tv Board of Appeals 11916 SFGTV November 12, 2016 1:00am-3:01am PST
to my left is thomas owen and gary the local assistant executive director. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. sitting at the table in the front is scott sanchez the city zoning administrator here representing the planning department and the planning commission as well and in a moment we'll see building inspector joe duffy return to the room representing the please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the
minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i
do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking so if you could your right hand swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner president honda and supervisors we have one housekeeping item has to do with with item 5 appeal 16 danish zero regardi0 regarding 16th avenue a permit has been cancelled at the appeal is no longer under the board's jurisdiction and will not be heard tonight we'll move on to item one general public comment this is the opportunity time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction any public general
public comment seeing none, item 2 commissioner questions or comments commissioners okay. then item 3 is the boards consideration of minutes of october 26, 2016. >> unless additions or changes can i have a motion? >> to accept those. >> so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes seeing none, a motion if commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes on that motion commissioner fung commissioner president honda commissioner wilson is absent commissioner swig. >> okay. that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero thank you very much item 4 was continued last time for commissioner wilson participation with the presidents agreement we will hold off on that item and move to the next item on the calendar item 5 is dismissed item 6
appeal wang versus the zoning administrator on merry lemon drive of a notice of violation and penalty alleging the code with the use of the the subject property on the limitations for the accessary dwellings and the appellant is the appellant in the room? please step forward >> thank you you have 7 minutes to address the board okay. please bring the microphone down to speak into that. >> good evening and welcome. >> and thank you for being patient. >> should i say first? okay. this is for any friends he set up the inspector he
didn't really have the violation because i have two friends and the friends and family going to the address but the inspector say he is operating a business is violates the code so we just want to resolve this probl problem. >> is that it. >> yes. this problem too many friends. >> a questions are you aware of the conversation between you and the department because it is dated in our brief - let me talk first although. >> how much time do you call the department and what were the responses. >> according to the paper and e-mail he probably called during the hours i know the inspector
only will accept before 8 possibly why they never get a bill from the station with the inspector matthew's the inspector. >> so how many times - >> a lot of times i look at them probably 20 times. >> and never, never once did the department person call you back. >> i think the from time to time they did but maybe i didn't pick up the phone in the meantime they not connect with each other. >> okay. >> the only time i think they really connect to each other through the e-mail. >> so the person that lives at the address is he present. >> yes. >> maybe i can help answer speak some of the questions come
to the podium. >> state your name for the record. >> i'm van. >> so the question is how much time do you call the department and what. >> more than ten times and during that time. >> during the time we kept the letter we e-mailed more than ten times i can't remember how much time my office workers call having to send an e-mail too you know no notice and until we got the fine letter you know then he answered the one time that's all. >> okay. thank you very much. >> okay. >> that's it thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez.
>> thank you scott sanchez planning department. the subject property mira loma within an radically there are limited uses allowed as accessory to a accessary dwelling in a residential zoning district not maintenance of stoke and trade and not employees earlier this year the complaint to may we received complaints from the public that there was an ongoing business at the the subject property employees were coming and going our understanding being used just to the dwelling for storage and equipment for electrical contractor in the morning employees we are picking up equipment and going out for jobs during the day they were doing this early there were contemplates not insistent of a residential district in question
started our process with a site visit that is correspondence with mr. one-way and our staff as well as phone calls record up to and including the day the appeal was filed that e-mail what staff worked out over the time it was ongoing discussion with the planning department i can't say what - who is not calling them back from the lowers from the staff we were trying to resolve the staff to depreciated it to a manner we believe that reduced the impacts on the neighbors and that happened the day before the appeal was filed and was agreed they'll be more mindful and not have their employees coming out to the property for limited as recommended by mr. wang an emergency if they had an employee that needed something
from a job and the night before pickup in the morning that happened on the curve we're trying to work with them we know those are not uncommon types of used for the residential district but want to address the concerns of the neighbors so that's right the point we were at in august and again have regular communications they've admitted two complaints on the property one planning went to building and inspector duffy can address the complaint 329 department of building inspection but it sounds like that was verified it was used for storage electrical equipment which is not the thing that is allowed under the planning code but we are trying to work with them to come up with a way of addressing that will allow them to have a business but reduce the impacts on neighbors and make that more residential in character
after the appeal was filed i had my staff reach out to the appellate and try to get a better understanding of what was going on based on those communications they were appealing the staff time we charge for cover time and materials we spent on enforcement this is not appealable it says in the letter itself explicit the time and materials is not appealable that is just time and material and wear allotted to collect that we've not been assessing penalties under this property they've been working with us coming into compliance no outstanding penalty but they have an outstanding material charges approximately $1,200 outlined in the letter that's where we are at today i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have a couple of mr. sanchez how do you track when in
