the appellant? >> did you supply that report to the appellant? >> this report and this packet is to resolve the n.o.v. from march of 2018? in addition to the later n.o.v. from december of last year. >> it is the same area. >> the same issue. >> what has your conversation and communication been with the appellant? >> it is really hard to talk to him. retried -- >> describe trying. what does that mean? >> we wrote him letters. we have tried to go over and talk with him. he is just belligerent and stops the project. we are at the last section. this is -- we went down 26 feet. it is like what is happening on union square. the front of the building was a three-story -- >> ma'am -- >> you are saying we didn't work. but the reality is that i should have brought in the job card. we had eight concrete pours in the last two years. we are at the last section. this last section is a 22-foot section and there is concern that it would be not -- nothing would happen and so they went back to the original plan and -

peir is based on substantial evidence and the appellant has not proven otherwise the appellant has to the provided sufficient evidence there's been a failure to meet see qua therefore the planning department recommends they reject the appellant's appeal. this concludes my presentation and the department staff is available for your questions. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. sorry we had to break but i wanted to follow order. i think you had an answer, ma'am? >> i wanted to ask a follow-up question. thank you. i want to make sure i understand correctly your first comment. so you're basically saying state law says once you've reached the density that's analyzed in the plan it's no longer valid and you need additional environmental review if there's additional units built after the number of units anticipated in the plan were met, is that what you're saying? >> again, lisa gibson, environmental review officer, with all due respect, that's not at all what i was saying. what i was saying related to development density is for a project consistent with the development density

i am the appellant. today i will take the opportunity to present the evidence that suggests injustice during the previous hearing. the procedure for the hearing was not afforded. parties should have presented for no more than three minutes. however, mr. duffy from d.p.i. talked for about six minutes before being deflected. the board of hearing should have presented -- [indiscernible] the respondent and d.b.i. have not assured evidence that the new fence is completely on their property side. we have evidence that -- [indiscernible] the fence is completely on their property. it should provide a fence joined without properties surveyed, how will d.b.i. know the property line is correct? [indiscernible] mr. duffy from d.b.i. proposed a surveillance, but the board refused. the board of hearing should have given the appellant the opportunity to file an appeal related to the new permit suggested by d.b.i. in case the spatial -- special permit is not properly issued and approved. the permit was shown to be impro

the appellant is claiming unfairness. i would like to point out that at the august 7th hearing, the appellant did not comply of section 60 of the rules of the board of appeals. his son spoke in public comment. it states that persons who are not party to an appeal shall not represent parties. suffice to say this process has been an undue burden on myself and my family. i spent in a considerable amount of time trying to resolve this issue at the onset of construction. the appellant is not willing to accept the outcome of the board 's decision on the rehearing request is an attempt to get what he wants rather than rely on the board for their adjudication. based on these points, specifically on the basis there haven't been any new evidence submitted that would imply manifest injustice, we respectfully ask for the board to deny the request for a hearing. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez, anything? >> we will hear from mr. duffy. >> evening, commissioners. just on

a couple of things from the appellant as well that the identity from the appellant heard that he had an engineer on board. sometimes we have these situations and we we have them weekly. you have heard me speaking about them before. zero lot lines, excavation, something is undermined, small cracking, sometimes we seen one a few weeks ago with huge voids under someone's foundation they discovered whenever they went to see the depth of their front porch to do work. it is an ongoing issue. what i would say and i like to handle it where if there is an engineer and i heard this gentleman speak. he is a licensed geotechnical engineer. there is a letter in the brief. i don't know how the next door neighbor wasn't given this letter. it describes clearly what he wants to do, what steps he has to take, which is what d.b.i. wants. the only thing i didn't hear him saying maybe he needs an engineer as well to give him that insurance policy that these guys are going to design this and do it and going to fix it. that is what probably needs to happen. on his side if he's getting cracking on his walkw

