[inaudible] >> -- to allow time for the permit holder to provide a brief which includes copies of all permit applications and drawings for 40 and 50 alta street and which addresses the full scope of work at the property. so as a preliminary matter, and also, miss duffy, we're going to hear from the permit holder first, so if you could have a seat, we'll be hearing from the permit holder first. >> okay. >> clerk: so as a preliminary matter, commissioner lazarus, did you have the opportunity to review the video and the materials on april 17, 2019? >> i have, and i'm prepared to proceed. >> clerk: so we will hear from the permit holder. you have three minutes. >> good evening, commissioners.

we tried our best to get you a brief and give you a full scope of work. i have the owner, gerald4444 gerald44444 gerald444443' -- gerald balcer here if you have any questions. >> i notice in your brief that you mentioned that the permit holder intends to have individual paymen individual appointments with residents related to any concern that individuals may have. >> that's correct. >> and have any of those meetings involved buyout offers? >> not to my knowledge. i mean, there have been the requires disclosures that have been -- required disclosures that have been put out to everybody just so you can talk about that kind of stuff, but to my knowledge, there's been no offers of buyouts or anything like that. >> okay.

i am also concerned about the status of the a.d.u. applications which are separate from the unit permits. do you know if they've been approved? >> i don't know if they've been approved as of this date. >> clerk: any questions? >> vice president swig: i'd just like to comment that i appreciate the work that's gone into this. i wish that the thoroughness of your presentation as it currently stands was in evidence this past november, and i appreciate the work that's gone into it, the clarity, and i look forward to hearing from the appellant as

to if they're comforted by this presentation, but it's much better than it was nine months ago. >> thank you, mr. swig. >> clerk: okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: so the flplan -- we would like to hear from the planning department next. do you have anything on this do you have anything on this matter? okay. nothing? okay. d.b.i., miss duffy, it's your turn. >> good evening, commissioners. three minutes is not a lot of time to speak, so i'm going to jump right in as to what has transpired since the last hearing. i have received three packets. this packet was delivered over the memorial day weekend. last friday, six days ago, i received another packet that was submitted along with the brief that i have believe you

have. last saturday, five days ago, i received another packet that was dropped on a tenant's door. i was out of town and did not have a chance to review it until monday. the brief was evnot delivered me as was required. once again, we did not receive the brief on time. all of these packets are dense, they're very confusing to nonlaymen, and i cannot stay fr certain that what we're looking at is the same as what the board has been looking at over the last two months. this is why we've been requesting digital copies of the plans and face-to-face meetings with the plan holder and consultant versus back and forth which is what the property manager offered to do. for the last two months we tenants have sent questions to

the property manager, for over two months. finally last night at 8:00 at night, we got a response to the questions, a two-page response which now has let us to have more questions. one and a half weeks before the meeting, mr. balcer met with myself and several others. the meeting was pleasant, lots of information went back and forth, but we left with not specific details. there was concession to potentially shortening the timeline. diane and i left the meeting even more confused as to whether the sequence of the work at alta such that it's going to mitigate the impact of the tenants. we are especially concerned about our units as the timeline shows we have to be out 3.5 to four months. it's not simply because it

impacts us, it's because how i believe how this work is allowed to be carried out will be the tipping point from what 40 and 50 alta will look like several years from now. i find it interesting that our units and decks are being referred to as penthouses and balconies. we are seeking the commission's help once again to help us get transparency. we are requesting for a liaison that will be respectful to the landlord's interest but to our rights, as well. >> clerk: thank you, that concludes your time. >> so i know you were kind of leading up to that in your last bit of your statement. can you review -- i have down here that you're concern about

the sequences of the work that's carried out. can you please review what of your concerns remain compared to the previouseous heari hear? >> well i don't know that i can answer that from an educated perspectiv perspective, but for example, it was pointed out to me by a contractor that there are ways to be more creative in approaching the redesigning of our decks. for example, if this was the landlord's place of residence, if a contractor came out and said you have to be out of your house for four months, most likely, he would say you need to refigure out how this was

