>> good evening and welcome to july 20, 22 board of appeals. president rick swig will be the president joined by lapseius. chang, patrol berg and deputy

city attorney providing legal advice. i'm julie rows rosenberg the executive director. wait a moment have arrangements. zoning add administrator with plan and matthew green acting building inspector with department of building inspection. the board ask you turn off all phones or electronic device. no eating or drinking in the room. each are given 7 minutes to present and 3 minutes for rebuttal. >> members not affiliated have 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. time may be limited to 2 minutes if there are a large number of speakers. rehearing

>> our legal assistant will give you a warning 30 seconds before time is up. 4 votes grant afternoon appeal or rehearing request. if you have questions about a rehearing the rules hearing schedules e mail the board staff. now public are importance to the board. sfgovtv is streaming lyle live and we will receive public comment for each item. and providing closed captioning. go to cable channel 78. tell be rebroadcast on friday at 4 p.m. on channel 6. a link on the home age of our website sfgov.org/boa. comment can be provided in 3 ways inform person, zoom. go to the website and click on the zoom link or by phone call

1-669-900-6833 enter webinar id: 883 2307 1068 sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access number across the screen if you are watching. to block the number dial star 67 and the phone number. listen for your item to be called and dial star 9, raising hand, so we know you want to speak. you will be brought in the hear when it is your turn you may have to dial star 6 to unmute. you will have 2-3 minutes to speak. our legal assistant will provide you with a warning 30 seconds before your time is up. there is a delay in the live and what is streaming on the internet. it is important this people call nothing reduce or turn off volume on tv or computers. if the participates or attendise

on zoom need assistance make a request in the chat nungz to the legal assistant or send an e mail. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. we will take public comment first from those who are physically present in the hearing room. now we will wear in or affirmal those hol testify. anyone may speak without an oath. if you intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight raise your right hand and say, i do after swornor affirmless. do you swear or affirm the testimony is the truth and nothing but the truth? >> thank you if you mean are participating and not speak put your zoom speaker on mute. commissioners we have a cows keeping item. item 622-036, 4421 caesar chavez

will not issue heard the appeal is with drawn. we have one other matter that needs to be addressed regarding item 7a and b. the appellant for 7 b, 22-030 and the determination holder like to request a conditionance to a later date upon 7a, appeal 22-029 disagrees. we'll provide each party with each party 3 minute the. hear from the parties requesting the conticontinuance. . >> noise to see you this evening. after the last hearing which was

was continued to give an opportunity to try to negotiate a compromise we have dm back to the parties we had discussions with city agencies and homeownership sf. over the last 4 weeks or so. plus. and they have been productive. we are getting somewhere. we have a couple options we think may be agreeable and resolve this hopefully. and we need a bit more time both to get more clarity from the city this is workable and agreement from the bank. make sure had is acceptable to them. i understand that appellant dog cuomo dig comeyments to roll

through. this was a suggestion by the planning department initially which we both thought was a good idea. thank you. >> i represent marinello. we agree with that a continuance would be wise to try to work this out. mr. patterson has been creative in coming up with solutions up to an hour ago. we need time to process and vet them and hopefully we can come back with something agreeable to everyone. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the planning department. >> i'm sorry. president swig? >> what do we do with the 30 appellant. a third appellant does not want to. he will have an opportunity we

are getting requestors and people who want to move it. and he will have an opportunity to present his position. >> thank you. >> so we will hear from corey teeing. >> good evening commissioners, good to see you tonight and hemo~ commissioner lemberg, nice to meet you remote. yes, if you recall the purpose for the continuance was to allow this coordination to happen and hopefully land on idealy a position that all the parties account agree upon and could not get to a position where all agreed at least to one where the majority of the parties agreed. i had originally recommended the potential upon continuance to next week because while there was work and coordination on

going, it was clear that the parties were not quite across the bench mark. i'm supportive of a continuance. next week or further out. although we want to get this resolved so we can get the units occupied but the planning department is supportive of a continuanceful thank you. there digiacomo. >> i will start my timer now. >> so, since our last hearing, everybody was provided 7 weeks to look at a solution i was avoided by all parties even the other appellants legal team. he made a proposal which cut me out of the deal. he had not consulted to me. the permit holder does not have

a solution that will would resolve. my conversation with ryan patterson was last night. and i believe the purpose they wanted to talk was not necessarily to settle but to get me to agree to a continuance so they can continue with the city on 11th hour demands. mir's office of housing have been inflexible the past several months. and they got us in this mess they negligently held a lottery. i look at the mayor's office of housing like a hit and run driver that plows in somebody and runs away very cowardly. i tried to document this discrimination i have been suffering being ignored. i was censored bite board of appeals because i submitted a 4 page double spaced brief inside. 3. considering i get 3 minutes to

argue. 3 pages double spaced is not close to being reasonable. the other appellants had trouble getting to the 3 page double space limit. before i started interacting with the board of appeals a few months ago i was not asked to submit double ed documentation since elementary. 3 pages double space is not enough to argue life or death issues neither is to speak. there are constitutional issues there. i would like the board of appeals to revisit that stuff and amend the charter. the attorneys, they just really caused problems and ideally the board may want to consider amending the charttory make this like small claims where attorneys are not allow in the. that's my feedback. in regards to the continuance like, they are obviously not

taking into consideration. so what is the purpose of it. i don't see one at this point. that's my argument. is there public comment. raise your hand. >> we see i have someone on zoom the phone number ends nothing 9388. go ahead. you may need to -- >> good evening i'm christian i'm ranked number one in the neighborhood category. my wife and i live with our 4 year old son in a studio in downtown. i work at trader joes and my wife work in a struggling restaurant. reason we did not move out of the city during the pandemic we won the lottery. if you postpone the decision my family cannot wait longer and most likely will have to leave

town for good. twice as big as our current studio and the only option for us if we want to stay in the community which we have served for over 20 years. police allow the planning department to finalize this proisz once is for all. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there further public comment? raise your hand. >> there is no00 although further public comments. this matter is submitted you can choose to take a vote or not. >> commissioners. anybody have comments or thoughts? start at the far ends. >> seem fist they made progress at this point will we should allow them to continue to discuss it and see if there is a resolution i'm inclineed grant the continuance. i don't know if a week is sufficient i would ask them to give them. >> next week we will have 3

commissioners that is in the ideal. >> i concur with vice president lazarus granting a continuance makes sense. since progress has been made. it has been you know i think 6-upon 7 weeks since this was heard the left time and you know -- i know that decisions like this take time to the work out the details. i think a continuance would make sense in this case. >> may be before we move forward. would you like to ask our newest commissioner whether he reviewed the documents and hearing from priest. >> i will. >> commissioner lemberg, did you have an opportunity to watch the video and review the documents for the hearing on june first of 22? >> yes, >> thank you. >> we have that on the record.

>> yes. i don't have my mic on. and -- just to request that moving forward perhaps you can engage the third appellant and address those concerns. >> okay. lopez? >> yea. i concur and want to apologize to the parties and to my fellow commissioners for rung late. i concur with what you said. >> thank you. >> question the date and next week would not be good with only 3 commissioners and the hearing mr. emling is not available on august 17th heel be on trial. august 24th would be the date. would that work for the parties? >> okay. mr. digiacomo would august 24th

work for you? >> you are on mute, sir. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. we need a motion. >> commissioner lazarus. >> move to continue this item to august 24th to allow the parties to continue their discussions. >> okay. so -- on that motion commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye >> that motion carries 5-zero and they are continued to august 24th. thank you. >> so. we are move to item 1. which is a special item. consideration of possible adoption of resolution makes findings to allow teleconferencead meeting under section 54953 subsection e. is this public ment on this item, raise your hand. >> i don't see hands raised.

commissioners we need a motion. >> motion to adopt yooch a motion from president swig to adopt a resolution. on that motion commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> vice president laz lapse ruz, aye >> commissioner lect berg. >> aye >> commissioner chang. >> this is general public comment anyone withhold like to speak on a matter not on the calendar. is there a publish that would like to comment on an iteming that is not on the agenda. hand raised end nothing 5886. please, go ahead the phone number. are you here for general public comment. >> hello. >> go ahead. >> yes. good evening this is anatasia

you may recall last time you met on july 6, there was a case regarding the issuance of an alteration permit to construct 3 accessory units per ordinance number 162-6t. this commission got hung up on whether or not checking the box made a difference. and i think that this was shameful. you heard from mr. t from planning. that is in order to do a seismic retrofit permit along with the accessory this has to be done at the same time. you heard from the matthew green the d. building inspection's officer that should not have gone to planning.

it was at the time of intake. is a permit process. was reviewed. and the screening form was -- filled out. but -- if anybody had bothered to read the permit process, the information sheet, a building permit would have to be attached to this permit application. screening form. you need to staple the screening form to the building permit application. i don't think any of this was done. ir think it was shameful that you disregarded inspector green when he said may be we should continue the matter i don't know that much about the screening forms. and disregarded mr. t had he

said use should be done with the seismic retrofit to provide stability for the building i think it was shameful. you should have appropriated and known what the ordinance number 162-16 was b. or you should have continued the hearing. thank you. thank you. is there more public comment? raise your hand. wee am move to item 3 commissioner comments and questions. >> before i ask my fellow commissioners if they have comments or questions i like to take the opportunity to welcome our latest commissioner alex lemberg. and we are happy to have you. and we wish you every success. i have to tell you this we have already had a first.

the first time in being -- more than a decade of sitting on the commission where a new commissioner had actually voted before they were introduced to their new constituency. you have broken the first step of voting. now you get what should have been the first step is to welcome and you wish you every success. >> and other commissioners have comments? jury room i echo the sentiments very excited welcome you to the board, commissioner, almost as excited that i'm no longer the most recent addition on the board as well. so -- we will let the hazing begin on our newest member. welcome and we are excited work with you.

