no >> hello. >> mic check. >> thank you. good evening and welcome to the august 17, 2022 meeting of san fran board of appeals. joined by commissioner chang or will be here. commissioner lopez. commissioner lemberg and commissioner john trasvina and brad will provide legal advice the legal system alec and i'm

jewelet executive director. we'll be joined by representatives from the city departments presenting before the board this evening. tina tam the departmenting zoning administrator representing planning. matthew green building inspection. cathyou lou engineer with public works and javier rivera with public works. the board meeting guidelines requests you silence all phones and electronics so they will not disterrible no eating or drinking in the hearing room. appellates, permit holders upon given 7 minutes to present and 3 minutes for rebuttal. members of the public who are not with the parties have 3 minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. time may be limited to 2 minutes if there are a lot of speakers.

there will be a verbal warning 30 secondeds. 4 votes are required to grant an appeal or modify if you have questions about a rehearing the rules e mail the board staff. >> public access and participation are of importance to the board. sfgovtv is broadcasting this live and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each comment on the agendaful sfgovtv providing closed captioning for this meeting. to watch on tv go to sfgov tv and will be rebroadcast on friday on channel 26. a link is at sfgov.org/boa. public comment in person, via zoom or by phone. call 669-900-6833.

and enter id: 829 7252 5424. again, sfgovtv is streaming across the b. screen are watching. to block your number when calling first dial star 67 then the number. dial star 9 equal to raising hand so wee know you want to speak. you will be brought in when it is your turn you may have to dial star 6 to unmute. you will have 2 to 3 minutes. again you get a 30 second warning before your time is up. there is a delay with live proceedings and that is broadcast on tv and the internet temperature is important that people call nothing reduce the volume on tv or computers otherwise well interference. on zoom if you need assistance make a request in chat to alec the board's legal assistant or

sends an e mail. the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment or opinions. note that we will take public comment from those members physically in the hearing room. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify am any member may speak without taking an oath. if you intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony weight. raise your hand and say, i do after affirmed. do you swear the testimony you give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> if you are a participate and not speak put your zoom speaker on mute. okay. commissioners before moving on to item one we need to address a request by planning continue item 6. appeal 22-050, subject property 945 minnesota street. each partiville 3 minutes to address the board.

we will hear from planning first. >> thank you. good evening president swig and members i'm tina tam deputy zoning administrator. planning department is requesting a continuance for 945 minnesota street. the permit is to restore and replace damaged front stairs, windows and suggested and to construct a new deck at the third floor and stairs to a new roof deck at the rear the permit was issued after the permit process planning received a referral that work was done without permit. on july 26, 2022, planning and dbi conducted a joint inspection of the property. including remutual of walls.

planning asked architect to prepare and submit new plans. on august the third, 2022 planning respected a set of plans however planning has yet to complete the review. and reviewing can take up 2 to 3 days. given the long history with this project include no less than 4 public hearings over 2 years, the planning department asked we begin more time to review the information and plans from the architect the outcome will be useful for everyone interested in this project. for a structure in a landmark district is a series project for planning. planning is asking for a 2 week conditionance we talked about accept 7th hearing date so planning can assess the work done at the property and review

for existing and proposed change in a comprehensive and cumulative manner >> it is required to accommodate additional hearings before the preservation commission or the planning commission who will be sure to report back to this board. >> thank you. >> okay. we will hear from department of building inspection. jury room good evening i'm matthew green with department of building inspection tonight. we have now problem with the continuance we have an active notice of violation against the property. work on addressed not guilty per mitt has been taped off and no work is going on there. we'll be good for the hearing on the 7th if you grant the continuance >> thank you we will hear from

the permit holder. >> hello president and board members. i'm the architect for the project. this project has gone through 2 ordinance the more recent owners that own it now. i went through a previous process to rehab this building it was in fairly bad shape. the appellate came before you in the past for the same scope of work at the rear of the property. they thought that the rear property was built in without permits and may be it was. the last hearing scott sanchez brought up 1937 photograph that showed that rear structure was still there. and so 1937, they -- they did not take the appeal. went through a variance process and went through -- the planning

commission, i think we went to the preservation commission. got the unanimous support from preservation and planning with regards to the rehab of the structure. currently, we are waiting for the last permit to get issued the one paled temperature is paled for the same scope of work. apparently, we have a 2,000 and i think -- 18 permit issued prior for the remodel of the entire interior of the 3 levels. during that period, we were waiting for this permit to get issued the planner went several times to look at field conscience. got multiple permits to open the front facade to see what the siding was behind the front facade so we can rebelicate historic fabric. looked at the conscience of the roar they are in pretty bad shape but allows the pel mitt to move forward.

permit was issue said. clients started to do work on the back prior to the permit issue analysis the plan checker was supposed to approve it and pass it on after he did his review. took another month for the permit to be issued. they did work, opened the back and found damage in the back. removed that structure and replaced it. the current permit in the process for. additional removal of work and modification of windows, still needs the permit exterior demolition policy. and building -- 30 seconds. >> um -- can i finish my sentence. you have 30 seconds. building the looking at the interior and exterior. this building had a pitched roof on temperature and had a fire the top floor was reframed at the roof level and some of the

walls toward the fronts were reframed. planning is looking at the demolition to see whether demolition policy meets the requirement. rehab is what they are after here. thank you. >> we have a request from president swig. >> was work done without a permit? that changed the condition of the significantly change the conditions at the structure? >> work was done before the permit was issued by 2 weeks. okay. and basically they were following it was done to answer your question went envelope that was looked at by the previous plantory see and -- clearing that. >> you answered my question. >> okay, commissioner trasvina has a question as well. >> thank you for your testimony. i have a question, you know the

city department requested a continuance for this matter. will there be no work done during that period of time? >> there is 2018 permit that is issued and still active and alive and there is barricades done on the back portion, which was recommended to us by the building inspection division to put up so we don't do work toward the back which is part of the appeal of the permit is about. and the additional work done back there. the work on interior under the 2019 permit is moving forward. barricades are up. >> so, is your floo know continue work if there is a continuance. >> they will they are working on rough plumbing and electric in the areas not associated to the

rear portion. >> commissioner trasvina it was suspended but permitted work under other permits. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the appellate mr. spencer gosch. and mr. long we will not give a 30 second warning you will hear a chime had you have 30 seconds left. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. thank you for your time. i'm spencer gosch i live behind the property. and i'm the appellate. and -- i don't understand why the department wants a continuance she is talking about a separate perimism i don't get that connection. why should that permit delay discussing this permit? i'm not. >> you should address the board

yu are opposed to the continuance. >> that's my kirb don't understands the tie in it seems like they are two separate animals. so -- and -- i don't know that i have you know specific objection to trying to get. i have an objection, it is another serial permit instead of filing a permit i repeatedly asked for to consolidate the permits to one. they said get another permit and confuse the story more. i don't understand with planning why this newer per mir has anything to do with the permit i'm appealing tonight. if it has nothing to do with the permit i'm appealing i would assume going ahead if we can role this in a master permit so

to address this as one project instead of 8. not unreasonable am but i'm not i don't understand the reason for the delay. so -- i will lodge my argument i would prefer to go on with tonight's appeal. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> is there public comment. raise your hand. >> i'm sorry. commissioner trasvina has a question, mr. gosch. >> i'm sorry. >> thank you. >> yes, sorry, sir. >> thank you for your testimony i will ask the flip side of the question i asked the permit holder, are you harmed by him continuing on the work that is unrelated the permit you are appealing? >> during the 2 week

continuance? i prefer they upon stop and -- you know they are hammering out there today. and i asked matt to stop them the department will not do it. and the serial permitting is a problem in that. you whack them you put stop one, we'll work on another permit. of >> it is not the way things should be done >> sprieb the harm you have by the department's request for continuance, if any. >> hum. i don't think i'm harmed i can make the next appearance but i don't understand the tie in with the new and old permit. but -- tina can explain it. >> any public comment on this item. >> i don't see public comment. so this is -- submitted for your

consideration. reschedule a continuance request. >> i have 2 questions for miss tam. can you talk about the 2 separate permits and i don't know can you explain that a bit. and i will ask the second question, second. >> thank you. tina tam from planning. the permit that is schedule terror phone's hearing is for work related to windows, stairs, siding, a new deck at the back, new set of spiral stairs to the roof deck; which is also new. and i'm not aware familiar with all the other permits that's on the property.

>> okay. >> thank you. >> second question, if we were to grant a continuance tonight what options are available to planning that could approximate terribly change this permit as issued? >> thank you, that's an interesting question. it is hard to say now. i'm work width project planner reviewing the plans. we want to make seer there is not an illegal demolition of a historic streshth. we have guide lines about how much you can remove to consider an alteration versus a demolition. should it go beyond the threshold of the alteration and becomes a demolition then a new set of reviews are required >> what would happen to the per mitt as issue federal this determination were to be made? >> would go back to dbi and ask for a sort of -- revocation.

or ask the architect to submit a new permit and plans immediately. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners the matter is submitted. >> any other commissioner comments or questions. anybody else? i think this is obviously has been a complicated project. there are some misdeeds and ambiguteies this will give an opportunity for plan to get arms around a new and fresh set of plans to make sure to reconcile issues that are available. the concement of adding 2 weekos the project given the length of time it has been going on and given it is in the midst will of other things going on does not seem to provide significant harm to the project sponsor,

appellate has indicate thered is no duress on his part t. is wise so you can present us with a clean slate and clarity and in your point of view that we postpone action on this hearing for a couple weeks. >> my only question to planning, do you have are we for september 7 or should it be september whatever a later date in question. >> no question. sir. >> thank you i think we would have an update by september 7th. >> you will be -- i don't want to you have to come back and say, we need another week or 2, when we could give you that buffer zone for a week or 2 which would not cause serious harm to the project.