coming calls are taken and e-mails are returned i mean going off the briefs and you know this seems to be not enough fair exchange of information according to the brief we received. >> i think one of the points two enforcement cases i don't know if they specified who was not returning their calls. >> certainly in our notice of violation penalty is documented conversations that we've had with them additionally i mean, i have an e-mail he can pass up to the board you know june 8th e-mailed to mr. wang describing the notice of enforcement and the code compliant and an analogy on the ninth and june 9th mr. wang during the
phone calls describing the planning code permission this is no early august and august 22nd i mean interest is evidence of the e-mails i don't know when they're saying staff if call them back evidence was communicated to resolve the complainant we thought was resolved the day before. >> is there a set policy when the public calls. >> yes. the goal is twenty-four hours we do our best and at staff has more than one thousand cases we have an enforcement staff but we try to respond to everyone in a timing fashion i believe mike what i'll hearing from the appellant no communication is not what the fact support as this case i'm reading from the. >> the problem, no brief. >> no information here. >> all we have is one page of
the appellant that didn't say anything to provide new details to what their allegations are and have no information or from the department other than the letter. >> that's correct. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. >> let me just i mean there is a gentleman's name mentions in the public document that person's name is a non-richmond party but ii agree with commissioner fung what we have the appellant saying i've called them a bunch of time but no documentation on that and you're reading from your information which clearly is documents but we don't have it in our brief and so it is we're stuck we said she said may i ask you what this
is all about so i can ask the appellant something latter please. what? all about someone doing business out of a residence this is not right; correct? >> you can will have a home based bus but it neatest to needs to be done in a residential manner. >> they were operating a nuisance in the eyes of the neighbors was created as to materials being i'm imagining the materials from the homes a garage being up used as a warehouse possibly stuff like that. >> and coming and going. >> one of the main things people are woolken up - >> the nov was filed based on
the complaint of the neighbors and even if no e-mails communication and something that was satisfactory to your department. >> the have addressed it we did inform them only august 22nd we'll keep the can i go e case open in the case there are further complaint to readily monitor it we outlined how they can comply and there was agreement at that time. >> with that said the issue the $1,270 of staff time and expenses related to this case and appropriate under the planning code. >> as not in our notice of violation not appealable i'll note the cost to file the appeal is $600 that is half of the
materials. >> okay. >> so what we are talking about here as far as i'm concerned, the appeal is on the notice of violation but about the dwelling units. >> that's what i understood from the subsequent communications. >> i'll ask that from the appellant. >> mr. sanchez one 09 point of your letter indicates photos. >> do you have those i don't have those with me but maybe i'll get them online. >> commissioners did you want to hear from inspector duffy. >> not before you. >> any public comment? seeing none, there is rebuttal for the appellant and the president as questions so if you could come back please.
>> you have any rebuttal that you want to add. >> i'm sorry, i understand the situation is because he doesn't know what the violation code is but he received a letter on january 15th and clean up the place already told the people not to come to the house it is very quiet so as matthew the inspector say he still seeing people in and out of the house so it is excess to that that you have operating and still in violated the law and served him - i mean the payment was one
thousand 2 hundred something i understand he try to call and someone said not to appeal it won't do you, you any good that's why we are here. >> so just a couple of things first of all, as the zoning administrator judge said in the planning code there are stated fees that are associated with and a - with a notice of violation this thing violation came as a result of a neighbor complaint that is unanimous but when you file on appeal it costs $650 and then in the planning code if the planning department has to come out and investigate unfortunately where the person they're investigating has to pay for the time of the investigation and the materials
so the $1,270 is the $650 appeal cost and that time and . >> i did - >> huh? >> separate. >> that is on top of the departments t and m costs. >> this is the law non-negotiable and it comes with you have a notice of violation what is concerning to me i'd like to ask i guess your friend or client or appellant. >> there seems to be a record of conversation as of the zoning administrator just was reading from june 8th, june 9th and august 20th and 21st felt a conversation ongoing between yourself and the planning department
and so you understand there was conversation regardless of telephone calls in the night and the zoning administrator stated he worked you, you to resolve the issue and you agreed to do that that was to be quiet in the morning and keep everything suitable for your neighbors so - in your eyes was there that conversation. >> where is the e-mail. >> i - where is the e-mails. >> they'll get answered. >> the question is the commissioner swig is asking did the receive e-mails from the department. >> off of that.
>> so what is making me scratching my head the zoning administrator said in june and again in august he has recordings and e-mails that there was a negotiation a notice that you can fix this we'll help you and there was a resolution sometime around august 22nd from the zoning administrator who was the zoning administrator talking to if he wasn't talking to you beyond this. >> i think that he wanted to talk with inspector matthew i understand that the inspector is not normally at the office that's why he never really get a chance to talk with him and he just had to tell his friend that
someone got e-mail from the party. >> so he - >> there - here's the thing the zoning administrator somebody in planning was communicating with the that mr. wang i'm sorry mr. wang or something in your office there was a dialogue blavrt and it was a good dialogue and resulted in the planning department considered a resolution it is done everything is fine but now you say no communication which something is - and the main thing i wanted to talk with mr. matthew not a chance to talk with him that's why he considered no
communication. >> we understand that but were e-mails received it all by anybody? >> so the point he didn't get a good communication i saw the e-mail i know there was some communication but he's open thinking. >> regardless of ohio when a notice of violation occurs automatically according to the law fees are charged they have time and they are expenses related to enforcing that notice of violation so and that's a non-negotiable situation non-appealable situation at the least you'll have to pay the $1,200. >> that's the problem i'm not bio rated. >> can you speak into the microphone please.
