understand how hard it is to afford housing in san francisco.

we have been in the area and our rent has been raised many times. now we are faced with this situation which is a solution which will probably cost as much as one unit in the building. when i was gathering my thoughts to come here tonight, i was thinks what should i say? we are up against the city planning department or 120 units apartment building across the street from us. we are a restaurant, a small business doing our best to stay afloat. when we first opened, we were the only brazilian steakhouse in the city. there are now 10 in the whole bay area. our sales decreased significantly. the cost for staying there hasn't. this is what is going on.

in addressing our neighbors, we have been painted as the bad person in the neighborhood. i wanted to stress that we are here to complier, to help, -- to comply, to help. the solution is several thousand hundred dollars. this is not something in our back pocket to put it out. yes, the small necessary has to foot the bill. what am i asking? i am asking the planning department, which i wish in hindsight had thought of that before allowing that big building to be built there. we were there before. i guess it is fair to say they couldn't have guessed to say this would happen. i am just asking. give us time. the solution is in place. it is a complex solution and will take a long time to put it in place. please do not fine us any more.

it is hard as is. that was all. thank you. >> thank you. >> as mentioned, espetus is a long standing restaurant in san francisco. we are working with the city to stay in businesses while being a good neighbor. we have worked in good faith to resolve this issue. we recognize there have been road bumps getting to where we are today. there has been a change of behavior and we are happy to report the plans for new rooftop smoke and odor suppression have been submitted to the city for approval. it is going through the process which can take time. it is taking time to get it submitted to the city. the building is over 100 years old.

structural concerns exist with the building's roof. neither this building owner or espetus had plans to reference. we had to request a 1999 permit from ddi. unable to obtain the releases we had to wait the statutory period before getting the needed information on the building's roof. bon receiving the seismic retrofit plans, plans for the new unit were prepared in short order. while waiting for the 1999 retrofit plan maintenance was performed by city mechanical. technicians service the existing system including replacing several belts. as a result the system has operated with reduced noise level. with replacement of the smoke and odor system. the kitchen filtration system is

analyzed and composed. plans were provided to planning and the adjacent neighbors. as mentioned, permitting is underway. once we obtain approval we are ready to proceed. the construction timeline is prepared by the contractor emcorp. it is anticipated it will take approximately 8 weeks for the system to be built and delivered and a week and a half for installation. the grease piper is to treat the smoke and odor from the commercial cooking. the odor control was decreased 25%. normally systems are designed for collectively efficiency in the range of 90 to 95% at 0.3

mike krahns. this will be 97% at 0.3. we are awaiting confirmation on the selected system. it is our understanding the initial response has been positive. overhead, please. though the district cannot comment to the technical aspects. they believe we have addressed the concerns raised by their department. in addition, we are mindful of the ad adjacent neighbor's joyce concerns. a consultant is engaged to ensure compliance with the san francisco department. we ask 10 to 12 weeks to allow the system delivered and installed.

we are available the building owner, espetus and myself for questions if you have any. >> how much is this unit you are talking about, the cost? >> the cost is at least several hundred thousand dollars. we have had various quotes. some upwards of three to four hundred. the cost now is approximately $170,000. as you are likely aware construction costs can go up. every day we wait for approval for the order there are increases. >> thank you. >> you have a colleague who wants to address this. >> i apologize. >> he can address. you have time. >> i represent the landlord. the current bid is $360,000. that is not including the engineering for the structural

which will be another $50,000. it will be over $400,000. >> thank you. >> mr. zucker, are you finished? >> yes. >> any other questions we are happy and available. >> thank you. we will now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you planning department. what is before you is appeal of notice of viallation and penalhe o violation which is in the moderate transit zoning district. there is no question and this is a question whether or not a violation. it is appeal of notice of violation. no question it is a violation. the property owner has acknowledged and sought solutions. we are close to having a solution implemented. on the simple matter before the board of appeal on whether or not to uphold no