Skip to main content
Internet Archive's 25th Anniversary Logo

tv   Board of Appeals 21716  SFGTV  February 22, 2016 10:00am-12:01pm PST

10:00 am
reapply with a different timeframe? >> he would have to reapply good i believe, so once you go after 6 pm you do have to do a large notification that there are additional requirements. i believe it's not only a ground-floor tenants anymore. becomes anybody that an horror stories as well. however, i do believe he did apply until 12 am so i don't think an additional notice would be required in this case. >> after 8 pm additional notice is required but he did apply for after 8 pm. >> my question on the permit holders i notice that although he has the rotunda neiman marcus café is not in this listed on there at all. >> i'm sorry, on >> on gary street.
10:01 am
>> i'm sorry. >> neiman marcus has a restaurant on the ground floor as well. besides the rotunda. >> okay. okay. >> so, what we look for in terms of following article 5.8, is that the location has to be a minimum of 75 feet from the primary entrance. so, if that enters his within neiman marcus that's probably why it was not accounted for. did okay, the tango. >> i have a question. i'm very familiar with those three streets. i been stuck in traffic probably five times this week. gary street close up, third street by my conduit to union square. the primary conduit to the bay bridge. battery street, primary conduit for the bay bridge onto first street and entry and access to the financial district. where does
10:02 am
dpw way in on this request i mean, these are primary-these are secondary street. these are primary conduits which are called regardless of whether there's something part of their or not. >> unfortunately, we are not as qualified to review the traffic and congestion >> i meant to say the department of parking and traffic. we did okay. >> where does that fit in? >> it is a violation in terms of parking department of public parking and traffic they would have to come in and provide the proper enforcement in terms of ticketing requiring them to move. >> without feedback with regard to traffic? who does the traffic studies in general? you brought up the fact that or it's brought up in the brief, that there is an issue
10:03 am
with the parking, truck needing to make a delivery, one more truck sitting for a long period of time.. creating one less yellow zone short-term parking space. that creates a double parked. it screws up traffic even more. who handles the measurement and the study of congestion and measures whether it's viable that anything is there? >> is after the municipal transportation and agency. empty. they have a qualified traffic engineers and they would be the ones that produce traffic studies. from what i understand traffic studies are usually produced only after request made from the public and they do have to pay fees to get that traffic study. in this case, conducting traffic study is not required part of our application. it's really more of a judgment call in this case
10:04 am
and a case-by-case basis in terms of the traffic and congestion in certain areas. >> but therefore going back to dpw, again, gary street, a major east-west entry into unit square, correct? >> correct >> post street, the most the major west-east exit from union square. there is no other one. and battery, again, the major north-south entry across market to babies. so, is that which you call a judgment call when you identified the three major conduits and food truck parked there might cause congestion? >> in this case, yes. that as well as the amount of businesses within the area as well as the dedicated parking on each of these blocks. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> we can take public comment no. may i see a show of hands
10:05 am
only people plan to speak under this item? first person please step forward. if the others are willing please them on the far side of the room against that wall were moving through things go. lover wants to speak first, please fit for. if you haven't already filled out a speaker card, please come forward. if you do so before you come up to speak and give it to the stricken taro, that would be helpful. >> just one concern, 46 geary good for the greystone hotel, we are at 66 gary and a year ago this is a good thing, we are the called moving but they really worked with the sound. if you bring a truck in skimpy lesson 23 paces away from it i measured it. it's a residential hotel. it's very close to it like i said it were at 46 geary
10:06 am
st. and we have to have our windows open. we do have to have our windows open. that's pretty much what i want to say, but i have to say something. did he say's going to c cut back to the later hours? >> i said i believe he said earlier. >> that's what i was thinking. [inaudible]. late-night is what were trying to having the problem with because it's right in front of call. people are getting out to eat late at night. that's pretty much what i have to say. >> thank you very much. >> please statement for the record >> your know so. >> next speaker, please. >>i don't know how much time i
10:07 am
get to 3 min., mining his family ross island san francisco cards concession. i been doing mobile food in the city for 41 years. this the first permit i've ever posted it. i'm not posted because mr. singh. he's a fine again i have a problem with the way that permits have been granted in yellow zones and i like to educate the board as to what the problems are with these yellow zone. if we were here tonight because the dpw had put a food truck in a blue zone, everybody would say how can you do that. that is specifically for handicap access for disabled access. if the dpw came back and said well we give the permit. that to mta to write the ticket that would seem a little odd. it's not any different for yellow zones. yellow zones are the blue zones and white zones are actually
10:08 am
defined by state. i talked to a traffic engineer and other code section. while news about these can say what hours of those zones can operate, they can't change the nature of those zones. so, these conversations were debated rather extensively, and the dpw's own regulation says that two trucks food trucks, it says >> overhead, please >> is of the mmf shall comply with all curbs on regulations. the mmf shall comply with all existing curb zones is approved by sf mta. and mta regulations 913 b2 says a mobile food the silly permit does not exempt it
10:09 am
from times and the time limit is 30 min. there's nobody in the city that's allowed to park in a yellow zone for more than 30 min. and you get a ticket for either pc 33.3 what tc-38 pc 33.3 what tc-30 8b for overtime parking in a yellow zone. there are times yellow zones are not in effect like 99 post rate after 6 pm. in on weekends. i would've no problem with mr. singh being there. but during 7 am-6 pm, that is a metered yellow zone, which means -you can see it here. it is no stopping from 7 am-6 pm. so, that means that any trucks that parking that yellow zone from 7 am-6 pm can only be there for 30 min.-6 pm. so, that means that any trucks that parking that yellow zone from 7 am-6 pm can only be there for 30 min. if there's a meter they have to feed the meter and if there's
10:10 am
no meter they still have to be there for 30 min. so, what happened was that the dpw-can i have more time >> you can finish your last thought >> the dpw went and met with the mta and the mta considered for alternatives. you can see that the one i highlighted in yellow was one alternative was to allow two part for extended next in yellow zones and they rejected that. specifically, the language says, allowing trucks to asked park in yellow zones was contrary to the intent of yellow zones provide learning opportunities for merchants. having a food trucks occupied a yellow zone for extended permit- >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> hi my name is claude him
10:11 am
but with the union square business improvement district my position as director of streets and tj initiatives from here on data might director karen flood. we are in support of dpw's denial of this application for 46 geary st. for the reasons that we provided to you via a letter with supplemental pictures. on february 11. there are three main points that we have with this particular permit the delete permitting in union square. first of all, permitting in units where it contradicts the legislative intent. the legislative intent. i don't know if this is going to show. let me just briefly read that under supervisor
10:12 am
wiener's amendment, it was very clear in the finding this legislation attempts to provide and expand the range of convenience and interesting food consumption opportunities for mss in underserved and less congested areas of the city at different times of the day. it also goes on to say the city is i think dpw mentioned must exercise care and consider public safety in appropriate locations for msf. that includes limited on street parking discouraging unloading and top of zones and avoiding double parking. so, we want to be clear the union square. the motor 27 block area, which has a budget of $3.3 million to keep union square clean and safe and attractive for visitors and make it world-class, does not oppose mobile food trucks in that district in fact, now working with some vendors are putting them in bayview lane and kempton on a pilot basis. however, we feel the legislative intent of the permitting for mfs to serve what we call food deserts.