done. >> even the necessity of some of the work, we're not entire leisure of th ly sure of that. other tenants said they would like to speak to the fact that there's a lot of deferred maintenance, and in some cases, that's what we're speaking about here. >> so if you were to get an undering of the plans -- understanding of the plans, is there anything else that you are requesting or trying to -- >> yeah, i think sort of speaking on my behalf and also

some of the tenants, i think we'd like to have better understanding of what will happen to our storage units, if we'll have access to them again. essentially, is there opportunities for us as tenants that are temporarily relocated to temporarily reside in some of the units that are currently still open actually in that building at 40 and 50 alta as well as other north beach properties that the landlord owns that we know that there's some vacancies? so is there sort of room to sort of negotiate around that? yeah. we also have concerns about do we have to relocate our belongings when our units are being remodelled. part of those questions stem from questions we did not receive a response to until

last night at 8:00. i actually did not receive the e-mail until closer to 10:00. >> okay. is that everything? >> that's everything that i can think of right now. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: is there any public comment -- okay. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i was trying to process the question that commissioner santacana asked about a.d.u. properties. i think what was submitted by the permit holder in their summary, they noted two permits which consolidate all previous permits. the first one for 40 alta does not exist. i looked at permit, the 201807241285, i looked at it as 2018 or 2019 and did not see that, so maybe that's an error in that permit number.

the 50 alta does show, but i just wanted to raise that to maybe avoid confusion or maybe it was just confusion that i alone had, so thank you. >> so who -- mr. sanchez, i think what's clouding my view on this is we have to go back to november hearing, and then, we go back to the second hearing and -- whereas we unpeel this onion, we found a lot of rot. we found that there was an apartment that was being used as an office illegally. we found other inconsistencies with the truth and with what would be considered ethical or legal behavior. i'll focus on the legal.

and so i don't know if there is a mr. duffy question or a you question. how do we button this up effectively? i was appreciative that we have a little clearer view as a sequencing and then all this, but now you're bringing up that there's inconsistencies with numbers on permits and the issuance of permits. again, this clouds my vision and my comfort even further. where should we be going with this to ensure that we're -- that the tenants are comfortable, that the city is comfortable that the permits

are black and white. i don't want to move forward with this until i'm really comfortable that this is the right thing. >> no, i can see that. in reviewing the record, i see that it was an issue that the permit holder did not provide information until just last week, and at the 11th hour at that. and then, also what may have been going on. sometimes having, you know, one consolidated permit, they reference one permit which doesn't exist and one which does. if they can tie together which

we a one they're rao pursuing -- i don't know if we can just wrap it into other permits, that's where i am. it's frustrating when the permit holder can't accurately represent a situation. maybe there are a.d.u. permit. >> vice president swig: should we three strikes and you're out? once again, we're faced with irregularities or insufficient information. we're faced with insufficient communication to the tenants, and if we go three strikes and you're out on this one and deny the permit, find for the appellant and deny the permit, do they have to wait a year to get their act together and reapply for the new permit,

what's the act here? >> the one year is applying for the same permit. the board could find that the permit holder hasn't provided adequate information to demonstrate that the permit is cold compliant, so then -- code compliant, so then, they could have another opportunity to do that. in terms of three strikes and you're out, i've seen the board say one strike and you're out. >> not us. >> seriously? >> this board is -- >> my fellow commissioner just pointed out that there is an error -- mr. sanchez -- don't walk away when i'm talking to you. >> i'm sorry. i didn't know you were talking to me. >> vice president swig: we just wanted to bring you up to date since you haven't been along on all the rides. >> she just pointed out the correct permit number, so the 7

was a 9. and then, you know, i'm not as nice as president swig. the last hearing was really quite the shitshow. there was all kinds of stuff going on here. i just did, but the thing is they've consolidated to two permits. i mean, how many permits -- because i can't remember how many permits there were initially because it seemed like serial permitting the first time. >> so for 40 alta, for issued permits or completed permits, there are -- there's a 2018 one and then it goes back to 2003. for kind of active permits, there's four.