>> just a very warm welcome on my part and glad to have someone sitting next to me again. >> i echo the sentiments expressd and look forward to the few weeks of serving with you. >> thank you. is there public comment. raise your hand. >> i don't see any public comment. we will move on to item 4 commissioners before you for decision possible adoption of minutes of july 6, 2022 meeting. >> any comments or anybody like to move. >> adoption. >> okay. is there public upon comment on vice president lazarus motion to adopt? raise your hand. on that motion commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye

>> that carries 5-0 and minutes are adopted. we are moving on to item number 5. this is rehearing request for appeal 22-032 at 719 and 2721 and 729 baker street, 22-032. decide june 15 of 20 twoochl at that time upon moergz by commissioner chang the board voted 4-0 to deny the permit. the permit holder is robert bernalhard replacing of posts and beams at grounds floor number 2022-3293 twochlt commissioner element burg did you have the opportunity to watch the video and review the materials for june 15th. >> >> yes. >> thank you. we will hear from the requestor first.

i understand that mr. marty will speak for 2 minutes and mr. cartin will cham in after for a minute. >> no. i will give my time to mr. marty. >> okay. >> welcome, mr. martin you have 3 minutes. marty, excuse me >> thank you. significant new evidence came in rehearing is required prevent manifest injustice and dangerous conscience persisted for years holding up my family's 4 story building the faulty brags built in 2018. obviously [inaudible] applied for a permit 4 months ago 4 natural years the work engaging an engineer when pressed by a lawsuit and complaint. corrupting our previous hearing the permit holders with held photographs and engine ooerg plans at the heart of the approval until days before the

hearing. the lands lord called the police to prevent me from seeing the plans while robert power reviewed them during a safety inspection. now that we have reviewed the evidence we see y. the planers insufficient to bring that workup to code the plans themselves were not properly followed. from the submission of the plans and photo evidence we have information that shows one incorrect straps for use and improperly modify when installed. 2, the peer pads holing bracing were misdrawn. 3, the fundsation itself is misrepresented dbi in the plans obscuring how the sinks foundation were modified from the original positions and under pinned or strengthened without permits. plans. safety inspections without

anyone and sealed under unreenforced concrete where no one has seen it to this day. >> furthermore. this is not attached to the 4 story porches. it is resting there hoping to god there is no earthquake or storm to slide them autopsy. we show how and yet plans obscure that bracing itself is insufficient. none of this could have been known until we had access to the plans to analyze with an engineer after the hearing was over. by design. had our original request for plans were denied my attorney got a summary and declaration in the hours before the hearing but president swig said there was not time to incorporate it even if they had been 2 day system not enough time to engage in engineer properly. the defense the attorneys belittle our efforts to pursue a safe environment by law is causing trouble. it is a case of victim by

[inaudible] i have a 3 week old new born. this brace is supposed to holdup a room of our apartment and our only fire exit this . is in the a joke to me. the board should not over look the safety issue. corruptive by owner who was late for the last hearing and rehearing is needed in the light of the new evidence. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the permit holder. you have 3 minutes. >> i'm stan [inaudible] attorney for the property owner [inaudible] i think our time is best spent is best spent turning it over to the engineer or the owner. >> um -- president swig and commissioners, i'm the engineer for the replace am of the

supports at the porch located at the baker street property. has been paled, denied and reheard. the permit in question is for the upgrade of the supporting ground floor of the wash porches. that has been in configure for 70 years the materials the material that the appellant's lawyer is asked to be considered was present in the the previous hearing. this material was discussed and the questions by the board of the material to both inspector green and myself. i feel it is unfair to my clients they node to pay for lawyers, contractors and engineers to review the same information the commissioner one more time. appeal stems between my clients and tenants about the pass through maintenance work that was previously done. which maintenance on the wash porches was part of that work. on the other hand, they are complaining about the cost yet they are requesting more work to

be done on the building the appellant's states the issues with the upper floor construction. there are issues with the upper floor construction. permit does not address anything boost grounds floor. appellant engineer talks about a different strap used than shown on the plans. i gave skoenlt to the contractors to substitute the equal strap because the specified strap was not available. structure was inspected by robert power. appellant's engineer sfooek speaks about the photo i provided. i don't know the date of the photo taken as i was provided that old picture for my client. old photo shows problems with the footing. this was was repaired by a new walk way slab. only upholds the fact the structure is safer now. the permit is to replace the existing post with a more robust system approved by the inspector

and inspected by dbi this rehearing will be a waste of time for the commission and my cloinlt's team. thank you for allowing me to present the information. i have a photo here of the existing as permitted structure and the original structure if you want. before they were talking about the piers at the bottom. >> 30 seconds. >> you can see it is encase in the concrete. thank you. >> oovenlg thank you. mr. teg did you want to weigh in o had matter >> no. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the departments of building inspection. good evening president swig and lazarus and commissioners i'm matthew green. the permit in question is for a voluntary replacement of a beam and post. voluntary replace am.

this is not to comply with notice of violation or requirements from city ordinance. i visited the site yesterday with the build pregnant inspector robert power and the contractor. there are minor sdepss with plans but nothing to warrant a new permit. upon designer approved these changes. there a pores to be a difference of opinion with 2 licensed engineers but this does not warrant a rehearing professionals often have difference of opinion. dbi upon recommend you denotice rehearing request. >> president swig? >> i gallons the question is, do you see anything new presented today. this we did not hear a couple weeks ago. i don't think we had the

appellant's engineer's report >> within that appellant's engineering report he presented verbally. we did not sept report it was late. and not compliant with the policies and procedures of the body. but we did allow him to present it verbally. is there anyoning given we allowed him to present verbally is there new information that has been presented since then that meets the standards for rehearing. >> i don't believe so. >> and i say i told you last time i will visit the site and did i did yesterday and i do not see a reason for rehearing. why upon one thing i would like to continuous the question i had left time example for the

benefit of the appellant. one thing i had to be more focused upon that this permit was all about that rectangle shape structure that was cropping up one section of at the b. saw pictures of it a couple seconds ago. and nothing to do with up the stairs >> that is correct. >> i want to be clear on that and had your testimony that in your opinion it was acceptable to dbi. i took my position. but for the benefit of the appellant and in consideration of his deep concern and justifiablely so he has a child and living upstairs. and there is the concern that

the rest of the structure may not be compliant. may not be safe. this is outside of a permit we were discussing but an important thing. if he is deeply concerned beg your pardon safety what does he do now to seek a higher calling point of view that would be you guys the higher calling >> what we can file a complaint about the safety of that extension. i gave the appellant's attorney my business card at the last meet figure they want to to go ahead i have not received a complaint as. today. >> thank you. >> anybody else? i have a quick question you mentioned the difference inspect opinions with professionals. can you highlight for you hathose differences may be.

>> if you read the appellant's engineer's report there is a certain whether the gravity force of the extension. what was sufficient. saying there should be connections between the 2. it is not unusual for 2 engineers to have different opinion and we did have dbi's engineer review the plannings and approve them. >> while their differences with professionals it is dbi's engineers opinion and based on expertise that the proposed changes are safe. changes that have been implemented meet the standards. jot dbi engineer design met the compliance of the building code. >> thank you. >> thank you. why is there public comment on this item.

raise your hand. don't see hands. commissioners this matter is submitted? >> commissioners. commissioner chang in >> i'm inclineed deny the request for hearing request based on the evidence presented to us. and the fact it a pierce the permit continues to be properly issued >> other comments. >> sorry familiar i'm speak out of turn. my question was for the appellant and that is are we missing any other documents that are new other than the engineer report. are there new documents to be considered? at a rehearing? he would have had to submit

them. okay. that this is his opportunity. >> okay. nothing was submitted. >> no. >> thank you. >> we have a motion. >> so commissioner chang i did not hear the end of your motion. we are not determining. >> i did not make a motion i would be inclineed deny the hearing request based on the fact that the permit appear to be properly issued. what we focus new evidence manifest injustice. we denied the appeal and found the permit valid. >> there does not a pore to be new evidence. >> we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the request on the basis there is neither if new evidence or manifest injustice. commissioner lopez. >> aye >> lazarus. >> aye. >> lemberg. >> aye. >> swig.

>> aye >> the rehearing request is denied. we are moving forward to item 8. and this is appeal 22-044 lucie blake versus building inspection with planning approval. property female 34, 25th street the issuance on may 31 to aaron and todd of a site permit adding 2 bedrooms and bathrooms at third floor. remoss including kitchen and math. foundation upgrade. permit 2014-12103500 we will hear from the appellant first. >> mr. blake >> goes evening president swig and commissioners. i thank you for your important service to our city. i had never heard of the board of appeals before i got a notice from building department and grateful there is a civil way of

addressing problems with the application of city law. thank you very much. hi a good rep with my neighbors since i moved in 20 months ago. i was stunned to get a notice from the d. building inspection my neighbors received a permit to add a third store toast their house. we had many conversations over the last year about my pleasures to renovate my garden. rebuild deck and install solar panels never once did my neighbors mention the plans for a project that will impact all the improvements i have under way. i was disappointed with my neighbor's noncommunication i was more dispointed discover the procedural failures that were committed bite department of building inspection in issuing this permit. according to dbi's own records they issued this permit 16

monthses after the permit cancellation date. is this is a clear violation of city code. the failure of any city government, city department to follow city code has const. upon kwens in case it denied me the right i would have will had to engage in planning and mermitt process that will affect my quality of life and property. in closing i'd like to thank alex from your staff and jacob from supervisor mandelman's office for helping mow to understand my rights to appeal and the current plan and building role unless san francisco. i'm not a confrontational person but as a strong believer in the public sect or neither i am willing to stands by if an agency is failing to live up to responsibilities to the communities. i ask this appeal be granted and the issue analysis of the permit revoked. and that the applicant invited to renew through the normal permitting process.