>> this. kinds and considerate, i think we are okay with 7. >> we may want to check with the architect as well. i think he's supposed to submit revised drawings and make sure he will be ready. >> are those drawings. i thought they were submitted already? >> okay. >> i need an extra week. i don't have a problem with that i was protect your interests and making sure everything is -- has been delivered clearly and you need to be here to represent yourself. no duress than another week, you are the representing the sponsor. >> september 7th does not work. i have to double -check the date is that something i can call you back. >> we need to decide now. can you check your calendar september 7th that's the proposed date otherwise we have

september 14 and september 28. is that the date i talk to i think about 14th before. >> sorry i don't remember. >> let's just take september 14th i think that is the date you and i talked about over the phone. >> okay. >> that's your ideal. i don't think i will be back before the 7th. we have to make sure with appellate and planning that assessment 14th is okay. >> okay. >> thank you. >> yes. >> matthew green d. building inspection. i will be away on september 14th and i have done research and familiar with this, if it is not too late september 28. >> september 28 work for everyone?

>>. okay thank you. it will work. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will make a motion to continue to september 28. >> i make that motion. >> a motion from president swig to continue this appeal to september 28th on that motion commissioner lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye >> commissioner chang. why aye >> the appeal is continued to september 28. we are now moving on to item 1 this is the election of the vice president position. you know the term for vice president expired and her seat was filled by commissioner trasvina we need to elect a violent. are there members who would like to nominate a colleague or themselves for office. joy love to nominate commissioner chang but a term of

a week probably would be disfunctional for this group watch my respects i would like to nominate commissioner lopez for that position. >> okay. >> are there other nominations for this office? >> okay. and commissioner lopez would you be willing to serve as vice president. >> i would be. >> great. >> is there public comment on this motion. raise your hand. i don't see public comment. so -- on the motion from president swig to elect commissioner lopez as the new vice president, commissioner lopez? >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> yes. >> commissioner lemberg. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> that motion carries 5-0 and congratulations vice president lopez. >> okay. we are move to item 2. general public comment this is an student for anyone who would

like to speak in the jurisdiction but that is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here for general public comment. raise your hand. i don't see any general public comment. we will move to item 3 commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioners, any comments and questions? >> yes , sir. >> no. >> yes. i like to start by thanking my fellow commissioners for the support for the vp position and i look forward to serving that capacity. i also missed the last meeting. and so i wanted take this opportunity to welcome commissioner trasvina, very excited work along side you in this capacity. and also you know could not get a chance to thank former

commissioner lazarus for her service. and if there is justice in this world she is not listening to this now. i like to turn to the record and appreciation for her many years of service. it was a pleasure to serve along side her. that's it for me. >> thank you very much. other commissioners have comments tonight? >> okay. >> move forward >> is there public comment on this item. raise your hand. >> okay. i don't see public comment. we will move on to item 4 the adoption of the minutes commissioners before you for discussion other minutes of july 27, 2022 meeting commissioner tras vino reached out about a correction to his comments in item 2 on page one where it says, the chair of the rules commit eat board of supervisors and supervisor peskin should say, the board of supervisors and chair of the rules committee

supervisor peskin. he would like that changed. and so if the minutes are adopted i node a motion to adopt as meanted by commissioner tras vino. >> i move to adopt the minutes. >> any public comment on this motion. i don't see any public comment. we have a motion from commissioner lemberg to adopt the minutes amended by commissioner trasvina. commissioner lopez. >> aye. >> commissioner trasvina. >> ayech >> commissioner chang. >> air. >> president swig. >> aye. >> that motion carries 5-0 and minutes are adopted. we are moving on to items number 5. >> and had is appeal 22-048. cernel cernelaly and company.

appealing the issuance on june 14th of public work's order revocation of sidewalk. issueed 166 cafe incorporated at 16th street fronting 2295 market street for trash enclosure. public works and mandelman's office got numerous complaints. the conditions for permit issuance changed at 2295 market and no need for a trash encos lure this is 20690 and hear from the appellate first and i believe he is here via zoom welcome. you have 7 minutes.

your video is not on. [inaudible] there i have a couple issues with the original documentation or the dates on this file. [inaudible] 186 cafe not in operation since 2015. there was a new tenant in 2016. i confirmed with them they were servicing [inaudible] at the location of the trash enclosure on 16th street until march of 2020.

we were able to the tenant who was there -- moved out in march of 2021. and we signed a new lease with a new restaurant starting july first. of this year. so it was vacant for awhile we have a new tenant there and attempt to open a new restaurant. white unit was vacant, we completed the [inaudible] completed the restoration of the mural on the 16th street side. and incorporate in the that mural is the trash enclosure it is painted to include this the mural. the i can provide the

documentation of the new tenant. a lease agreement with them. we have i have work orders and invoices surrounding additional lighting we added to the 16th street side of the property clearing out of the trash enclosure when we were made aware that it was used for storage. or illegal use for storage. and -- the new restaurant, essentially the new restaurant need a trash enclosure to -- keep operating as a clean restaurant or start operating as a clean restaurant. owner paid the encroachment fee each year since [inaudible] to dheep with the property.

that's our case and at the june 14th meeting we asked for a 90 day extension of the deadline denied so we were attempting and close to signing the sweets for july first. we did not get that 90 day extension. we signed the lease and like to keep the trash enclosure. that's it. >> thank you we have a question from commissioner lemberg. >> thank you for your testimony. my question is, you stated that the the new tenant moving signed a lease starting july first has that tenant physically moved in the space now it is august 17th? >> they have possession of the space, they are going through the process of purchags the

restaurant equipment. holding permits and getting designs together. they took possession of the space on july first. they have not to my knowledge they have not started the actual work in there. of re -- remodeling the kitchen and the interior space. it is -- signed up for a 5 year lease with two-5 year options. >> do you have an estimate when a business might open in that space for actual operation? i was told by the i could give you a ballpark i could pull up the e mail. i talk to the tenant a week and a half ago. and he said he was look to open

within the month. commissioner trasvina has a. question. >> thank you for your testimony. if is the -- new tenant or owner now maintaining the enclosure? >> yes. >> is there visitable difference in the enclosure and surrounding area on the sidewalk? >> a massive change with the mural completion and a massive change if i can share my screen i can show you a photo of the mural completion. >> i'm not so much interested in the mural aspect butt complaint is it attracts a lot of things

that we upon don't want on the sidewalk >> right. >> and to me a garbage enclosure is a good thing for a restaurant. and it has side affects. i wonder whether now have you a tenant in there and the owners obligation to deal with the side affects. >> yes. they are aware of the issue. i can't speak to what is going on at 1 or 2 a.m. during the day, it -- my knowledge it is clear and clean and -- and -- we installed lighting to light up the area at night. whether -- i don't possession of

trash enclosure they are servicing it. i don't think they are using it fully yet but it is part of their lease. the only other question now is if your appeal is denied, and the restaurant moved in, are you back asking for an another enclosure. >> yes. >> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> president swig as a question. >> yep. i have to call to your attention that we did not receive a brief from you. is there a reason for that? and after you answer that i will explain why. >> i was not aware i was not

aware that i needed to send one i was presenting our appeal. >> okay. it is customary behavior and i'm sorry were not made aware you were expected to prepare a brief when a brief is not prepared, by an appellate or another party, it places this body in an extreme disadvantage we had to walk in unprepared -- to be able top support and evaluate your case properly. i have to call that to your attention. i'm not pickingow or being singling you out. anybody who didn't prepare a brief in anticipation for one of our hearings, gets the same comment. i have to go on the records for that. and in fact in truth, it does not really help us out a lot.

and therefore does not help you out a lot. >> want to let you know. >> in thank you. >> thank you, vice president lopez. >> excuse me. >> thanks. thanks for your statements. i think i'd like to ask about commentses that have been submit instead record about third party looks on the enclosure. you know not managed or operated by yourself or your tenants and rodent infestination that is allegedly affecting neighboring properties. i ask because you know the point about the lights in the evening obviously you are not there. . to monitor the space 24/7. lights are a valuable

remediation to address some of the activity. things like the looks, addressing the potential infestation of those things, you can do during working hours and maintain a better environment. wonder if you can speak to those items that have been submitted. >> i have an invoice from may of 2022 when we found out that the look that was on the trash enclosure was not ours to remove if. we installed new clasp and look. >> and -- to my knowledge that resolved the issue. in -- all right april 28.

we replaced the look on the garbage enclosures. >> could you speak to any rodent infestation? >> um -- no. not in the enclosure itself. no. >> thank you. >> we have a question from president swig. >> no. >> okay. >> thank you. so we will move on to am the department of public works. >> i believe mr. rivera is present via zoom. welcome you have 7 minutes. >> good afternoon, commissioners. on december 17th, 2013 encroachment permit for enclosure was issued to cafe inc. doing business on market street. the encroachment was for a trash

enclosure on 16th street side of the property. and even though the bar closed in 20 upon 15, the property owner did condition paying the assess am fees for the encroachment permit. encroachment permits are governed by san francisco public work's code. the code allows anyone to petition public works to revoke an encroachment permit n. this case on february ninth of 22. supervisor mandelman submitted a letter to public works for consideration revoking this permit. this request was due to on going reports and complaints related to public health and safety. since july 2018, there have been 1, 300 reports to 311 for this location. presence of needles and human

waste. open fire, encampments and hiding for the sale of drugs. supervisor mandelman office provide de feo sxoes threap 11 complaints. public works review the the documents and received no evidence indicating the trash enclosure had continued to issue used for the intended purpose. on march 8, 2022 public works sent an all right to the property owner of market requesting the removal of the trash enclosure within 30 days. no action was taken and not notified that the mural would be updated at that point. on april of 22 public works considered the relocation of the permit.

the final result will with recommendation by hearing officer to revoke the permit of may 20 of 22, public works notified the owner and the representative of the decision to revoke the permit. at this point, public work system requesting that the board of appealsup hold the position based on not received any evidence showing that the enclosure used for the intended purpose after the permit was issued. >> thank you. were you finished. >> okay. i don't see questions. we have a question from commissioner trasvina. >> thank you for your present agsz. on the last point are you saying that the enclosure has never been used or not used by the after the first tenant left?