10:13 am
areas not served by food establishments in other parts of visited fort mason being an example. secondly, issues of pedestrian congestion and safety. if i can have the overhead. this is the front of 46 ci street. high-end retail call paul smith. this is a side view and you have this information in your pocket. this is an example right here of a truck, excuse me, a vehicle that's blocking 46 geary. you can see how it would obstruct the sidewalk. here is an example of a food truck that was allowed beyond the street and you can see the pedestrians cuing up blocking the sidewalk. that's exactly what we're trying to avoid. it's congestion on erie street and
10:14 am
other important ordinance that's not making it a pedestrian orientated district. thirdly, it was mentioned yellow zones. i know they need to reiterate yellow zones were not intended for that and lastly who trucks block sightlines not only for the safety of the merchants but of the visitors as well as you probably read in the news ferragamo was robbed and food trucks would certainly have blocked the sidelines and visibility of that angle. thank you for your time. >> next speaker, please. >> any questions? >> good evening, everyone. my name is is-. i work in financial district for company names aircraft management. i'm supporting by surveyors. i been
10:15 am
working there for two years office trouble having by food i like in that area i love any into. it's part of my culture and it be nice to have indian food around that area. there's less often. indian food in that area, there are a few but there are like a long wait. it's hard for us to manage time to get there, by food and come back. so there's more options for us it would be less crowded and get back to work as soon as possible. so, i'm supporting 446 geary st. i would like him to have that around that area. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi, everyone. my name is-i would like to speak in favor of the food truck proposed by arjun singh. i love indian food and there are not many food
10:16 am
truck options to carry indian food. they tend to of really got. i'm in favor of 214 battery st. location. which is near my work. it be great if i can have that option where i work. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> any of the public comment on this item? seeing none,, mr. cingular 3 min. of rebuttal. >> one thing i'm going to say on geary street the [inaudible] to the end of the street five bucks on the same street going up and down. also, i see a lot of food trucks in the city close to a lot of restaurant.
10:17 am
working out and find these locations the only thing we had in mind is that there's no restaurants in that area. if you look at all the--this is actually going to be the food truck it. it's on the same street and most of the restaurants are like one block away on the other side of the block of the food. same goes for exhibit b to. this is the food truck here. most of the restaurants would be-two blocks away or one block away. it's very hard for us. we have placed the restaurants are not that close by. also, i have a
10:18 am
photograph. it's a very narrow street but every time people come to geary street, is a food truck which it covered more than 2.5 parking meters. our food truck is covering only one parking me. if you enter the street from market street you can see on the right-hand side assigned that's opting out of the business. coming from the other side you can see vehicles the weight spark between two businesses with the parking meter is loki. you can clearly see the business is displaying walk him down that street. the only reason for us to also having yellow zone is that, on that street video zones go all the way down. so are willing to follow all the rules and regulations for the permit.
10:19 am
>> thank you. are you finished. i have a question. as the department has stated, the loading zones are 30 min. how are you planning to comply with your food truck been there for 30 min. only? >> will be parking further minutes rotating and then will come back and parked another 30 min. >> thank you. >> mr. shaw's. >> public works. just to reiterate a couple points, one, as i mentioned before the as i said, the resident is no longer within our requirements or basis for approving or denying. in addition, the main basis for this denial was on the board of supervisors ordinance 11913 which states we should strive
10:20 am
to locate areas less congested and underserved areas as well as discourage infringement on loading and drop zones. it can seem these are relatively congested and well served areas and it can be seen that these are 100% dedicated to loading zones for businesses. >> thank you. >> okay commissioners the matter is up to you. >> i'm in agreement those areas are highly congested. sorry, i can't support the deal on that basis. >> i just don't see how it works. >> i concur. >> would anyone like to make a motion? >> move to deny the appeal on the basis the department's findings are accurate. >> we have a motion by the
10:21 am
vice president to deny the appeal and uphold the denial of the appellant that the department's findings are accurate. on a motion, commissioner lazarus aye, honda, skype wilson aye swig aye. the motion carried 5-0 and the denial of the permit is upheld. item number five has been continued to march 16. so we will call item number six appeal number 15-202. maria douglas versus department of building inspection with planning department approval for a property at 445 amazon ave. but when the issuance on december 15, 2015 to paul sam when alteration permits the motion of the legal pigeon on first floor the motion of the legal two-bedrooms and convert to storage. we will start with the appellant, accounts representative. >> good evening, members. my name is ryan murphy. i represent-an attorney representing the tenant at 45
10:22 am
amazon ave. >> can i have a second. >> thank you for your patience.