we will hear from the appellants first. >> good evening, members of the board. my name is danielle herrera, i am a native san franciscan. i'm a resident for 19 years. i was visiting the reasons why i am appealing the permit application approved on may 6th , 2019, issued by the owner the permit states that the building is three stories, however, under san francisco planning department 305, it is two units. the alteration to be done on the second floor. that is the unit where i was. the alteration work is either being done in my unit and i was not being made aware of it. the application states are two, which is a building with three or more units, however, according to d.b.i. inspection records, it indicates it as a two units building. it does not reflect those of d.b.i. permit tracking systems provided by d.b.i. states a model second floor unit one. this is what i received. d.b.i. on the first one says second floor unit one model. i ask the permit be corrected to match d.b.i. records and also, this is the building we are talking about. it is this top portion righ

respectfully requests that the board uphold the denial of the appellant's onsite smoking permit. i want the board to know that d.p.h. staff are present and are available to answer any of your questions. thank you. >> i have a question. >> and i have a couple. >> it is clear that the condition that they use for the permit and clearly states no onsite cannabis smoking or vape. and if the permit holder wanted to extend the hours since that is the condition of use, who would they then apply to or go to? >> that would be a planning issue. >> would not be the office of cannabis, but a planning issue. >> yes. >> thank you. >> i am not going to argue your position. it is very confusing and misleading from the department of health point of view in my view that inspectors walk in, they walk in and they observe. they check the boxes. clearly there is a breach of law. clearly a breech of the conditional use. they have a nice day and wonderful job. one of mr. duffy's inspectors would walk into a building site and see a building infraction, it would be a notice of violation. why do we have cou

the new information that the unit is already constructed, it's not anywhere in the appellant's brief, and i can understand even more now why they want to have the variance overturned, but the fact that they've illegally constructed the unit does not justify the approval of this variance. i'm available for questions. >> commissioner honda: i've got a question, scott. so considering the lovely board of supervisors institutes all the laws that we have to file, doesn't he have to legalize it after? >> yes, he has to legalize it after -- >> commissioner honda: and we have lots of illegal units, that have wiring through the wall, and bare piping and substandard egress. and now, the city's goal is to legalize all those units. what happens if this case comes back to us seven months from now and it's been rented out and he has to legalize it? >> so the code says you must legalize it, but if you can't legalize it -- and in this case, they've gone through the -- even though they didn't ask for legalization, they tried to get the a.d.u., they would be required to remove it. the code requires that

please identify what -- for the appellant, regardless of what we find tonight, please tell the appellant, based on a clear -- a problem which has clearly affected them that was the result of somebody's -- yeah. >> very, very good question. >> president hirsch: what was going to happen next? how would you advise them? and because, you know, i want my ceiling fixed. >> i have actually given that advice already several times. >> president hirsch: for the record, please, so we know that the advice has been given and it's constructive advice. >> yeah. and i don't know if i'd use the word regular, on a regular basis. it does happen now and again, but i don't think it's regular. >> so when the main permit got initially issued, you've heard me say this many times, d.b.i. as part of the -- because there was excavation at the property line, there was notification -- structural notification was sent out by d.b.i. when the permit got issued. and at that time, that's a good time to ask the questions. and sometimes with all due -- people that don't understand construction and maybe they were told this

in the appellate's presentation next to the project being proposed. there's significant and unknown issues with the shallow ground water and poor soils on the site. without a current geotechnical report all monitoring must be included and expanded not just for the safety of the project for the adjacent building and the lives of neighbors like myself. the surrounding buildings on three sides of the project are all historical. it's incredibly important we preserve them and add distance to the buildings being monitored should be greater than 25 feet. 25 feet doesn't include the other buildings across the street and near the armory and the armory is not only a landmark but on the national register of historic places. it's imperative to conduct a new and current geotechnical report. allowing the project to proved -- proceed without this is neglect. and they'll have to take out years of backfill. the original core drilling wasn't even able to penetrate the area. the shallow excavation claim is also unfounded at this time. i ask we all be prudent and conduct

