cantwe >> clerk: good evening and welcome to the november 13, 2019 meet being of the san francisco board -- meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. rick swig will be the president of tonight's hearing. to my left is deputy city attorney brad russey who will

provide the board with any needed legal advice. i'm julie rosen, the board's executive director. we will be joined by the city departments who have cases before us this evening. up front, we have scott sanchez, and we expect joe duffy, representing the department of building inspection. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. the board requests you turnoff all cell phones and electronic devices. carrie on all conversations out in the hallway. parties will be given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. members that are not parties have three minutes each for comment and no rebuttal. for continued cases, the

parties get three minutes each with no rebuttal. for accuracy, you are requested to fill out a speaker card when you come to the podium. four votes are required to pass a matter. the meeting will run until 10:00 p.m. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv, cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00 on channel 26. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may testify without swearing pursuant to the

sunshine ordinance. if you want the board to give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if you are able and raise your right hand. do you answer or affirm that the testimony you will give tonight will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? okay. is there any member of the public here for general public comment? okay. we will then move onto item number 2, commissioner comments and questions. >> president swig: commissioners, comments and questions? okay. moving on. >> clerk: okay. so we will move onto item number 3. commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the november 6, 2019 board meeting. i would like to let you know

that mr. zack carnezi who spoke during the last meeting, would like us to correct his last name. his last name ends with an h, not a k, and he would like us to know that it took the board of forestry almost three months to respond to his e-mails. >> president swig: any other corrections or comments? can we have a motion to accept the minutes from last meeting, including the corrections on public comment, please? >> commissioner honda: i motion. >> clerk: okay. is this your motion? >> commissioner honda: correct. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment on that motion? we have a motion to adopt the minutes by commissioner hondas

stated. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion carries 4-0, and the minutes are adopted. we are moving onto item number 4, 19-014, ed van roden versus department of building inspection. i don't see joe duffy here -- [inaudible] okay. thank you. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: note, on october 23, 2019, the board voted 4-0-1 to

continue the matter until october 29, 2019 so that staff can conduct a site visit and d.b.i. can prepare a report. and as a side note, commission commissioner santacana, did you have a chance to review the video and review the case? >> i did, and i'm ready to proceed. >> clerk: okay. we will hear from joe duffy, department of building inspection. can you turn the microphone on, please? >> commissioner honda: i want to hear every bit that joe says, every bit.

>> clerk: did you want to test it? i don't think it's -- okay. it's not working yet. >> commissioner honda: did the i.t. guy have to come on up or did he fix that yet? we might have to get an overflow room tonight. >> president swig: can you try the other mic? >> commissioner honda: karaoke

night is . >> clerk: can you press p.c.? is there a little button that says -- >> commissioners -- >> president swig: oh, there are those lovely irish tones. >> clerk: folks, we need the entrance-exit clear for fire reasons. we do have an overflow in the south light court. please move away from the door. thank you. >> commissioners, on the staff report, i do have a brief staff report. we just did our visit last

friday, and just had time to do a brief report. it's just a page long. is it okay to submit this? >> president swig: sure. >> clerk: okay. >> and i shared it with the permit holder and the appellant just now. i think it was 11 or 12 -- 12 copies? >> commissioner honda: okay. do i get four votes tonight? okay. i guess this works. thank you, katie. >> yes, commissioners. so we did indeed do a site visit. it just happened there last friday, on november 8, and it was -- we only heard this a couple of weeks ago. so i was trying to give you an overview of it. so on friday afternoon at 1:30,

chief building inspector patrick o'reardon, senior building inspector patrick hernandez and i went to the scene. i just prepared a report on friday. before i read the staff report, i will say we were pleasantly surprised with the amount of work that has been done. even though it's 20 years, but recently, it looks like there's been progress made, and i think they are heading in the right direction. at the meeting we gave, the permit holder was there, and the appellant was there, as well. we gave everybody the opportunity to speak, if everybody had any questions. the appellant was allowed into the construction with his