i think the timeline and maybe we'll get clarification from maybe the zoning administrator i think they felt they were wander correct me if i am wrong that you were wander and had communication and thought you fixed it and the notice of violation came after is that what you're saying. >> i received the first violation and fixed it the inspector came in and fixed the problem in march so in june the is okay. this is the violation it's not fixed that's why he didn't understand that according to the record it was abated. >> i think we'll get clarification from the department thank you. >> thank you. >> yeah. thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> that he fixed it. >> okay scott sanchez planning
department. put on - >> to clear this up. >> e-mails let's see so - >> next time maybe a case like this you'll want to help us send along the e-mails and everything in the brief please. yes. >> over the overhead an e-mail from our staff to mr. wang and . >> can the expand a little bit so i can read the letters. >> one question before you start going the day you said you had conversations in march and in june that's when the notice of violation came i think the clarification in the timeline of that so you mentioned conversations in july and august
maybe you can help to clear that up mr. sanchez. >> so there was as i mentioned a separate case from building department it was opened no january and that was about storage of materials that appears to be resolved in march and the case was closed in march then the planning complaints was first really appears to be received in early may so there's. >> basically two cases they're talking about the resolution of the first case this is the second case. >> right may 9 a notice of complaint and then on june 6th we submitted our notice of enforcement then june 8th staff had contacts on june 8th and 9 with mr. wang following that additional evidence in july the
complaint was ongoing and on july 27th staff observed the vehicles arriving at the property going to the garage and picking up materials then on june - july 27th we sent an e-mail to mr. wang with the - the notice of violation was not issued until july 17th the general timeline let me go back to some of the - >> that's fine. >> when did the resolution you mentioned. >> august 22nd. >> what you thought was resolved. >> august 22nd so i'll put on the overhead here can i have the overhead? this is an e-mail from mr. wang saying the employees will not come up ever again to get things if they need anything i'll bring it down to them they're not coming into the property a
public street you confirmed this when i spoke to you on the phone and he asked what is next is the complaint closed staff responded your; correct an employee cannot come to the property but you can bring those to the public right-of-way they're not allowed on the property the case is open for monitoring i'll let you know as quickly as possible if i receive any complaints and you'll not be fined daily but administrative fee prior to the closure of the case part of notice of violation and it was 1271 and stated not appealable and happy to talk with mr. one-way and reduce some way the fees make sure the time was properly accounted for i mean, we're obligated to collect. >> who did the appeal.
>> i think they thought they have an opportunity to get some money back but it was explained to them prior that it was not and if you guys you know pardon me. >> that's not correct what their appealing based on the fact in their, their stating not a fact but stating is that the department did not act correctly in terms of communicating with them therefore it should be thrown out. >> the nov. >> i believe that's what they're asking. >> if we throw out the nov there's the issue of time and materials we've spent. >> no nov they can't charge their appealing the nov. >> can the permit holders come to the podium please.
>> two minutes. >> yeah. >> so after i mean it makes it harder when we don't have full briefs according to the department what happened was you had a storage of equipment violation that was abated and that was done as you said in march but in may you were there was another notice of violation from planning in regards to the employees still on the property the letters and e-mails that were corresponding with the department indicate that you have fixed it august 22nd but that's after the had already been given a notice of violation those fees are not refundably through this board; is that correct. >> no
no. >> your misunderstanding two separate notice of violations. >> a letter we fix it already. >> but the department already indicated they saw poem r0e678 equipment after. >> that's not true because pie house was leaking water and to fix leaking not moving the equipment not true. >> okay. all right. thank you. >> okay. >> ask your question. >> yeah. >> i think you know and that's where the conundrum is because the planning department is saying they did a site visit after the building department issue was abated and therefore saw those issues and the appellant is saying that didn't happen. >> mr. sanchez can i see some
documentati documentation. >> thank you so i'm not able to assess the photographs but there is a timeline in the notice of violation and penalty which details the finding from staff and i mean, we did find there was a violation they have corrected it and so that's why we are seeking the time and materials we had that time and materials. >> can we - show us that e-mail again. >> sure. >> on the overhead. >> the e-mail from a general e-mail address didn't have the appellants name on it does it. >> no, i mean he signed off with thank you but staff addressed to to mr. wang electrical construction and he states the employees will not
come up ever again to get things that's what we were trying to work with them to get the violation abated. >> so somebody from the organization responded therefore had been in communication with your staff. >> yes. and our staff was responding to someone at the electrical current construction site and see they generally don't sign off on their name and the staff race responding to mr. wang if they saw mr. wangs writing they would have written back. >> can you go to the beginning of e-mail to see that date. >> this is the e-mail that came in the day before the appeal was filed and i saw that one but an earlier, one. >> one from june did you say june 8th or 9 a earlier in the
day where the writer has consumption with our department they asked the staff they say he know who is making the complaint the people across the street - before that staff has communications with them on august 1st because they've informed them on july 29th additional information about the work and activity happening at the property i mean, that's - then back to june 9th an initial when the second notice went out so -
>> on june 9th i think this is what i'm trying to if i could commissioner on june 9th there had been a complaint filed by the public and that complaint related to - by the time there had been a complaint may it 2 filed by the public there was a business activity that was believe it or not them at the site so i'm bending over backward and on july 27th the inspector said this was continued activity at the site and bending over backward that was a coincidence the day a water leak at his house but regardless of that a notice of violation was created well before july 22nd and seemed to
continued that practice continued in some fashion or a conversation wouldn't have happened in august. >> right. >> so okay a coincidence that the inspector was there, there was real construction at the house that was still that went out of there they were still activity there that was causing the neighborhood angst and i mean, the public complaints to dbi in january that seems to be abated in march but that is restricted to our department in may. >> the second notice of violation valid aside from july 27th may or may not construction legitimate there were continued violations as
admissions to that. >> their argument there was not and received just within the department said there is prove but the department didn't have the pictures and i apologize for not having the photos we have it in our materials and the foitsdz were submitted by members of the public staff did investigate did two site visits and eyewitnesses and it was admitted in the e-mail they'll stop having their employees come to the site i thought that was sufficient evidence of a violation. >> were the complaint all unanimo unanimous. >> you can't say. >> do you have records.