lastly, i'd like to invite the appellant or the representatives to present a rebuttal argument. you have three minutes. >> people don't understand that there has been no study about what happens when we dewater this whole area and the cumulative study of all the new building that's have come in since 2012 dewatering. why are we seeing sinkholes? where do these occur? what is going to happen of the we're not so concerned with -- we understand that there's no basements and there's an old brick foundation and there's an elevator shaft and there's garbage there that needs to be excavated and soil needs to be remediated and that might require dewatering. we do know because no one has dug up the parking lot and started digging there. and this whole when they now what was going on. here. why did they unload it on the project sponsor. they got rid of it. it's the impact that have been studied yet. what if it causes harm to this project? that is what environmental study is about and why is it not being done? why do you not take the things that you know and make accumulative changes and m

action request by the appellant for more time to complete the work. please come forward. >> good morning, commissioners. i am the chief housing inspector for the last ten or so years, our cases have been presented by myself or rosemary, the former chief housing inspector, but we do have inspector larry who has done an excellent job managing our district in the excelsior. he has recently been promoted to senior housing inspector. >> good morning, i'm jim lowery. i'm acting senior housing inspector. the subject property today is located at 232 talbert street. the notice of violation was issued on october 25th, 2018. the subject of the notice of violation was an unsafe interior staircase going from the second floor to the garage, it is secondary to the main staircase which is at the front of the house. it is a bungalow style home with a winding exterior staircase on the front. i have some pictures. the staircase is a bad angle. the tread depth is not correct. the picture is in your packets. i am referring to the picture that is labelled noncompliant stai

you. >> rebuttal for the appellant? >> this is certainly a tough case. i think we're in agreement on that. displacement of tenants is not something we like to see but this is a building with real problems and if the neighbor who spoke thinks this is a safe situation and a good spwaeugs fosituationfor people to give l, i'm happy to invite board members to see the property and you can see what condition it's in and what kind of work, more importantly, has to be done there. we're happy to -- the owners have happy to tarp the roof if there's a leak situation that can be done. i would think it could be done expeditiously. and if there are other individual items that cosmetically the department thinks can be done without moving tenants out, that's the conversation we should have. but th mold doesn't occur on its own. there's an underlying problem and that has to be solved and that's not something that you can just walk in and have the tents gtenants go to the other m over. this is a much larger undertaking. again, the order o

. >> it's when the appellant can give us the materials including the approved plans and the photo. the review of the zoning administrator would be relatively brief. if they could do that this weekend. >> do you think you would want to make a site visit at all to inspect the unit in person or is that not necessary? >> i think the photos speak for themselves, but we can -- we would need a little bit more time to -- >> maybe would be interesting to see what's happening inside the unit. >> dangjeremy, i'd be very nic. the zoning administrator does not like to be sacked. >> clerk: november 18. >> we're going to have a tight, busy schedule on the 6. >> we can test our new one-minute, two-minute rule. >> clerk: would that date work for you, november 13? >> commissioner honda, if i may make a comment? >> sure. >> i don't believe there will be a need for any further testimony on the matter when it comes back. >> okay. >> it will be fully submitted before the board. if you have questions, we'll be here, but i won't have further presentation for you. >> yeah, exactly. >> can you provide the d

without we'll proceed as follows the appellants or appellant representatives will have up to five minutes for presentation. then up to two minutes per speaker in support of the appeal. up to 10 minutes for a presentation from the planning department up to 10 minutes for the project sponsor or their representatives and two minutes per speaker in opposition to the appeal and in support of the project. finally, a total of three minutes for the appellant or appellant's rs to provide a rebuttal. colleagues, are there objection to proceeding this way? seeing no objection, public hearing is now open. supervisor ronen would you like to have opening remarks? >> no. >> commissioner: okay. i see nobody else on the roster. so i will now ask the appellant or their representative to come forward and present their case. have you a total of 10 minutes. >> >> good afternoon, supervisors. ie our mission no eviction request you require a current accumulative environmental review prior to further consideration of this project. the process of tiering or using a base environmental review to assess environmenta