engineer. it was a pretty cordial meeting. everyone was -- you know, no one was getting overly excited. we did have 20 years of building permits, but the project is contained in about five permits. you would have condoned the permits to d.b.i. to allow the work to continue. that's why there's a number of building permits. so the legal use of the building when the work is completed will be a commercial building with office use and a single retail dwelling unit. the building will be single story with a basement. d.b.i. staff met with the permit holder and a construction team. the appellant for the permit under pay was also present along with a structural engineer. the area to be inspected

included the building and basement area of the building. the bulk of the actual work is contained within five building permit applications. the remaining building permits that were issued are administrative permits to allow the project to continue under the building permit process. the building has been undergoing regular inspections from d.b.i. inspection. in addition, the inspector has been in regular contact with the contract engineer and property owner. the current contractor appears to have a good understanding of how the project will be finished in a timely manner. d.b.i. also inspected the ground floor of the appellant's property and the ground slab

where there are concerning cracking and doors that would not close properly. we did encourage the neighbors to work together if the work is to be completed on 3516 sacramento street. it is recommended that the building permit under appeal be upheld and issued. this will allow any needed repair work to be done at the adjacent property. d.b.i. staff will be monitoring the site very closely, and we will respond to the neighbors' concerns in a timely manner. i'm available to answer any questions. just finally, as well, they did have a pretty impressive -- plans were let out, permits were let out. they did have an impressive history -- it's always nice when you see everything laid out on a table with tabs and monitors, and everything was organized. we did have a good conversation with the engineer of record, and i did ask if he was going to come to the hearing if you

have any questions, so i think he's available, as well. if you have any questions, i have inspection history and stuff like that. i've got drawings with me, but i don't know if the neighbor -- the appellant is totally happy with everything, but i think we've came a long way from when we started. >> president swig: are there any questions from anyone? >> commissioner honda: so i know you mentioned in the hearing that the project has been going on for 20 years. do you have any objections to the permit if we allow it to go forward? >> president swig: may i add, because it's gone on 20 years and limped along, can we consider putting a condition on, this must be done by this or without a penalty? >> commissioner honda: i don't think that's really

enforceable. >> i don't think that's enforceable, either. i was thinking about this when i was writing the report. d.b.i. has the right to revoke a permit, and there are times when you can revoke a permit due to code. we don't usually hold people's -- you know, we don't always come down hard on people on that, but in this case, we should. we got an undertaking from the property owner and we spoke to her friday, that she wants to get this complete. she's got quite a ways, there's still quite a bit of work left to do, but the structural part, that's going to be completed hopefully with the issuance of this permit. and monitoring on the properties will be pretty good, and that would be something i'd recommend, maybe a condition --

>> commissioner honda: so monitoring -- how often would you guess? >> well, the fellowshtypical mg is done at -- you can have it done every few months and you get report. we recommend -- it is not recommended by our building code, but it is recommended on projects like that. they'll be able to take readings every three months. >> commissioner honda: i just think this has gone on enough time already, and your suggestion is probably what we're going to do. i'd like us to probably follow this a little closer so they continue to report progress. >> yeah. one thing i noticed last friday is the contractor that's on there now, this is a different contractor than what started the project. >> commissioner honda: i know it is. >> i know it's a different project contractor. there was an illness and a death. i'm not making excuses, but i

think the project at that time may not have been that good, as well. i definitely got a good feel. there was at least ten people representing the permit holder last week, and then, we had the neighbor, as well. >> commissioner honda: sorry to interrupt, senior inspector, but the concern is because of the length of the time of the permit, it has affected the neighboring properties. at which point, it's just a matter of california law that you have to maintain the property on your side and the lateral support should be maintains for tha maintains -- maintained for that. >> correct. and we don't get into the blame game at d.b.i., but that's got to be figured out. i think that's up to the insurance companies, and there's probably going to be some settlement there, as well. mr. van roden has e-mailed us, asking for a few other things,