>> correct. our information is after the first tenant left in 2015 has not been used with issue [inaudible] we have not received documentation it has been used since then. >> and you mentioned in the supervisor's letter mentioned 1300 complaints or since 2018. it sounds like your department has not done anything about it until 2022. at this point according to mr. vogel, there is about to be a tenant to go in who would use temperature i wonder in terms of the delay whether the delay whether or not the revocation is addressing a problem that has

been on going. not necessarily by the because of the enclosure but is being abated? some of it. i wonder yet department did not act earlier? >> so, yes, so the department is large as you know. and so the bureau of streets the revocation process not start until with -- the letter of february ninth. however the department did has gone along with the police department and another agencies for clean and up things of this nature removal of encampments. and part of what was taken in account was the current use of the enclosures. so -- right now what happens is

if a company or00 although wants to add an enclosure tell contact the public works one team they investigate the site and verify there is no modifications to the buildings that are presenting the placement of the trash cans went building. this is number one place ideally it is in the building in the back where tell not -- you know be in conflict with food. and otherwise, if they finds there is no space they recommend looking into will trash enclosure that is the recommendation for the new business to work with one team and after they have their set up for their building and business that they work weapon one team to see and verify that there is

a need for an enclosure outside of the property. >> just ask one more question. if the need existed under the prior tenant and the department found that the enclosure did not impede upon the traffic on the sidewalk, it only took up 10% of the sidewalk area whashgs is the likelihood that it would not reach same conclusion? it would depend on the set up on the inside if they say we will use the same set up internally chances are that it would come to the same conclusion. on the other hand if they remodeled it internally now there is space the new set up does allow for space inside the structure. you know that would change things. . >> thank you. >> thank you. president swig has a question.

>> sure. thanks commissioner trasvina you set up my paradigm. in public works section 723.2a it says in the section related whether they put in an encroachment overwhelm such encroachments are convenient with the owners use and enjoyment of the property and it says or required for the safety, convenience and comfort of the public using the sidewalk. the argument you presented they are all good arguments that -- it would have to do with how the of interior was set and up whether a need to no place to put the garbage cans. and so i understand that fully as the reason for an

encroachment to be considered. then you take into account other half will what i read required for safety of the public using the sidewalk and -- and now it seems because this is the root of this appeal or the situation from supervisor mandelman is that that encroachment is impeding the safety, convenience and comfort of the public using the sidewalk. while my question is, while you are evaluating the inside, will are you will also evaluating the outside? when this permit was authorized initial low, the conditionos the street outside may have been completely different. may not have been homeless encampments. may not have been drug dealing. may not have been are problems and nobody thought that the fact

my goodness putting in this encroachment no harm because it helps the restaurateur who is trying to operate his business. yet condition when is in this case, while you are evaluating the inside needs are you also evaluating the outside needs. which will relate to the issues of safety, convenience and comfort of the public. and that preclude or might that have a result on your thinking of whether to continue the storage unit which would provide an encroachment? >> yes. >> am i clear. yes, you are. >> and yes that is taking in consideration the same section further down 723.2c, allows the

director to take in consideration of several items of that nature. location, neighborhood pattern and traffic. you know -- active bite fire department or emergency services. the one change would be the first step and would look at what is going on internally. and -- we would have to work at that point moving forward if tomorrows there is not that much space would look at the neighborhood and neighborhood patterns. are there other buildings like this and what is happening there. . and pedestrian traffic as well. they are 2014 the neighborhood changed. there may be more period of timeos in this area. during the day or at night.

which the reduction in clear path of travel. would be an issue we looked at. >> it is appropriate to look as a changed condition. one is -- the change of the restaurant ococcupant second the street conditions today versus 2013. and those changing of conscience the change in restaurant and the changing of the street conscience should impact our review of whether to allow this permit to continue or not. correct. >> correct. that's kreshth. >> okay. >> thank you. >> commissioner chang has a question. >> thank you.

i was curious about whether or not there has been sufficient improvement that occurred. it seems like there are a lot of immediate concerns and nuisances around this permit for the encroachment. and if the permit can be granted, is it public to revoke and regrant upon evidence that the interior conditions changed such that it you know it is determined that -- the concern people raised might be addressed. i wonder if that would be a happy medium to quickly and immediately address the issues at hand or also allowing room for mitigating the -- benefit or benefits of having the enclosure

which the commissioners see for restaurants and operators. >> are you asking if the current permit modified? >> my understanding is that the d. public work system recommending that we grant the permit and allow it to continue. so -- and there is a lot of public comment for the revocation for all of the reasons that have been described and my question is, is if possible to revoke the permit. remove the nuisance and allow for the operator to establish itself. improve interior and then regrant the permit later. or a mechanism under the existing per notice done it is immediately removed the intearior conditions changed t. is reinstalled once conditions

improve that it is a way to address both sides of the parties. >> public works is recommending the permit be revoked. we recommended it be revoked. we do acknowledge that pretty much what you were reasonable doubting of that. the new business can apply and work with us. so at this point public works am recommends the permit revoked. closure removed because the permit is no long are valid and there can be a new application from the new business. for a new enclosure if needed and at that time during that application, during the review process, you look at both the intearior of the building and the interior condition special if there are other options for

this enclosure. >> got it. >> forgive my misunderstanding. >> okay. thank you. we are now moving on to public comment. if you are hear raise your hand. and i do see that ms. jackie thornhill aid to supervisor mandelman is here. to provide public comment. welcome you have 3 minutes. >> thank you. good evening i'm jackie thornhill the legislative aide to supervisor mandelman. i have been responsible for drafting occurrence related to the encampments and behavior at this location. for almost a year now. i'm here to speak on behalf of supervisor mandelman and support of uphelding the decision to revoke the upon permit. this space has been vacant for 2 scombreers vacant over 700, 911

calls and 3 huh human-311 calls made. at the request of the office dozens of resolutions. steam cleaning and city service administered there. the trash blocks the site line on market creating an area where people feel comfortable engage nothing behavior that is unarc tenable for residents of the neighborhood. enclosure used to support unpermitted structures within which use requires use of open flames around the clock creating a fire risk. this afternoon i witnessed a group next to the enclosure bbqing with an open flame. we have been no reason to believe at this time improve even if this new tenant opens a restaurant. we have been provided no restaurant a restaurant cannot store trash cans in the space

and will work to consider options given the renovations that may be under way soonful any time the city sees a portion of public right-of-way on the condition of use of space should not pose a burden to the public. [speak fast] on the public including the surrounding neighborhood and staff of the adjacent library. we are not arguing that trash enclosure placed in the sdrishth would cause the issue this is is caused by the negligence of this specific property owner. there are plenty of sidewalk permits throughout the district. only one a photograph used storage for a local drug dealer photos part of an sfpd investigation. i'm curious why. >> [inaudible] it is important

to the property owner the decision to not submit a brief is [inaudible]. in summary this property neglected for years. tenants needing turn and vac analysisy and the sick months since we requests, the property owner yet to submit evidence that the enclosure is necessary for tenants. >> thank you. understanding removed. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> your time is up >> okay we'll hear from [inaudible] go ahead. p shamland. you have to unmute. >> okay. my family owns the property at 2279 market street. which is adjacent to the subject property. we have ownd that since 1941.

so, we [inaudible] paint business there until 2021 and work in the the business for 31 years. i have seen goings on of that property all my life. there have been restaurant in that space. and they have operated without the need for an exterior enclosure for garbage. the property was remodeled in the 70s, after the new york city del moved out in the 70s. and increased their space and size and they put their garbage outside. before they got the encroachment they put the cans on the sidewalk. i don't see a need for it.

there is a lot of collateral damage that affected our building by we had rodent infestation, dodge our property it is worse when the encampments cropped up they have gone from the corner of 16th and market upon down and on to our property. and -- lighting we have tried lighting we have lighting in the back of our building. it does not do anything. it helps to gives people light to set up things. has the reverse affect. and -- just to finish jackie's point about the mural. she did say that the mural is does not have a problem if that enclosure is there or not.

they will take the rest mural on to the building if necessary. the enclosure does not become part of the building because the mural has been painted on to it. >> so, again, i would like to reiterate i'm in favor of the revocation. >> also. adjacent space in the corner building 2283 they could 2285 or whatever if than i want one there they could do something internal low and increase the space and have garbage there. is there further comment on this item. raise your hand. >> i don't see public comment we will move on to rebuttal. you have 3 minutes.

>> i'm here. one seconded. >> as far as documentation provided to mr. mandelman's office, i -- don't know why we have to reapply for a permit that already exists because. internal structure of the property. it was approved 9 years ago. nothing changed the presence of homeless is not his problem behind our property the lights we added at the advice of the police department. but it is also an issue across

the street and down 15th it is the not trash enclosure that is the problem. i see how it is contributing but it is -- there is like 50 feet of homeless encampments and this trash enclosure is 10 feet long at most. and we have it written in the lose they can take care of the entire property at all times and provide servicing the area. they will be securing the treasure enclosures and will be responsible for it. and -- it is not vacant anymore. i don't know. i'm saying. that's the main problem.

so -- i'm happy to provide whatever information is need but. you know i provide a cover sheet for the lose in my appeal. i provided and provide other do you meanation in the appeal application. i was under the impression that was forwarded to this body. so. there is an opportunity to provide more information i'm happy top do so. otherwise, that's what i upon got. >> thank you. a question from president swig. >> go on. um -- with regard to the use of the trash enclosure are you aware obviously it is the restaurant is vacant for years now. there is no current history. but under the previous -- lease,

do you know how often the trash was removed from the enclosure under their tenure? >> i don't -- i didn't check that i did check whether it was -- where trash was serviced and when there was an account active and there was not one active from 2016 to 20. what their service -- the details of the service i don't have the details >> okay. the reason i asked is simple low -- that if someone can give 3 days that may have been had the nodes for outside trash enclosure if the service was increased to a daily service. that might have been the need and so it was an upon

convenience of the lesz leasee and the operator of the restaurant. they wanted costs reduced binot getting garbage removed every day. there may not be a need at all for the enclosure and daily service. does this ring a bell. >> no. that does not the nature of the space is that the entrance for the restaurant is on market around the corner. there is no back entrance for the restaurant of, the kitchen. the whole last 30 feet of the space is kitchen space. dollar is no space to store trash cans inside the restaurant. and i assume it has been like

that since 2013. >> have you been owner since 2013. >> we haven't representatives for this owner since 2018. >> so, you are the manager on behalf of the owner. >> yes. there really is -- limited history because of the this restaurant closed in 2020, your experience is 24 months long. as operating the restaurant. >> yes before that time, had the [inaudible] covid -- we were not made aware of any major issue with trash enclosure.

