good evening. welcome to to may 15, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig is presiding. he is joined by other commissioners. to my left is deputy city attorney who will provide the board with needed legal advice. at the controls is the board's legal as assistant. i am the board's executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city departments. scott sanchez representing the planning department and commission. joseph duffy senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection and molly, deputy city attorney representing the department of public health. the board meeting guidelines are

as follows. turnoff or silence all phones and electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry conversations to the hallway. appellants and department respondents each are given 7 minutes to present case and three minutes rebuttal. rehearing three minutes each and no rebut. people affiliated must include the comments within these periods. members not affiliated have three minutes each to address the board. please speak to the microphone. to assist the board in minutes you are asked but not required to submitter a speaker card or business card to the staff. given that we have a vacancy on the board only three votes are required to grant appeal or rehearing request. the board rules please call or

visit the board office. we are located 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast friday on channel 46. the video can be downloaded from sfgovtv. please note that any member of the public may speak without an oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony weight. please stand and raise your right hand and say i do. those giving testimony if you can stand. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, hole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. item one is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone to speak on a matter

within the board jurisdiction that is not on the calendar tonight. anyone for general public comment? you are not speaking about an item on the calendar, right? i'm sorry. >> thank you. i am an educator in bayview and have to return to students for a graduation. i would like to share something in the public comment section now. >> regarding an item on the agenda. >> i will refer to president swig. >> president swig: fine. >> thank you. my name is jessica samples. i live at 55 page street. my unit directly faces rose alley, and the restaurant's smokestacks. i live there with two small

children and my husband. when we moved in my unit filled with smoke that continues to make our eyes itch and stomach turn daily. folks might say you shufchecked it out before you bought it and realize it was next to a smokestack. we bought the unit through bmr program. we were not allowed to see which unit was available before we applied. i am an educator and we were relieved to have one shot of stable housing for my family. we knew if we passed it up due to the smoke it could be years or never we would have stable housing in the city. we went for it and believed the city of san francisco would never allow the smoke to continue to be what it was and is. when we moved in did we learn first hand the seriousness of the smoke situation.

when we keep our windows and balcony doors shut the smoke enters through the cool duct ventilation system and electric wall sockets. options were to sell and move which we would never be allowed to participate in the bmr program again or live with it. in direct response to the smoky invested over $7,000 to date to buy filters for our home. we spend over $1,000 each year on cartridge filter replacements and it is a nuisance not to be able to open windows and doors especially on a warm day. after the restaurant shuts down and staff goes home sometimes ambers burn and the smoke is there at 6:00 a.m. the air is still smoky due to something burning all night. we are low income family with

young children and bmr children smoked out by the restaurant. how is it okay we have to spend thousands of dollars we don't have on air filter maintenance to keep the air breathable for my family while the restaurant an income generating entity escapes responsibility. i ask to deny the appeal. no more continuances, no more delays. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. any other general public comment? okay. seeing none we will move to item two. commissioner comments and questions. >> president swig: no thank you. >> clerk: item 3 adoption of the minutes. are the minutes of the may 8, 2019 board meeting. >> president swig: any comments. >> adopt as submitted. >> clerk: any public comment on

the minutes? on that motion commissioner tanner. (roll call). >> that motion carries. the minutes are adopted. one change in the order of agenda. item 6 will be heard next. appeal 19-022. judd winick and pam ling at 1621 diamond street. to paramount estate of a site permit to existing single family house, add two nanowatts and two new half baths. application 2017/08/10/4463. we will hear from the appellant first. >> hello.

my thanks to the board. i appreciate your time and patience. i will be brief. i am judd winick representing myself and my wife pam ling. our house is next door and attached to 1621 diamond street the property in question. our concern is excavation and construction of the foundation for 1621. our home attached. we share a foundation. all we are asking the city please insure the safety of our home and all due diligence taken. a full documentation of the layout, shoring drawings be created, professional third-party review of plans, survey, specifically preconstruction survey to

document existing condition of our house and neighbor's house at mr. fong's expenses. it has this note exploratory pit to verify location of adjacent foundation to be made if underpinings adjacent method of construction i is necessary. work will be done under separate permit. we ask that we and representative be allowed to attend the site meeting with engineer to review the recommendations. we ask we are allowed reasonable now anchored -- and to coordinate it with us. we are not contractors or developers, not experts. we are lay people.