the soil conditions and the appellant contends the proposed projected would alter existing drainage in the area and result in significant impacts to adjacent buildings in the woodward street district. the appellant contends it was approved under an eir and the impacts of changes since the plan was adopted were not adequately studied through the plan. during the public hearing, they spoke against the project due to impacts on residents and businesses in regards to displacement in the commission. public comment was opposed due to changes in groundwater, hydrology. supervisors confirmed this and denied the appeal. lastly, the city administrators office introduced an ordinance to change from the office of cannabis to cannabis regulation, as this is a only a name change with no other substantive changes. stuff was not bringing this to a public hearing, unless you hear otherwise and that concludes my report. >> thank you, are star. commissioner richards? >> just one comment on -- it's ok. i know the eastern neighborhoods planning ir was taken to court and it went through a lot of iteratio

during review, if the appellant wants to -- or mr. boscovic, on his right, wants to come down to d.b.i., that process is available to them, and if they're not getting a response, i'm happy to put my hand up and say let me know if you're not getting satisfactory response to questions during that review. the people doing this process should have nothing to hide. there should be an open line of communication between them. it does have to meet the california building code seismic, you know, whatever, structural. and the other thing i heard was the valuation, and it can be reviewed. it looks like it's a small enough house to begin with, getting a small addition. but 125,000 is low. that can always be raised before it can be done on a correction notice voluntarily by the permit holder. a lot of people -- sometimes architects put that down or someone just on their behalf. it could be double that, probably. depends on the interior work that's being done, as well. so on the demolition, obviously, we spoke on that before, as well. if they end u

the appellant had highlighted something on the plans that he had stated was a demolition. there were separate hashed lines that depict parking space, but that's not shown being demolished on the plans. anything that's below grade does not count towards section 317 calculations, so even if all those retaining walls need to be replaced, that doesn't count toward 317. i think this board has heard these issues before, and people will come up and claim it's a demolition. >> commissioner honda: first time. >> if anybody wants to be out in front of that, it's the sponsor usually after the department has reviewed conditions generally not very favorably in several cases going back to what was there before or often wanting to go back to what was there when the building was first built. so it was quite a serious matter. and maybe the project sponsor wants to address some of their thoughts and methodology in greater detail, but you know what's shown on the plans as shown to not be a demolition because mr. buskovic notes, we have a process for this. and we do have a process for this. i

from the appellate court ruling. fees went up, we struggled with this for the budget last year but have budgeted for it in the current year. the mayor's office, mayor's budget office was generous in their funding of this, thank you. and finally this last slide before you, just shows the increase in releases on alternatives. back in september, late september 2016 we had total justice involved population of about 2150 of which 1350 were in jail and about 800 were out on some sort of alternative. in september 2019, the total number of justice involved people is up to over 2700, the jail population has gone down by about 75, but the individuals out of custody on pretrial release or sentenced to alternatives has gone up. that means that our -- the percentage of people on alternatives has increased from 37 to 53% which is higher than you'll find in other counties in the bay area. >> thank you. yes? supervisor stefani. >> thank you chair fewer and thank you for the presentation. can you talk about the success rates of elect

as response to the appellant. we had the hearing last week. we are waiting on a decision from the controller. it is over a minor infraction of $100, but, you know, we will keep you appraised where that appeal process goes and whether or not we win. do you have any questions? okay. >> one comment on the previous item and just pointing out that in the executive directive from the mayor the actions are taken by the entertainment commission and staff. i just wanted to take some -- i want the entertainment commission taking credit for moving forward and laying the groundwork for the special events work being done. i am glad you are representing us in that process, and i hope it makes things easier for all of our applicants and people looking for permits. i am glad you are involved. >> as we all know, our department as well as commission are a little bit biased. we support our constituents who are organizers. by nature of that we want to find where the holes are and where there are potential improvements so dillon's wor