>> yes. >> okay. >> may have another but let mr. commissioner [inaudible] ask his question. >> thank you, president swig, mr. boggel. supervisor mandelman in his letter and through the testimony of his aid describes 700, 911 calls. 1300, 311 calls over a long period of time. not sure whether they are all associated with your address or whether they are associated with the operation there. but it is in the general area. i am wondering if you can describe what your interaction with the police department or with supervisor mandelman's office about these complaints. i get the picture that it has

been an unresponsive owner. i want to get your side of whether that is the case. >> a representative from the police department approached me a year ago. i can pull up his name and information but to talk to me about the problem. and we discuss today at length. we talked about adding lighting and talked about re -- storing the mural. talked about upon um -- getting [inaudible] in there. and we cooperated. there was resistance because the entire building was vacant and the owner had to pay to have a nonpaying 10 analysis come to an agreement with a nonpaying tenant to give up their lease.

and -- we working with him we did add the lighting. we did start the process to restore the mural. i worked with jacky thornhill on these issues. and we moved them forward. i was responsive to her report that the trash enclosure was used as storage. so -- i would not say my response providing details of the building or lease -- you know, i would not say private information of the restaurant the new restaurant owner but -- we had a dialogue throughout the whole process. >> thank you.

>> thank you. we will hear from public works. mr. rivera you have 3 minutes. >> thank you i don't have much to add. just to bring up the fact again that we have no documented evidence showing use of the enclosure since 2015. after the original restaurant closed. it is not being used as a trash enclosure. and -- this point we than businesses remodel or -- remodel the interior and worth take another look at it. revoke the upon current the existing encroachment and look in a new permit. that's all we have for now. >> thank you. we have a question from president swig. >> when there is a renewal of

encroachment or requirement to renew the encroachment permit, do you look at it as a clean slate. and look at it as the renewal of a permit based on the terms and conscience you allow a new encroachment structure? or do you just althoughly arc assume it is rubber stamped because it has been there forever. >> a continuation of the encroachment. the encroachment permit allow the use of the public right-of-way. there is an assumption that it is continued to be used permitted purposes. whatever it may be. and you know the assess am is for a fee for the area.

being used. >> what i'm getting hung up and i'm sorry to belabor the point, is in 2013 you had 2 sets of conscience. one, you had a different restaurant with different needs and that restaurant was abandon. and at that point, there was the assumption by the leaser the owner, that what was there in the first place could continue and that is -- no attempt at finding space for the trash. and -- then you go to a new tenant come in and new set of circumstances and new conscience because a new tenant and no effort to find a place for the garbage cans. on the outside you had a

condition in 2013 where the city in general changed conscience. or the opioid and homeless crisis. and the upon general street conditions changed. the evaluations the evidence of the conditions to allow the structure were different in 2013 or they had changed by the time it was a replace am tenant. so -- and i go back to the know 723.2a. this seems to have to have an encroachment you have to satisfy 2 masters. one, satisfy the convenience of the permit holder or the owner

of the building and two, assist needs of the public who may be negative low impacted bite existence of the encroachment. i want to know, how you are restling with temperature that's my question. >> [inaudible]. . yes, when were there is an issue there is an assumption that the existing condition continue. right? would we look at this in any other kachls yes. follow it was bruto our attention. but for the most part. public works does continue with the assumption the original conditions are still static and unless bruto our attention that we node to look at it for a certain issue. it carries on every year as a

renewal. >> so in fact, if the changing condition is the new issue that brings us here tonight it is the changing condition on the outside and the venals to the public that is hayou are basing your revocation of the permit on? >> that's correct. both the change of condition in the use as far as it being used as a trash enclosure and the safety and convenience to the public. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i see your hand is raised you have no further time to address the board. so commissioners. this matter is submitted >> commissioners? >> can i hear and start with commissioner lopez? >> i'm inclined to deny the appeal. i feel like upon the order is

probably several years over due. based on the condition and -- apparent lack of active management of the encroachment. i think once we talk about thousands of complaints and calls the public is entitled to see action as a result of that. and in my minds, having a fresh look at the need for encroachment based on -- the entrance of00 autonew tenant, which you know it is will still you know very early in their new tenancy. and you know there can be delays or changes in their plans. i would not want to i would like

to deal with the known problem in front of us. and not a potential solution which could never come. that's how i'm inclined to see things. >> thank you, commissioner trasvina. >> thank you i'm inclineed greet with vice president lopez but i'm concerned that like in my first meeting a lot of the case before us come from a lack of communication. over -- a period of time. among neighbors with agencies and property owners and permit holders. which is why i asked about what has been the interaction and what in has been the response from the property owner as well as from the tenants? it is obvious that this is gone for a long time this is not

caused by the encroachment. the encroachment would help cleanliness and help pick up of garbage and reduce rodents. this area; i'm concerned the small business owner here the tenant struggling restaurant for the serial tenants are being remember escape goated but pointed to as the problem. i condition imagine that simply getting rid of this encroachment will improve the conditions that the neighbors and others and the people who want to use the sidewalk have. so, let's i don't think this is the best way of handling the conditions on that sidewalk.

but -- i believe as commissioner lopez and vice president lopez and you mr. president have stated, it is within the authority of the department to revoke a permit and change conditions and at this points it probably is appropriate for the new tenant when we see new circumstances arc rise with the new tenabilities to then revisit the promoteness of an encroachment and the type and the a real commitment to making sure that it is not negligently cared for. i would support the motion along the lines what vice president lopez describes >> commissioner lemberg. i share the views of my fellow commissioners.

i'm personally familiar this property i live admit castro and one of my other hats as president of the eureka valley association and received commranlts busy this encrotchment as well. in addition to the complaints to 311 and supervisor mandelman's office. the fact is this has been a problem for years at this points. and this backside of the building on 16th is the most intractable and dangerous locations in the central part of the city. and but based on what is before us which san order from dpw stating that the encroachment permit should be revoked i see no reason not to uphold that

decision. commissioner chang. echo my fellow commissioners statements. >> anybody like to make a motion. >> commissioner lopez? gi move to deny the appeal on the basis that the public works order was properly other thanked. >> we have a motion from vice president lopez deny on the basis it was properly issued, commissioner trasvina. >> yes >> commissioner lect bedroom >> aye >> commissioner chang. >> >> president swig. >> aye >> that carries 5-0 and appeal is denied. we are moving on to item 7. this is appeal 22-053. 945-947 minnesota street. appealing the issuance on june

to patrick gallagher. a denial of referiard vaerns to establish 2 off street parking space. the proposal does not meet the 5 findings required by planning section 3053 to grant a variance this is 202101139 one we will hear from the appellate first. mr. gallagher you have 7 minutes. >> have you read my brief? i took everything he said line by line. initially i was told that 9517 did not apply. in the very screening process. i have here. it dictates 9517 does apply to this project. i checked with the board of supervisor office and they agree 9517 is the rule of law for this

project. furthermore, in the very beginning when i pulled permits, back in 2018, planning was a help then. they informed me if you did a voluntary seismic retrofit under ab94 when you went to apply for the ad u, it would be expedited and the language of 094, shall be expedited. in the meantime, public works approved it, belling approved and hung up on planning. and what planning has done in the past is said that is the reariard you can't park in the year yard. it is in the the rear yard it is the sidewalk configuration. this is lot number one. and block 6000a. the first house built.

it is not built like the other homes after. it was built in 1907. so, the lot guess side ways down maple. back is avalon. what planning did was said the front of the house was avalon and the back was naples. you can't say that and have it be true because it is in the the house base is naples the drive is naples the driveway has been there since 1907. i finally convinced them that they agreed. 9517 is the governing rule firefighter your project. okay. but we don't allow park nothing rear yard. and no more discussion they hangup. that's what they respond with the e mail and the variance hearing that is how it went. we don't allow park negligent rear and hung up. here is when they get hung up on. i have 9517 in fronts of me,

okay. so -- the b. page sxeven top of page 8 this is the statute. i will read the whole thing we will take it line by line, okay. it says. no parking is required no park suggest required for the ad u. if existing park suggest demoed

to construct the ad u only the parks space required for the existing single family home must be replace said. if replacement ping is required, it may be located of in any configuration on the lot including but not limited to covered, uncovered tandem or mechanical autolifts. go back to the bottom of page 7 this is the part. i will leave that there for u. the part we get hung occupy in planning. the very beginning. no parking required. what they have been doing is they cuts it off after, required. no parking is required the application cannot be turned down for electric of parking.

it goes on to say you can park there. so -- the second sentence if existing ping is demolished. it was demolished. a 2 story over a basement of the what was there some time back was a tandem garage on the avalon side and another barn door on the nappel's side that stuff got cut out. poured new footings, 8 inch by 3-4 feet tall. upon and then we just put a chase wall in front of the old door. i pointed that out to the inspectors. everybody was find with it.

so -- existing parking was demolished per ad u. further park suggest required -- can be in any configure az on the lot. i'm asking it be put back where it was. i have photos showing where the driveway used to be. and sometime somebody fill today in and it was not a good job. it was a terrible job. you can seat cold joint and you see where they filled in where the ramp used to be and it is just -- concrete out of a bag. that is my point i could show you the photos.

over head, please. if you look. jury room that's curb. on this curb -- that is a metal nosing. and all the san francisco curbs have them. that metal is split there. this is the cold joint. if you can -- here. you see the difference in the concrete. okay. my left foot is, it is nice and normal like most of san

francisco sidewalks. right it is a bunch of sacked concrete. was not a professional job. not a good job >> mr. gallagher you will have time in rebuttal your familiar time is up now. thank you. we have a couple questions first from commissioner lemberg and president swig. >> thank you, mr. gallagher. i have a few questions, do you live at this property. >> no. >> second question, what happened to the old driveway on the property and how long has it been since that driveway has been in uchlts person i bought it from said the niche next door had kids or helpers, fill in that driveway. and this was in 2016.