for 40 alta -- >> i think it's 2019-0725-6882. >> that is a -- that is a permit to remodel entry and fifth floor unit and repair decks at the fifth and sixth floors and access stairs, work to be done in conjunction with work under 201811531611. >> so that strikes me to be the consolidated one. >> yeah, and that could be the consolidated permit. >> so i have a question. the permit that was the basis for this appeal, which is the

only basis of this appeal, has that been consolidated? is that still a separate permit to do the work strictly on unit five? >> i think i'm going to defer to the project sponsor or maybe d.b.i. knows. i'll defer to d.b.i. >> that is of importance to me. >> batter up. >> i mean, there is a question of jurisdiction on what's before us. >> yeah. joe duffy, d.b.i. the permit that's under appeal and currently suspended is unit five, renovation of kitchen and removal of two walls. that's the renovation of an apartment that i went to. that's the permit. there is there is other issues with future work that's going to take place at the building, and i think we heard from the

tenants that they want that sorted out. the a.d.u. permit, i can clear that up for you. they filled out an complication and they got -- an application and they got a writing slip. there is an application in the packet that does talk about the addition of ground floor a.d.u. with an existing storage room and doesn't have a number. will be going to planning, will be going to building as per the usual process. this building is under mandatory soft story upgrade ordinance, so it's under violation at the minute, so pulling permits for a year sounds great, but this building, d.b.i. will be enforcing, like, our notices of violation for failing to comply with the mandatory soft story

upgrades. maybe they could consolidate some of the other work, but again, this permit is just for unit five only, a small remodelled kitchen and bathroom. and this building owner and the tenants maybe need to get a liaison a liaison officer to figure out their differences. that's all ahead of them. maybe we need to do better from a building ownership. >> the permit that's under appeal tonight has not been consolidated with the others. >> serial permitting is a term

that's used up here a lot. we don't like a lot -- too many permits on a building. sometimes the units, they do tend to pull -- each unit individually for some reason, you and it could be -- reason, and it could be consolidated. >> so on this permit, this single permit which commissioner lazarus is very right to remind us that we are on this permit only, what can they do with this permit, and what can they not do with this permit? can they not do, meaning what would be not legal for them to

do in this permit and what would be legal for them to do. >> i can readout the description of the work. unit five, that's the only unit -- >> that was the one that they were using as an office illegally? >> yeah, which got cleared up. renovation of kitchen and bathroom, replacement of two partition walls. >> and does that have anything to do with the removal, dislocation or other discomfort to tenants at this point? there would be -- >> there would be no reason, no. >> it's all in four walls and there's no stairways that are

going to be replaced, renovation of that type. >> all of this work is only inside unit five. you can't go working on the -- you know, the common stairway, the lobby, nothing like that. i mean, that would be a violation. >> yeah. and just -- >> they already started the work. they got a couple of days in before they -- once the permit got issued, they went to work. they demoed some of the finishes on the walls and ceiling. it was about a half a day's work, i would say. >> so any of this material that we have gotten that displaces people for a period of time, this really doesn't relate to

the permit, that we have to keep our focus on this is today's permit. so any of this that we have received which is very, very valuable to the tenants, which they might see what's coming, and hopefully they will be dealt with in an ethical fashion on this subject. but what's really -- this permit has to do with within four walls within just this apartment. >> yeah. i got that packet sent to my office. in this particular permit, i can't see it affecting tenants any other -- any more than any

permit. >> and the permit that's referred to that's a consolidation of other permits into one, we're not talking about that tonight. >> i don't even know what that is. >> and this permit, to the best of your knowledge, is still a freestanding permit that has not been consolidated or moved into any other umbrella permit whatsoever. >> no. they filed a perm on 25 of jul. -- a permit on 25 of july.

>> and so the comments the comments which were made by the appellant made to lack of disclosure, lack of communication, we just got all this material really they would have the opportunity if there's just cause to review the permit which has just been filed to see -- to determine whether they are -- it has been fully disclosed -- the information's been fully disclosed to them how the dominos will fall as opposed to relocation, etc.,

etc., as part of that permit which has just been filed which may as a result be filed separately, and that has nothing to do with tonight. >> no. i think that's a warning shot of what's coming our way. that work that's on the filed permit and the seismic work and the a.d.u.s, that could be definitely something where someone might need to be relocated, but not under this permit tonight. >> and it seems if we find that this permit's okay within these four walls because this seems to be part of a grander scheme, this work may not even start until this grander ul skult are are aare -- grander scheme is started.