now i would like to turn it over to my attorney, brian o'neil. >> good afternoon. commissioners. i understand my client's disbelief i have never seen a permit process like this dbi records show a year extension in 2016 and notice of cancellation sent in 2017. under dbi's ruleless the first extension should haven't only one. however, 5 more extensions were granted. 3 of which were after the permit expired. in 2018, an exception of granted a week after expiration and in 20s 22, dbi miraculously issued 2 extensions on the same day, 16 months after expired inform total 2, 227 days gone by since approved. dbi's website states that once a permit is approved an applicant

az has 100 days to pick it up and 1, one year extension is allowed. we are on day 2, 227. dbi's website confirmed once a permit is cancelled it can't be reinstated. >> pause the time, please. >> did you want -- mr. o'neil. >> yes. >> do you have it on the laptop orment mr. -- okay. >> dbi's website is consistent with the building code limits extensions to a mack of 360 days. dbi does not have the authority to extend permits indefinitely. critically even if extensions could go on forever the code states extensions may be granted prior to expiration. and shall be deemed cancelled without further action by the

department. >> in other words. if you missed the deadline the permit is cancelled by operation of law. there is no provision that authorizes dbi to reverify a cancelled permit after an extension expiration. here the sponsor missed the dead line twice. once a week and once by 16 months. under code it was kaenlsed by law. there is no permit for dbi to issue. >> much changed since 2014. a new building code was adoptd and the sponsor admit today is not code compliant. this time large 5 bathroom, 4 and a half bath expansion without addition of new unit is househousing is the project the city moved away from. >> project is within noe valley

and 3, 6 huh human square feet would be subjektd to supervisor mandelman monster home ordinance requires a picture hearing for any unit over 3 thondz square feet and whether they add units to the housing stock this project does not. and need to be a finding the project does not impact historic districts. this project was never evaluated for that. historic context changed since ceqa review since 2015 when there was not historic district in this community. since, the diamond and elizabeth street historic district identified as a district as part of a survey by planning. not only is this property within that district, but it was identified as a criminalitior to the district. potential impacts were never

evaluated. issue ajs of expired permit 2, 227 days after it was approved was unlawful and beyond dbi's authority. the permit was beyond the extension of limitation and canseled by operation of law when the sponsor, sproois twice, failed to extend at this time way this permit can be legally issued with a new application and new approval. this project is why extensions are limited. overnight past 6 years a new building code was adopted. new historic district identifyd and a new public hearing requirement was enacted. despite this, dbi revived a cancelled permit without review under current standards or input from the communities. city takes the public participation processes seriously.

weave request the appeal be grantsd and the permit revoked so the procedures can be followed. >> thank you. >> thank you >> we will hear from the permit holder. >> good evening. thank you. i'm the owner of the property. first i would like to say the information provide to the commission is all new to me. 91 of this has been shared in advanced of this conversation. i doll my best to explain the history of the project. and the upon original upon impactuals of the project and my architect ben joined me to present the process that we went through and the planned and eflougz of the plans was approved and the permit issue said. my wife and i purchase in the 2005. residents in noe valley for 17 years. in twenty 14, we were going to

planning have our second child in addition we were planning have my parents live you go everwhere yous and engaged with an architect to expander home to accommodate the bedrooms for our family and having my parents live with us. so we started aye process of engaging with the community. neighbors and those that am lived in the potentially impacted area of our expansion. we put forth plans for plan and historical evidence of our home given it is construct in the 1896. as well as feedback from neighbors. the course of what was near low a year and a half process. what was an expansion of our

property this met the building envelope the existing structure was reduced to the plans that were approved. with this i changed jobs and was no longer in a position to be able to move forward with the project because the square footage was such it was in the a financial project and unable to have our second chi. upon given the work and the fact that we have been considerable investment in dine' designing and working with the community on the project we decided to continue to extend and look for an opportunity to pull the permit in a future date. one thing that during that evaluation work with the community that was. important is the previous owners of my am neighbor's property were a strong sperpt. submitted a letter of support to

the planning commission. it was a significant surprise they did in the disclose we had gone through this press and have the potential to extend our home when they sold the property to lucie. >> and so -- ultimately, my new opportunity or new job i worked to the point where may be an opportunity for us to build third floor. although but still an evidence for us. given we were up against a time window we needed to pull the permit we elected to pull it, which is what indicateed all of the neighbors that this permit had been pulled. that's my perspective if you want to screen share the plans make your comments i would appreciate it. >> i'm ben fair oat project architect. i will share a presentation i

put together to articulate the changes the project went through from what was proposeed when we compromised on approved after discussions with neighbors and the historical evaluation. there was a historical review done. submitted. we met with tina tam and changed the project to address the occurrence within that neighborhood. the assumption that the project was not evaluated for the historical point of view is not through. typically for all of the per mittses the date at the building permit is submit saturday iteration of the building permit

is held to for the life of the application for approval. if -- because there are. code cycles every 3 years, you are not expected to keep up with the current code as the permit approval process goes through a number of years. so -- this shows -- this i will show you here. and this is trough for all of the slides we gallon through the top is existing conditions for the house the bottom is proposed conscience. in this case we are looking at the original proposed addition to the house as it was presented on the application. the original permit application. this is what we presented to the neighbor and started discussions with the neighborhood. where we wounds up was a reduced version and forgive me on the shadows on this one. the addition was reduce of

height and depth in the rear yard. at the third floor. that illustrates what was cut off of the proposal between the original submission and after talk with neighbors and [inaudible]. same thing here for the plans. existing conditions for the house. >> sorry. this was the -- i'm. to the left is the existing conscience of the house the right is the original proposal. with a master bedroom extending to the rear setback. this was the compromised solution that was approved with a setback from the rear setback. and that shows the difference with the 2 plans. the house not subject to discussion. >> that was the reduction for

the historical evaluation. this is the final elevation that faces mrs. lane's property. existing above and the compromised below that is the difference with the 2. that is amount of reduction we made primary low to address the neighbor to the east where there their concern for light. over view of neighborhood. >> thank you that is time. >> okay. time and rebuttal. >> we have a request from president swig. >> is there a reason why we did not receive a brief and i'd like to tell you why. i ask that. because we asked for a brief in advanced so we can help you. as well as your -- as well as the appellant.

to reach a fair resolution knowing all the information. you all not providing a brief the information which you are presenting is the first time to this body. is having a chance to do research. and it is tough enough that we try to get a bit smart by reading i brief this is the only snapshot of any project. but without a brief this is heavy lifting. is there a reason that you did not choose to gives a brief that we could study more effectively your case? anybody can answer yoochlt mr. fairo, du want to answer president swig? okay. they don't have to answer. i want to tellure that it make

its very, very difficult for this body to be as fully or -- fully briefed as they could do to be. to evaluate your case. and we are going to have to rely on this information that is being presented initially and in rebuttal. and it may prove to be a disadvantage to you and i want it it is i give this speech whenever somebody does not comply and give us a brief. because we need to be transparent. and you need to know that you have just made your path more difficult. we will see you in rebuttal. >> thank you very much. >> okay. thank you. we will hear from the planning department.

>> good evening. president swig and commissioners corey for planning department. >> i wanted to first start reported appellant for her and presentation and brief workers' comp don't always get that. and states she believes honest and government. i think the company this evening. but moving forward the details of the case before you the subject lot at will 4324, 25th street is 40x height and bulk district the permit buffer tonight was file in the december of 2014. the planning department reviewed it. determined it was code compliant after revisions and approved it in may of 2016. dbi approved it in june of 2016 but did not tissue until may of

this year. the issue of the central neighborhood's large residence denial special use district the monster home ordinance was raised tonight and not raised looking at that information of i can say those new controls and special use district in may of this year and apply to applications filed after january first of this year. subject permit before you tonight is not subject to the new controls. if we would look at the permit under the controls. don't have all the details necessary. before mow to fully do that review but looks as though it probably would trigger cu authorization under the new controls. i can't make that determination and not the new control it is

are not applicant the appellant focuses on the dbi process of extensions. i want to touch a bit on the planning department and since that we do require neighborhood notice under section 311 for the permits and residential districts that happen for the project, and we don't have any specific planning code interception and there are not codified rules about the situations where it goes to planning. there is an outstanding delay of multiple years before the permit is issued. we have a long standings planning policy where if these come back to planning for a recheck. for some rene revision or something else sends it become to plan and more than 3 years since haneighborhoods notificationful conducted by planning. we will conduct a new neighborhood notify.

only if the permit come back to planning. not an automatic system where those are suddenly become to us. that is beg your pardon the time and no planning requirement to do that. so, over all. the permit before you issued and compliants with the planning code and there would be no issues from the planning department if the permit was upheld as it was code compliant when issued. >> thank you. >> we have a question from. president swig. >> thank you. when i was reading this the one brief, in my minds it was looking for the same the next brief might have given me plans and my minds i thought, well, how are we going to -- cut this back. may be do setbacks. may be do some lowering of the

height. et cetera, i come in and find to my surprise i had not heard it we have not seen a brief. i'm trying to make the points about the brief. there was community feedback. there had been reductions on the size of the project, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera . that raises the question, um -- could in your view, could this project have been put forth without being sensitive to neighborhood feedback and without done nothing they obviously have already done and could this project be code compliant in the original size and shape?

code comupon mroinlt and the revisions made from planning were more due to the residential design guide lines. oshg poseed code requirements. i don't have the upon answer right now for you there. i -- had not reviewed the project in that manner. i'm sure the permit holder can speak to that to some degree. what i have seen sxnld and understand it was code climate. the permit holder could have presented a large are project than they are presenting this evening? and -- but they have seemed to

have made go efforts to listen dmunlts feedback during the 3 upon 11 notice period and made adjustments. am i semi correct. >> semi. the revisions made were in upon response to department commentses. may have been neighborhood comment this is they were responding to on the front end. i'm not aware of revisions after the 311 process. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the d.

building inspection. >> good evening matthew green with building inspection. 20 upon 141210 than i hundred hundred for a vertical addition was file in the december of 2014 and approved in june of 2016. the appellant states the dbi website allows one extension that is correct the website does say that however building code section 106a allows a one time extension and allows additional extensions if the officials discretion. you may recall we discussed extensions on june 15th. i said dbi granting them on existing applications in the system to get them out and moving forward they will encourage applicants to get permit applications issue said quickly as possible after approval.