and i can respond to him, and d.b.i. can talk to him, as well. we'll look into it. i have assured him that he will get response from building division. i think lack of response he got earlier this year was the plan check division, and i've spoken to some staff down there. he didn't get responses to e-mails from them, but now, he has a good point of contact hopefully at d.b.i. >> commissioner honda: what part of the building did you want to inspect that you did not have access to? >> well, it was a neighbor's property. there was some cracking on walls, and we didn't get to see those. i don't know how much it is, but apparently there's some cracking on plaster in the upper unit. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the

permit holder. mr. salam, are you going to -- >> clerk: ok [inaudible] >> clerk: okay. so you have three minutes. if you could identify yourself, too, please. >> sorry? >> clerk: your name, please? >> my name is -- [inaudible] >> clerk: okay. you have three minutes. >> we've designed and got it for the city permit of the temporary shoring of this 22-foot section that was going to be a little deeper than the

old permit drawings was approved, so we took it down about 10 foot, and we got it approved, and we submitted calculations and everything. that's it. >> clerk: okay. >> commissioner honda: yes. you done? so the question is when were you brought onto the project, sir? >> as an engineer, we were asked about a year and a half ago. about a year and a half ago. the old original engineer that did all the approved drawings either is no longer around or is he -- he's retired. >> commissioner honda: so we can't do anything what happened in the past, but going forward, you feel confident that there's not going to be more pauses or 20-year gaps? >> no. we know for sure that it's going to be a few months before it's all completed. >> commissioner honda: thank you, sir. >> clerk: thank you. can you fill out a speaker

card, please? >> okay. i do have a business card. >> clerk: okay. you have some remaining time. did you want to use it? okay. so we'll now hear from the appellant. >> commissioner honda: good evening. welcome back. >> clerk: you have three minutes. thank you. >> yes. we went over on friday. overall, i'm satisfied with what's there. it's a little disappointing, though, that the plans have changed and are not consistent with what d.b.i. is seeing because i'm catching this and d.b.i. is not. my only request is there should be some time of elevation survey to be able to pick a point now -- most of the damage is over, just to see that there's no additional leaning or damage or trouble to my foundation is my request. >> and you don't have reason to think that through the

insurance company process that'll be done? >> why -- no. >> no? >> they had told me to say -- to ask the owner to do it. >> have you done that? >> well, i'm asking now. >> question. when you're talking about the plans changing, i think we discussed that before when you were here, that you wanted to know what the actual plans were, and what t-- the ones on file. were you able to talk to the engineer? >> yeah. and we caught some mistakes on the depth that was shown on the plans. >> in terms of the current depth, the existing depth. >> how far they've dug, what the plans said, what the new plan said. >> so a discrepancy being the plans, then, and the work that was being done on the actual property? >> yes. >> that's troubling, but as you said, it's something we want to make sure that gets monitored

very closely but professional monitoring to make sure no further damage happens to your property. >> my only other request, and joe, perhaps you can verify, that work has to be done within 180 days or less, is that correct, joe? >> yes. >> okay. so just to give everybody a little bit of a time limit. >> president swig: so it is self-governing. >> i hope so. >> commissioner honda: unfortunately, the governing is somewhat limited, to be honest, but i think having it before this body, and the project sponsor, they do not want to come in front of this body again, because it will be a little different the second time around. >> clerk: anything further? >> no. thank you. >> clerk: is there any public comment on this item? okay. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> president swig: okay. comments? >> it seems to me the condition to impose monitoring on the

property, perhaps this elevation survey could be conditions of approval on the permit? >> commissioner honda: i would support that. and as a side note, i mean, unfortunately, this project has gone on since 1998, before some of my children were born, and so it's good to see that the project sponsor in good faith is going forward, and it looks like the departments have assured it's going forward and will be completed, so i have faith that it will. and again, to the project sponsor, you really do not want to come back before this body again. it would not be a good situation. >> president swig: is it necessary or appropriate to notice in the motion that this is an n.o.v. -- a response to an n.o.v. and note the time limit or is that going to take