>> yeah. they've got other stuff ahead of them. >> i have a question. so does the permit that's under appeal for unit five, which is suspended currently -- >> yes. >> then, there were two other ones that were applied for, filed for, just a few days ago july 25, for 40 alta and 50 alta, that we just referenced. >> yes. >> and then there's additionally a.d.u. work which we're not sure. they have -- as mr. sanchez said, they don't even have routing numbers. there's future work to be done. >> i can put it on the overhead and show you what it is. >> yeah. that would be great, just to show you that. >> overhead. >> yeah i saw that. so they've got the routing slip, they've got that, but they don't have the application number. >> so the application number is not there.

it's not in our system. until you have a number, you don't have an application. >> and the seismic work, that is under a different permit. where is that -- where would we under the work that you're saying mandatory seismic retrofit. >> i'm not sure whether it's filed. we can check on that. it has to be done, but i'm not sure where that's at. you know, obviously, with the soft story ordinance, there

are -- there are tenants rights, they're going to have to do what they're supposed to do with that, and we've had a lot of those, as well. just like with the a.d.u.s, and i don't know the status of that one. sorry, but it can be -- obviously, it's a bit -- that permit, too, is appealable. >> just to illustrate there's a lot of opportunities for us to perhaps see these folks again fortunately or unfortunately so we can do what we can on this -- the unit five permit, but there are other permits that are not before us. >> inspector duffy, as commissioner swig has indicated, we have a lot of laymen people who don't do this on a day-to-day basis. can you explain how the b.b.n. works? >> the b.b.n.? >> yeah. >> i will refer to mr.

sanchez -- [inaudible] >> so because -- forget the permit that we're hearing tonight. i think i'm clear on that. but this next set of permits, those which have been filed, i'm looking at the city

attorney, is this going to -- and because potentially an a.d.u. situation is involved, is this going to now fall under the requirements that the latest legislation has ordained by the board of supervisors in that the tenants will -- the potential permit holder, the building owner, will be required to have a meeting with the tenants and also fully disclose their plans moving forward? >> if i heard you correctly, that has already been submitted. i think it's more to do with planning department, but i'm happy enough to -- i think i'm comfortable enough saying yes. >> so for reassurance and

comfort level of the tenants, there is now legislation that has been ratified by the board of supervisors that will require this building owner to have an open and thorough meeting with the tenants and also disclose any and all plans for the building with the tenants prior to it being allowed to move forward. >> and this was not a filed permit -- >> it appears the attorney wants to interject something. >> i haven't had a chance to read this in depth. the note -- notifications on this don't require there to be a hearing. this is only for --

>> this permit, if -- this would be after the ordinance is affected, it would be subject to these noticing guidelines. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez should also probably clarify if those notices are applicable, no waiver notices available. >> scott sanchez, planning department. because we don't know the full intent of what they're seeking, my assumption that the new requirements would apply to the permit that is to be submitted, but i'm happy if the appellant would like to contact me directly, we can review the legislation and make some determination about what to expect. there's also the b.b.s.

process, the provision that allows you to get notified of all permits that are reviewed by the planning department for specific properties, so that would actually be one step more than what the ordinance would provide, and so other permits, they would get notice of that. they can go to our website, sfgov, if they type in b.b.n., the notification should be apparent. if they can't find it, they can e-mail me and i can get them the consolidation. the two pending applications are under review by our staff, but it was recently received, so i think it'll be sometime before they are assigned for review. >> commissioners, i would just point out i haven't had a chance to review this ordinance in detail, and it may be that as the executive director pointed out is that these notification requirements apply to only a.d.u.s and