10:23 am
>> sorry for the delay. >> no problem. >>i appreciate your patience.
10:24 am
thank you. please proceed >> as i stated earlier, i am the pro bono attorney for one of the tenants, or the tenants, maria dallas. she lives at 445 amazon with her daughter and husband. they've lived there for 10 years. last year, the permit holder purchase the property and has been attempting to evict her. he's attempted to do it indirectly by cutting off the gas and oil and electricity. denying access to the garage. as reporting of a door to the garage and that matters because that's how she gets her mail. she issued a unlawful detainer action. that's kind of when i stepped
10:25 am
in to the bar association of san francisco. the court, basically, shot down that action and they withdrew their case. so, this is their third attempt to evict or using the permit process. they have applied to demolish the downstairs unit, and we are arguing that the permit is defective. mostly because the application was misleading. in the permit application was misleading, it was sort of filed in bad faith on the one hand. it was also misleading and sort of more technical way. on the one hand the permit doesn't say that anyone lives in the unit. it just is demolish, take out a
10:26 am
kitchen and turned bedrooms into storage but this is some of these home. so, in a sense that was done in bad faith. even by the rules, the city planning codes the permit is defective because the csc company issued without other work being performed. that other work will require a permit could not speak about that right now. pat bosco bitch was a structural engineer did an inspection of the unit. he's going to talk about that. but i like the board, i would like to ask the board and the department of building inspection to really pay attention to the
10:27 am
permit holder because he is a serial developer. he flips homes . i don't know what his history is evicting other tenants. i know that he is had a lot of shady dealings with other individuals. there is one here today and he'll talk about that. i looked online recently -overhead, please. >> these are properties he's purchased in the past couple years and then sold. none of these properties, for none of these properties were permits applied for or issued. in a lot of these properties it was
10:28 am
quite a bit of money those made off of it. so, my statement is that the permit holder is basically circumventing or ignoring the process by which you change units. apply for permits. the only reason he's applying for a permit in this case is because he wants to evict a tenant and he hasn't been able to do so by other means. >> thank you. commissioner pat bosco misprint there to problems with a stronger flaw number one the rules have changed the new rules required notice given by planning on any unit removal. those rules apply since his board. the second issue is, is permit requires the csc. these are the rules for removal of the units in the csc's is required. downstairs
10:29 am
is a full bath. there is no permits for that full bath. you can't come into an apartment and say, i'm going to remove-that is the kitchen. i'm going to remove the stove and the sink and believe all the cabinets there. none of them built with a permits. i'm not going to touch the bathroom because maybe i'm going to put the unit back in. when you remove the unit and you get a csc, you have to remove everything. you either remove it or legalize it. you also don't get to come in without a permit and take out all the wood windows and install vinyl windows on historic building. so, the permit, if they're going to move this unit after planning their process, you don't get to pick and choose what you want to keep so you can put it in later. if you comply with all the requirements of the code. you
10:30 am
have to make sure the plumbing is right in the bathroom. the electrical is right and this permits selectively took out certain items so that they could be easily be put back. i think it is pretty straightforward. i've another minute of time, but i just be repeating myself. i just assume how this than those are common that they're entitled to, which i want to thank this commission for asking for it get this commission had a lot to do with getting tenants notice before their units were moved. thank you. >> quick question. would you mean removing soda can be put back? >> well if you have a legal unit and you come in and say him to pull a permit to remove the stove, but everything else in that unit including the bedroom was built in an old garage, you selectively can't come in and just remove certain
10:31 am
elements that are legal. the film legalize everything or remove it, and the reason is, because of unit removals you get a certificate of final completion. >> that's what i get. i'm talking about the windows. >> the project-the owner of the building took out all the wood windows and put in vinyl windows about nine months ago. the windows he took out were bedroom windows that required double hung windows to meet the egress requirements. now they put in vinyl windows that don't work for egress. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question for counsel. you showed a map of other properties owned by the permit holder that were purchased or whatever. were there innovations in any of these parties? >> i don't know the answer that >> you said there were no other permits at those parties? >> let me be clear. no permits issued for the properties-i will put this back up. there
10:32 am
were no permits issued during the period for which, in which, the current permit holder owned of those properties. so we purchase them and sold them and the were no permits during that period. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen. minus andre sanchez appeared for permit holder paul sam. thank you for hearing this this evening. first, we are going to this appeal be denied on the grounds the appellant has failed to carry her burden. in her brief, she cites to grounds for denial of the permit. then, one additional essentially an appeal to go outside the law as far as this
10:33 am
permit is concerned. you can actually tell it permit holders presentation at restart would appeal to outside the law. essentially saying this permit should be revoked because if it's possible to legalize the unit permit holder should be forced to do so. that's contrary to the law. the city has made its policy clear that, in fact such activity is voluntary. that is actually been reformed lately in this zoning district that is only a voluntary provision. mr. sam actually bought this property for use as primary residence. in the brief we submitted we actually included a partially redacted copy of this purchase agreement. if you don't mind i like to put it up on the screen, please. it's in the
10:34 am
breeze, but it specifies that in paragraph 5, he intends to occupy the property as primary residence and that is to be delivered vacant. mr. sam did not begin the tenancy with these folks. he cannot allow that to occupy the property. we purchased the property was unaware of their residency. immediately after purchasing the property we found out someone was living there he took the appropriate action, which was bring suit against the former property owner. the appellant put herself into that action provided discovery indicating she was a tenant. at that point mr. sam voluntarily discontinued the eviction action. despite what you are told, the court shot nothing down. we actually provided a copy of our dismissal along with our brief. here, the goal
10:35 am
of permit holder is restore the property back to its legal use. so the first argument they made about the permit was it's misleading because it didn't say this could be a change in occupancy. that's not correct. the rule is, you are supposed to specify what it's legal occupancy is. that's exactly what is done in the permit. so they're not that get anywhere with that argument. the brief they indicate the permit issued a certificate of final completion cannot be issued on a permits. that is also incorrect because simply restoring it back to legal use did not require the issuance of a certificate of final completion. i would also like to point out that for the permit was applied for not only was the appellant notified. her attorney was also notified that mr. sam was going to be applying for permit for demolition. this pre-notification was intended
