there's no neon there, they don't say no red krestnyy none the same, well, with whom, with whom talk tam tam simply they don't exist, you listen to their brand, that is, well, i say to them, well, look me in the eyes, tell me why you came here, you understand that here i am now, raising my head over there, the grave of my grandmothers, my grandfather lies there, you forgot what i'm saying, my land, my weeds well, there is no answer, someone said yes, there he says, well , i say 10 years ago, i studied for this, worked, received a salary, that i don’t have the right to apply my knowledge , like, well, yes, knowledge is applied here, so here we are. columns a family was leaving, and there was a woman who lived in front of the village of oleksandrivka, which in principle no longer exists like the village itself. there are no houses there anymore, and she put in as soon as they tell me something, some pretense that we did something wrong, i will ask them one question a you lived in an occupation where people can't leave well, today, even if you don't want to leave now, it's impossible because th

tam really is? >> i would say it's tam, it's probably trying to replace a out of services of 20 billion, i would guess 7 billion is out of service today and it's probably down to five so it's trying make sure that app developers don't abandon iso and go to android instead because they can't make money on ios devices. i would guess this is a near term defensive move. they need to make money. so that's first it's going to be defensive. on the, after it solves this problem, then it might move to the bigger ecosystem, but i don't think that has to be the main driver of apple's strategy here it could just be to make sure app developers stay on the ios system which sells the next piece of hardware. >> do you think they will use apple maps to drive local advertising? one could argue they have maps as potential search vehicle. they've got apple pay on the other end of it. do they make a connection in between the maps and the pay to actually show attribution for a transaction? >> you know, the kind of jobs they're listing for are much more standardized 30 second spots programically. so what you're talking abou

tam upon aisle. no one everygo on the tam on aisle.ly run the other direction for fear of getting caught in the tamon aisle. >> you know, jimmy, do you buy your jackets in bulk at wal-mart? >> i love thank you i paid for this. >> no. >> really. i do. i look like a fat figure skater these days. here's the deal. what they don't mention is that this became a difficult addition because of the crushing student loan debt. >> right. >> he's not making that much more at wal-mart but he has to take it anyway because he's getting crushed by student loans. in an equal world, it's not all about money. i could host a good radio show, you know. a lot of people don't know that greg was an ewok in the star wars episode. >> true. go get royaltyings. >> thank you. >> get royalties. >> but he got forced into this spot. >> all right. to go from the before model to the after, corey, last words. what do you say? >> i think it's really just goes that we are underpaying our first responders, our teachers who are actually supposed to be shaping our youth. for

madison tam, ben summers, and jr apler. >> hello. my name is madison tam and i'm a ridge slaytive aide for matt dorsey and i'm speaking on behalf of the supervisor who wish he could be here to support this item. the supervisor is in support of the mission bay school. we're ascetic with the neighborhood organizations that organize around the school to see the agreement finalized and moving forward. according to the sfusd, there are more than five hundred public school students living in the mission bay community with another two hundred expected as the rest of the planned housing is completed. our city has the ambitious goal to build housing and it will come housing and children for generations to come. this isn't about enrollment for this year or next year or the year after that, but enrollment for the next 10, 20 and 30 years and the mission bay is a benefit and necessity for the emerging bay neighborhood and the city. we want to thank sfusd for this project that's on schedule. isn't that fantastic, let's not delay and move forward so we can get that scho

so i wrote tam bo li de say de moi ya, yeah jambo jambo, wat to parti o we goin'. of course, it means absolutely nothing. ♪ tam would have stopped me except that was a dad moment. >> reporter: lionel richie sr. died in 1990 with his son by his side the. >> it gave me an opportunity to kind of take a look over my shoulder just a little bit to see where i was in altitude. and it was frightening. >> reporter: his father's death, he says, changed his perspective. >> i became so knostalgic, i wa famous, recognized around the world, but i missed all the christmases and the new year's. ♪ i have been alone with you inside my mind ♪ >> reporter: these days lionel richie works at his own pace. it's been 13 years since your last album of all new songs. >> crazy, right? >> reporter: how much longer do fans have to be wait? >> this year, i promise. ♪ hello ♪ >> reporter: a new generation fans sees him on "american idol" and on social media. although he is less popular there tan his influencer daughters, nicole and sophia. do they give you advice how to navigate this new kind of celebrity that exists now? >> yes. >> reporte

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