>> our system is not compliant with the ipad that appears. >> maybe that will be once the department. >> we'll all wait thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> you know a new system. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> for me the documentation is in the notice of violation and i have not heard anything to refute it. >> the problem the appellant has not provided i can understand perhaps i'm guessing there was some level of frustration on their part because it's not always easy to deal with planning department staff. >> especially the enforcement people and i think their there's issues there which i'm not going
to get into but probably some frustration therefore led to perhaps certain actions, however, the proof they needed to provide in terms of documentation was what was disputing. >> you have something else for us mr. sanchez. >> my apologies this was a photo by the complainant stated this is from friday september 9th and saturday september 11th i mean. >> those two were. >> the vehicles. >> in the driveway. >> yes. >> this was submitted in september and part of complaint
there was from their e-mail at the continued to have work trucks for loading and unloading this was september 9th and 10. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. >> i think the appellant want to put this behind them they'll have to pay the fee and conform to the requirements of code. >> care to make a motion commissioner. >> move to deny the appeal on the basis the zoning administrator neither erred more abused his discretion. >> to uphold the notice of violation commissioner fung commissioner president honda commissioner campagnoli is absent commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero
schold it didn't appear that commissioner wilson. >> exactly what is the alternative at this point. >> i know item 4 was continued for no participation i understand. >> is there a resolution. >> i don't know but further discuss of a resolution i don't know from the board want to let them discuss with the board we can put it over for commissioner swig participation. >> this is a light evening. >> perhaps madam director try to reach commissioner wilson to see if she's in route autsdz unfortunately any cell phone died if she's trying to reach me her phone number is in my system. >> is that an e-mail. >> i left any phone in the office. >> all i can do you want to try
that that would be great. >> do you want me to wait to call the item. >> no. >> this is item 4 versus the zoning administrator the property on broderick protesting the issuance on the rear yard variance for a two-story at the rear the two-story building this was heard on july 13, 2016, and september 21st, 2016, and it is on for further consideration today we can give with the president's agreement 3 minutes to give me the board an update starting with the appellant. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you i'm steve i didn't straiie stra
>> we met again with ray and came to an agreement we thought in principle that he was not going to expand above the ground level but expand the ground level all the way down to the existing deck i have a photo from my oh, thank you and you know he would expand more on the ground floor versus et al. on the first floor that was virtual from our deck and instead of moving the stairs where you see in this photo - let me move up which overhanger backyard he was planning to move
them tucked into the house but we agreed okay keep the stairs as is and expand all the way on the ground level to the existing decks and no examination at that level or top level and we were happy to be done with that but ray had to go back and get approval i think when he did that it turned out we needed to build a firewall to keep the existing stairs where they are and i'm not sure like the original surveillance was not approving the stairs but would you agree to having a firewall to having the stairs rebuilt with the firewall going along our property we asked that that looks like and not sure and got a picture a solid way all the way down our backyard on the sides we get the most sun coming
in, of course, we wanted to resolve this we went back and said you know what if this was only a suggestion but with a transparent material on the part above the deck seems like this is not a possibility but possible to put the stairs on the other side which you know we can't see very well but already a taller wall on the south side so having to put a firewall is less obstruct active and or go to the variance where that is tucked into the expansion where the upper stairs are he basic said no way that's where we are these days so we would have been
happy to sign off on what we agreed to in principle could we have left the stairs as they are but not a possibility. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, sir. >> yes. good evening for the most part ms. supervishriveshri >> after costly meeting with any architect and agreed in principle to leave that has stairs in the current condition i'm not a building expert back and forth a financial cost with changes for his time to contact scotts office they agreed i gave up the entire second floor
expansion which was difficult for me to do and all i'm asking is this particular stair that is currently there not moving moving it either makes my deck smaller or i would - it would help them now i have to do the same process to the setting their moving the problems to a different neighbor and costly for me again they're very unflexible during the process we contacted scotts office multiple times and got guidance how the firewall should be built i have pictures what i submit to the schiffer's braefrt this is a current sketch and obviously with the new firewall in
particular section here all i'm asking they tried to drag this on no other options after i so inflexiblely gave up the second floor expansion to agree on the small piece based on i'm asking the board to approve the variance based on the due diligence scotts office has done. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> did you say one option was to not replace the stair. >> no one of the options was to keep the steps in their current status the evaporates that was granted move forward the steps to the other side and it keeps the steps from - >> are those stairs need to be replaced because they're not in good shape. >> yes. the deck and the steps
are at least minimum thirty years old when we do the construction that will make sense to tear it down and build that with newer material i'm open with a transparent material that helps they're light. >> that didn't work. >> correct. >> and which is what i tried to explain to them. >> you've answered any question. >> thank you very much. >> can i ask a question. >> what we moved from is you wanting to build out the floor above the ground floor and the third floor. >> no the second floor. >> and given away on the second floor that allows you know this picture that someone created shows you will be completely blocked if you did the second floor over this issue has been abated and that light