we ask the board's guidance and protection. in dealing with the proposed renovation we had to seek out lawyers and contractors. it is a financial burden. in our dealings with mr. fung they have not had our best interest at heart nor do we expect they should. they have misrepresented themselves. i bring this up because it has created adversarial relationship we do not feel comfortable relying on their suggestions how to proceed. they have not had our best interest at heart. they are rebuilding a house and are going to sell it. this is our home. our only asset. this is the last home we will own. for them they will build more houses every year. we understand that. this is why we hope you will help insure the safety of our

home. we request we should not have to bear any further financial burden. we are not building a house next door. these are not neighbors renovating a home. it is a business transaction they should pay for that. why they do not see fit the survey the neighbor's property prior to construction and our property seems suspect. everyone we have spoken to asked why they don't want to do this. as construction commences we could make a claim they damaged our houses without documenting the state of our homes before construction we could claim the construction caused this dang. it is in the best interest of mr. fung. we don't know why they don't do this makes it suspicious. they are rushing. to reiterate we ask for guidance of the board to insure safety of

our home and actions taken will not damage our home. this is our home for the next 40 years. we would appreciate the help. thank you for your time. >> we will hear from the permit holder. >> allen murphy on behalf of the permit holder. thank you for hearing us tonight. i would like to very briefly give you background on the history of the project, move to the main issue and respond to the specific points appellant raised. as a little background single family home renovation and expansion. detached single family home detached from appellant's home. they previously filed and

withdrew discretionary review. that was following negotiation between the planning attempt and consulting. there were questions over the building and they came to agreement. we are pleased to reach that agreement. those issues are not before the board this evening. at this point, the issue as thepe appellants mention is the foundation and the concerns about construction method. d.b.i. and other city departments provided the oversight by reviewing the plans with site permit application. when more detailed plans are submitted those plan checkers will review the plans to insure they are safe. d.b.i. would not have issued the site permit without insuring the project could be constructed in a safe manner. we are confident those measures

have been taken. we would like to address the specific request of thal appellants and these are met or are something that we agreed to here tonight. just to take them one by one. first, appl appellants requestee full documentation. they have been provided. exhibit c shows e-mail correspondence with appellants. first set of plans were supplied in january. there is also a set more recent in april we provided giving more detail about foundation work those were shared. d.b.i. will review those in the normal course. second and third request are for paramount to have shoring drawings.

paramount's experience have determined that shoring will not be required for the project along the appellant's property line. they showed the foundation of the project. shoring will be installed within the property. that is horizontal to the property line. no shoring on applelant's property line. the reason is that the bottom of excavation will be about half a foot above the bottom of the foundation on applelant's property. as a result when you have the higher level on the property will is no need for shoring. that is clear i in the new set f plans. we can attest to that tonight. i should add we have our engineer consultant here this evening. if there are technical questions he will respond. i will also anything i am able

to as well. the next point is a request paramount provide a survey of neighboring properties. there haven't been surveys conducted before. paramount is monitoring the condition of foundation of the neighbors since we have a shared interest to be sure everything is done safely. paramount agrees to survey the appellant's property and the neighbor on the other side before construction and after foundation and frames is complaint. that is something we are happy to do at my clients expense and to applelant's point to everyone in the neighborhood. the final point they requested paramount coordinate with future work plans for under pinning. the engineer consultants have done a detailed study and determined there is no need for under pinning whatsoever.