single-family homes, i can't give an answer as to if the knowfication requirements would apply to this particular hearing. i had i'd have to get back to you at a different meeting. >> thank you, brett. >> i think we'll have the opportunity of having further conversations. i think i smell it in the air to have another hearing when it comes up, but for this permit, i don't think it applies, and this permit is narrow. >> clerk: yeah. we still have public comment. >> yeah, for sure. i understand. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item. okay. how many people are here for public comment? okay. thank you. please proceed. >> so yeah, just to make sure that you also understand that we -- they came here because

there was a permit to redirect stairs which meant the one line that there would be no occupants in the building, that was the reason for this appeal. just to make sure that everyone knows that. >> just with the utmost respect, i know that our landlord -- >> this was public comment time. >> for clarification -- >> clerk: miss duffy, please be seated. this is not your time. >> i understand. >> clerk: okay. please do. >> so i'm down a few seconds, so yes, we are here because there was the ask to reveal everything. it was a matter since april 2018, tenants have been seeking transparency of plans and what

those impacts would be. so we do know there has been deferred maintenance over 19 years of ownership. we know in talking with the tenants and they can verify that. but the idea of, you know, collecting rents with, you know, rent increases every year and actually getting less in terms of maintenance, of decks, balconies, and stairs, and there is a requirement since the 2002 ordinance that a -- an inspection be done regarding safety of these specific areas. and when i phoned on the -- the office on monday, the 30, the d.b.i. housing and building inspection folks told me that there had been no affidavit, no objecti section 604 yet filed, which is a requirement. there are currently four vacant units, and that was a major concern. how long will this work take? where will the tenants go, and if there was a way to find

alternatives where they did not have to do the work and alternatives with respect to where they would stay. because there are four units -- granted, one is under demolition, but there are four vacant units in 40 and 50 that could be used. in addition, there is the building on chestnut street that is now totally have a cana -- vacant that is now owned by mr. balcer that could be used as a replacement or comparable unit during the supposed 3.5 or four-month time that is needed to replace the decks on both of the buildings. so i work with the antiplacement coalition -- okay. i've got it all filled out.

all set. thank you. >> sir, before -- are you a paid consultant for the group? >> yes, i am. >> so your time would be -- is not under public comment. >> was he paid by the appellant? he told me he was -- yeah, so she's not the -- who are you paid by? >> diane, so she's not a current appellant so he can speak -- >> okay. i'm sorry. welcome. >> good evening. commissioners. my name is john sims. as we just established, i am representing diane english, oh, my gosh, here. just quickly, my credentials. 15 years as a contractor in san francisco, wood frame houses and apartment buildings, 11 years as a d.b.i. building inspector in the mission, four

years at laguna honda for projects for d.p.w. i reviewed the brief extensively, and i was present at a meeting with mr. balzer. in my opinion, all the work that they want to do can be done without dislocating the tenants except for the staircase and the upper decks, and that time of dislocation can, in my opinion, can be reduced to two to three weeks or two to four units at a time, if they would do one staircase at a time. and on the decks upstairs, we could dislocate for 30 to 45

days, but again, if we can use the apartments that are empty now and complete the apartment number five which is the subject of this review here, then the two people, diane and cow an wou cowan would not have to leave and could be shifted to the other side. i see a lot of discrepancies and i have a lot of questions for the permits that i see for the staircases and upper decks. i feel that the a.d.u. units are problematic for being approved for a number of reasons that i'm not going to go into now because i only have three minutes. all the other work, there would be some disruption to the tenants lives, but they could stay in the building and it

would be legal and safe for them to do it. >> clerk: 30 seconds. >> i would love questions because otherwise, i could go on for a long time. one thing i do agree with commissioner lazarus that it would be good to get this number five and unit 50 reinstated so they could finish that unit and have it available for the tenants when dislocation is required. >> clerk: thank you. okay. you can be seated. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: next speaker, please. >> good evening, commissioners. i'm diane english, and 40 alta has been my home for the last 40 years, and my husband's home