continues and so - >> you have compromised significantly on that point. >> significantly compromised and for the appellant some loss of light because of firewall that is required by the city and you know but i have to compliment you - yes, he have the photo in the case you anyone wants to see that. >> i have their photo from their point of view. >> an expansion. >> and - >> a big issue because that blocked their loyalty from their house but now there maybe a little bit of president your cake and eat it, too. >> yes. they want me to move the steps completely out of
their way completely inflexible. >> mr. sanchez okay. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> - sorry public comment. no public comment. commissioners that is up to you if you want to make a motion to do something with the variance or you want to continue it for commissioner wilson. >> so can i have some advise please i have trouble - >> if we were to accept a suggestion which is to - build on, on the lower level but maintain the stairs with the firewall is that a uphold the appeal with the direction that. >> grant the appeal. >> what. >> grant the appeal with the change that would remove the
second floor expansion from the project and move the project to the lower floor of the sustaining the existing stair and the firewall is required by planning. >> it sound like there were plans drawn up. >> the easiest thing to condition the variance on the project reflecting what those plans look like again you're looking at the 5 finding required for a variance you need to decide if those vtsd have not been met and if they're met by virtue of conditioning the project. >> i believe my concerns at the previous hearings and -- excuse-me. from memory that issue that the view - the second floor was really the
issue for me and my feelings whether i verbalize them or not whether there was some project sponsor was not showing as much flexibility as i thought he might but in fact, with the removal of that big chunk of construction on the second floor which a blocks that clear view a big conversation here you know the best compromise we're both go away feeling they didn't get what we wanted but something i think this is the districts i'd like to take. >> fellow commissioners. >> i will agree with that. >> it may very well come to that as you recall i indicated at the last meeting my first indication
would be to remove a portion of the ground floor and you wanted 45; right? >> set by the 45 line and they had done that then the new stair could have been added adjacent without a firewall that then had the further mid block open space obstruction of the second floor this stair would be going from the down to grade would go down to the rear yard so the height above would be less than the
height of a full floor at this point. >> the stair would stay in the same place. >> we're talking about moving that over. >> you want a picture on the overhead to help with this. >> sure. >> this is a picture that the architect drew up of what the firewall will look like. >> the fenced between our two homes is roughly at what height. >> lower. >> here's the - (inaudible) how will the firewall roughly to the it up of that rail; right?
>> right that is basically okay. my only concern this is our backyard a little backyard will block the sun in our little backyard i'll be fine with keeping the stairs as they are if there's a way to build them without the firewall or - >> some other possibility. >> we understand your point already yes, thank you. >> i think. >> we understand your point and like to indulge our point but unfortunately laws preventing that that's the way it is. >> thank you the other option deny the appeal. >> uh-huh. >> that is the option but that didn't. >> then there's going to a
structure think all levels. >> but they're concerned about the things being blocked even if with this this blocked less than the other. >> okay and significantly. >> all right. >> and in terms of 5 conditions this will alleviate the issue of causing causing a burden or i always forgot the condition but causing a hardship this removes the hardship. >> the hardship is looking at the hardship on the property owner you'll be talking about the impact to the. >> impact to the neighborhood. >> to the neighbors. >> for me. >> unless anyone else has a motion we tried to make one. >> go ahead and make the motion but i'll repeat what i said last time the permit holder
has a variance as far as i'm concerned, not as of right. >> say it again, please. >> the variance not as of right as far as a property. >> no, i did not is is that as a property line i'll take this as a compromise. >> so fine for the uphold the appeal or fine for the appellant with the condition that the property owner be able to do the expansion of the first floor. >> as per the plans. >> as per the plans which have been submitted. >> so those plans have not been submitted we need something
that would be helpful if we could have that document submitted and i'd like to have the zoning administrator see if that rfbts what needs to be understood later which - >> so you're looking for plans for the ground floor. >> looking for the drawings to show you. >> that reflects the alternative design. >> can you provide that to the zoning administrator please.
the variance holder indicated the wall will come out cross to the rear property line to the end of the deck and then extend over to the south side property line and then the stairs will remain along the north side property line. >> because the plans that at this point have only been drawn up an escalation elevation and didn't show. >> do we have a date on that by chance. >> 11, 62016. >> is that elevation correct. >> you could move the wall further out. >> it is the north elevation so the wall will come out in line with the extent of the deck it is not something you'll see from this perspective because it
will be hidden by the firewall that is for the stairs. >> but the plan you've showed us earlier indicates - >> this plan is the existing plan he's indicated the rear wall didn't come out as far as the edge of the deck and they seek to bring this out further to the rear property line for a large space and bring it out over the facade they'll no longer do the stairs ♪ location but remained on the north side property line with the north elevation you'll not be able to see that increased area because it is good evening to be hidden behind this firewall here so that will be in a section in the middle of the building see it extend out further >> is that a variance. >> yes. it is modified but again this is a nov hearing.