care of itself? >> commissioner honda: no. he says it's self-governing, and the fact that it's probably unenforceable at this point. i mean, since the permit has gone on with multiple renewals since 1998. so i think with additional monitoring to ensure that that's taking place, and if you're asking for additional monitoring -- >> commissioner tanner: yeah. i think the monitoring and the neighboring foundation property both on that property and the neighboring property -- i think the monitoring should be in place before the construction resumes and then would occur -- reports every three months, is that your suggestion? >> commissioner honda: can we have joe come up. is that your recommendation or maybe you can tell us what the department's recommending. >> so there's a survey and monitoring every three months.

there are companies that do that, and the owner will have to hire somebody to do that. and they will do that, and the neighbor has requested that. >> clerk: so will that be every two months? >> if you want to say -- >> commissioner tanner: how long will this project take, the work that's in the scope of the permit? >> well, i think this -- the scope of work that's in this permit, that's going to give them 180 days, and i think that's plenty of time. mr. van roden is talking about an enforcement notice. the permit itself is good for 360 days minimum. i can't change that, but we can have that the notice -- ask that the notice of violation be enforced to the best of d.b.i.s ability and within the time limits given.

the monitoring -- on the timeline for the monitoring, i don't want them to have to do it any longer than they need to. so there shouldn't be any movement of this building unless there's excavation needed. you can ask over the next six months that monitoring be done. that would be something, or i can take it back to d.b.i. and see what our engineering recommend, so on the recommendation of d.b.i., if you want to put that in the decision, that would be better for you? >> commissioner tanner: yeah. i think i'm going to propose survey monitoring begin before the project resumes and continuing every 60 days until the scope of work on this project will be concluded. because while we think it will be within the next 180 days,

it's not a guarantee, so the next 60 days will be fine. >> can i just comment on something? the approved plans on the site match the approved plans on d.b.i.s records. if he wants to go to review the plans, he can do them at any member of the public can. if he sees a difference, tell us the sheet number and we'll look into it. as far as we're concerned, when we approve a set of plans, we keep the copy. i think he did see drawings during review that changed from approval. that's a completely different process and is understandable actually. >> commissioner tanner: okay. thank you. >> president swig: motion? >> commissioner tanner: so i would move to grant the appeal and condition the permit to include survey monitoring to begin before the work under the permit begins and to be

recorded every 60 days. that monitoring should be on the neighboring property as well as the subject property. >> clerk: i'm sorry. it should be on the neighbor's property. >> commissioner tanner: as well as the subject property. >> clerk: okay. on the basis -- and on what basis? >> commissioner tanner: that this is in the best interest and welfare of san franciscans. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion and approval from commissioner tanner that it be required by the permit holder to accoucond survey monitoring before work on the permit begins, and to conduct every 60 days such monitoring, and this would apply to the neighbor's property and the subject property on the basis of this is in the best interest and the health and welfare of san francisco. on that motion -- [roll call]

>> clerk: okay. that motion carries, 4-0. okay. so we are moving onto item number 5. this is appeal 19-084. ronald mallia. [agenda item read].

>> clerk: note on october 16, 2019, the abort voted 4-0, commissioner lazarus absent, to continue it to november 13 so the planning department can review the case. so we will hear first from the planning department. >> commissioner honda: good evening, mr. sanchez. >> good evening. scott sanchez, planning department. we've noted that the proposed a.d.u. had already been constructed. that was the first time that the department knew that the

unit had been illegally constructed. i reviewed nice photos of the unit as well as the appellant prepared a light study that they submitted to the department last week. as you recall, one of the purposes of the continuance was to allow for the zoning administrator to change his determination on the variance request, and after careful consideration of materials, the zoning administrator was not inclined to change -- >> commissioner honda: did you do a site visit? >> we did not do a site visit. this is a de novo hearing, so if the board finds the five findings have been met, that would be up to the discretion of the board, but the planning department, even after reviewing the materials was not supportive of the application. we also used this as an opportunity to review the plans that kind of led us to this place, and i confirmed from the plans that there was no -- you know, no plans had been