10:36 am
to satisfy any due process concerns and, in fact, lead to exactly what we are having here. she was made aware of the permits. then she had opportunity to appeal the permits to this board today. so, there argued that it was a father to brighter notice of this frankly, is moved. she filed her appeal. she had proper notice. so the permit is valid as five as far as that fact. i would like to briefly respond to a couple of things that were brought up in the presentation you just heard good and in the brief. since appellant cannot argue the law they're attempting to attack the person, mr. sam. frankly, mr. sam real estate history is not at issue here and frankly was not in their brief. this is new information mr. murphy is provided i do not believe he was sworn in so therefore anything he says cannot be
10:37 am
considered evidence including his demonstration of properties owned by mr. sam could likely have not had chance to review. i don't know if that's accurate or not. i would suggest the board would be justified in disregarding that portion of it. also, he brought out more allegations about bad faith. i think he said serial developer flipping homes. these are all potentially pejorative terms that are intended to distract the board from focusing on the law. instead, to attempt to engender bad feelings towards the permit holder. frankly, the permit holder is an upstanding member of the committee. he purchased his own in good faith as primary residence. he was fairly shocked to find your people living downstairs. i believe this is also the floor with the water heater is in the garage. by ligaments not safer there to people residing downstairs. he is not able to move into his own because he doesn't want to share it with strangers. meanwhile, appellant has been completely resistant
10:38 am
to any possible way to resolve this matter. we tried multiple occasions and were to work out some kind of an resolution it not only of a vent on interested, they have made it clear what no matter what their then i continue obstructing this process. so, i would suggest to matter what was in the permits they would've filed this appeal. i really don't have anything more to add and am willing to take questions. >> anyone up first? i have several. does your client have another property in san francisco? >> i believe-at least not currently residing in the country i believe is south of san francisco at the moment. he is-is myers in its temporary housing that he's waiting for this to become available so that he can move into his own >> does the own any san francisco in other than this
10:39 am
property? >> not that i'm aware of >> when he purchased the property duty-the listing agent? i don't see another agent. >> the property was rc but as a short sale. i believe there was a joint brokerage agreement was part of it. that's part of the problem here is that in the sales contract it says it's one to be delivered vacant. however it wasn't >> the other question i have prior to closing there's a five day walk through of the property. did your client ever inspect the property? >> my understanding, no, the property was not inspected article. >> so the your client closer property without doing any visual inspection. >> that is my understand your >> also, are you aware of the- >> i recall this concert could have the five-day provision in it?. it's a short step. visit do have a full ca are some pretty sure that's in it. >> okay >> are you currently aware of
10:40 am
the work is being performed without permits? >> i'm not aware of any work is performed without permits. frankly considering the litigious nature of the appellant if there was such a matter unsurprised if not taken action regarding it. my understand is no notice of violation on the property right now. as far as the allegation that they would obstruct back >> i got my question answered. thank you. >> thank you. if we could hear from the department now. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, good evening scott stan sanchez planning department. of the pretty break. the permit was reviewed by the planning department in the middle of december were the illegal unit. this scope of
10:41 am
work as stated on the permits was to remove the kitchen that convert the bedrooms two bedrooms in the ground level to storage. their plans on file with that permit as well. it does seem that at the time about everything was reviewed appropriately, at least at our level. the department of the inspection may have concerns about what was shown on the plans and not shown on the plans, but the intention to recent legislation was adopted enacted by the board of supervisors, at the urging of this board last year a letter sent because we have seen many types of these projects come before it where there has been no notification. so, notification requirement has been imposed. it's been both the building and planning cuts. was adopted as part of ordinance 208 15. it added subsection g to subsection 311 requiring a written and posted notice for removal of units and
10:42 am
requiring notification to people who reside even unauthorized dwelling units that became effective on january 8, 2016 after the time we were using this permit, but before the date of this hearing. this is a de novo hearing as i understand where to apply the law of the day which would include this new notification requirement. given those facts it seems the permit that the appeal should be granted and the permit should be denied that the permit should be reapplied for the current notification requirements in the planning code. in regards to requirements for legalization of units, it is true that currently that is voluntary. there's pending legislation induced by supervisor avalos, and being reviewed by the building inspection that would require that someone seeks a legalized the mobile of-seek to
10:43 am
legalize illegal unit before removing it. it's more complicated than that but that's the gist of it. so, that would be the policy shift. generally, we are encouraging retention of units. there have been many programs over the last few years that allow for the creation for legalization of units that could not otherwise be illegal as because of density. unless that was a big problem before. no longer is one. it waved a slew of clinical requirements and were making progress in legalizing units. that's really something that they could avail themselves off to legalize the unit. i'm available for any questions. >> i've got one. understanding that supervisor avalos has installed or proposed legislation that would require mandatory legalization, greg? >> yesterday require authorization to remove in illegal units and they would have to-the goal be to have
10:44 am
them demonstrate they can't legalize it. so the burden would be you have to go to a commitment conditional lease process to remove in illegal unit. >> so, how does that work with planning in respect to say, someone has a property and you may have five illegal units in there and the zoning is single-family. if they're able to do the property codes, does that mean you now can put six units in it? >> no. the final details they cannot completely worked out but they would have to be legalize civil. in this case the unit can be legalize. this would be something that it's not in excess of the density that you could legalize because you're allowed to legalize one units over the density. so, they can easily do that. our department would likely recommend that they legalize that units. it seems is something to be fairly straightforward
10:45 am