that last item won't apply. you can see in exhibit d to the brief the letter from the engineer consultant indicating why under shoring will not be required on this project. i am happy to address any questions the board might have at the appropriate time. >> i have a few questions. >> one of the things you noted there was not any shoring upon any further review because of the foundation of the home is lower than the subject property. in the brief it talks about surcharge. one of the ways is by having the foundation of greater depth. i wonder if that is a solution at that point with shoring of the neighboring property be necessary and how would that become part of the plans? >> there will not be shoringness. you will be bringing the foundation down to an equal level. that is a separate issue when

you have foundations that are at a different level than yo you wt to mitigator that in some way by the same level or piles and that will not require shoring. >> i was curious about the monitoring that is happening on the properties that are neighboring the subject property. can you go into more detail? is that photos what professional is performing that? what records are being kept of the neighboring properties? >> i should ask our engineering consultant to address that if you don't mind. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. if i understood the question correctly, the question is if the monitoring will happen during the construction? usually how it happens is that

survey of the neighboring adjacent properties before construction is started and after. during that we can also make arrangements for that to happen. usually that happens before and after. i have been informed by the property owner the licensed surveyor has been hired to do that at the moment. >> i want to understand a little bit about the back and forth that occurred as a result of the discretionary review that was withdrawn to understand the issues raised and the negotiations developed. were they related to the issues present or can you walk us through what the discussion was in. >> the issues were not primarily related to these issues. the apple laboratories did raise -- appellants did raise a

concern about safety of construction. it focused on the building envelope. there were concessions made on those points. they did broadly raise a concern about the safety there was no detail like this. >> one of the things that seems to be if i look at it would be concerning things like with the shoring upon close review we don't need to do shoring. perhaps there was proposal of shoring at some point. i want to understand how or why you feel they should feel confident that their foundation won't be damaged at all, none of their property will be damaged during the construction of the addition. >> sure. i will let amir expand. my understanding at the time the appellants filed this appeal we had not determined whether

shoring would be required. we had not been able to access from the plans of their own house. after the appeal was filed we went to look at the plans on file and were able to determine the bottom of their foundation has slightly been -- am i getting this right, beneath the bottom of our foundation and there is no shoring required. it is just a physical type arrangement. >> thank you. no more questions. >> if thank you. we will hear from the planning department. nothing from mr. sanchez. mr. duffy, building department? >> good evening, joe duffy. on the permit under appeal horizontal vertical addition to the single family home two new

baths and half baths. it was reviewed by planning, dpw, ppc and central permit borough issued on the 23rd of march 2019 and suspended on the third of april. this is the site permit document that will be an a be an a ddende work. i listened to the testimony. the concerns are valid. we hear them here a lot. that is if way it is in san francisco. the building code does address that under 3307. i have read it here. any damage to that neighbor's property would be an issue. they are required by california civil code 10 days prior to excavation starting to give the neighbor notice of excavation that needs to be done as well.

the appellant made reference to ashored foundation. that is the wrong term. that is foundations 1 an 1 and 2 buildings on one foundation. separate would be important to know because if they were shared that would be an impact. i think he meant they are beside each other, not actually shared. they are side by side. the survey is definitely a good idea. it is not required by the building code. anybody doing development these types of projects we see them and they are good because it lets us if someone complains they are getting cracking or something, we look at the survey, it gives you a lot of information. the note on the plans if they did go beneath the foundation they would have to do the underpinning. that is a general note on the

plan. d.b.i. want that on the drawings. it is usually on there just in case. from just reading the brief they are doing an 18-inch slab foundation which isn't as deep as a typical foundation. it provides the same strength as a regular foundation. they have chosen that method which means the bottom of the slab is not below the neighbor's foundation. i think you heard that. i did do some research today after reading the brief, and i did dig up the plans from the 1615 diamond street work done back in 2006 por 2006 purr mitt. if -- permit. if i could have the over head.