approved that this included this unit in the ground floor. there were multiple plans from this structural -- their instructal engineer, rodrigo santo, but they had plans submitted with the architectural variance, but there were no plans consistent with mantthat that had not bee approved. we did not have any other issues with the plans that were approved, but we -- you know, we wanted to review that thoroughly, so available for any questions that the board may have, but we would respectfully request that you uphold the zoning administrator's reasons for denial as eloquently stated in that letter. >> commissioner tanner: i have two questions. with this space, so the options would be to -- combine it with the upper unit to have a five-bedroom home? >> yes.

that would be legal under the code, yes, to have it be additional living space for the above unit under the code or storage space as approved under the code, which is what they had plans for. >> commissioner tanner: i think we discussed this yesterday, if this was a unit that had been constructed illegally and trying to get legalized, because that's what this is, so we have a path to legalization. how is this different? >> so we have a path in the planning unit, if you have an illegally installed unit, it is illegal to remove that unit without approval. if there is a path to legalization, that path was denied by the zoning

administrator. >> commissioner tanner: was it because of the rear yard, the exposure issue? >> it was one of the exposure. >> commissioner tanner: and if we were to overturn that, we would need one of the five findings. >> correct. >> commissioner santacana: thank you. when you say the plans don't match what we have there, we have plans in our packet that show the a.d.u. what's missing? >> so all the plans that have been approved to allow construction on the site don't show what's there. so all the plans that you have on the variance have no plans to include the work. >> commissioner santacana: but that was not a basis on which the zoning administrator denied the request for exposure variance. >> no, it was not known at the time. >> commissioner santacana: so that's not really before us at this point. >> no, it's just highlighting that it's an active enforcement issue. >> commissioner santacana: did the zoning administrator

consider the light analysis that was performed? >> yes, and still found it to be substandard. i think one of the issues here is that some of the photos that were provided were probably taken at the most advantageous time. there will be certain times of the year where this will get better exposure than others. our concern is that the board of supervisors have over the years reduced the exposure requirements over the years, and that has to mean something. there has to be extraordinary circumstances, and the burden that the owner has placed themselves under. that seems to be their main concern here, that they have this unit, and what a shame it would be to waste it, but that's not a reason to issue the variance because they created this situation themselves. >> commissioner santacana: okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the

appellant. thank you. so president swig, will you accept these proposed findings? >> president swig: i think i asked for them, so i have to accept them. >> commissioner honda: good evening, mr. paul. >> president swig: and i think i asked for them last time, which is why we're here today. is that correct, mr. paul? >> that is correct. good evening, commissioners. jeremy paul for ron mallia and mojina poon, who wishes to move into this unit. the major work that was undertaken on this property over the last two years achieved a full-size mistake upgrade and a full sprinkler system, there by mobilizing occupation of the ground floor. the question is what is that ground floor going to be used as? we know we are subject to a permit process to establish that. if we know by the will of this

board it will not be a dwelling unit, it will become rooms supporting the unit above. that is the way we actually submitted our plan to the planning department. it was planning staff that came to us and said you really should be considering making this a separate unit. there was a preexisting door on the street. the design of the facade of the building gives a main entry equivalent to all the other main entries for the units upstairs. so we could reconfigure a set of stairs indto make it part of the upper unit. we don't think this is the best use of the space. regina came to shichinatown services looking for a unit for

her and her son, and she could only find units that were too big for her needs. and ron showed her the building. it's rent controlled, so it will set the future rent at that location. we provided a daylight study which shows what hypotheticalcally how much light would be available within this space if it was compliant with the exposure requirements, so we did a thought exercise here and presented it to you. and the extra windows and extra glazing that mr. mallia put in this space has made a brighter and lighter, more airy space than would be required if we were meeting the minimum standard.