>> the last question i have, mr. sanchez, regarding the within windows in the façade has changed. i would both be a dbi as well as a planning notice of violation, greg? >> fishing with building permits without permit it would have concerns about it if they did not do proper replacement of the wood windows. i would note the mothers of permitting from 2003 for windows replacement of nine windows. there's a view from the street. i tried to look at some historic photos wasn't queer and queer tomatoes illegal window placement has occurred that something would need to be further investigated i don't see any immediate evidence of that. >> thank you. >> inspector duffy. >> good evening, commission should joe duffy dbi. the building permit demolition the
10:46 am
kitchen the legal two bedrooms converted to storage was issued as a permit on 15 december 20 15th it is approved by city planning as you heard in our dbi slant check. just a couple -there are no active compliance assertions that was work done without a permit reported to dbi in the form of a complaint. we will look into that. for windows or whatever work they've done. the other properties as well it was alleged was work done on those we would be welcome to assign and a sector investigate that as we do on a daily basis. the just looking at the plans there in the brief, the one thing i noticed was that the attorney is saying that they're bringing
10:47 am
the earlier back to this last legal you get there taken out a stove it looks like an removing some cabinets. taking out two beds. saying that the last legal you. with all those rooms down there not labeled as stores. i'm not so sure and there's a bathroom down there as well-i do know that property-most of those properties when they were both had one bathroom. the two-story with one bathroom and very few have a legal bathroom on the ground. the bathroom on the plans is not referenced as being altered. so, i'm not sure if more research needs to be done. the other thing is, where the storage rooms partially constructed with a permit and it's divided up as you can see. i can put it on the over it to let you see what i'm this area. this
10:48 am
is showing a bathroom. there's no reference to on the building permit. i don't know if that was legal or not. again, these areas on the existing plan is his bedroom, bedroom, existing kitchen did no order call a storage room. storage room. it was some sort of a hallway here and then this area here come up i think they take out the cabinets but i'm not sure. so, is that the last legal use, i don't. that's what their plans are to train. we take people at their faith they cement plants that are showing in accurate condition, but sometimes in the past we have seen this done and then we signed off and then it just changes back to what it was again. so we might need and do more research that the
10:49 am
storage rooms were actually existing because most of these houses in my experience you have a garage and have a full basement pretty open to either house like that. unless you want to put in this divider wall and split these up which is fine, but again, there is no evidence anywhere this was actually where this property was built originally or any subsequent permits. since new construction to divide the ground floor up into a hallway to my three storage rooms and a bathroom. just something i spotted when i was researching. i am available for any questions. >> mr. duffy, other than that 2003 permits that mr. sanchez talked about, no research has been done to see if there were any permits done in the last whatever number of years that
10:50 am
would've created the structures on the? >> no, i do not do any research. not yet. >> so, if properly executed after was demolition, then what you're saying we would expect everything that's down in that basement to disappear as part of the demolition? including the bathroom unless the bathroom was previously permitted as noted in research? >> yes. if they're going to do this part of the demolition i mean to waste of time to do. you do it once also. legalize it do whatever you want to do. mr. moskowitz did hani 83-the romo reported in 1945 there was a fire at the get we did get a cfc for that one family drunk
10:51 am
but that didn't happen the plants that are not really that good. sometimes we can look up the city assessor's records to the number of rooms, which would cause the bathrooms, but there was a permit in 0349 windows and a new moving permit and 99. in 87 they did a kitchen. with some dry rotted windows. so the permit history is pretty good but i don't know what was done on the ground floor. >> is it clear whether that kitchen was permitted on the top part quickly >> probably up stairs i would agree it is probably wise result because they spent the money. might be a few questions with it. the notification process you heard about from mr. sanchez good dbi has one as well that came in after this permit got issued. it got adopted in january. that's
10:52 am
another thing dbi is doing on notification. because of the illegal units for the tenants. >> i've a question. because of the new legislation that has passed from a it indicates once of the single-family residence that once they have booted out or close those illegal rooms down there no longer able to put them back in. is there something in-i'm asked the same question planning as well-is there something in dbi computer will now stipulate that so if in the future this property changes hands again it comes back being red tag not the type but not being able to apply for permits on the lower level? >> that's a good question that i don't know to be answered to that. i know there's been a lot of legislation brought in discussions and planning and building i think planning will oversee that more than us because usually when you come in for the building permit to do any work on the ground floor of the building it would
10:53 am
go through planning first on the zoning and everything and then the use and then would go to the building department for the. we would always route that thing to planning. maybe mr. sanchez can speak on that >> because in the past when we have big surge was a lot of special restrictions that were noted in property deeds, and now with new legislation those are no longer in effect. so maybe mr. sanchez can, and that as well >> it's a pretty new thing even today when i was researching like at some trouble dbi just getting paperwork. because everything is in. so there is things in place but not everyone is up to speed on it just yet. we are aware of it and we think there's things that everything is being done correctly after the need new legislation came in but a lot of it is new. as you know illegal units are hot topic. he took
10:54 am
>>. we took mr. duffy your new superduper computer system should take care that should net? i have a question. >> i'm not involved in the program. i'm looking forward to. >> i think, historically, we've had elimination of or reduction of units whether a legal or not. that other nation in reduction has taken a number of different courses. sometimes it involves the illumination of all the utilities to the source, right versus what's alleged in terms of the cabinets and other things. i don't recall bathrooms being a big issue, although it has been brought up before in terms of production from a full bath to
10:55 am
a half-bath. historically, we've gone through those kinds of positions >> you are definitely right on appeared on this permanent building permit as well would require separate birds of building permit to remove any illegal wiring or plumbing worked back to the source. that usually is to the source. that has to be done and that's it good point commissioner fung. the bathroom, you're right there's not usually as much attention paid to those. there is some rooms with planning departments in regard to a full bath and a half-bath on the ground for. then of course the access, the direct access to the exterior and then the communicating between the floors mr. sanchez knows all about that but there is that,, some rooms but again what i'm saying here is that when you're legalizing removing stuff on the ground floor and be something that you legalize. that bathroom may not be legal but there's a chance to do.