>> you mentioned there was a former parking structure or a former tandem garage? what happened to that garage. >> turned into a bathroom and bedroom. >> okay. this would have been in the 70's. >> okay. it there has not been a parking spot since the 70s. no they have been park negligent back. but this use is not permit, is that correct? as far as i know -- like i said the house was built in 1907 they have been parking there for 115 years did they ask for a permit i doubt it i don't even think the house is permitted we are talking 1907. >> okay. thank you. >> president swig.

>> before i ask the question i want to clarify from yourself. executive director, is this a related to a variance appeal? and therefore does the will appellate have to address the 5 findings for variance. >> correct. >> are you aware of that. >> i addressed those in my brief. >> for the record tonight it will help you would you please go finding by finding and please tell this panel how of finding by finding. this is how we make our decision we have no wiggle room. >> i will use this light so when i have good light i can see.

so finding one, there are exceptional circumstances in this property first off, it is in the the rear it is the side. driveway face naples. and second this is where the driveway always was. without allowing the driveway to be put back there is no place to park off street. both 9517 and sb9 give me the right to park there it statute law. it is clear. and sb9 says i have one space per unit there are 2 units i should be allowed 2 space. the second part of that, is that they denied at this time first time they said i had to maintain 30 feast rear yard. and that those that driveway

would encroach on the 30 feet but it does not. that side yard is 56 feet wide. i'm asking for 12. so -- there are extraordinary circumstances. the first one. >> finding two. it is the same, there are exceptional s and off street parking is needed. keep in minds that who move in there they will have at least 2 cars probably 3. so going to point -- i would have to skip to point 5 that will be taken away the space from the public they would gain one to 2 space fist i got 2 cars off the street they are losing one spot. if i don't have any off street parking there will be 3 additional spaces taken up on that street. so -- i had to go 1, 2 to 5.

go back to 3. so fining 3, it is absolutely necessary for the preservation and enjoy am of my propertyerate rights. splulths. if you don't have off street parking you mine as well not have a car or scooter or lyft or uber it is absolutely necessary for enjoyment of my private property rights. finding 8. 58. >> 4. >> so -- every house on naples in that neighborhood has off street parking except for me now. and -- i would still have off street park to this day and this is alleged if my neighbor had not fill in the that driveway. nobody would have thought anything of it.

it would assumed it was always there which it was. and there would be no issue here at all. because somebody fill third degree in and not very good. it is in the there anymore. but those are my 5 points. i address every one of them. in my brief. of >> thank you very much. i'm going to ask so i don't my senior memory does not sprent me from remembering. i will ask that planning in their testimony please address the general conversation in the city about the requirement and the need and the reading on whether a residence is required or the whole -- requirement to have parking or not parking. and that discussion.

when you are have a residential structure. because i think there is a misinterpretation or a clarification required. we often and i'm i want to explain this to you, if we were talking about an apartment building this had 17 attentives and no park thering is no >> reporter: to have a parking spot i don't believe this is what i want plan to discuss how planning evaluates need for parking or of the owner's right or not to have parking as part of their lands ownership.

and building occupancy. >> thank you very much >> okay. you can issue seated. >> i had one other thing. have you to in rebuttal. you have rebuttal after >> okay. >> all right >> thank you. we will hear from the planning department. >> thank you tina tam for planning. 200 namel street is a 2 story single family in rh1 zoning. construct in the 1907 it is a historic resource inform 2021 the department received 2 complaints about illegal construction on the property including the illegal second dwelling unit with a full kitchen and illegal ping in the rear yard.

can despite what the owned there is in legal parking on the property. there is in curb cut or driveway. it is important to note that curb cuts other purvow and jurisdiction of department of public works and to date the owner has not provide proof or records from the d. public works for a curb cut on naples. in response to dbi and planning enforce am action the owner submitted plans to legalize the second unit. and legalize the ping in the required rear yard. the parking is entirely in the required rear yard the last 30 feet of the property a year yard variance is required. on november ninth, 2021 the owner submitted a variance application to legalize the park. may 26 of twroo the zoning administrator held a public hearing on the variance and on

july 27, 2022, issued a variance decision letter denying the variance request. the base i for denial is the parking does in the meet the 5 findings required out lined in section 305c of planning. finding number one. not met. there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances applying to this property the property is typical corner lot rectangle in shape. common in size no slope. the property contains no off street parking none is required by planning. finding number 2. not met. the state in finding one there are no extraordinary circumstances result in unnecessary hardship or difficulties the variance is triggered bite owner's desire to add private off street parking not required by planning.

3, not met. most properties in the neighborhood contain usable open space in the required rear yard. off street property in the buildable area of the lot and the variance is not necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of the property right possessed by other properties in the same zoning district. finding 4, not met. mentioned off street park suggest not required for the property. upon granth the variance would create a new curb cut that result in the removal of on street parking available to the general public. and private for a single property. in lastly, finding 5, not met. the park suggest in the consistent with the inupon tent or purpose of the planning code. to promote order leave and beneficial development. the parking will not be in

keeping with the neighborhood character because it it is not typical to park in the required rear yard. the proposal will affect neighborhood parking by removing on street park to provide private park nothing the required rear yard. i understands the appellate is arguing that the park suggest required under the local ad u program ordinance 95-17. no less than 4 different planners have already explained to the owner that off street park suggest in the required for the existing unit on the property or the proposed ad u that is part of the permit. the owner believed ordinance 9517 allows park nothing any configuration on the property including the required rear yard. ordinance does state if existing park suggest demolished murder to construct the ad u, only the

parking space required bite code must be replaced. if riaccomplicement is required it may be any configuration on the lot n. this intagz well is in existing legal or required parking. and furthermore the ad u is in the being constructed in the required rear yard. also important in december of 2018 the board of supervisors pass an ordinance eliminating parking requirements city wide for all uses. thus the park the owner is referring to on his property is considered not required. begin fact the proposal does not meet any of the 5 findings and requirements that you meet all 5. planning is requesting the board deny the appeal andup poled the variance on the base that the proposal does not meet the

planning code. should the owner wish to move forward with the ad u proposal, he has the option to remove parking from the permit. and this direction has been relayed to the owner by multiple planners that concludes my presentation. happy to answer questions. >> thank you. >> we have a request from commissioner trasvina. >> thank you for the department testimoniful you mentioned tht curb cuts are under the purvow department of public works. is the filling in something that we need to approve? and did the department approve it. >> thank you. i believe so i'm not an expert. any time you do work on the public right-of-way this is part of that, you need a permission from the citych >> if there were not permission from the city would it be

present to remove the fill in? and then. >> would have to ask some from public works what the -- requirements would be. >> and when you describe the taking away a parking space. the on street. >> right. the -- access to the on the premesis parking would require taking away on street parking space that now exists? correct? >> of sorry i'm not following. i mentioned. mr. gallagher says he is taking away it is need for 2 or may be 3 cars to park. by seeking this change.

how does that compare to taking away a sparking space? there is no requirement for parking, i understand he desires to provide parkoth site. there is opportunity and options for him to provide parking in the buildable area of the lot. perhaps may be for working space. buff in the required rear yard we are not in support of that. >> and since i'm new if you can indulge me. is it kint to say have you to have a required rear yard and you can't park there? >> yes. required rear yard suspect meant for no development. meant for usable open space. you can't use usable.

use it for open space purposes but parking is not allowed in a required rear yard. >> and one last question, men this may be irrelevant. is there who is harmed by having his park spaces on the premesis rather than the street? from the planning department perspective we would lose on street parking for creation of a new curb cut for ping that would be privatized for a single property. and we would much respiratory see the preservation of on street parking for the general use for the public. >> i'm sorry. i asked -- thank you. one other question.

mr. gallagher is not denied on premesis parking only the rear yard for that purpose? >> that is absolutely correct. >> thank you. >> president swig. >> that's twice you allowed me a good segue. this whole discussion there is the possibility of allowing mr. gallagher parking. and but it is in the where he wants it. >>; is that correct. he wants it in an area it triggers the variance. variance you have to meet all 5 findings. if you put it somewhere they'lls does not trigger the variance there is no need to meet the findings. >> so, this is a case where a variance is required. the department's view is 5 findings are not met, yet, the

department is not preventing mr. gallagher from creating a legal parking space somewhere else on the property? >> that's correct. >> has mr. gallagher been arc veiled of that. >> yes >> what does he do if we fiepdz it does not meet the 5 upon findings and the pel is denied what does mr. gallagher do to gain access to avail himself of that legal parking spot. >> propose a design for altering his building will to allow for parking in the buildable area of the lot. >> okay. so -- great. i'm happy with that answer and good information. thank you. hopeful low good information for

the rest of the commission. >> thank you we will hear from dbi. good evening again. matthew green representing dbi i don't have much to add about the variance but active permits at this address and the notice of violation issued in june of 21. documents the existence of ad u installed without per mist and other violations and act of nov from october 2018 work without permit. dbi hope the permit would proceed with or without the parking so the illegal work can be legalized. i'm available for questions you may have. >> we have a request from vice president lopez. >> hi. thanks for your statement. a bit of a shot in the dark i

know i'm not speaking to dpw, do you have insight on this. point about improperly fill in the curb cut? wondering if you have any >> experience with this and how someone could address that. to fill this a curb cut you need a dpw permit if it was filled in illegally and wanted restore it you will do msh more work you need a dpw permit to reinstall the curb cut. >> thank you. >> we are moving on to public comment. is this public comment on this item. raise your hand. >> i don't see any. we will move to rebuttal. mr. gallagher. >> thanks. has not shown you one law that says no parking is required.