overhead. so in this detail we have foundation detail from the neighbor's property back in 2006. they are showing the new foundation here going level with the neighbor's foundation. you can see it is a fairly deep foundation. they have already stated they have checked where the bottom is and they are not going below it. we are okay on that. these are in d.b.i. records. i am happy to give them to the property owner if he wants them. if there there is any problem if the neighbor is concerned he can always file a complaint and we will send an inspector out immediately. we do take concerns seriously. we are usually on them the same day. i am available for any

questions. >> a few questions. one thing that you could explain for the benefit o of o appellan. this is everything but there is more information to be provided in the future about the construction here. >> site permit allows them to apply for a permit to see what they are coming out with. you would never do a full design. when you get the site permit it has basic information. the statements about the structural work. the work then the structural design comes after the site permit is issued. it lets you see what you are going to build. you wouldn't want be to structurally design something that could get changed during planning. it is a good process that comes in phases. most people take advantage of

that. >> in the future phases do you imagine some of the issues the appellant raises will be addressed as more structural detail comes or what might we expect to see in future permits? >> that is a very good question. from reading the brief and from hearing the testimony, it looks like they have done homework. they have this slab design. they know the bottom of the foundation. i wouldn't anticipate changes. if there was something after the addenda it would be a revision if they want to make changes. it seems they have done the homework on where the depth is. a lot of people don't go to that much detail that is what i am seeing. i hope that answers your question. >> how typical is that work performed and the type of structural activities going on in this property in san francisco? >> we see it all of the time. anybody who has done a major

extension, remodel, new building, they have to take into account the neighbor's foundation and design it appropriately. if they go below it they can under opinion his foundation. that happens all of the time. worst soil conditions. this would be good conditions. in other areas it is tricky. there is a way to freeze the sand and under pinning. it is pretty common because of the lot lines. >> last question. some of the challenges are regarding the trust placed in the plans submitted which are performed by professionals. can you talk about d.b.i.'s review of these plans or future things? how does the city make sure houses aren't going to found down? how do you look at these plans

and permit applications? >> the structural plans are going to be submitted to d.b.i. as addenda, routessed to the structural engineer at d.b.i., designed by the structural engineer, reviewed by d.b.i. engineer, and it has got to meet code. there has got to make sure it meets the codes. it is reviewed by d.b.i. structural plan check, i believe they call that. >> thank you. >> at the risk of being redundant, in the interest of providing comfort to the appellant and so the appellant is prepared in subsequent testimony tonight to ask more detailed questions. going down the list. we have the plans available so that is an issue that should

satisfy appellant. the issue of the shoring. at this point the shores is not required, but at some point when the knowledge plans and permit is filed for, if indeed shores is required, then we can revisit this issue or the appellant can revisit this issue by potentially filing a further appeal if they get uncomfortable. at this point you are comfortable no shoring will be required, correct? >> based on the testimony we heard that they weren't going to need shoring, that is one area not near the property line. yes, i mean if you are putting in the mud slab there is no need for shoring. i am not an engineer but inspector. it works well in san francisco. in this case if things change because plans change and that is

building. the appellant would have another bite at the apple as a result of the building permit and revised plans, correct? >> correct. any changes need a revision permit. the only problem if they submit ashoring plan under addenda it iitis not appealable. >> if the anticipated foundation changed in regards to below the neighbor's foundation it may be something to think about. >> we will ask the attorney if we happen to go in that direction. >> it is a safety net. he is welcome to come to d.b.i. on the plansis, i talked about

these are what he built his project about. i printed it. he can view the plans at d.b.i. and look at them to write the review off the ad denda plans. what some people do is an added expense. he could get an engineer for himself, bring him to dbi, meet with the plan checker and ask questions about the review. that is available as well if he wants. >> as far as the monitoring, the monitoring if we wanted to insure there was monitoring, we could condition our finding tonight on creating a system for monitoring? >> good idea. they are getting it anyway. most developers are doing it.

we see it all of the time. >> it seems to be the communication here. i don't know, the communication is the key here and outreach. if the contractor starts work they should have a contact number to get these people talking together and if they need to use dbi or planning commission staff they can call the city if they think we are needed. >> thank you very much, sir. >> any public comment on this item? we will move to rebuttal. mr. winnik. you have three minutes. >> very brief. as was noted, we only received a revised set of plans in april after we applied for the appeal. this is the first that i heard we are going to have the property surveyed. this has been the tone and