10:56 am
they could do it under a separate permit theoretically but i think it's definitely a question that went okay taking care of the kids. with the bathroom put in without a permit, was it not, we don't know. >> we can take public comment now. whoever would like to speak least afford. forward. please step forward. >> good afternoon good everyone in the room, my name is kept only nobody can. otto came to my house in 2012 and he told me he wanted to buy my house to move in his family. however, it was actually the otto. his sister that was buying th i was told and just finished a three-week trial against the [inaudible].
10:57 am
the jury ruled against [inaudible] for fraud, then breach of duty. it's the same agent as in this case. i'm still trying to see so i can i can say too much about this case, but i want to inform the court that his family will move in, but it does not mean it is true. thank you. >> thank you. >> any of the public comment? seeing none, norther public comment on this item we will start with our rebuttal, mr. you have 3 min. mr. >> thank you. i do want to
10:58 am
say that the claim that mr. sam wants to move in to replace that he never checked out before buying is dubious at best. i actually would like maria, the tenant to speak. >> my name is maria dallas. >> maybe we can even estimate if needed. >>i definitely think that sam is not intending to move in to my home. because of that people coming in to see the place. potential buyers. >> my understanding is also
10:59 am
sam as the owner of the building , he did know that there were people living there. before sam was represented by this attorney another attorney came to the house and offered me $3000 to leave the house. because sam did not want any problems. and i did not want that money. that's all. thank
11:00 am
you. >> i have a question. did she ever meet mr. sam? >> no. >> no conversations >> only his wife >> so she did meet his wife? >> yes. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> how much time is left? >> i just want to point out cfc does require the rules for the city do require six cfc for unit removal. it is a full bathroom not a half-bath. that was built without a permit and the windows, i know i'm not from 10 years ago. planning has a good resource where you can go back to-three years and two years ago on the planning website they have would've windows. so these were placed within the last year. thank you. >> we can hear rebuttal from
11:01 am
the permit holder. >> thank you, ladies and jim a belief brief rebuttal. again, but we've been seeing is a focus on the people not on the law. as far as ms. boykin, i really don't know anything about her plans. i never met her before so i cannot speak to them. i will note she indicated her litigation was not against mr. sam. it was against a agent who she says is the same agent as in this matter. i agree, i really don't think it has anything to do with mr. sam. as far as the allegation that the final completion is required, in my brief, we go over what's not required. just simply restoring back to last legal condition and as far as this issue of the bathroom downstairs, mr. duffy even indicated that no evidence to indicate that bathroom wasn't part of the original construction. he says it may be
11:02 am
unusual for that type of home, but they can't find any evidence regarding it. ever, i would suggest the issue of the bathroom really is irrelevant to our proceedings here. no one has been able to produce any evidence that bathroom was not part of the original construction. it was not part of the permit that was applied for here. as far as the issue of the ancillary permit, the plumbing electrical permits my understanding is the typical procedure is to first get the demolition permit and then seek the additional permits before undertaking that specific work. so the argument that by not seeking every additional ancillary permit at the outset somehow invalidates the instant permit i think that is incorrect. in fact the motion permit can be sought and pulled first, and then plumbing electrical permits can be pulled later. that's it for my rebuttal. thank you much >> i have a question. these
11:03 am
omitte a purchase a in your brief but i see it's been whited out. >> on the first page? >> at this point i don't know what's been whited out and what is not in whited out. you get his adopted agreement >> in the brief i specified it has been redacted. the first page knows my decision but i redacted out the financial terms of it. i didn't think they were relevant to this proceeding and i did that or protect the privacy of the parties. that was my decision. that do not come from mr. simpson delivered actions made were as to the actual purchase price. that's it. >> so were the realtors who handled this? >> it was fidelity brokers >> they represented both parties on this? >> yes, they do >> there is only one buyer on this, see one name on it but as far as the titles there's only
11:04 am
one buyer on this? >> yes, it's just mr. sam. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will hear from the other mr. sanchez. >> scott sanders sanchez planning department. i believe i don't have much to back it i did look at our profile from the assessor's office and says there's one bathroom in the property. i would assume that's in the upper level not in the basement. i don't have anything to add to the noticing comment i made earlier that the project does require notice. that's a code requirement. it's minor standard must be applied as such the permit should be rejected but i'll answer any question. i know commissioner honda had questions maybe earlier >> i mean, so again regarding the restrictions because of new legislation has been enacted,
11:05 am
is there something that will come up on your website or dbi's website. further development but that lower section if they choose to move that area? >> are you saying if the permit is denied here and they come back in for new permit- >> let me clarify. for example the permit is upheld and allowed to remove the illegal work that's been done. the way the new legislation is written there not able to ever put that back in. correct? >> correct. they cannot add a dwelling unit that given the density and rh-one disc. big illegal is that as a second unit but once it's gone it can be restored under the current zoning under the current requirements. they can develop space on the ground floor in accordance with the current zoning, which would allow the bathroom and bedrooms at the lower level under planning to. it just would not allow the kitchen which is one of the
11:06 am
linchpins for creating a second. >> in the past with special restrictions imposed but is a deed restriction. is that going to be the case in this current- >> no. that's not standard practice them. it has not been standard practice when baby removal of illegal units were we would put a restrictions aim is limited to a single family dwelling. that's no longer the practice has not been for probably a decade or two. we realize just on the fact of the zoning and actually, they just usually what the state the light is entering >> when you see properties that have special restrictions, does that of any enforcement or any beef to it now with this >> it depends on what the special restrictions but let's say we had someone that came in the decade were t wrote go for rooms on the front for and rh-two district where consumer was going on with second floor could be construed as illegal units to clarify this a