at the last hearing, commissioner santacana questions the findings that the planning department had made for rejection, basically saying we don't have the thing that we're asking for, we don't have a finding for the exposure requirement, thus, this finding cannot be made. i don't believe that's a good way to form housing policy when we're faced with the kind of crisis we have now. >> commissioner santacana: thank you, mr. paul. >> commissioner honda: thank you. i've got a question. at the last hearing, i think pictures were shown and i just mentioned that mr. mallia's unit looked absolutely amazing. the question we had was which came first, the chicken orthe egg. before you built this, did you

bring the tenant in and say, hey, this is going to be built? >> it was under construction. as i told you, the flooring and the cabinetry and all the appointments of this ground floor unit are identical with what is throughout the building, so the economy scale suggests they purchased everything at one time. >> commissioner honda: no. the troubling thing here is you can ask permission or ask forgiveness. although that's a beautiful, beautiful unit, that was never -- the work was never approved by the -- by the city and county. >> and there isn't actually a unit there to rent now. what there are are habitable rooms that have yet to be permitted for occupancy? >> commissioner honda: the kitchen is there -- >> you see fixtures, but it's

not an operating kitchen. >> commissioner honda: so there's fixtures there, but it's not really a kitchen? >> the fixtures were there while the inspector was on-site. we started this, remember -- >> commissioner honda: no, i get it. the question is if we have a site visit tomorrow, those fixtures will not be installed. is that what you're telling me right at this very moment? >> i'm telling you we don't have a dwelling unit. i haven't been there this week. i don't know what the actual situation is -- >> commissioner honda: you want to turn your client -- is your client in the actual room right now? >> yes. >> commissioner honda: do you want to ask your client? >> clerk: do you want to come up to the podium. >> commissioner honda: do you want to come up to the podium, please. >> just for perspective, mr. honda, the building was nearing completion as we were deciding

how we were to configure the stairs. >> commissioner honda: no, i get it, mr. paul, but you've told me that they're not hooked up, and it goes to the sincerity of the permit holder as to whether they're hooked up or not hooked up. >> i understand the question and the purpose of the question, but i want you to understand this happened during construction when the planner suggested we change from habitable space -- >> commissioner honda: i'm going to ask your client the question right now. >> okay. >> commissioner honda: thank you. so mr. molina, is the kitchen all hooked up and ready to go? >> the kitchen -- the appliances are in place, but they're not hooked up. >> commissioner honda: okay. so the gas is not hooked up, the applianced are not hooked up? >> the gas is not hooked up, but the appliances are there, and they're ready to go. >> commissioner honda: okay. that's the question i had. thank you. absolutely. >> clerk: okay. is there any public comment on

this item? okay, commissioners. this matter is submitted. >> president swig: okay. darryl. >> commissioner honda: i guess it's me? >> president swig: mm-hmm. >> commissioner honda: couple of things have happened. in 2014, legislation was made forward and approved to legalize rooms. down -- further on down, the city mandated that all space that people were living in, that they would be required to live in unle live -- to be legalized unless they absolutely could not be legalized. what's before the body this evening is a wonderful space, according to the pictures that were taken, and that's the reason why the board, to be honest, asked for a site visit for the planning department to

visit this particular site. i personally don't like permit holders or builders coming to us and asking for forgiveness when they should not have built initially. i think that unless you take the profitablity of skipping and going around the law, that builders are going to continue to do that. in this particular case, my thoughts are that does the city really need an extra large flat or apartment with rooms down or does it need some fairly affordable housing? i'm kind of tossed between each way, but in any opinion, i think the city could use -- use the housing. the concern here is meeting the five findings or the findings that would allow that to happen. >> commissioner tanner: i share