tender of this. these are not someone with our best issues at heart. talking about the shoring which i am a lay person it feelings like a moving target when we discuss this. i hear things that the shoring can be in some way attached as an addendum and there will be a permit perhaps. again, we would ask that if we have the city oversight to help us through this. we do not trust the developers to be as forthcoming as they need to be. we think they would be as forthcoming as they are required to be. that would make it hard for us. we just want the safety of our house. thank you again. >> i want to make sure that, you know, we really try to work hard at hearing appellants and the public as well as we try hard to hear the project sponsor. we want to make sure everything

is nicely buttoned up. i want to make sure that our list coincides here. the list that the project sponsor went down where the plans you now have plans and two, that there won't be any shoring. we just heard if there is a shoring change, we can make that a condition on this case. you can be protected on that. the third thing was the survey. they have done or are going to do a survey and that would be on your list as well. the underpinning is the same as the shoring. should there be a requirement for underpinning we can condition that and if things change we can make sure that, you know, that must be disclosed and reviewed as part of the plan. the monitoring as well.

it is something we can choose to put a condition on. going down the list, is there anything that you see as omission to your list which you presented to us? >> nos, i don't. >> thank you. >> i would like to add that what he was expressing the city does have oversight. we have engineers the city's party. they review the plans on behalf of the public to make sure what is built is safe and will not cause the things you are talking about. i know hiring another engineer is your option to hire your own staff. your tax dollars are hard at work and the department of building inspection. that is your choice to do that. we have our staff review the plans as well. >> thank you, i appreciate it.

>> mr. murphy. >> thank you. i will be brief. i have two points. we would not obi object to monitoring. that is something we want to do. that is not a problem. the second point there was a discussion about changes to the plans. we would ask -- we can say there won't be shoring or underpinning. we understand the concerns what if things change? we ask if any condition is imposed only if shoring or some kind of underpinning on the appellant's property line were required. it won't be so but if it would, it could come back for further review at this board. we ask the condition be drafted narrowly in that way. if there are any revisions to

the plan there could be another board hearing that wouldn't beaconsibeconsistent. we ask it not be subject to that. >> my response. you understand we hear that all of the time. you are involved in a shotgun wedding. they don't know you, you don't know them. to help build trust we might build in a few conditions that, you know, allow the appellant a little more faith in the system and more trust. no disrespect intended to you all. it just helps move the process comfortably down the road. that is why it exists. >> shotgun wedding. everybody is upset.

you don't know each other. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy, do you have anything further. >> commissioners this matter is submitted. >> you led the discussion and i think i know where you are going. i may have discussions i will listen to a motion. >> i haven't made that many motions. if we are conditioning it, are we upholding or denying the appeal. >> issuing the permit with conditions. >> i move grant appeal and issue permit with conditions there would be a survey preimposed construction along with monitoring throughout construction period and that if shoring or underpinning is required on the add jay send property line that would be done through revision permit subject

to appeal. >> tell us what is legal and what is not. >> i would request that perhaps the project sponsor come forward and state whether they object to the condition you stated are with to the revision permit. >> . >> we prefer not to have the latter condition. the one objection the property line of the appellant's property. i understand at this point there is no shoring required on the other property line either. that is not something we were prepared to discuss tonight. since the other 1627 diamond street neighbor is not here. i ask that not be opened up. >> that would be with 1615 diamond street. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy.

>> just to clarify something. when you mentioned underpinning. that would be under the the ap applelant's property. they would have to match the bottom of their foundation if they change it. they have to underpin his property. it is not underpinning is probably not the term. if there is any changes to the foundation, the intended foundation design, that would be done under revision permit. i think that would be the approved revision. the code covers anyway the building code says if you make changes to approved permit you have to get reversion. that is a stand alone permit which is appealable. the city attorney might be. >> if they were to change the design of the foundation to

require shoring or underpinning they have to get a revision permit anyway. >> after the ad denda is issues, yes. >> only during the addenda process. once that is issued, that is what you are building. you make changes, you are doing a revision permit. it happens all of the time. >> can they change between now and that being issued? >> that is better. they are telling us they are not going to underpin. that is issued by d.b.i. as addenda. if they make changes to that a revision is required and building code covers that and they get revision to foundation. you may not need the condition if the building code covers it. >> i don't think we would. earlier you said the opposite. i want to make sure it is crystal clear that right now