11:07 am
single-family loan. they could come in now and do a second unit there because the zoning would allow that. we want to clarify the record we spent that notice a special restrictions but there's nothing in the lotto prohibit them from developing the property >> normally what you saw was that special restrictions no habitation or no one could live on that level? so that has no meaning at this point? speed it would depend but it was imposed by the planning commission by another review of the process. i think we want to look at the cases. i'm tempted to say it is not by but generally if the building allows you to develop it as a process to remove that. >> thank you very much. >> inspector duffy. >> commissioners, joe w dbi. i don't have much to add. i don't
11:08 am
think i said the bathroom on the ground floor was legal. i just do not have that information. however, mr. sanchez is able to look up the city assessor's records and shows the building has won legal bathroom. sometimes we use that but that's what the assessor's records have as one bathroom would you be the bathroom on the second floor i would imagine. >> mr. duffy, does that mean they should be removing it? >> they could adjust it that i have to address it out it just a point of order when you're taking care of the kitchen but don't you get the bathroom legalized if that's the right thing to do. but they didn't put it on there. it's a good time to do it. they could do it under separate permit of course. >> businesslike selective demolition? it's like the reverse of serial promoting. i am trying to take this illegal
11:09 am
unit that i like this part some going to because i like this part some going to keep this. if you do demolition of illegal units would seem to me that you would have to demo the entire thing. you would not have a choice am going to keep that bathroom especially since we know it's illegal in the first phase. >> it's pointing to that the assessor's records and we use that a lot in determining what we don't have a plan going back on an old dumb. there's never any drugs. so we have a lot for determining number of units. number of rooms. the bathrooms. as well. so, selective demolition, you could say it is that. he's taken up the kitchen, but leaving everything is. i don't know what the number of rooms were on the ground floor before. we are allowing them to keep these rooms as storage and keep the bathroom but we don't know it was illegal or not. it's not-it
11:10 am
just a point to make. i'm not saying there is no notice of violation of property making him do that from us. i just want to point it out to the board. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> so, regardless of anything else that is the permit is love because the proper notice wasn't given to the tenant. i would move-well, >> i would make a motion >> all moved to hold the appeal and deny the permit on the basis that tenant was not properly noticed about the issuance of the permit >> you mean revoke the permit >> excuse me. revoke it. thank you. >> weave a motion than by
11:11 am
commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and deny the permit. on the basis that the tenant was not properly notice. under the current law. >> correct >> on that motion, vice president fung aye, honda aye wilson aye swig got. that motion carried 5-0. commissioners, the last item on your calendar is the board consideration of the budget proposal for fiscal years 2016-17 and 2017-18. you have a set of slides, if you will or pages that outline my proposal for these budgets what i thought i would do is give you a brief overview of the status of your current year budget and then explain the
11:12 am
proposal for the next two budget years. a few months back, when i was giving you the annual reports i mentioned that there was a proposal about making our budget a two-year fixed budget. that legislation did not move forward. it's been tabled so were still on a rolling two-year budget cycle. we are not doing a two-year six budget and what you have before you is a rolling budget. the first two pages of the handout are familiar to him not to go into them in great detail due to information of our two revenue streams or charges apply to current application that citywide and filing fees. there is also information about the expenditure budget and how is divided off. we still have a pretty similar ratio expenses as we have been in past years. the majority of our budget covers salary and fringe benefits for staff and the rest , the majority of the west goes to work orders for other people but our city attorney and smg tv department of technology and the little bottle money we spend for other services we get
11:13 am
outsourced for some infrastructure material. if you look at page 5 of the handout is he met projections for appeals for the current year. it looks like we'll probably come in right around the 10 year average of 188 appeals for you. might go a little higher than that. just yesterday we received 10 new appeals, all of three removal permits that we heard together. so, but we been getting unusually this year these large chunks of appeals all once so they're making our numbers change a little bit. right now we have 134 appeals year to date as we made up going a little higher than the 10 year average. looking at occurrence year budget revenue respecting surpluses about revenue stream
11:14 am
for filing fees. we may be at size 47-50% are projections and i think that is in large part due to those 35 find permit appeals that gave us almost half of our filing fee budget in one fell swoop. we are also looking at a surplus in surcharge revenue if we continue to generate that revenue as we have been so far year to date and so we might end the year with about $123,000 in surplus revenue. on the expenditure side, we are excepting some expenditure savings. we get us to staff vacancies as you may recall in the beginning of the fiscal year to have some salary savings there. we have also projected some savings in our sfgov tv expenditure. we'll have a little flexibility in outline item because we don't know along our board meetings are going to run and how much going to cost to cover us. you're today, we are doing quite well in terms of our city attorney hours.i'm not sure if oregon and a year quite as well as we been going so far. i have
11:15 am
some news for you on that front. a deputy city attorney robert ryan is going to be moving to some different assignment. we are going to have a new attorney tom owen is here now. he may not be here long term but he'll be here for a while. eventually, will be getting a new attorney. sometimes we have a new attorney depend on how familiar they are with the board, our expenditure for that particular line item may go up a little bit because they've a learning curve. >> do not differ in price based on expense, right >> they actually are differently price. based on expense. that my changes well. >> ever hear of billable hours quicker >> that's a little bit interested i'm also expecting a sensor savings on specialized service line item. again we were little wiggle room in that area. we use that money to pay for the majority of them i goes to pay for the company that gives us the neighborhood notification materials and so
11:16 am