>> i understand but does that change our opinion. >> one of the concerns i have was that the you know kind of addressing the concerns rays by the neighbor to the west kind of going towards the rear property line was a bit of an issue that's why we cut back at the upper levels but again, this is fully up to the board if you feel this is an appropriate solution. >> but not upper level. >> that addresses that concern. >> it seems the upper level will cause more interference in the sightlines between 9 neighbors. >> the bottom below grade level. >> it is a down sleep from broderick so, i mean this wall will be fully impose that's one of the concerns of the appellant
to the west they've been mainly about bird levels and the sidelines to their rear yard. >> so this will bring the rear wall closer to their property and further exacerbate their concerns. >> but under the existing deck. >> yes. and it will be reduced at the floor above not doing that expansion so trade offs there. >> okay. >> i think i'm satisfied thank you. >> i'll allow is this time please come to the podium please. you my understanding a firewall on the south side of the property when they expanded the building co-author to the original variance i'm wondering if they have to have a firewall
if they build out the lower level in this case why not put the stairs next to that firewall in their building and just minimize the intrusion on the north side of the property. >> okay. thank you. >> i think - part of what is driving this alternative is the presidio's is the picking up additional space on the empowering. >> - >> what he is losing on the second floor. >> how much space are we talking mr. sanchez i'm sorry. >> how much 6 inches? >> well be the square footage of that stair. >> so. >> the square footage the
stairs with pivoting. >> no a new stair that is shown in the plans. >> but a replacement stair. >> no, it is being relocated not a replacement stair. >> sorry no talking. >> according to the appellant would like to step up and clarify the permit holder would like to step forward and it will be a mirror. >> not a replacement stair once you take them out. >> in terms of what they're proposing an, an alternative it is essentially a reminded stair but original variance drawings shows a completely different stair in a new location. >> that's my understanding going back to the drawing the rear wall will move out towards the rear property line the dimension up here is probably 8 to 10 feet closer to the south
side property line as is appellant noted on the current proposal a firewall their relocating the design so the stairs will no longer be there to the south side property line and 3 feet out further to the rear end of the line of the existing deck and the stairs will be rebuilt with a required firewall bringing the existing conditions up to code. >> if we moved it to the south side since from the second floor you'll create the second situation to the neighbor on the south side coming from the level down; right? >> you're against a building on the south side. >> the building on the south side has a bit of a side setback and didn't have a deeper lot my understanding from the variance holder they have discussed this and the adjacent property was
okay with that firewall in that proposed stairs in that location. >> please no talking. >> no appeals were filed i'll say that thank you. >> so the point of that conversation is would you accept that drawing under the conditions of this motion. >> yes. i mean there is a trade off there i mean, my concern will be we asked them to setback the wall that's a concern of the appellant to the west but mr. lee removing that addition on the second floor and having the addition been indicated a more censorsy space densely used it acceptable but hopefully up to the boards. >> i have one question for the
permit holder after we're done. >> oh - >> hold on i'll ask the permit holder a question. >> the stairs that are existing on the north side will be her south side which will be where the light comes in on that does the property that is on your south side longer than and a setback back do those people are a problem with the firewall and the stairs. >> currently they don't no firewall there and the plans that were submitted this stairs don't come out into the yard their go back and forgot and takes away deck space. >> my thinking and this is a thought if you're on your south side it would will be on their north side not effecting their light and air or if you go on our north side their south side;
right? >> but okay. that was my question. >> okay. thank you. >> so are we back to commissioner swig's motion then. >> yeah. we should resolve that if we can't we'll accept another motion. >> i'm still concerned about how best to reflect the revision to the project if a way to go forward and looking to the zoning administrator for help with that. >> scott sanchez planning department. perhaps correction for the existing stair along the north side property line would allow for expansion of the ground floor under the area of the existing deck and but lieu for reconstruction of the deck above that level
and i mean a necessary firewall i believe they're keeping the access the stairs on the south side? to connect to the two. >> levels because there's an existing stair there now from the third floor down to the second floor. >> okay. >> and to remove - >> to remove the stair expansion of the second floor and third floor. >> what he said. >> so the motion then will be from commissioner swig to grant the appeal and uphold the surveillance on the condition that the zoning administrator just said all the elements remove the expansions of the rear floor and the expansion will be reconstructed to the
existing north side i'm getting this right expansion the ground floor under the deck - under the existing deck reconstruction the existing deck above the ground floor and any existing firewall. >> one minor thing that was about the expansion of the ground floor space up to the edge of the existing deck; right? >> i mean, if i board wants to have the variance holder to accept those conditions maybe ask those plans be drafted i don't know what the timeline is for the architect but that would be great to have them within the 10 days from the understanding of the proposal i don't know if so that doable for the architect timeframe but. >> the variance holders needing in agreemenodding in ag
>> the boards decision is not effective until that period of time a good phase request by the board. >> and this is to the variance will meet the 5 finding required under the planning code in particular i think the findings you're concerned about commissioner swig is number 4 which is at the variance will not be material detrimental to the public or the injury us to the property. >> on that commissioner fung commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda okay. that that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero. >> thank you
and we'll move on to item no. 7 which is appeal thomas and eleanor versus the planning department with planning department approval on 33 avenue protesting the issues of a site permit on august 2016 to vladimir with the external and adding two bedrooms and two bathrooms and new bathroom at second floor and new bathroom on third floor with family room and new roof deck. >> can we take one minute. >> thank you for the break welcome. >> welcome back to the wednesday, november 9, 2016, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals we're on item 7 and we'll start with the