i discuss third degree with the deputy director of permit services to confirm. contacted the communication director to update the website. application was approve exclude issued in compliance. however, i understand the appellant's concern the 6 year system a long to have a permit issued after approval. rather than revoke it and start over i would hope the parties can work and meet here again with changes that is the board's approval. i'm available for questions. president swig? you have a question. >> okay >> we are moving on to public comment. >> commissioner lemberg. >> my mic is off. i wanted ask about the cancellation deadlines and how strict low those dead lines are adhered to.

i know the 2020 cancellation date was during covid-19 and i'm sure there were covid related changes to that. but what are the general rules and how does dbi determine when a permit is cancelled. jury room when it is physically cansied someone went in the system and cancelled it. it can't be renewed. but we sent out the letters here asking them to renew and they sent in the fees. i will admit the deadline went complied with but when we sent a letter oust to the applicant he did submit the fees. >> so -- the appellant is correct. the dead lines were not met. is s it common for 6 extensions to be granted. i believe in the june 15th we had five or 6 execs for permit.

covid does account for some. this was approved prior to covid. it is not common but not rare, either. i understand the appellant's occurrence. anything further. >> i'm finished for now. >> thank you. we are moving on to public comment. please raise your hand. i don't see hands. we are going to move on to rebuttal and hear from the appellant. you have 3 minutes. >> i think we will both speak brieflyism think the key point here is the question of the cancellation date that commissioner lemberg brought up. we are not arguing with the fact

that the proper process was done although through the planning process i'm sure it was fine i did not live there then i moved in 20 months ago. what i object to is the fact that the department of building inspection so -- flag grantly violated the code with the cancellation of the permit. should not be a per mist getting to be cancelled when somebody wants or rrmed to. 16 months is not just a week or a little slip up. 16 months is more than a year. a huge amount of time in the meantime i moved in to the house. now what happens is that i have to be basically live with a negotiation that was done with neighbors 6 years ago. right. and i'm now the house next to it. i would not -- even if there were multiple permit renewals i would be lessup set than the

fact the permit was renewed a fifth and sixth extension was begin on the same day and the permit issued 16 monthses after the permit should have been cancelled. our government was working during covid. we did not fall arc part the business of blaming everything on covid is ridiculous. that is my point i will let my attorney use the rest of the time. we are not here to i don't think the purpose forum to work out a mediation that's what planning approval process and the cua process project would need to go through that's what that process is for. our appeal is about the procedures that were not philidelphia. and under the building code well is no requirement that something from the building department go in and type in cancelled. when you miss the dead line it

is cancelled without any action bite department. they missed by 16 monthses and there is you heard from the planning departmentful typically after 3 years they would require additional planning review and neighborhood notification. we are at year 6 and the project sponsor indicated they have no plans to construct this project. once you pull the permit you also get another 5 or 6 years before you have to finish construction. so we are talking about over a decade once this project approved. this -- we were not even counting the 2 years that it went through planning process and the application was submitted. we are at 12 or 13 years. >> thank you. time. >> we will hear from the permit

holder. >> i a lot of this discussion here about the departmental process related to the permit. i work in the san francisco for close to 25 years now. i seen many iterations of permit process. i can point to a couple of dozen projects have been around and notable once out well this started the permit processes early in 2003 and 4 and permits issue in the twenty 17 and 18. different ordinance and developers. i think it is a #penalty to tell my cloinlt they node to pay for improper procedure by having permit revoked or cancelled.

when we did what we am diagram bhiet process to extend the existing permit through the means available to us at the time. it was originally not originally the plan. it is plan was to build the addition of the house. through the process, when we came to the project in the end condition, there was the node for my client to regather and fortifiy financial status it dot project. this took time and lead to the extension process. as far as the approved version and submitted version i have the 3 upon 11 drawings here that were sdrnlted they show the approved version. as far as i recall we went through notification without objections. we had done most of the meetings with maces. the neighborhood as a group i

attended at the noe valley public library. and also the historic negotiations for the projection stand point. so far. we did the process. as well as we could. we did it a number of years ago. there have been changes that may affect it. cua's for large houses that does not apply to the project at this point in time that did not apply then. that's all i have to say. my wife and had a positive rep with our neighbor and hope through this press we can continue to have the ability to follow through with the permit that we have been issued. and recognizes the process was compliant with the code and needs of the communities.

as we evaluated it at the time to make the property changes. what other items that you -- changed on the house that were not directed by planning but rather requested by your conversations with neighbors? i can speak to that, ben. in discussion with planning commission it was apparent we needed to start considering a further set become on the rear. our neighbors to the east said they were concerned about shadowos their deck from the extension as originally proposed. we reviewed. plannings recommendations prefer to submitting to planning get approval for 311.

we backed off the property 10 feet from the rear setback, reduced the height and eliminated the clear store toast bring in sun light to the rear room. we made changes. yes based on planning but they were coincident or satisfied the neighbor's to the east's concern busy shadows we repeated the shadow study and determined it acceptable and resubmitted back to planning. >> thank you. we will hear from the planning department. >> i don't have anything additional i'm available for questions. >> president swig? you have a question? >> commissioner chang has a question. >> if there were to be further changes to the permit as

proposed. would a new 311 notification be required? >> when changeers made. to a permit through the discretionary review process or appeal process. the project is getting smaller. but if it does not, there is in the a >> reporter: for a new 311. notification. >> got it. >> and if there are changes, would the project fall under the planning code at the time it was originally proposed? interesting question may need be weigh in the on by a board council. technically, the permit was issued and when it is being

amended bite board, i'm not positive tell the law of the day of regulations place apply at that time. or if that is locked in as the issuance day. this permit the change in the code that would be relevant is the adoption of the special use district. that would not apply because trigger based when the permit was filed not issued. and the permit at the board was to amend it in a way that would not change the file date. prior top 2022. my line of questioning trying to balance some of the 2 concerns we heard tonight. on the one hand. we have a new neighbor.

who walk immediate a wagz and surprised by a permit issued and approved and went through a process sick year ago and emphasize with the permit holder went through an expensive press to make changes and would like to continue and have followed saw fit the renewal and extensions from dbi. so -- i'm thinking through some po serb suggestions that might be made. but that's it. thank you. we'll hear from the departments of building inspection. >> hello. i was not using covid as an excuse. i this was approve in the 2016 i want to collarifiy that. i have to say dbi i'm

sympatheting. the permit holder did responds within 60 days when we sent a letter of cancellation. building code says the department shall notify the applicant that the application will be cancel in the 60 days unless extended an application exceeds the time after notice will be deemed cancelled without action by the department. if than i had not responded within the 60 days today be cancelled. if they did, we don't have a written policy. that's where we are. >> question from commissioner lect berg and president swig. >> will i also like commissioner chang see both sides and agree punitive to the permit holdtory cansel the permit out right.

they have you know complied with everything they were supposed to and all relevant time and granted extensions by dbi. and never theless i'm sympathetic to mrs. blake's situation. would the department of building inspection arc menable to waiving fee fist we grant the appeal. would you wave fees and you know restart if the per mist hold her to restart the process. can we prevent them from starting from scratch? that would be up to the city. i could speak with upper management to see if we get fees waved. are you imply being revision to reduce the scope of work and work with appellants. i mean i have no opinion on the scope of the work itself.

i think the issue here is the procedural issue novelty necessarily the plans themselves. because again the permit holder did go all through of the proper upon channels and extensions that they were entitled to do. but if we were to grant this appeal, i just you know it would be unfair to make them start from scratch. anything that planning or dbi can do to alleviate that i would be interested in knowing about. >> if you decide tonight we can reinstate the prorate if they work on a different design. i can recommend we reduce the fees. >> i said to zoning add administrator. commissioner lemberg. >> yes. >> thank you for that. i wanted we in on that.

think burglar this in will if if the permit was rerobingd and newark choired would be a new planning department review and be fees associated with that but also the review time line. and as we referenced earlier. you >> i don't have the details with me likely that a new permit for the same or similar scope of work would likely trigger a c u authorization in front of planning as well. there would be approximate additional process required. and obviously discretionary decision by the planning commission whether or not to approve it at all. if the existing permit was revoked. additionally, i don't know the discretion that we have on waiving fees for planning. i know the code language for fees is very descriptive on what

we shall charge and are given certain amounts of discretion to grant waivers or reduction in fee in specific situations. butit would not be able to answer tonight what our ability will be at plan to reduce or wave fees. >> thank you. >> corey, while you are is there, if on forget this -- this item, but in any item, if we upheld an appeal and somebody decided to reapply for the per mist. what is the time element s. there not a stave action? on when member can reapply for the same permit? >> so that is another issue.

if it may depend on the reason for the denial. in this case, and again this may be an issue for board council to weigh in. if the board is takingment position that the permit should be revoked because of -- procedural reasons, and not for code commrieps or not denying it is project.

so. what i'm -- you know you hear me i think on this panel talk about precedent setting and many timeless we're tempted to say, well n this case, goings around the law but go in when might not be upheld by law or fuzzo the law. you hear me speak and up say, folks on this panel if we set this precedent and everybody else who come in here with the same airport is going to point to that action that we took on this date. i'm sensitive about precedent

you heard men times what i'm wrestling with standard operating procedure. versus precedent setting. in the on going renewal process or noncancellation process of this permit and the expensive amount of time that the permit was held and then renew exclude held and renewed. um -- was there a president set every time that it seemed to have gone past the number of days or the appropriate period? and got renewed anyway? were there precedent set by doing that or was, is that standard operating procedure

that next week something could come in with a different case special have a series of many times they held a permit for a long time and renew today and renew today. seemingly extending the period of the permit beyond logic. >> well, i say the -- applicant did pay the extension fees every time. >> that is aside. >> and we do have a new deputy direct in charge of program services and moving forward he will not allow extensions to this extent. neil the limit but discourage numbers. >> and wants to keep discretion. i want to press it further. i think it it is the key issue the appellant brings up and the key issue for us to discuss a

key issue for us to discuss here. in your experience in working in -- what you do, is this -- typical? not that is happens every day but 18 or the first time you seen a permit like this go on for 6 years. stretch the boundaries how long before a cancellation. or is it so i'm saying is it is a precedent or is this normal behavior which may stretch the bounds easier of the policies and procedures? i will say it is common.