depending on how many appeals or how complex those are, it depends on how much will spend. i do expect we'll have about $67,000 or so in expenditure savings. if we combine that with the surcharge and filing fee surpluses were looking at about $190,000 in surplus before the year is over. hopefully, we will find ourselves ending the year in the black and if we do we'll put any of those funds in our rainy day fund in case we find ourselves in a different circumstance sometime down the road we need to get some extra help. turning to the budget for the next two fiscal years, starting again with revenue, we do get most of our funding through surcharge revenue and the rate for the surcharge is that each year a fresh. so we get some information about our peel volume. we get information aware the appeals are coming from and also from the various departments on projected permit applications volume. all
11:17 am
of that information is combined to figure out whether or not the surcharge rate should be adjusted. that analysis happens a little later in the cycle and also at this point in time there is no hard data on that but were not expecting there to be a need to address the surcharge rate. if that does happen, the controller can adjust it by the rate of inflation and higher adjusting is needed then we would need legislation. so that would come a little bit later in the legislative prospect >> me interrupt you. i was confused by this now i think i understand. you are saying your proposed budget anything would be status quo, but if things changed in the process of the budget getting approved and we wouldn't have a deficit, then the controller's office would adjust the surcharges? >> this to pieces. i can understand why might be confused. the first piece i'm
11:18 am
talking about is the rates. how much do each of the individual coming together to get a permit pay for their surcharge. that adjustment, if there is one need would be worked out a little later in the process. i don't think we will need one based on what our budget proposal is. if we were to get data back from one of the departments that said we think would have a significant decline in the volume of permit applications, next year, then we would to maybe adjust the rate to still recover the amount of revenue we need to get from that particular departments. or, if the volume of appeals for one of the departments shoots up dramatically then maybe their share of the board's budget needs to increase. so, that's that these were not 100% clear on that comes a little bit later in the process. what i am suggesting, however, we make a small adjustment in the projected revenue. not in the rate, not in what we charge the individual but in how much we project were going to recover from surcharges. i want to do that because our expenditure budget is going to grow up a little bit. i want to make sure we read balanced budget and
11:19 am
because we've had surpluses in our surcharge revenue the last couple of years and were projecting another one this year, it seems reasonable to increase the projected revenue from surcharges to cover the increase in expenditures >> there's a little bit of a dark throw right? i mean, >> yes. i feel very comfortable with it given what we have in terms of surpluses in the past two years and in terms of what the increase amount would be. >> but it is a projection quivers >> it's absolutely a projection, that is correct. last year we had $134,000 surplus in surcharges. the year before 133. the year before that 99,000. so, were looking at 29-23,000 in the two-year did it this small amount but yes, it is always a question mark in any year.
11:20 am
>> sure. i was confused by the rates and the revenue question. >> so, that sort of my-that covers the surcharge issued on filing fees am not suggesting any change because that's a small portion of our budget and we do tend to come up with a much around where we project although this year may be a little bit unusual. >> am i to assume that in 2008-2009 filing fees surcharges and everything else went down with the economy? >> yes >> at that time just projecting into the future, i don't know when another downturn is going to come but as your projecting budgets, did you-were you able to get a hint that something was askew before the fiscal year 2008-29 to adjust that were did you get
11:21 am
caught and like most everybody else? >> there were definite there were deficits not and 20 weight-2009 but earlier. at that time we had to take money from the general fund to cover our expenses. now we have our rainy day fund designed specifically to avoid that scenario in the future so that we would have a little bit of a state in the count waiting for us in case we do find ourselves in that circumstance again. the projections are really only as good as the city is able to project in terms of recession in building activity and permit application activity. it definitely is a risk. so, on the expenditure side, as i said before we are looking at small increases in both budget years
11:22 am
3.2% for the first year, which is about $29,000 and 2.4% in the year to which is 23,000. these are all mandatory increases largely related to salary and fringe benefits. there's a little bit of an increase also with respect to the board's share of the cost to replace the city's financial system. the city is going to big effort to replace a very antiquated system and we all have to pay a piece of it. this would be our peace. that's the increase for the services of other departments. >> is that allocated proportional to the province budget somehow >> it is. our share is very small compared to most of the departments. so, my recommendation then would be to increase the surcharge revenue projections as i've described to work with controller's office and mayor's office as we do on the surcharge analysis to see if there's any need for legislation to change the rates and then of course to continue to work closely monitoring our expenditures to make sure that we don't exceed our budget. there are some budget detail
11:23 am
pages follow if you want more of the numbers good i'm happy to answer any questions you have and of course hoping for a motion to adopt these proposals. >> any questions? >> maybe more of a rhetorical question. it has been several years since i said this. we been talking about reducing a surcharge because the cost of business for permits and stop is high now, but you know when you look at these numbers, even if we reduced it doesn't get far in terms of what the other departments that budgets in excess of 20-$30 million. >> i'll make that motion to accept the budget. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, on a
11:24 am
motion to adopt the proposed budget, as president fung aye lazarus aye wilson aye swig aye. thank you so much. that motion carried 5-0 and there's no other business before the board tonight. >> >>[gavel] . .
11:25 am
>> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the
11:26 am
rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco
11:27 am
11:28 am
11:29 am
11:30 am
11:31 am
11:32 am
11:33 am
11:34 am
11:35 am
11:36 am
11:37 am
11:38 am
11:39 am
11:40 am
11:41 am
11:42 am
11:43 am
11:44 am
11:45 am
11:46 am
11:47 am
11:48 am
11:49 am
11:50 am
11:51 am
11:52 am
11:53 am
11:54 am
11:55 am
11:56 am
11:57 am
11:58 am
11:59 am
12:00 pm


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on