she keeps saying it. this has been the brick wall i run into with planning. i can point out to them all day long 9517 allows me to park there. i want to you have a visual of the property. it it is 100 feet in width the house takes up 44 feet and additional 56 feet off to the side. so -- when she says i can park in the wouldable area that is incorrect i cannot. there is gas lines there. water lines and power lines. so --ive had to have public works come out and mark all that stuff up. and as far as public works is concerned, on this curb cut they are fine they approved it. it approved by building and public works.

it is a matter of record it has been submitted as well as the ad u permit submitted 17 months ago. i pointed out over and over again and where this driveway will go is from left to right the first 12 de feo. there is 88 feet of property. there. from right to left it come out 44 feet there is 56 de feo to the left the buildable area is the first 44 feet on the right there is no access to that it was where the curb was cut and filled in. i checked with public works. nobody applied for a permit to fill in this sidewalk i have shown you it was done unprofessionally the city of san francisco did in the do that work. i have been in commercial construction trade in san

francisco, san francisco [inaudible]. since 1984. i know how things are done in san francisco i never had problems like this before. this whole animosity about 200 naples is got a long history i don't know if you are interested in this but in the very beginning i tried applying for ad u it is a long story i'm not going to get through it. >> it has to do with bernie and santos [inaudible]. they were both indicted on federal fraud and extortion and they were santos was my engineer and his department thinks i ratted him out that's why i hit a brick wall no matter what i do. there was always go to be a [inaudible] we did a yoochlt mr. gallagher. >> thank you mr. gallagher.

it is a long story. >> thank you. we hear from planning department. thank you very much. tina tam for planning. the building permit that is associated with the variance covers the adu and parking. the department concurse with dbi the park negligent roar yard should be eliminated or resunriseed not trigger a variance in order for the component to move forward. it is important to us we address the illegal construction work on the property and the permit we would hope to see that happen. i don't have other further comments regarding the vains but happy to answer questions. >> if denied the appeal and upon

what happens? i'm sorry. >> we deny the appeal, what happens? >> then we -- move forward with asking the applicant to modify his permit. to reflect the outcome of the variance so the parking component of the permit be revised or eliminated. now they are both linked urn one permit. >> right. >> so, that will that can continue urment wo a for example if we shoot down somebody who has a permit they wait for a year or 2 reapply. correct? >> right. we are not asking the permit is

penning with planning. planning has it o hold. for clarification i'm not challenging i got 4 others here who need we gotta have a common understanding of the information. that's what i'm trying to establish. i got a couple folks here who have not been her long. if a this were a per mist and denying the permit and it went away and it would take a year, correct for member to if they wanted reapply to take a year for that they could not do it tomorrow? >> um -- this is in the a permit. i know. if if forget this is just for information. i want context here. i want to show that there is not

other than agreement as the direction. that there is no duress beyond related a big postponement. if this were a clean cut permit that we are approving or not and we denied the permit. upon then what would happen? when account the experience reapply. >> any time will it is a different project. if the same project they have to wait. >> exactly. okay inform this case, photocopy we finds that the 5 findings had not been met. tomorrow, the permit holder or applicant can come to you and

continue the project without postponement. there is in the an additional burden placed on the applicant as there would be if the permit was flat out denied. >> that's correct. >> we have told to the owner appellate. >> okay. many times >> trying to put it in context. and so, what your point is that the 5 findings have not been met and you have proposed to him or advised him that there is an opportunity for thoim have parking on the property but with different terms and conscience and youure advising him that if he wanted parking on the property that it would be a good idea he come become in with a revised set of plans that include the park in fact place that planningment its rather than where he want its.

correct? >> that's correct. >> thank you. we have a question. >> thank you, this is eithered for mr. tam or mr. russy i want to confirm the lack of requirement for parking on the property is governed by planning code 151? is this correct understanding of the requirements as to the property. 151b? i don't will so much it is about parking butt variance is under section 305c. >> thank you. >> commissioner trasvina. >> commissioner trasvina has a question? >> if found the curb cut was not

authorized, rather the filling in of the curb custodies not authorized and the curb cut was restoved would this enable by itself, mr. gallagher to use the premesis for parking? >> tina tam employing i don't think so. curb cuts are a separate issue from encroachment. variances speak nothing terms of what the impacts and adverse affects would be with ping in the required rear yard. yes it has to do with the curb cut being reproposed that would affect on street parking but that is one of the many factors in which we looked at from the variance perspective. not the only thing. >> i'm not seek a variance and i

see the curb cut issue is separate from this proceeding. but now you can't get put a carrot property. without some time curb cut to get on the property, correct? i'm not sure. i mean he is saying he is. >> blocked by sidewalks. >> right. he can use his neighbor's driveway to get on his property. >>. but -- restoring the curb cut if it were improperly put in, would physically allow cars to go on the property. and. you said earlier that -- he has other spaces on the property to park. so -- that would would a

parallel proceeding dealing with the curb cut have a need for the rest now we need to decide but an alternative legal. tune to park on the premesis? >> 2 things i have to see where he puts his new park space if not in the required rear yard and how we will gaffigate getting there to where he is seeing the existing curb cut was. we don't want his whole rear yard usable open space as a driveway, either >> >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. any further from dbi? >> is it working?

to answer the question about the planning code section concerning park requirements that is the section that state there is is no park required in residential zone the lots. the ordinance that the planning department mentioned amended in 2018 to remove parking requirements. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> matthew green. i would like to address mr. gallagher's comments. no. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners matter submitted.

>> commissioners, commissioner chang. start on this side this time thank you. i -- i understand that the challenge before the appellate in this that i think fiunderstand correct low, there is legally a possible location went lot to provide parking went buildable area. without plans it is impossible to determine if this is the existing building will envelope. meaning it would take up occupied residential floor area or if there is enough yard to house like an additional parking spot. if there is i would be an easy solution and i don't think we

would be here. but it seems like that is the challenge is that in order to accommodate an off street parking spot not only there needs to be the reinstallation of what is allege saidly an illegally removed curb cut but perhaps he needs to add an additional floor to ensure that there is space within the buildable envelope. is my assumption. however, having been at planning department it is a long standing policy of the department to not only not require private park but to also general low favor on street parking rather than private parking that is a consistent policy stance from --

the department and i guess my hope there is some ability for the property owner to -- to -- figure out a clever design solution because it -- it does in the seem like the lot is exceptional xr what i gather. for those reasons while i empathize and understand the challenge that is before the contractor i'm inclined to what is the exact thing deny the appeal of the variance decision? up hold the variance on the basis that the 5 planning code have not been met. >> yes. up hold the variance decision on the basis the findings were not met. that's where i stand. >> is there further discussion. >> thoughts. >> i very much agree with

commissioner chang. there likely is a clever design solution that can being reached here. i also want to state for the record thatir don't agree with mr. gallagher's reading of the applicable laws. i believe that section 207, which is ordinance 9517 only requires replacement of a parking spot that is required under the planning code and as city attorney has confirmed there is no requirement under the planning code for a park spot on this property. and similarly sb9, only permits local governments to require that but the fact is san francisco has not required parking in properties like this.

so -- based on that alone and of course the findings presented by planning i would also vote to deny this appeal. >> commissioner trasvina. >> i very reluctantly agree with my 2 colleagues. there is in the a requirement for parking we turnd that lack of >> reporter: to prohibition. i think that ignored the people and the realities of people all over town and but at this body is required follow the -- the rules and the set of findings but i just finds that -- very unfortunate that we have a situation where somebody wants to have off street parking that will help the neighbors freeing

up spaces he takes away one space and opens up space for other the multiple cars the reality in our neighborhoods. but as to this matter before us i will support the recommendation of my colleagues. >> can i say one thing. >> i'm sorry. >> no >> submit this. >> no >> to read this. >> your time is up. >> they are in deliberations now. please. >> commissioner lopez? >> yea. i echo a lot of the statements here and i think especially commissioner trasvina remarks about the transportation infrastructure deficit that exist miss this per of town and my part of town. i think you know the 2018

amendment of the relevant code section you know perhaps imbalance that would have been nice have an expansion of service transportation infrastructure with that. that is not where we are but where the law is. yea. i -- definitely -- empathize with the feeling that parking is required at that site. i'm luck tow have off street parking. and meets my personal definition we have to work went legal definition. i'm inclineed support commissioner chang's -- statement or motion if she makes one.

commissioner lemberg the question i asked does he live at the program. there is a reason if there were a sort of circumstance on this property such as a disabled tenant or owner of the property who was living at the property i would be inclined to over turn the planning department's decision regarding the 5 factor even though the planning department made clear findings as to all 5. but in the absence of that, i can't i just i can't see over turning the decision. . >> before we move on this, want to make a comment. it seems clear there is support for denial of the appeal and like to advise the 98 he does have an option that planning has

volunteered to finds the option of placing one parking spot on your property and one is better than none. and the preservation you find the preservation of open space is a big deal issue. you will face many times. the more we take away the more crowded the city gets. protection of open space you will finds will be on going discussion here. and -- julie, do we need written support for the 5 findingos this? >> no. if you are defy denying. >> a motion. >> we have a motion from commissioner chang to deny the appeal and uphold the variance

decision. on that motion vice president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner trasvina. >> aye >> commissioner lemberg >> aye >> president swig. >> aye >> so we are moving on to item 8. this is appeal 22-051 george tedeschi. notice of violation and penalty sdichlgz zoning administrator determined the property is in violation. >> i'm sorry we had a request from commissioners to take a 5 minute break. i love to join that commissioner in that request. >> we will take. mr. tedeschi. thank you we will take a 5 minute

>> okay. so -- thank you. and welcome. i'm sorry. >> i need on announce welcome become to the august 17, 2022 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals we are on item 8 appeal 22-051. george tedeschi versus zoning 118-120, 15th avenue to george tedeschi of notice of violation on pen. the zoning administrator determined in violation of code 124 and 75 due to failure to complete work and in compliance with code. this permit issued for the legalization and modification of unauthorized construction including the roof, form and front facade.