but i seen it before am >> we try to work with the applicants whatever life events come in play. we will work with them. we seen in other diameters. you know on a controversial case we have in front of us that is coming become in november. the taxi permits. you know there is a new sheriff in town holding in his view compliance to what the standards legal standards are. and may have been that his predecessors did not. what was not policy but was the way that things went prior to his arrival have gone one and hoe's drawn the line and it is another upon thing.

and so that's why i'm trying you say the same in the past this was novelty happen every day but was not something you had not seen before >> as you know we have new leader ship up and down the line of dbi we are changing the old policy. i don't know if this is relevant if they had it issue in the 2016 and started work we wouldful continue to extend it until they completed the work. and y while i bring that up. any points. it is something you may want to comment on. at upon any point, past 2047 when the permit was issued. has it been a noncompliant project and had it been done earlier would you have found it illegal if any way or

noncompliant. corey can chime in. there have been 2 code cycles since 2014. and this is address in the the building code. it says -- upon in the event the extension of time extends the life of an application beyond the adoption of the new code all or part of the application subject to provisions of the new code. may not shall. building official discretion. i'm sorry. [inaudible] planning department. again the only thing that change friday code perspective is the special use district. and so no point would this permit changed it was filed prior to 2022. of course if required file a new

per mir that would be a different story. >> the real had the permit holder started the project earlier during those periods where the permit was active it would not have a problem with this project? >> correct. >> coincidence is big enemy. >> seems. mr. lopez? thanks mr. green. good to hear about the proposed or coming changes in the future with respect to the practice and procedures here. but of course we are here to talk about what happened before. right. so. one part i like to get further context on is the 16 month.

period. for gap. and i hear that you say that the permit holder acted on these soon to be expiration notice when you sent those out. they acted within 60 days to arc void the xrieration in the notices. what can you tell under the circumstances about absent the notices. how many of these permits that have those 12 mont expiration dates attached them. how many of those do you see get renewed proactsively? by permit holders without you need to send the notices out. and the second question is, the 16 month gap, was that due to if they acted within the 60 day

noise your office sent out. so this 16 month gap due to dbi not sending the 60 day head's up until 14 months? into that 16 month period. what happened with respect top that? yes, this is dbi failed to send out the notice of cancellation. again of the. justify y. it stook long or how that was missed. first part of the question. >> sorry before we leave the second part i have a good sense for the number of extensions am which is a separate pillar that we are looking at. you know i heard you and the permit holder talk about per mittses around for years.

and that part is clear. i think i can wrap my head around that piece but, is it the case that you typically don't see the permits renewed null send the 60 day notice? and how many do you have a sense of how many of those to be expired permits how many of those have that long of a 12 plus month period buffer send the 60 day shot clock on? i don't have the numbers for you tonight. >> the more experienced permit applicants proactive and extend permits >> that's i say. it is in the uncommon if you are

aware of how far the system works. >> and do you have a sense for this 14 month roughly period we are talking about. is that you know -- very rare or common? notice to take that long? i think this is relatively rare but don't have the numbers in front of me. >> commissioner chang. >> being this i can't speak on behalf of dbi during my time at planning it was not uncommon to see permits that had long shelf life and that have not been acted on for years. and i think it is a function of so many factors. there is so much process a lot of folks go through in order to get anything built it is cost

low. the departments are processing hundreds sxhnds of applications. and -- permits you know every day. so i continuing is not uncommon, unfortunately for things like this to slip through the cracks. i'm not surprised that duration of time passed. my schedule is assuming we can get past the procedural errors that appear to be address said bite new deputy director and if the board decided to make recommendation or like such as you know time to arcllow parties to negotiate something. will would and then they came back or if there is something that could be discussed tonights even. would the board be able to or the body be able to accept the

appeal or grant the appeal and grant change to the permit as standards so there is not like any new precedent set or new permit or existing permit revoke today is allowing the parties to discuss something that feels comfortable to them boeth both and be standards fare? >> yes. thank you. >> department upon city attorney the board is in the same position in hear thanksgiving as planning would be and can make revisions if you see fit that benefit neighbor. yes, can you make revisions. thank you. i need 2 parties that seem reasonable and like each other general low i'm hopeful that something like that could you can worked out. commissioner lemberg. i concur with what commissioner chang said that might be a good

solution i had one more question for mr. green. clarification on simultaneous you were talking about. you mentioned there was a new deputy director who came enemy and changed this policy regarding extensions. my question was this a new decision or was that new deputy director fixing a problem in place for years and never have been there in the first place? i think it statute new deputy director typing up the processes of the department of building inspection. i didn't understand the question you are saying it was wrong the way we did it in the past or -- i see a distinction with if it is a new policy decision be made versus it i mean at least appearing from the building code

well is an extension limit. with may be discretional grants of additional extensions. but i mean when i read that i think -- you know its circumstances might cause additional extensions but not pro forma by in the regular could you recalls of business. so i just see this distinction between make thanksgiving new policy decision say nothing the past years we have had arc loud numerous extensions and now we will not verse you was you know, i'm just reiterating the policy we always had. >> to collarifiy not saying we will not issue multiple extensions anymore the deputy director am encourage permits to be issued as soon as possible if

circumstances he will use discretion weather to grant the extra extension. . there is in the a limit in the code section of how many. okay. thank you. >> i would like to reserve my comments when matters are vetted. president swig. okay. so. thank you. commissioners this matter is submitted. commissioners lazarus. so to me this breaks down as follows. upon the permit was properly issued. i'm not certain it was but i believe it was based on hawe heard. and then if this is the case, is there a need for further discussion with the permit hold and neighbor.

if this is the can is we need to talk about a continuance. but we have not heard anything from the appellant to what she might be seek we heard about her challenging the permit. i'm stuck on where we are. what we should do. my happening is guarantee a continuance to have further discussion. i think we have to accept the permit was properly issued. i bought house next door or about to buy it.

is that and i'm not aware because i'm looking at the husband that is wonderful and want to live there for my life and i have not done the due diligence to see what else is going on. would a permit that would this permit be obvious? as issued. and would it have been the responsibility of the real estate broker to -- or some other investigator doing the inspections or other due diligence activities to discover there was a per mist next door? to the house i'm about to buy? was it easy for her to see this? or is this an oshg pang

situation where you have no clue what is going on around you when it might be key to your decision? >> how does this happen? i'm not a real estate law expert i can't speak to what a real estate agent would be required disclose in rrdzs to near by development proposed. of i don't know if this would be standards or required. i can say in stan eversan francisco we have a robust online presence when it come to property information and per mist information. and it it is. not difficult to search. if you are a real estate xrfl lay importance you know you can lockup property it is by address and look at adjacent properties and determine if there are

active permits on those lots. this is manage this people do and discovered on our website. and dbi's website. >> it is in the something hidden it may have been hidden in plain site nobody noticeed find it. it was not hidden from a buyer next door. >> i would not label it hidden or hard to find. >> i like to ask the appellant the question. would you step up. so your neighbor for a long time has been the owner. and in good faith filed for a per mist in 2014.

seemed to have bumpy timeless we all do in our life and finally may be getting around to fulfilling the revision currently. and -- it is in the his fault that you moved in. you know. and but we want to make sure that everybody walks away if possible not exactly happy because that is what happens in compromise. but what the key question is, than, no , i don'tment this project done at all. which if a project is compliant, filed for. planning likes it. planning department likes it. planning commission like its and dbi approve its, it is good and we have no reason to bounce it.

it is important for to yous hear your complaint you are concerned living next door and suddenly something you did not anticipates being built. what would make you happy ownership satisfied in the adjustment of that project's plans. joy will speak to a couple things not his fault i move in the. you are right. we have been great neighbors. it is and i like todd and upon erin very much temperature is their fault they did not renew the permit on time whchl you get a permit you get a cancellation date that date is on the permit and this idea of waiting around and sitting on hands for the dbi to send a reminder. i don't get a reminder from the dmv when driver's license is

going to expire. commissioner lazarus brought ump is it not clear there was looking like the permit was legally issued. i say the permit was not legally issued there is a code that says that the d. building inspection bhoon is here representative here, quoted that said, specifically that if a permit is not renewed on time it is deemed to be cancelled. that is your code not minism did

not write it you asked a good question about precedent the precedent in asking me roll over on this. is the press upon dent you set it is okay to violate city code when it is very explicit. i knew nothing about temperature >> when changed you want to the project. why if i could jump in. i have not thought about it this thing literally came upon me. stop pawk mrs. blake. >> to give ourselves a breather we might think about continuing. this is the statement wes have when we don't get a brief. to munch on before the hearing. she is in the prepared answer

your question. >> are given the circumstance... given the circumstances now, are you if we were to guarantee a continuance and given the i don't think there is a hardship here for the permit holder the permit holder waited 8 dwroers get this project going and still does not be ready to g. another 2-3 we thinks for a continuance will not presents a hard ship for them i'm not worry body that issue. i'm worried about wasting time. if weave torch grant a continuance for the purposes of you all visiting to look at the

plans. and to for to you get comfortable around those plans, were you open to doing that or are you stuck on the items that you laid out that it it is look attior own codes. this is wrong. are you willing, because what will happen my feeling is whether hay have to wait a year and a day to file this thing again they will go back and go to planning and they will go to the planning department and they will come up with a project that is compliant. that's i speak based on sitting on this commission for a few years, okay. i see that in your future, whether it is postponed a year well is a.

i i i bet on the horse that says they will get a permit. i don't want to you wuk away thinking i got informing i did not get my day to talk about a compromise. do you think if we granted a continuance that you would have the interests of of sitting down with the permit holder discussing the project getting comfortable or coming become and saying i want 10 foot setback. what do you think commission? i have in the thought about tijust feel if this feels irrelevant. i feel like the issue on the table before you guys as our representative is was the code the city code followed here.

it is like whether i will have thanksgiving or talk about architecture with my neighbor system not the question on the table. of course i will talk to them under whatever the circumstances are and -- i think the appropriate circumstance is that they reapply for the permit that is legal. i don't think this permit was legally issued. and i really believe that to be true i don't think not just a little. if a week or 2 weeks but 16 month system a lot of time. i ask you as commissioners to think about what are the dead lines mean. how do you want the city of san fran to operate. okay. >> you can everask me to sit down and i will but. >> i want you to have a fair shots here.