appellant. >> good evening board members we are here tonight on regarding the granting of the permit for our new neighbors homes next door to us they're planning additions to each levels of their home as well as an additional avenue fourth level not - existing right now we are amending our appeal to only deal with the addition of the fourth level we feel that the addition of that new level will cut off the sun. >> light to our kitchen and breakfast room and diagram that window faces to the south where the sun does come in since we've got in our home for 5 seven years that is a major change in addition to eating in the kitchen i use the breakfast room
for reading watching television you go or, using the telephone and crafting mostly because of arthritis in my back i feel that it would be really difficult for us if they were to go ahead and build this fourth level i'm asking the board to take into consideration thank you. >> thank you. >> okay we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> welcome. >> good evening my name is andrea one of the owners second owner any father but unfortunately has a hearing problem so i understand the main
architectural problem is the access to scioto our dwelling i mean the stair between our houses i understand i'm not an architect but the lightwell area where the stairs are located big enough and the planning department and has reviewed the project with the pleading and approved our addition we actually went back to with the architect and talked about this - so to be honest i don't know understand the think the problem was resolved and enough sunlight
as k34u9 by the planning department now if we refer to the original brief of the appellant i'm not sure we can do that because they pushed all the arguments in there as far as i see the only architectural argument is the sunlight and but otherwise they also mentioned the activity in the brief that is true in at least part of apartment on the second floor of the building has been rent and we have registered with the planning department, paying our taxes she should be added to the brief our certificate and business recommendation the apartment 656 on the second floor and i
understand it is only being opted out by my family and never rented to airbnb services and it is we're not - >> there are 3 adults and a dog there but in perverseable future hope it will be bigger only for our use we don't plan to rent it. >> this is temporary our house unfortunately is very difficult conditions i brought some photos that might be relevant to show - overhead please. overhead please. yep to show that the implicating
we had to repair on the ground floor so the house is in a bad situation and wouldn't renting just difficult we had to replace half of the mr. flanagan on ground floor and also the electrical system as well here this is temporary to roommate the house it just very hard to live there right now especially on the second floor which is has not been renovated in 34 years i believe i know if i should address yeah also so much dust and noise we were open to negotiations i'm sure if our permit gets approved - our construction country is
ready to negotiate with our neighbors all of the neighbors with the hours and we are open to that and with regards to the parking this argument we believe can be completely - to the case because mostly parking is airbnb that use preferablely public transportation but including by the neighbors i believe those are all the argument and open to questions. >> i have a question i live on that block during my college years how long have your folks lived on the property. >> in september 2nd years. >> and how many units are on the property circling.
>> two 651 and 6. >> you don't have people on the property. >> what do you mean. >> are there rooms behind the garage. >> no, i believe they're included in the phase two preempts. >> the other thing in plans in the briefs and so who's the contractor and the builders your father a contractor. >> no negotiating with the incarcerating. >> because the preliminary are owner builder. >> i'm sorry come again. >> it says you're the owner billiard. >> we hadn't signed with anyone yet. >> okay. that answers any question thank you. >> did you send out a 311 notice. >> i believe yes, in february.
>> okay you have a copy of that. >> no, unfortunately no. >> we have no drawings nothing here. >> i'll rather looking at it in hardcopy but go ahead. >> and on the 311 notification that was sent out did you hold neighborhood meetings. >> well, we were open to but haven't heard any complaints besides. >> normally when you send out 311 you're having a meeting if someone shows up that's good. >> i apologize this process has been very long we had one meeting back in i believe november or december 2014 and one neighbor attended. >> did they have questions at that time, and i believe their main concern was - >> did our plans vary from
that evening. >> yes. as i said we without arithmetic we went back to changed them already. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> the subject property on 33 avenue located an five and six zoning district that allows the two with the vertical expansion that is on the plans the overhead please. so the new story a 17 foot setback is prominently a block phase to allow the fourth story as long as it is setback they've done here it the have a residential design guidelines review and to notchback here at the rear to respect the adjacent property to the south that
didn't extend as far as the the subject property the the subject property for that their vertical addition providing a full matching let that matches the appellants property it is fully code compliant and notification done between january and february no discretionary review authorization a project requires the outreach meeting the staff says it occurred prior to moving forward with the application the application was submitted no prevail of 2015 so this is fully code compliant project the vertical addition adds the office study and two bedrooms the kitchen facility are maintained on the third floor and as part of developing rooms on the ground floor for the unit on the second floor the current plans says no
habitable space on the ground level only storage they'll be developing that level as well were with exterior access sorry to interrupt. >> yeah. the spiral staircase that does provide - some interior access but a full bath. >> i'm sorry you have a rear view. >> the rear view elevation. >> yes. >> thank you. >> on the overhead the proposed rear elevation. >> show me with the appellants property. >> here to the north. >> the plan the north arrow is drawn incredible but the
appellants property is here and here's the proposed front elevation in this case the property is here to the north. >> so here's the one story vertical addition in those cases you know - it is a very large lightwell their matching and i do think this r t requires that it is appreciated when you have a lightwell of almost 20 feet we wouldn't always require that be fully matched. >> it requires some light. >> exactly but that is such a substantial size that provides quite a bit of light and air open its own. >> but you know we would see this completely meets all the residential design guidelines. >> okay vice president do you mind if i ask to see the plans.