commissioner honda's receitice to reward bad behavior. i would note that though the owner did install appliances, they came in seeking a variance of their own accord in order to create a dwelling under there, working in collaboration with the planning department, which it turned out the rear yard didn't meet the requirements that the planning department held, and it's now before us. so it would seem that this permit holder is acting in good faith and in accord with the law and trying to meet the standard. perhaps they got ahead of themselves. we're not able to understand that, but there wasn't a site visit. if there were, perhaps we would know what the inspector found in that case. so i share your concerns, but in this case, i would be

prepared to make the findings so that we approve the permit in this case. >> president swig: commissioner santacana? >> commissioner santacana: i think that i'm a little closer to commissioner honda. the permit is not before us, any way. the question is should we grant an exposure variance or not, which is a de novo question, and my feeling is planning is standing by their original decision but perhaps with not a whole lot of oomph. >> commissioner honda: oomph. you don't have a whole lot of oomph, scott, tonight, just to

let you know. >> commissioner santacana: there's seasons, that doesn't really answer the daylight question for me, as well, but i see enough to make the five findings. >> president swig: i'm going to end what i'm going to say, asking commissioner honda a question, which is what would frank say? >> commissioner honda: we'll call him. he's off on wednesday nights. i've got his number. >> president swig: yeah, because our esteemed former member, frank fung was very, very circumspect -- >> commissioner honda: and then he went to the dark side. >> president swig: of granting variances. the big issue seems to be the one. that's what the z.a. is hanging

his hat on as far as i can see the five findings. i'm kind of upset, mr. sanchez, that nobody heeded our request to go out and see it for yourself, and that's bothersome because that was made clear in the last hearing that it's more you guys got to go see it, and nobody went to see it. so that gives us a little breadth of interpretation on this board. secondly, i think it -- it's entirely irresponsible for if there's a hint of an opportunity to present one more piece of housing that is in the realm of affordable for this city, if there's a hint that we could get there, we should take that hint and go forward. and especially when the issue is rather light -- in -- from

the z.a.s point of view, so i'm siding with commissioner tanner, i think. what would frank say, commissioner? >> commissioner honda: frank would not approve, just so you know. but can i have the project sponsor come to the podium, please? so sir, you see that the board is leaning in your direction against the department. so you said that you have a tenant in mind. is that the person that's behind you? >> no. it was rezina poon that was here last time. >> commissioner honda: okay. and you said she was going to rent it for $1700. >> 1750. >> commissioner honda: 1750. and you're going to honor that? >> absolutely. >> commissioner honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: also, commissioners, i wanted to add, did you want to check with the zoning administrator as to whether he

checked the findings and add to them because historically, we've had the permit holder work in conjunction with the determination? >> president swig: i will take the advice of the director and ask if you reviewed the findings that were just placed in front of us at the request of the board and have any commentary related to those findings. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. so i spoke with the appellant yesterday and requested that you prepare the findings. unfortunately, i did not receive those until the beginning of the hearing. i reviewed them and don't see anything egregious or offensive to the five findings. they have demonstrated here the five findings have been met. if i just may speak briefly to the site visit, respectfully, it was not my recollection that the board had directed me to go to the site. the recollection was time for

me to review the material with the zoning administrator as well as review the plans, which we did do. i did consider doing a site visit. >> commissioner honda: i think we're going to have to go to the tape. >> yes, we have replay? >> commissioner honda: and this is not an err in abuse. >> president swig: okay. motion, westbounsomebody? >> commissioner tanner: i would move that we grant the appeal based on the findings submitted. >> clerk: okay. on what basis? >> commissioner tanner: on the basis that the unit meets the spirit of the intention of the a.d.u. legislation and that it meets the five findings. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner tanner to overturn the zoning administrator's denial of the variance and issue the variance based on the

adoption of the draft findings submitted by the appellant at the hearing on the basis that the unit meets the spirit of the a.d.u. legislation and meets the five findings required under planning code section 305. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 4-0. thank you. so we will now move onto item number 6. this is appeal number 19-119, dennis cantwell versus the zoning administrator, subject property, 4055 irving street, appealing the issuance on october 19 for the zoning administrator's denial of

permits. note, building permit application was issued by the planning department in error and approved by the planning department on december 2, 2018. building permit was reviewed and issued by d.b.i. on october 8, 2019 as a revision to the scope of work approved under building permit application number 201906183725, and that was subsequently appealed to the board of appeals. so we will hear from the appellant first.