. here is wham we are facing at the moment. i kinds of land in your camp a lot. i said that. 20 minutes ago. i hate precedent. when you set a precedent then what happens to the next time the other guy got it why can't i. when it come to following the code i would be with you. as dbi said it is has been reasonable and normal for this type of thing to happen. therefore there is consistent preps dent on the other hand that and what seemed to e involved is they don't cancel until they gift holder that last shot of pay up or shut up. and what they did as we heard comment army from mr. green is many times when the upon

cancellation was a threat they sentut the put up or shut up memo and they came with the check and so they put up and it got extended. that was policy at the time and the situation. we will may have that discussion and you men right. and the new guy in charge is never going to let it happen again but we may decide i'm not saying we will or i will support it i'm not saying i'm against it i'm not there yet. we may just say sorry, this seems to have been the preps dent a long time of dbi behavior regardless of what it it is now. but if you don't take us up on the offer of short continuance

men getting nowhere with it had you will be stuck with is the permit your appeal denied and permit approved. that's why i'm asking you one more time knowing that you are playing dice here. whether you would like us to consider a continuance so you can sit down for 2 or 3 weeks with the permit hold and seep if there is anything that can be don make you comfortable about the permit. would you like that option. . if you requesting i do is that i doll that. i think as a just as a stan fran taxpayer i would rather have the rules of san francisco are complied with. the most of us do comply with them i did not know about the code nor diwant to we in to

this. not the fight i'm trying to pick. >> of course i will sit down with them if that's what you decide but you have to decide is what whether you want the department a building inspection to operate by the code. >> i have that argument all the time >> thank you. >> vice president lazarus has a question or comment. now a comment. >> i failed to hear any objection to the project. from the appellant. and in this case whether the permit was issued or not is moot that is all she can talk about. i'm backing off my original idea i guess i like to ask our city attorney if you feel based on what you heard you and not what mr. green told us this permit

was properly extended since 2016. familiar up dom feel this will way i know where i stand on this issue. >> deputy city attorney,ip don't vice president much to add beyond what he said quoted the provision of the code that applies here. stated dbi has this practice that has been engage inside for a long time applies to many permits. will so, am you know -- you would not see a basis for concluding otherwise regarding the permit? the board could disagree hawere dbi was doing if you felt it was improper it is up to the board to decide whether you feel it was issued or not given the facts presented >> commissioner lopez. join the party. i mean. you know president swig, you

know you stated a pit ago you to being a big come out in favor of the appellant and the situation i bh out in favor the property owner being able to make the changes to home when is they have a valid permit. this one i wrestle with a bit because that you know as my questions to mr. green suggest today that period does seem long to me. so that's, that's what gives me pause. but -- but generally speaking. i think the pulling the permit given upon everything this will permit holder has gone through that feels like a nuclear option here. and just balancing the equities

i'm glad the website is updated and there is a new sheriff in town to clean up practice i like president swig tie today back to unrelated but you know -- rhymes a bit with the tones of this one. the taxicab case fist we have practices don't be surprise today leads to slope out come. the upon principle i approach the, with i think that property holders holing a valid permit should rely on that. you know appreciate the process they went through even it was 6 years ago activelies time

consuming and costly. i think yea. thereupon is gray year with the procedural if wroo had a decision between a continueness with the party work thanksgiving out. or having to to make the call. tonight. i would not be inclineed grant the appeal. had the permit pulld and work started the new neighbor would be not able to do anything. >> and again there has been a failure to articulate what the issues are. get to the point of saying this is unusual but and within the rules of the department i'm completely hung up on the fact there has been nothing stated as

to when they might consider. that was reference to shadows that has been it. i'm on the side of denying the appeal at this point. i was i think i showed my cards i was inclineed grant the continuance to allow to negotiate and discuss the things upon but i hear what president lazarus was saying. provide it would in the be helpful then i'm also inclineed deny the appeal. so that is where i sit. alex? like to close it out before -- commissioner lazarus makes a

motion. i would like to encourage the parties especially it seems well is good well and neighborly tendanceies with the neighbors and the attorney -- that you know if there are concerns about the plans as presented i agree with president swig's analysis. they would be able to get a permit reissued if we granted the appeal. and so. i think it makes sense to skip that and see if some agreement can be reached now. or the next month or 2 here. sorry one additional thing is that it is neither the appellant north holder's fault arc side from yes. the letter of the law was not strict low followed but it goes

back to the procedures of you highlight exclude it seems the word is escaping me. but -- too pune taoism i guess to totally revoke the permit. io totally revoke the permit. i gu totally revoke the permit. i gu totally revoke the permit. i gu totally revoke the permit.a i g totally revoke the permit.t i g i guess to totally revoke the permit.v i g e i guess to totally revoke the permit. it would be unjust to finds for the appeal. i understand what went on. i understand that there were they philidelphia a policy which may have been incorrect butt policy they were -- nobody was singled out.

is hopefully more diligent about following the codes more completely. but -- the problem with the project and the answer is, there is no problem with the project from a compliance stand point. gone through planning the planning department, gone through dbi and that's i didn't was direct with the appellant to ask her what would you do different and i did not get an answer. at this point will you like to make your motion. move to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly

submitted. commissioner lemberg >> neigh >> commissioner chang >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 4 to one and the appeal is denied. take a 5 minute break. >> yes, thank you for your patience. 5 minutes. >> welcome back to the san francisco board of appeals july

20 of 22 we are on item 9. 19 huh human bryant street investors versus zoning subject property 525 florida street. may 20 to 19 huh human bryant investors a letter of determination a determination related planning department's processing of permits for the property. number 20201019 thirty-four 67 approved by planning and issued by dbi november 13th of 12 completed march 16. result in the change of use from restaurant to 2 separate use catering and other retail sales. the letter of determination the zoning add administrator determined the time the permit was submitted 312 required neighborhood notification for proposal of change in land use and it was not provided for this

permit. zoning add administrator determined the failure to have a notice was a procedural oversight but did not invilleidate the permit the last legal property of the restaurant use. we'll hear prosecute appellant first. good evening. thank you for the opportunity to be with you i'm andrew a partner at hansen bridgette law firm in the city and represent 1900 bryant street investors llc in this appeal. this is an appeal of the za's denial of the property owner's request to inrollidate a permit issued to the owners former tenant. without compliance with the city

planning department this appeal presents a narrow but simple legal issue that is black and white. the city admits that it failed to comply with the most requirements of the applicable planning code section 312. prior to issuing the building permit the subject of reality in the appeal. the lod the city admits 312 notification required at the time of the permit however the neighborhood notification under 312 was not provided. the city planning and california law in the brief dictate there is not here it was null and void at inception and must be cancelled.

section 312 there are other sections of the planning code theory relevant section 175 arc. states in relevant part of. no application for building permit shall be approved my the planning department. and 176 should they meet permit issued not in conformity with the prosecute visions of the code permit shall be null and void. the canceling of the subject permit should have been a straightforward matter. on july 15th 2021, the owner submitted a request for lod to term the permit null and void and cancel the permit. after more than 10 months on may 20 of this year instead of reaching the conclusion dictated by law, issued the lod than i

determined the notice requirements of section 312. similar to 311 were procedural. and did not rill pact the compliance with the planning code. then having determined it account disregard the requirements of 312za concluded the city's failure to comply with notice requirements was a procedural oversight that did not invaldaylight the permit. the za does not have the discretion to ignore requirements of the city code as procedural. no prosuspicion grantses a discretion to determine any requirement is optional because it is procedural. section 176a provides that if a permit is issued not in conformity with code it is void at the inception. the board does not want to set a

precedent that neighborhood notices now procedural and -- is subject to waived at the discretion of the za. i don'teen know you could do that. beyond the city code. california state law is clear that this permit is null and void. the issue of the legitimacy of the distinction created bite za of procedural versus substantive site the case where the court of appeal agreed that a zoning ordinance was void adopt in the violation of notice requirementless. even upon though the plaintiff in that case had received notice. other quote, the court of appeal other residence denials affected were in the begin notice and an opportunity to be heard to have concerns and nodes and welfare amount to a more technical

procedural admission and reflecting a deprivation for the community. on the issue of the city's lack of discretion to ignore the city's code requirements, we site the hor wits case to validate a permit issued in violation of code just as the city has no discretion to deny the permit when an applicant complied with all applicable ordinance, the city has no discretion to issue a permit in the absence of compliance. conclusion with section 312 was mere real procedural in nature. and thus the city's failure to comply with 312 could be ignored. as a matter of the zs discretion both know erroneous.