they have a site permission issued. that is appealed at this moment and the addenda will be issued which will include what is currently in the site permission foundation wise or could they change between the site permission and addenda issued can that change. >> they are on the addenda. >> after that point that is locked in if the foundation were to change from the addenda to something to adjust they need the permit which is appealable to this body? >> yes. >> i am sorry if i said the opposite. >> maybe i heard the opposite. >> the wording of the condition. i don't want us stumbling. we do struggle with the board if there is not proper wording. it is complicated. the minutes here tonight they

are not going below the neighbor's foundation. they have taken that into account. that is going to be submitted as the ad denda. if approved there is no problem. after it is issued and they change that is revision permit. >> between now and issuing the addenda, they are planning to submit this but could they possibly change that between now and when it is issued? >> yes. >> that is the window we are trying to capture. the latter is covered once it is issued it is covered. we are speaking of this portion of time. >> to be honest, the chance of change is slim to none. they have done this. they know where the bottom of the foundation is. there was all sorts of determine mentions on the brief. i read them. 6 inches above it. if they have done the homework

this is what they are going to do. >> help me with the language. we want to address this particular phase of the permitting process, and we want it to be focused on something if it were to happen to the foundation plan such that underpinning with 1615 or shore is required that adjacent to the property line then they have to, i guess, get revision permit or start over again? i am not sure the options. do you have any ideas i am open to it. >> i would like commissioner duffy to give us some condition language related to assuring the appellant making the appellant comfortable that he is walking out of here bulletproof with regard to the fact that under

current testimony there will be no shoring and there will be no underpinning required. >> it is just, you know, i want the gentleman to go home and sleep tonight. >> any changes to the current foundation design it will be done under a revision permit. >> do you need the councilor to return? >> i would like him to come forward again. >> the term any change to the current foundation design might be broad enough to encompass any minor change to the trent plans. i o -- to the current plans. >> how about changes to the current design which would

require shoring or underpinning to the appellant's property does that work for you? >> yes, thank you. >> can you read us back the motion? >> motion to grant be the appeal issue permit on the condition that it be revised to require monitoring throughout the construction process, survey pre and post construction, and if the permit holder anticipates any changes to the foundation design which would require shoring or underpinning on the adjacent property at 1650 diamond street that change would be done under revision permit not under ad under addenda. >> is that the motion? >> are you comfortable in that direction? >> i am. >> we have that motion from commissioner tanner which i am not going to repeat.

(roll call). >> that motion carries 3-0. >> thank you. let me check in with i believe commissioner honda is here. >> okay. we are ready.

welcome, commissioner honda. we are now moving on to item number 4. this is a rehearing request for the subject property at 198 gar 198guerro street. rehearing of 19-015. as preliminary matter the parties indicated they would like to reschedule this matter. given this item is on the published calendar we need a vote from the commissioners to continue it. i want to ask commissioner lazarus if she reviewed the materials. >> yes. >> parties if you would like to approach.

>> molly allerconfor dph. >> good evening. council for the cafe. >> we have a joint request for continuance until the next month and would share that we are close to reaching a settlement agreement and have agreed to share the fact it will include a payment plan by mission beach cafe. that is the reason we request the one month continuance. >> if i may a few facts the commissioners may like to hear. we filed today e-mailed a joint request for continuance. two points. one, we promised to make it $14,000 t$14,000 to buy 5:15. it was made on time and receipt acknowledged. number two we have in our hands

meat and bones of a nearly final settlement agreement we agreed to talk about if necessary. the idea is to take the work off the desk of the board of appeals if we can finalize it. it is basically a payment structure. as long as the mission cafe is on track with the payments the city can speak for itself. it appears to be willing to continue the hearing to make sure that happens and they would agree to have it come off calendar. we don't want to unnecessarily involve the board if the board does not want to be involved we would welcome the board's insight if and when they would like to have a continuance and how much time and so on. >> you recognize that a continuance, a rehearing request would only be granted unless in the event there is material new