interior will removal of a dwelling unit and construction of a fire wall. the property authorize said for 2 family dwelling this is complaint 2016-00411 search. mr. tedeschi you have 7 minutes it is planning against me. he is here to lend him his 7 minutes. hoe can speak during your 7 minutes. 7 minutes to present 3 minutes for rebuttal. for one person you are one appellate. >> so -- i'm here basically i have a house that is ready to market. and show the photos and the final photo. okay. ready to market. met the planners stated requirements. which -- as far as i can tell --

are -- facade showing og there is -- og elements in the windows, which may be i will give you a time line i'm not used to this venue it is 7 o'clock. 2014, there was a house i grew up in the neighborhood down the block. it was probate. this is a neighborhood has been there falling arc per for 50 years i have been in the neighborhood near 65 years. born and raised in san francisco he is also. my friend john lee sold the house and we went in and bought this thing. had to pay the payment to move out. we that took time. and from 2047 to 2016 things were going limp the house beautiful house constructed, sheet rock in dp red to market almost. plumbing rough. electric and mechanical rough.

everything in. a neighbor complained about a deck this is a denning in the complaint. and and -- planning got involved. we found a red tag on the build and work stopped. john and i went to plan and met about department and staff and said, you gotta go hire an architect and do a site plan we have never done this do a sight plan and historic review and you fall in the hole. we hired the architect. architect since we had a building built said i don't know what it was here. based upon mls photos. and upon what he thought made up a plan. that was the site plan. site plan that i have here if you care to look at temperature a sight plan that the prosecutor persecuting us through planning is depending on for completion.

there are 3 elements she requires. one the front facade. can you put that become up the front facade having this look the look we had in 2016 was different and had full casement windows and different arch way we were required change the elements put inned siding and dual hung wind sxoes og lug in. so00 since john was the contractor. i said you take care you contract her. the planning through rash nadealt with his son, a college opportunitiful john isim grant. his command of english is not good and ran out of money. i said, i will take over. and what happened is as a result of this 2016, permit issued as a

result of planning's demand of redoing this property. i had to demo the whole property. taken all sheet rock out. had to do engineering cost me 3 abling thousand dollars out of pocket if we had a bank we would have lost the billing. it is is a difficult, long, long, process. now i have the place ready to go and called planning. john says i can't deal with lady. i called her in april in february of left year. i said, you know -- i can take over let me know what i can do to satisfy to you get the building going. and she says bla, bla, bla, she visited the property. nice winnows you owe me 3 thousand dollars bucks when you

talk to me again you charge you 250 bucks. what? yes my time i'm an expert. okay. i said i thought you were a public serve annual. i never forgot that i don't community with this lady. i will read you an e mail i e mailed you last night that will explain. [inaudible] it is emotional tacking. i asked her, can i go ahead with the resource evidence the historic evaluation required i had the historian masters in [inaudible] and an expert. and she says we will not accept that. you are taking away my rights we never had an idea there will be a group forcing us to spend our money on a building they don't own. no skin in the game and the building has been empty 8 years.

and says i don't care will have the change those windows. i paid 45 thousand dollars for the windows extra. this lady guess fushth i have another part of this thing i will show you what the neighbor did. what she did not neighbor 8 years after he bought the house. he was up in arms. look happened to my house i paid 45 thousand dollar. helped left year. this lady comes from planning i gotta change my window and he was pissed off. 8 years after he bought the place. had to change the windows this year. anyway. getting back to this property. it is red to market. i have all i need is get appliances in. have permit in order. plumbing, electrical, electric

everything is almost ready. i got my electric final. she wants things like -- let me know what is going on. i will not do anything until you give me the final. i'm saying what can i do to get you off my case to move ahead. a huge impediments. i don't know the deal i believe well is inequitable -- dealing by planning. to the people east rich mon. i have 2 -- exhibitses which i would like to show. you will have more time in rebuttal. >> 3 minutes. >> all right.

i want you to make a determination. >> okay. president swig has a question. >> go ahead. >> i understand you are not used to coming to proceedings like this and so you may not be aware of rules and requirements and the requests that we have appeals and permit holders is there a reason why you did not file a brief. reason i ask you this we like you to have everybody the best chance of succeeding in what they hope to achieve. when a brief is not file today does not allow us to dot home work we could do to support you in giving you a fair >> this is another date. >> my fault.

>> is there a reason why you did not file a brief and understand the lack of filing does not help your cause because i was not able to do my full home work on your behalf. >> thank you. i was not aware how important it is or would have been. if i had known i would have. if you would like to come back i would like to file a broef that is more complete than what i could present in 7 minutes. that's a fine answer and that answers my question and you will have more time in rebuttal and commissioner trasvina has a question for you. >> thank you for your testimony. i'm i admit i'm not sure what we

are here to discuss and debate. in part because of the lack of the brief. and you -- raised a lot of issues in your 7 minutes. i want to give the town to be able to give your side my question is, can i see the 2 exhibits so you can provide us the relevance of them. >> sure. >> great. >> thank you. >> here. >> >> did you provide the exhibits to planning and building they need to see them as well. do you have copies. >> yea. had we put them on the over head. >> i can tell you when they are. >> put them on the over head can we see them first. >> i was not literally asking for a copy i wanted to be able

to know more about the case. >> i can tell you in less then and there a minute. one is a property 118 one the house on and 135, 14th avenue i can see from my house across the blovenlg i know the builder that built the house i met the owner when i was walk the dog started talking can him he mentioned he knew i was legit. complained about the window i said what is with the windows a lady from planning said her name was [inaudible] that's the one. i said whoa. the last exhibit is the exhibit of on 33rd avenue showing a historic cottage being demolish in the piecemeal and having 4 story unit built instead with a semblance. that was allowed happen a few blocks away.

focus on your case. that was in equal. >> all right. >> that shows the cottage started. here is the cottage. put this one. see that nice cottage. that is what it was. 2008. show what it is now. this is what it is now. okay. 4 story has nothing to do with that they are allowed do that all the historic elements. i don't have money left. 450 thousand dollars out of pocket. i need to put the sidewalk in and you know the rest of it in and market the house. lip service in need of housing here is a house ready to go sitting there 8 years. does that answer your question.

>> anyway. >> i appreciate the effort to answer my question. >> thank you. >> you can be seated we will hear from the planning upon dealt. >> excuse my emotions. >> hard to talk about it is. you want to talk. good evening. tina tam with planning department. 118, 120, 15th is a 2 story over basement, 2 family in the rh2 zoning district. conduct in the 190 sick a potential historic resource. the appellate is appealing the issuance of the notice of violation and penalty decision. otherwise the novpd. the novpd issued on june 30th,

2022. the violation the properties in violation of section 125 for planning and has been for the past 6 years for illegal construction. dwelling unit removal and major alterations. some of these facade alterations include removal of the wood shingles at the front for new stucco. as well as removal of the original double hung wood windows for single picture windows in the angled bay. the history is long the following is the summary of the events. on june 26, 2021 issued a notice of violation providing him with directions how to correct it. on july 10, 2021, owner

submitted a request for a hear to appeal the notice of violation. on august 10, 2021 zoning administrator held a remote hearing and state thered is a violation on this property permits are required and the work for the permit has to be completed. approximate on june 30th of 2022, this year the zoning add administrator issued the novpd stated the collective permit issued 6 years ago needs to be completed otherwise penalties will begin. up to that time and since the planner written upon e mails and issued mull fallpull notices to inform the owner to bring the property in compliance. 6 years is a long time. for any enforce am case to be open. that is 6 years of no occupancy

for this 2 unit building when house suggest an important issue. to date the correct the permit remines only issued. and not yet completed. the property is not deemed in full compliance with planning until inspected by dbi for conformance and determined completed. i know the appellate mentioned a lot of things the enforce am planner the department asked that you deny the appeal andup hold the issuance of the novpd. happy to answer questions. >> thank you. president swig? >> sure. simple. what does the project experience have to complete or we do or

whatever you mentioned that they -- having a brief because now you the project sponsor see how we swim in deep water without lessons or a life jacket. we sink. we don't like that. you mentioned that -- there was a removal of the dwelling unit. obviously, that -- is not in the permit so how do you get is that one of the requirements of fulfill thanksgiving permit the what -- the dwelling unit has to be put back in place or what nodes to go on here give me other thanning please and while you do that, you give the project experience the same laundry list of when he needs to

do to complete this permit so weure are all on the same page and in rebuttal the sponsor can independent t your list and tell us why he is correct or >> i don't have a lawn are dri list. >> okay. >> it's quite simple. he needs to call ddi, get his property inspected. >> yup. >> to make sure the work he has done has matched up with the permit and plan as proved to correct the violation that we brought to his attention. >> okay. >> once that happens assuming there are no issues with something that has been covered in the permit, he gets a complete permit. >> and the violation, does that relate to the windows? >> yes. >> so all he has to do is finish up the windows and move on wardd

and upward. >> that's it. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, we'll now hear from d birks. -- dbi. >> i'm representing dbi. i want to concur with the planning department. the property owner renewed all the five permits in february. we're ready to inspect once they call for inspection. they called for inspection in february. our inspector went out there and none of the approved fans were outside so she was not able to do the inspection. we'll get the documents get, get the sidewalk done, and building inspector will verify the work is done. if the work is not done according to approved plans,

they either have to rebuild it so it is compliance with at proved plans and get a revision for any changes that they want to. the revisions have to go through the normal approval process and once that's in place, we complete the referrals. >> would you repeat so the sponsor can be clear on your laundry list? can you please repeat slowly and succinctly those elements that he needs to comply with to get him finished. >> certainly. gather all the approved plans and construction documents. you'll get your plumbing permit signed off by the plumbing inspector. get the electrical permit signed off by the electrical inspector. if there is a requirement for side walk work done, get those sign ready for the inspector.