should be over turnd and the permit cancelled. i want to address 2 positions taken in the lod by the zoning add administrator. first it incorrect low prowls a permit voided upon a showing of injury or press deputy don't talk about prejudice. than i say that if the permit was issued not in compliance with law it believe are null and void. second in the lod the building permit should in the be invalidated because the permit was relied upon to legally establish the use with w complete in the 2013 and operated urn the benefit without compliant. that is in the california law. there is no california authority

endorsing a local gentleman forcing a property owner to arc bide by an unlawful per mist even if the permittee here the tenant relied upon the permit. >> am agree it can be invoked in var extraordinary circumstances the permit is null and void and should be cancelled. >> thank you. >> we have a question from vice president lazarus you represent the ownerships. >> through the entire process. and would you kindly explain what it is you are prying trying to accomplish other then and there getting the lod over turned it is in our broef. what we are trying to accomplishes it clear the way for you a revitalized use of the

space to the benefit of the city and the residentses and to the people who work in that area. >> okay. so the current permit does not serve that purpose. why it does not. >> thank you. >> okay. we will hear from the planning department. >> good evening xhfrns coreef for planning. i want to to arc pol yoiz for not being in person i did travel out of state last week and felt under the weather this week. felt that would take the precaution to attend remote tone. case at hand the appeal before you tonight is a case of get a second bite at the apple in the interest of time i will no detail the issue surrounding the twenty 20 determination for the property and 201 board decision to up hole it.

this appeal is a rehearing request for the 21 board decision filing for another tomorrow determination the za's determination on the effective subject permit was correct and valid and no new information come to light since that time. permit did not under go required neighborhood notice. already raised and concede bite zoning add administrator in february of 21. the appellants did not elaborate at that time and the board did not determine that the life of that notice was efficient to affect the original determination or original permit. the appellant's brief over simple fies the planning code and said should be nut and void due to lack of notice. however, any issue completed permit must be go to a press to be revoked would be subject to

the board of appealless. the planning code grants the board the authority to enformals the code and grantses the zoning add administrator and the board of appeals discretion in enforce am. in this case the property owners benefited by leasing the space to a 10 analysis for 6 years included, tenant improvements and collecting the associated rents from the usech the use established by the permit was known and publicicized and never complaints relate the to the use or jurisdiction ask fileed the board of appeal to request an appeal of the permit. passage's logic in the brief compel the za ownership board to revoke a permit if defect was discovered 30 or more years later. i dare to speck lit if positions

remember reversed this evening and the za requested revocation of a permit the appellant's property due to a defect decades old they would likely make different arguments in referencing different case law before the board. to this points the board should consider this appeal as if the roles were reversed in the way to ensure you consider the affect that such a ruling would have going forward. >> finally the appellant brief claims no harm in revoking the permit. proposition x adopted by the voters to ensure the projection of everybody pdr space in this area of the city. the rub sect permit established a pdr use that operated for 6 years revoking use the viable and existing pdr space in the city directly counter to the adopted will of the city.

this point to the out in of the lod for the appeal would allow the property owner to convert the space to a nonpdr use. am the appellant references state laws and case law and have an opportunity to pursue claim in court if they choot to the appellants filed litigation against the city. given the information in the letter and tonights and in the prior letter, the planingly department considers the za current determination on this issue finalized with the city attorney's office to be correct, valid and went za and board of appeal's discretion and we request that the board deny the appeal. i'm available for questions you may have:president swig? so basically, you points of view

is we heard this case we made a decision on this case. at that during that case, the issue 312 notice was never raised. it was not an obviously it was not important. at tha to either party or the public at that time we did not hear it in public comment. and so this initiate ever is a hail mary to finds one miles an hour thing they can get their case back. am i characterizing that properly. >> i would collarifiy when this was heard in february of 21 for the appeal of the original za determination that hearing was satisfied scott sanchez he did at that hearing raise the issue

that the 312 had not been conducted the board was aware at that hearing the point i med is this the board of the aware of the will appellant was aware and department was and raised. the appellant at that time did not elaborate on that points did not focus this issue. as to why the determination should be changed. and the board did not find thap to be a compelling reason to change the outcome of this determination. so, as such. irrelevant what is at hand is -- should the original determination and by extension the new determination be changed based on information available at that hearing in february of 21. so more so then. we heard this story before. we talked about the 312.

nobody seemed to be upset about t. if we would have had a rehearing request based on the ceremony subject and probably would have rejected the rehearing there was no new information -- it was raise anded in discussion therefore no new information. your point is nothing changed from the first time we heard this case. and ruleod this case and there is in really no new information is that is presented us tonight. >> correct? that is one of the pointses being made the fact that no 312 notification was conducted even required was raised the appellants raised through argument in their letter and in the brief to the board. butt facts have in the changed. >> okay.

>> thank you. >> we're moving on to public comment. anyone here for public comment raise your hand? >> i don't see any hands raised in zoom. so. we are moving on to rebuttal. you have 3 minutes. >> >> thank you. to which respond a bit to the colloquy the 312 issue came up in the prior appeal. that is true but that was the first time it had been raise said. regardless of whether it was fully disclosed by virtue of that side comment in the left hearing, there is nothing about what is happened since that somehow changed the null and void aspect of the permit.

the notice was not begin and the permit did not comply with the law. it is null and void from the inception this is not reinvigorated by passage of time nor is there any element of law that provides for a precluesive period in which this. we went to the beginning and asked for a new letter of determination on this separate issue because it was finally disclosed that notice had not been given. that was restart third degree. it is not this is a new separate issue. not something that will we are sand bagging or coming become for a second bite there was no bite at this apple. yes, a challenge to determination in the prior lod but that is not at issue today. i think that it is dangerous business for this board to

consider you know -- mr. t's position and -- the failure to give a neighborhood notice is a minor procedural defect. this is a material thing. you know there were no complaints raised about this permit. of course not the notice was not given. that is the whole purpose of it. >> and i do believe that the preps dents setting here is risky and dangerous. to this -- i'm -- this is legalistic i appreciate that. and am there is no balancing here. and frankly, the ramifications and the surrounding circumstances are of no moment with respect to the determination a black and white of this permit. and we are requesting this it be

cancelled, revoked to move forward doing something productive with this space. >> a question from commissioner lemberg. >> thank you. i want to start off by saying that the matter before us is whether to over turn the letter of determination north and held to an abusive discretion standards. i note this is my first meeting i did my home work on this one i read every case site, and what i foumdz they had in common was they were all substantive deviations from planning code and i will note that in your initial time here -- you had a very cleverly placed e lipsis

when reading the section 175. this is in your brief no application for a building permit or other license shall be approved by plans which would authorize a new use, change of urz or maintenance of an existing use of land or structure contrary to the code. and this sell unquestionable low to me a procedural defect and not a substantive defect a change of use or other thing this is section 175 actually says. and so -- what will i'm left with is the end of the day, you know fiwere the za i might have come to a different decision. you know and i say that but that opinion does not merit here. we are bvt left with is that the za made the decision within his

discretion and the case law you siteed me and please correct me if i'm wrong here 91 of those cases address procedural defects in planning code. >> let me may i respond? thank you. the language about the change in use really is not at issue. yes this was a permit that the permit we seek now revoke changed the use of the property back in 2012 if i have the date correct. november 8 of 2012. but the substantive issue here summer the failure to gift notice. that's the failure of compliance. oneip don't that we don't believe should be something that is within the z arc discretion to disregard.

that it is a material obligation of the city to notify people in the neighborhood when one there will be a change in use to a property. you know -- that's not just procedural. giving of the notice is -- significant in if he weres of the rights of people to -- you know find out what is going on and to have input and to impact the decision. so. i just i believe that -- even photocopy there are -- we are concerned about subassistantive rights being ignored and waived. where the those cases say that. you are right. i can go and look for things procedural but i don't think that is relevant in terms of the rights of theful people to have notice of the permit issuance. >> a bit more nuance on that, argument is that the you have to the make in order to be

successful off this appeal is that the za acted outside of his discretion. and i just don't see within the code or any of the state appellate court decisions you have sited that the z arc could not have done this. if the za said 3 level notice was issued valid and that did not help that was abuse of discretion but that's not in front of us here. >> look to are clear. the use of discretion that we advocate the za committed that save is the basis for over turning the lod knowing that no notice was upon given. and know thanksgiving a permit issued not in compliance with the planning code is null and

void from the beginning. and the za's lod walks around thap and saves i will ignore that substantive obligation to give that notice even though it was not begin and standom whatever it is that you know the upon was a mere procedural defect and say it is fine. and is stand we don't believe that it is correct. will let the others. >> president swig. sure. we had a hearing i was there. i voted will why this i was correct in the that the subject was not raise i forgot. and if this is 2 things.

if this was such a 312 notice was so important until the context of last hearing which is the meat and potatose of the discussion, why did you not jump on the table then. whoa. there was inadequate 312 notice. every hearing we have around threap 11 and 12 notices where it is argue ash the proper procedure was done even when the notice was properly issued. we are get barraged. and nobody let's us. that is -- the communities is very and rightfully so aggressive on the subject. here the 312 issue was raised. i don't recall must be a senior moment time and clearly it was not the goal to the case to i

didn't forget the you were the. -- by not -- i was not. that's not i did in the recognize you if it had been a key issue and had been subassistantsive -- and important to the case and the findings. case we valid chatted a bit we would have been reminded by the community. we did not get notice. we didn't. now will why should we not view this hearing tonight and this tactic as manage that -- you are getting another bite of the apple and we are -- rehearing being asked to rehear or reconsider something this we already considered. gave thought to. chatted b. and voted upon.

why now? >> so, thank you for the question. why >> prior lod did not upon concern the 3312 notice. the first time was in during the hearing that was not part of the request or the lod itself then. so, that -- you know -- was not part of the recoveried was not part of the discussion. i don't know what you mean in terms of the public would have been jumpingum and down if the public is really, really good upon sat in the chairs as long as myself and commissioner lazarus has. her longer and in other commissions the public is pretty good of about speaking up when

there is they perceive any arc because or perceive well is a problem with anything. sometimes they are pay out of boundses and sometimes so far in bounds they help us get clear on hat issues are and find accordingly. they are not shy. and for this tom have been upon it was discussed will briefly nobody seemed to care and now it it is services for me almost conveniently so you can your client can have another bite of the app and he will get a restaurant back in that or another use back in that real estate because it suits them better than what we determined the in our past findings. >> so, i would characterize it is different low. okay.