for the last 41. at the meeting when discussing deferred maintenance with mr. balzer, when asked if he did maintenance for the last 19 years, mr. balzer's short reply was scheduled maintenance. prior to mr. balzer's purchase of our building, my husband and i completed an estoppel which we alleged there was dry rot into the windows and most of the railings. most of the dry rot exists so i was surprised by mr. balzer's response of scheduled maintenance. we respectfully request that a liaison be appointed for this

project. thank you. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. next speaker, please. is there any other public comment? >> yeah. my name is brian russi. i live at 40 alta, and it's been my home since 1985, 34 years. i spoke at the first meeting in november, specifically to the permit that had been withdrawn that day about the redirection of the stairs and the tenants so i could have it on the record and i was sworn in. the management has consistently proven to be dishonest, and there's no reason why they will not continue. if you're as confused about the unit five as i was, i was told to come speak to something entirely different, so i will speak to that. by the way, i was dropped off, also the package on my doorstep on saturday night. i'm a layman, and there's no

time to go over those packages to make an intelligent comment on. i don't understand if the a.d.u.s are not approved, why the stairways are tied into the a.d.u.s, why we would have to leave. what improvements are and are not actually necessary? what is the timeline? in terms of what diane said yes, the property is being neglected. they seem to be rewarded for neglecting property for 20 years and all of a sudden deciding to repair it. and for frankly going into a unit illegally on five and now vacating it as an office. so i'm just confused about what they're going to do and why they're going to do it and why i have to leave at all. according to what i've discerned, the shear wall, i shouldn't have to be displaced because i'm not on the first level. nod to that, the last client said they wanted to put in a

garage. half of my unit is above the garage. there's no need for them to put a garage door that closes. there's been no problem with anything. it's just an improvement, and as carolyn had said, we're looking at the long-term to see what they're planning to do years and years from now. again in terms of transparency and clarification, they've continued to be deceptive, not transparent. as calm and nice as they appear today, i have no confidence that they're going to do what they say they're going to do. i think it's a ploy to permanently enrich themselves. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: any other speakers for public comment. so seeing none, commissioners -- oh, i'm sorry.

>> my name is allison, and i live at 40 alta for the last 21 years since 1998. my position is i'm in favor of all of the improvements of the safety and seismic retrofits for the building. i'm unclear as to why we don't have any progress with the seismic retrofits. i under it's a -- all the variety of permitting and issues, but safety is really my biggest concern. secondly, it's a safe, interesting, and well kept place. so i'm concerned about the seismic retrofit, the capital improvements and the lack of clarification as spoken by all the other tenants, a timeline why we need to relocate. my unit is on the street level.

i have dual egress. i don't use the stairs. it's been stated that i'd need to leave for 17 days. i would like to stay present during construction. i don't know why i would need to leave and would welcome clarification from the owner. i have looked over the documents. i'm not an expert in the field, but i do have decades of doing proposals and r.f.p.s and working with n.g.o.s around the world. there's a massive amount of confusion in the information that they've provided to us, so i welcome any safety improvements as soon as they can be completed. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any other public

comment? okay. seeing none, this matter is submitted. >> i have a question for the counsel for the permit holder. so counselor, in regards to just the permit that's before us that's unified, will that affect any other units? >> no. otherwise if they're doing a remodel -- >> but no other impact that would affect -- >> no other effect. >> that was my question. >> what was your understanding of any kind of interruption of power or anything to tenants? >> if there was any kind of interruption, all tenants would be notified as per law. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. so commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> i guess i'll start. as my vice president has

pointed out, although there's many issues with this current process and hence the number of people that are spending our evening with us, the permit that's before us needs to continue to go forward. as the departments have mentioned, you can reach out to them. there is a b.b.n. where you can track what permits are issued as far as the planning's concerned and also to make sure that there's no permits that surprisingly show up, but as far as the permit's concerned, i feel that it should go forward. >> with regard to the permit, that's why i was so on purpose about asking -- there was a simple permit. if this work was done by

itself, it doesn't impact other than noise and some dust. it should not impact any of you whatsoever of you who are tenants in that building. however and therefore, i would probably go along with moving this permit forward. however, i think that we've tried to educate you a little bit and give you some notice that given our own sense of discomfort with regard to the presentation over two meetings, that you have the opportunity to be very scrutinous of the future. maybe we'll see you back. but for this permit, i think that this permit was issued appropriately by planning, and