>> commissioner honda: and good evening and welcome. >> clerk: you guys have seven minutes. >> thank you. my name is monica long, and this is my husband, dennis cantwell. we are the team behind palm city wines. we live in the outer sunset in a home that has been in my family for three generations. i am fortunate to be part of the first generation to go born in san francisco. a lot of family still live here in the city, and he worked for muni for over 30 years. when we began conceiving our project last year, we reached out to former supervisor tang's office. [inaudible] >> -- and that due to new legislation, public notice was not required for change of use. we cashed in our life savings,

got some family to chip in and were approved for an s.b.a. loan. in june, we received approval from the planning department for our forms over the counter. since then, we have spent our life savings on everything associated with getting a business off the ground. everything was moving in the right direction until our suspension on october 15. there are two issues at hand. the zoning legislation and the prospect of our space. this process can add six months to a year and sometimes longer of waiting for permits to be approved. according to former supervisor tang, during the past 12 years, not a single business in district four in its current location has been denied, aside from a cannabis dispensary meaning the business goes through this months to years-long process goes through this and is allowed to be there

except for push back on its timeline. looking at the arguments that supervisors tang and safai put forth, pursuing the change makes sense as the appropriate checks are still in place. while change of use notifications go out to every property within 150 feet, our restaurant a.b.c. license notification exceeds that and went out to every property within 500 feet. we have already agreed to the restrictions of our a.b.c. licenses, stating that no noise will be audible at nearby residences, that we will keep the area free of litter and we will actively monitor to avoid loitering. also, due to our location, hours restrictions in the city require us to close at 10:00 p.m., providing public benefit. our suspended permit has put us in a financial desert at our approved s.b.a. loan is unable

to offer us disbursements, making us unable to pay rent and forcing us under before we get started. we reached out to supervisor safai who cosponsored the legislation and he stated that our business should clearly benefit from this legislation. the argument that the legislation used the term neighborhood commercial district and our area is a limited commercial space. these types of spaces have a complicated history in san francisco's planning code. although these spaces are nonconforming, they are allowed to exist because they meet the conforming conditions of the neighborhood. prior to signing the lease, we reached out to the planning department for clarification on the l.c.u.s. limited commercial uses are not mentioned often in planning codes because they fall under the control of the neighborhood districts found close by. according to planning code 186,

l.c.u.s are required to follow the restrictions of the n.c.-1 districts within a quarter mile. the small business attraction ordinance is to help small businesses fill vacant neighborhood spaces. our business is located in the area, and therefore, the initial interpretation stands. there is a reason that a well respected 15-year member of the senior planning staff assured us that our property was not subject to change of use notice due to the new legislation. one could argue that the new legislation was in fact intended for commercial locations just like ours. we spoke with zoning administrator corey teague after the suspension and he confirmed that our restaurant is principally permitted in the location on 4550 irving street. knowing there and after having gone through the steps at the planning department, working with the a.b.c. to sign off on restrictions and finding and putting a restriction down for

a good contractor, it just feels like the city is trying to make us start over from scratch and sit around and wait just for the sake of it. our business will not be able to sustain this. as mentioned, not only have we spent our entire life savings on this, dennis left his job, and i quit one full-time job and work only part-time at a wine bar to help this. this isn't about avoiding public notice. the steps we have taken point to the fact that we are law abiding citizens. everything that the plans department has advised us to do, we have done. were we to have known that we needed to have give public notice, we would have done so when we gave our notice and would be done so or close to. we aren't a large organization