in that -- i think rather than automatic00 the second bite of the apple this is the first time we raised this issue. >> and the public's concern about the notice -- you all heard overwhelm time about the notices upon given is why this it is a substantive issue nots one that is procedure that can be walked around. . >> this was null and void at the inception for failure to give that notice. it is still null and void and we are entitleed raise it. in the a second bite the issues in the first lod had nothing to do with the notice. separate questions which is why we needed a second lod request to surface the issues. can >> thank you. >> thank you.

we will now more from planning. thank you. planning staff. um -- so in fairness to the appellant the original request was not to revoke the permit on the invalid neighborhoods notice. it was to challenge the interpretation of what that permit had actually achieve in the terms of changing the use and what the uses were. the appellant at that time was notified prior to the hearing at the board of appeals about the 312 issue but was raised on the record for the first time at the hearing. and so it was not the thrust of the original appeal, obviously having that original permit revoked what achieved the same thing. it could have been argue the at the hearing.

unless made once the appellant made aware of the issue prior to the hearing that that case was not made. and -- the appellant speaks to dangerous precedent and i agree but on the flip side. because it is true that if we had permits come before the board before where determined there was a procedural requirement not met and captured immediately when the permit paled upon issuance, we make sure that is corrected. but because it is gives the za and board an amount of discretion on makes the determinations and again, i don't think it is legitimate to say that in a dogmatic way that the za or board was compelled or

that we don't need to take an action that is automatically by --. action of law that permit is deemed void and null simple low because you know a procedural department was not [inaudible] and the reason is that context matters there is a dwfrns a permit issued and paled and not acted upon in a permit that was issued significant can low sums of money spent to affect that permit. relied on for years special decades. and allowed for future owners to do work and -- you get in serious order of operation, there. and so again. i would be concerned about dangerous president of being dogmatic about situations like this that have unique and specific circumstances.

>> thank you. >> thank you. a question from president swig. like the last case, how 18 is a 311 notice or 312 notice over looked and rendered dealt with in the same faugz are is that there was a procedural issue that it did in the get done and how often do you go in that direction the same direction you did on this case? is it very often or never? or somewhere in between. i can peek to my personal experience i have not don analysis of planning recordses and don't know it is information or data readily available to do that analysis. i'm not personal low aware of a section 311 or 312 notification

>> reporter: that was novelty conductd and discovered 6-10 years later. i deponent not aware of precedent for this situation. generally, when a required neighborhoods not sifkz miss today is caught quickly. it it is caught as part of appeal when the permit issued or if work startses and a neighbor realizes it then it is caught immediately at that point. at the initiation of the work. in those case that code requirement is upon am corrected. it it is early and in that process. would you consider this a president and or -- does it that will lead to create a problem

approximate it happens again. or a procedural issue and these are my words not your its did not matter in the scheme of things i'm trying to weigh the that nature. how this will affect any future activities of the planning department or any future activities that may come in front of the board. >> i think upholds the determination will not set a precedent differents than what we have done in the past. because the za and board it is understood that we don't always get straightforward situation in cases and a need for a level of

reasonable discretion and you know you are the upon appellant's body if you feel like that discretion has been abused. opposite like here if you grant the appeal you set firm precedent that no matter the circumstances or time passed any procedural defect found in a per mist then there is no discretion. of anybody. the za or the board of appeals to do anybodying other than revoke that permit that is not a position we have taken in the past that was not the position for this permit gifrn the circumstances. >> you say you as the za have discretion in doing things like this the ceremony way that this body has to discretion in

deciding upon things that is our somewhat gray or -- or the appropriate thing to do without abusing the law. and so you believe that you -- your discretion was appropriate and in this situation and that is what you are base being your argument on the same way we base our argument if we used our deception to make a finding is that correct. >> i believe so, yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner the matter submitted. commissioner chang. >> thank you. so i think i'm going back to what commissioner lazarus was trying to ask early on. i understand that ultimately there is a disagreement with whether or not the permit was properly issued but you said

that what you are attempt to accomplishes stake a use productive. and approximate familiar i understand correct low the change of use from restaurant to catering and catering is a pdr use and the desire to go back to a restaurant? is that the issue? the desire? put it this way that would be the outcome if am the lod was over turnd and permit was cancelled or revoked. >> thank you. commissioner this is matter is submitted. commissioners start with commissioner lazarus. i have a question for city attorney. ghan this issue of electric of notice was raised during

discussion of the prior lod what options did the now appellants permit holders have immediately subsequent to that given the information? that it was i don't know for rehearing request is visible on an lod determination. thinked they have gone on court and followed up on that? i'm looking at are there actions that could have taken that time opposed coming back with this argument. >> i think so. . the i believe that they put could have asked a rehearing request. whether an issue that was not raised or requested for a decision on by the zoning add administrator level is something the board thinked have considered i'm not sure about that. the za did mention that the

appellant here is sued the board through the city in relation tot prior lod that case is pending not comfortabled yet. i imagine what they are trying to do here is set up another decision that they could potential low -- exhaust the rem dooyos this issue to then amend their petition in court or bring another to court. >> thank you. >> any comment? >> i think general low given the standard of review in cases like this, i do think that the distinction between procedural and substantive falls within the -- reasonable discretion of

the za. and i took a look at the cases. i did not see -- anything on point. that said that -- lack of notice without -- you know some of the other substantive issues present in those matters. would give rise to you know reverting decades of history and so for this reason i would be inclined to deny the appeal. >> okay. commissioner chang? am i suppose what i'm struggling with while the za is absolutely correct that it could be precedent setting and could be will argued the other way if a

use was more controversial in this case it was not was -- permitd and not properly noticed. that we would allow for it to happen. for example, if the use went from a kitchen and catering use to pick a land use that is controversial may be a cannabis. there will be more issue to that. and core secorrect. i think that in my experience the department tends its take notice incrediblely seriously.

what does not sit well with me is the ability to over look that fact. i'm very mindful of how much time passed since the notice was acquire exclude no issue at hand. but that is something i'm thinking about. i don't -- i'm -- i wish i had something more concrete but i guess i say that to provoke thought for my fellow commissioners. >> commissioner lemberg. you did the most home work. i being i said most of hi want to say. it met low come down to the fact from my reading of the cases cited bite appellant and the planning code sections that are

at issue here that it was went zoning add administrator's discretion to make the decision he did. you know and whether we agree with that tomorrowation or not is irrelevant here is t is whether he had the discretion. i don't see any outcome than him having the discretion on make that call based on the law as is. >> would you like to make the first motion of your board of appeal's career. gi would. like to move to deny the appeal on the basis that. the zoning add administrator avenue letter of determination made within upper scope of discretion. okay. >> you might want to -- sorry. before we vote because i have done this in the past where i there is a motion and i make a comment when i'm poseed make my vote. i guess the other thing i'm

struggling with is that we are in a city trying to revive itself. i'm sensitive to attempts to do that. and i think that there is twice before us now the first appeal came with the same desire to figure out a way for charles chocolates to create a viable difference. is there a consideration we want to make. to that, is there anything we can do to support that objective. that is not what we do. i think the issue at hand is letter of determination. appropriate and the did the za abuse anything in writing that letter of determination.

not in the business development business. that is my position. >> fair. >> so we have a motion? so -- i wanted revise my motion slightly. i move to deny the motion on the groundses the za neither error said or abuses his discretion. >> denying the appeal. a motion from commissioner lemberg to deny the appeal andup hold the all right of determination on the bases the za did not abuse his discretion. and by the way you will find the word was may not be exactly the same when you make it but right there is the best scriptor in the world. >> i don't know about that. >> and the letter of determination proper leave issue said commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> vice president lazarus. where aye >> commissioner chang.

>> neigh. >> president swig. >> aye. >> so that motion carries. 4-1 and appeal is denied. >> thank you. >> this would conclude the hearing. why that's it. >> thank you very much. >> thank you.

[♪♪♪]

>> my family's starts in mexico in a small town. my parents are from a very, very small town. so small, that my dad's brother is married to one of my mom's sisters. it's that small. a lot of folks from that town are here in the city. like most immigrant families, my parents wanted a better life for us. my dad came out here first. i think i was almost two-years-old when he sent for us. my mom and myself came out here. we moved to san francisco early on. in the mission district and moved out to daily city and bounced back to san francisco. we lived across the street from the ups building. for me, when my earliest memories were the big brown trucks driving up and down the street keeping us awake at

night. when i was seven-years-old and i'm in charge of making sure we get on the bus on time to get to school. i have to make sure that we do our homework. it's a lot of responsibility for a kid. the weekends were always for family. we used to get together and whether we used to go watch a movie at the new mission theater and then afterwards going to kentucky fried chicken. that was big for us. we get kentucky fried chicken on sunday. whoa! go crazy! so for me, home is having something where you are all together. whether it's just together for dinner or whether it's together for breakfast or sharing a special moment at the holidays. whether it's thanksgiving or christmas or birthdays. that is home. being so close to berkley and oakland and san francisco, there's a line. here you don't see a line.

even though you see someone that's different from you, they're equal. you've always seen that. a rainbow of colors, a ryan bow of personalities. when you think about it you are supposed to be protecting the kids. they have dreams. they have aspirations. they have goals. and you are take that away from them. right now, the price is a hard fight. they're determined. i mean, these kids, you have to applaud them. their heart is in the right place. there's hope. i mean, out here with the things changing everyday, you just hope the next administration makes a change that makes things right. right now there's a lot of changes on a lot of different levels. the only thing you hope for is for the future of these young kids and young folks that are getting into politics to make the right move and for the folks who can't speak. >> dy mind motion. >> even though we have a lot of fighters, there's a lot of voice

less folks and their voiceless because they're scared.

>> good morning everyone. thank you all so much for being here today to mark the completion of the all new southeast family health center. [applause] >> yeah. my name is carla short the entroom director for san francisco public works and i have the honor kicking off the festivities. i'll turn it over to mayor breed in a moment but ypt to tell you one thing that stuck out for me for this project and that is teamwork. this is a collaborative effort from start to finish. public works