it is our hope that the building owner will abide by the terms and conditions of this permit and keep it within the four walls. and if any permit -- if they attempt to move this permit into later phases, those later phases are really up to you to -- to be aware of and to take the action that you feel is appropriate. so i would say that we would move this one forward tonight. >> a motion. >> clerk: okay. >> deny the permit on the grounds that it was properly issued. >> second. >> >> clerk: we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the motion on the basis that it was -- deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was

properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion passes 5-0, and that appeal is denied. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: this is permit 18-tc 0652, and we will hear from the appellant first. >> commissioner honda: welcome. >> hi. thank you so much. >> commissioner honda: you can move that mic up if you -- yeah, there you go. >> my position is that this permit is going to create an undue and exacerbate an undue burden on the residents on

grove street. it's a residential block. the frontage of the business is about 104 square feet compared to 34 square feet on divisadero which is commercially zoned. on grove, commercially planning is not allowed. city planning and zoning from identified that as being important to the functioning of our city. because this is primarily a grove street -- the seating area is on grove street, both of the entrances are on grove street, i feel it's appropriate to lean towards the zoning of residential sewn rather than the commercial planning zone. the fact that this aggravated an already present burden is

something that i experience on a day-to-day basis. my day starts with a leave blower going on outside my window for 45 minutes. lewis and merlot is a construction business. rather, construction vehicles going in and out, lots of beeping. there's a parking lot across the street for a marijuana dispensary where people can't come out of the parking lot and get full advisability around the corner, so there's a lot of horns around all day. and then, right around that dies down is when that extended seating is going to start-up. so that extends the window which is my bedroom, and i also use it as a home office are existing in the acoustic profile of commercial activity, construction activity, traffic activity outside.

a lot of the history in this does involve experience with a restaurant that operated at that exact location. that's how we know exactly how bad it can get. i don't anticipate them hopefully to operate in that fashion. this is the biggest restaurant tour in the city. they have a lot of experience running outdoor seating areas, and they're going to point out probably that look, they're not urbana, and then, at the same time, they're going to point to their experience operating restaurants that aren't on grove streets, so this sort of points to a conflict in a gray area. now as far as the jurisdiction of d.p.w., but they don't have the mandate to take a global

view of the situation and look at whether or not residents are being impacted by a combination of factors, not just the permit holder but to look at what the overall environment is like. from a pollution standard, it's not like everybody sort of gets their fair share at polluting the environment. i'm really happy to be here before you because this is a body that is concerned with city planning. the stoning administration and -- zoning administration and planning department have previously fielded a lot of the concerns and a lot of the conflict that has come out of this, whereas the more specific city agencies mandate gets, the harder they have a time of addressing this issue. that's why the sfpd was the first one to protest this permit from this side of a.b.c. because they recognized rightfully that this was going

to create a problem. they heard the complaints in the past of this issue, but they don't have the authority to enforce this through the noise ordinance. my conversations with the department of public works said look, we can issue the permits, but we don't enforce on such things as music being played outside. basically, everybody is working within their mandates, doing a great job, but this particular issue arises when you look at the big picture. that's a picture that i'm forced to look at because as i described to you how my day goes, starts off, and there's a pretty steady acoustic profile, and now that extends this to 10:00 p.m., which they're phrasing as a concession to our needs, but realistically, that's when dinner time ends. that's the last available time to operate outdoors. sure, you could go later, but

within the realm of okay, well, i'm glad you're not obstructing literally bedtime, but you know, this is something that -- that just makes the room -- the front of these apartment buildings that are there, a lot of which are old victorians, they don't have acoustic insulation, really makes it hard to escape the noise from the street. so i'm asking you guys to take that more global view on this. i real that they're not particularly problematic operators. some of the things that i've cited in the brief are unfortunately true. they've used dishonesty to get to this point. one of the reasons that i've been unable to negotiate this with them head on was they weren't aware of this. they filed this permit with d.p.w. actually mentionin