evidence that would fly in the face of and cause us to reconsider what was, i believe, our unanimous vote. >> it was not unanimous. it won by default. >> all right our position. >> i realize that. you have stated correctly the law. that is the law. what we ask the board to do is not rule and postpone ruling on the request, put it aside to perform the internal agreement we have doing our own form. >> thank you and good luck. i am glad that is working out so far. >> thank you very much. >> we would need a motion to continue you that. now, you said june 19th? >> that was the city's idea. we would remember longer to

involve everyone here. the city wants that close at hand. either one is find. >> we both stipulated in the request submitted today to june 19th with the idea we want to see the first monthly payment from mission beach cafe then go to the board to request a longer continuance to see the payments each month. >> we have six new appeals that night that should be okay that night? >> sure. >> i am looking to the city to drive this bus because you already have a result and if you are okay. i would look for you for leadership. the 19th would be the date? >> i have a question.

by default the board upheld the removal of the permit so does the city have the right to reinstate that unilaterally by a payment plan? >> that is my question for the city attorney. is it your position the board would need to grant rehearing and reverse revocation of the permit to let the business continue in operation or would dph be granting separate permit? >> the fact of the pending rehearing request means their permit is in effect by virtue of a stay. one solution would be this board retain jurisdiction and hold it in an bayians and on a six month basis if mission bay makes the monthly payment they could continue for six months until the balance of the settlement

amount is paid off. if they miss a monthly payment, then we go back to the rehearing request and you can choose t to deny it or grant it as you think the me merry christmas its warr. >> -- o on the merits. >> it is stayed. not a full reinstatement of the permit, right? >> it is stayed because of the appeal. it is going to stay until the appeal is resolved. >> that is fine. for saving a restaurant, they made the effort, city is working with them. >> how long do you anticipate this will take? >> the balance is now about $120,000, and they are only able to make payments of $5,000 a month. first few months less. it will be awhile. >> call of the chair.

continue to the call of the chair? >> they can advise us. >> or if they don't make a payment. >> we could do that if the board wants to retain jurisdiction. >> sure. i think the wisest is call of the chair. here is what i see happening or not. first we revoked the permit. that is where it stands right now. in a rehearing we would have to have new evidence that we haven't heard before that makes usury consider our -- us to reconsider our position. where we are going is a sleep of faith as requested -- leap of faith as requested by the city department the change of behavior will be there and based on that change of behavior we should review the situation.

that is where we are. en. [please stand by]

we would come back and talk about longer term. >> looking at this, do we call the chair and revisit this june 19th? as subsequently there might be another call of the chair to revisit this arbitrarily september 19th? >> down the line. >> it's call of the chair or a set date. >> exactly. >> not both. >> we can put it on call of the chair and request a status report and then move it back on calender if there's not compliance. >> i have a procedural thought. not an advocacy thought. the city is driving this, i agree, and it could be -- >> can you speak in the mic, sir. >> the city is driving it. it could be continued and if there's a procedural mechanism to allow the city to put it back on calender on seven day's notice, if there's a default or

non compliance it could come back and not have it need to be set. that also might work? >> well, we're hearing requests that might be moot at that point. >> we can just make it to the call of chair at which point, if there's an issue, the department will indicate so and then the chair will call a date, right. >> we haven't signed a settlement agreement yet. we have agreed today to ask for this one-month continuance in the hopes that we can in do you time fine a settlement agreement. so for now it's just one. >> so i think we'll start with a continuance and then, you know, if we're in the same status a month from now on june 19th, then we will go one way or another based on behavior -- the agreement and the behavior of both parties. >> ok. >> i'll make that motion. >> ok.

>> motion from commissioner honda to continue this matter to june 19th. >> to give the parties more time to figure this out. >> reach a settlement. >> ok. on that motion -- that motion carries and the items continue to june 19th. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now move on to item number five. this is appeal 19-021. peter lynn versus department plan inspection subject property is 8 lorenzo way, protesting the issuance on march 12th. construction of a new two-storey one basement type 5 single family resident building. this is application 201612215604. >> good evening. welcome. >> good evening. my name is