building inspector will walk through the property and review the plans and make sure everything is done according to the plans. we did have an okay to cover i inspection in february of 2021. i'm assuming that the rough frame of the building was done properly. we verify what is approved was actually done. >> is this laundry list anything extraordinary, unusual or otherwise special? or would you consider this mundane and typical of what property owners have to get done in completing a renovation? >> very standard. it's the bare minimum rehe quierd. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we're now moving on to public comment. anyone here to provide public comment on this item? raise your hand. i don't see any hands raised so we'll move on to rebuttal.

you have three minutes. >> the planning department briefs were incorrect. thrfg no there have been no units removed. they're 118 and 120 50th avenue. she is incorrect. the hearing was a zoom phone call on the highway with poor reception with cory dispeeg he said the reception is bad and there is no way you could have had all this nice sentences and beautiful brief presented when the phone conversation is going dead on the highway with the dog. there is poor reception out there near the bay. relative to matt greene. he's right. i have no problem with anything dpi wants. anything they want, i'm fine

with it. i have my permits in order. i know what to do. the problem is planning. they are the impediment. there are only three that i can see that holds them up. i want to you quash it and tell them to get off my case until i'm done with the building. and give a final end goal. i hear that's the windows. if the windows are done, show they are done. the planner can say they're satisfied. everything is done in accordance with the site permit there is done. that could be determined today. that wol allow their concurrence and your concurrence to say we're done. now go on with building. building and planning are two different departments. my problem is having someone

persecuting this. every time she gets involved sh■ wants to add on $250. she's done nothing. she writes long novs or whatever it is. but as far as helping the public, zero help. i accomplish what had is necessary. i have proof. i have the picture here. you want to look at it again? i'll show you the plan. i'll show you that it's in conformity with the plan. exactly what is on the plan is what is built. it could be done today. if all she's saying shows the frontage, why do we have to keep going on about it? why do i have to deal with planning in perpetuity? that's the point. i have accomplished what is necessary. if there is anything more, i want to know about it, but i don't want to be charged because

rash is involved and be my mother and look over me. i'm too old for that. i want to have enough money for sidewalk, landscaping and finish all things that are necessary. that's it. >> we have some questions. >> yes. >> commissioner chang. >> i'm going to ask him to readdress there in their rebuttal. did you hear the same thing that i heard? is the only issue here with planning is the windows? i would like to tell you just one thing about windows. anybody walking by, we've had cases here where members of the community have walked by a neighbor's house and said, oh legislation those windows are in violation and they call planning and file a complaint and say the

windows are in violation. it so happens that there are -- there are restrictions and guidelines for windows. sometimes it seems rather preposterous but those are the guidelines and we're here to um hold the guidelines. what i -- up hold the guidelines. did you hear today that the only issue that you have with planning is windows? and therefore when they can do a proper inspection and verify your windows, just get it done. >> can you do it today? >> not today because it needs to be inspected but building department doesn't look at those. >> we'll let planning address that. >> as far as the building -- when we bought the building it had aluminum windows in there. >> that's a whole different story.

we've had members of the public -- don't blame it on planning -- we've had members of the public walk by someone's house and they say they have plastic framed windows and the standard is wood windows. they file a complaint. so the city operates with various codes and requirements. our job is to make sure the codes and requirements are upheld and sometimes it seems crazy and sometimes it seems justified, but that's the way it is regardless of personal opinion. i'm going to pass this on to commissioner chang. >> thank you. what i understood to be the schedule of the inspection with dbi. once they coconfirm that the approved plans -- construction approved plans.

it seems like you may not have to deal with planning any more. it also sounds like you don't need to interface with rash but i'm not certain. i want to make sure you heard what i heard which is you simply need to schedule an inspection with dbi to confirm what you understand to be correct. which is that your plans -- >> db circumstances cool, they do their job. they're not overbearing. that puts it mildly. this is the institutional memory i have since my family came here from auschwitz and the soviet union. i have an institutional memory what have government bureaucracies can do. maybe i'm a little bit touched that way.

hopefully my son with sacred heart doesn't have that in his brain. and by way, this is the only house in the three-block radius that has og windows. >> are you finished commissioner chang? do we have any further questions? okay. no further questions at this time. thank you. you can be seated. we'll now hear from the planning department. you have three men's. you have three minutes. >> thank you the planning department is not against upgrading or improving this property or any property in the city. however the planning department do want to see permits and review by the proper agency like planning and dbi before any work is to be performed. if a corrective permit is required, then the correct

permit should be followed through in a timely manner. this includes the need to have the work be inspected by dbi, and final ending completed in the system. ones the permit is deemed completed, then the planning department can eventually build up the enforcement case which i this ask what everybody wants. i'm happy to answer any questions you may have because i'm flustered myself. >> while we're here, is mie understanding correct that once the project sponsor files an inspection that he and assuming that the construction is, you know, conducted according to the plans, that he does not need to interface with planning and that once you receive, you know, a proper inspection from dbi, that you can pull out the enforcement

case? >> pretty much. there is one matter dealing with staff time and material that was part of the enforcement work that went into this six-year-long enforcement case. i believe the public noted that easterlyier in the presentation. that does need to be addressed in full before he can close out that enforcement case. >> is there any accommodation that could be provided based on economic [indiscernible] we heard the sponsor share some of his challenges. that something that the planning department -- >> yes and that has to go back to the enforcement planner and zoning administrator. for consideration. >> we have a question from commissioner lumberg. >> i wanted to dhaimple my reading of the decision of the zoning administrator is correct

and that was there was a potential penalty of $250 per day. i guess from the date of the nov? is that correct? >> there aren't any penalties assessed for the property. he filed an appeal to the nov, that hoadle any penalty. with this spiel the -- that holds any penalties. to date, even though we've been working on the case for significance years, we have yet to assess any penalties for the property. >> if we were to dent appeal today, would there be significant penalties not listed in the zoning administrator's assessment? >> it depends on his response after tonight. if he called dbi tomorrow and makes an appointment for

inspection, we can quickly get that addressed and wouldn't assess a penalty. if he waits another six years, maybe. >> thank you. >> so the 2 -- there are $2,500 right now in staff time which is in question? what will is the amounts of money in question? if follows up on commissioner chang's question. >> i have to double check the number when i get ak to the office. get back to the office but i believe the appellant cited $3,342.95. >> with that, this body cannot touch that. >> that's correct. staff time, fee schedule, whie i think could have been appeal is

the penalty. there are no penalties assessed at all for this property. >> so the $3,342 is baked in at this point. however, you will be open to a conversation to review that, or maybe not? >> not me, maybe another administrator. >> so what would you -- let's clean up up the messes while we can so that everybody -- nobody walks away happy, but maybe a little reconciled. so the $3,343, what does the project sponsor do with that? who does he tuque so he doesn't get further frustrated. even though he might not get satisfaction in getting it reduced, can you cry that descrt process for him so he walks away educated on the subject.

>> he should work with supervisor. that is yil wong. is kelly wong and maybe reaching out to kelly and rashthat, they can have their proposal. i recommend that the appellant provides rationale for why he believes he should get a fee reduction. it's not a guarantee, it's a call that the zoning administrator can make. >> it's important. as we determined here earlier by virtue of the fact that the appellant didn't file a brief because he's never been through this before. he learned a lot of stuff like all of us in our lives. 's important that he get in

front of ourselves and everybody else clear direction on what steps he can tyke mitigate his pain and that pain may still not be mitigated. but the best advice you can get the appeal tonight -- best advice you can give to the project sponsor is to get in touch with dbi tomorrow and schedule the inspections and get this closed and put everyone out of misery including himself. correct? >> correct. >> thank you, mr. lumberg. >> i'm now rereading the decision and i want to confirm that -- it says this fee of describes the 3342 is separate from the administrative penalties you stated with zero go is not appealable. we don't have jurisdiction to hear this appeal, is that

correct? >> there is no appeal and administrative fee. that portion of division -- the board does not have jurisdiction over board administrator penalties. >> what do they have jurisdiction over? i thought it was to overturn the fees. is there anything else being addressed here? >> that portion of the decision that you referenced is only in reference to the time and materials knee planning charged for the enforcement part. the underlying violation is what is appealable. the 250 per day that is accrued after this case is final, whether that would be appropriate. >> thank you for the clarification. >> thank you, anything further from dbi?

>> i just want to clarify when dbi does their file inspection, they'll look at the approved plans which includes the front allegations and window details. if the plan required for them to be installed, the building inspector is not going to get the final inspection. i want the property owner to be aware of that. >> think that is clear and that is reasonable and customary behavior, correct? >> correct. >> thank you very much. >> as a reminder, the standard is error or discretion. >> on behalf of the zoning administration. >> correct. >> commissioner lopez. >> yes. i think the testimony presented by the department of denying the appeal is appropriate in this

case. i think the permit holder has, you know, a clear avenue based on the information presented this evening about how to progress vis-a-vis dbi for the final inspection and also, it sounds like potentially an avenue in addition to or perhaps instead of the assigned planner to discuss the possibility of lowering or eliminating that [indiscernible] i think that that's the fact that those avenues have been clearly presented this evening kind of supports that conclusion in my mind.

>> commissioner [indiscernible], any comments? >> i agree with the conclusion of vice president lopez. i just want to recognize and thank the department of representatives, particularly miss tam for providing clear answers, sussing sirchght succis placed on property owner. whether it existed before or not, i'm not commenting on but tonight this is helpful to bring this matter to a close. theurchg. thank you. >> i want to echo his comments and i don't have anything to add substantively. thank you. >> commissioner chang. >> i similarly agree with the conclusions that have been made. i wanted to take the time to acknowledge that development and

appearance goes hard. i want to acknowledge that for the project sponsor. we do shovel with developing housing in the city. there ought to be some consideration for that aspect. i'm curious, this is a rhetorical question that if there is a way to be collaborative in the approach that we may get somewhat incompliance of laws more favorable and just simpler to build housing in the city. i'll leave it at that. >> commissioner, would you like to make a motion? i'll move to deny the appeal and up hold the npts of violation decision on the base it was properly issued. >> we did not er in this discussion and that the decision s decision was proper?

>> yes. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> commissioner chang. >> aye. >> commissioner. >> aye. >> that passes 5-0. >> thank you everybody. appreciate your patience. ♪♪