>> not at all i have a couple of questions. >> i've got to hear the building permit and the residential design guidelines comments and our 311 itself. >> i have questions. >> are you done. >> yes. i'm done thank you. >> the it also has a based the rh2 a pop up; right? >> yes. >> and the elevation looks like theirselves i thought the pop up that was loud for second floor. >> the vertical addition is an existing. >> the pop up is existing it shows a hatch. >> maybe new siding. >> you know that is like a new
structure. >> okay. >> let's go back a ways. >> the richmond district had had a lot of issues with four stories. >> uh-huh. >> in fact, our department was not approving four stories for quite a long time why the change. >> the adoption of the residential design guidelines which you know specifically contemplate where you have paramount 3 third floor pattern on the block phase the compromise was that essentially the setback was going to minimize that addition and have it blend more seemingly into the background and on the overhead aerial photos.
>> perhaps you can discuss that with the context so i don't have to read the report. >> certainly that is prominently third floor and one to the north is a 4 story building the building to the south is a tall third floor. >> i live in that building by the way. >> the other side prominently to more to the third floor and four story to the north and making up 2, 3 and 4 a little bit more punk what did on on the west side of the street on the the subject property of the
street but have approximately a long tradition of approving an additional story when we have a setback in this case here. >> was there a richmond special. >> the year of construction. >> no. i don't think so. >> the year of construction. >> it looks like it. >> like 193 have to look like 25. >> 1926 yeah. >> but looks like it had been remodeled at some point. >> no spark. >> on the overhead. >> are you done commissioner. >> the existing pop up that is just a mirror. >> i'm sorry where is the the subject property. >> it is the the subject property adjacent property here is the cones property identical
condition to add a new fourth story setback 10 feet from the building wall. >> not the back that causes it will block out the sun coming in the morning from the pop up right there. >> not buy out over the pop up but no further than the main - >> the fourth story won't have the pop up. >> it will be 9 deck on top of the pop up. >> okay. >> are you done commissioner fung. >> let me been that i don't understand the airbnb for short time but thought it rent-controlled can't be and/or before. >> the participate can be the requirement a preliminary rodent you don't represent out an
entire unit it didn't allow you to do if you're the preliminary owner but limits that to 20 days for the entire unit while you're there in the unit you can rent it out. >> you have to live in the unit while you, you are we talking about it out. >> that's part of requirement to show the evidence you're the preliminary resident of the unit. >> thank you. >> no, i'm fine. >> i'm comfortable. >> okay thank you. >> inspector duffy anything on this. >> as long as you came in. >> yeah. >> you're doing well inspector duffy. >> how are you.
>> i joe duffy dbi i think that should be okay. it's a typical addition there was structural a notification sent out by dbi when the permit was issued the comment the works hours we get a lot of complaints on those types of projects from the construction on a nicely kw50e9 block i appreciate the permit holder recognizing that and hopefully the project gets approved they'll get their project done without too much disturbance to the neighborhood i did read in the brief about a flashing water approving i encourage the permit holder to work with others flashing
between the property not part of building code but as a good neighbor policy we encourage them to get that issue sorted out prior to construction starting so they can no surprise it is a pretty standard detail that happens in the lot lines a story added to a building suddenly you'll have to flash up the new addition and we ask the property owners to sort that out themselves it is district attorney good thing to do other than i don't have anything else. >> that is the issue that the appellants brief that leaking rain. >> yeah. it roles up the side and the water goes on the roof. >> thank you this is a site permit. >> it is only a site permit
but only a 150i9 permit maybe not set up the schedule but looks like it is only site. >> you notice it is an owner permit rights. >> yes. a lot of people do that they're not sure what they'll do when the new contractor is on board they'll submit the license and workman's compensation to that prior to starting the work to get the incarcerating on the permit later. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you yes. >> a format i'll call for public comment. seeing none, search warrant a rebutt rebuttal. >> are you an appellant you have 3 minutes to as the appellant. >> welcome. >> my name is thomas wong i live next door you mentioned about the rain between the
buildings if we put an additional floor on their does the rain will hit their wall and come over to our roof more than now because right now the roof is level both sides and when they put the fourth floor we saw it didn't cover only on the living room side but the light is blocking on the lightwell area the kitchen and the breakfast area we get light but the sunshine is gone thank you. >> so i have a question sir, are you finished autopsy no, i finished yeah. >> so did you receive a notification from regarding a 311 notification to indicating our neighbors were going to have construction. >> yeah. he went to the first
meeting and yep. >> yep. >> on the first meeting sorry i remember asking that from the first meeting did they make alterations all no, they doesn't. >> you addressed our concerns regarding the light and air purpose not going to get. >> yes. yes. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> any rebuttal. >> i apologize i'm not entirely i don't know the whole process but i know we've changed our plans it happened almost too years ago we decided to make the fourth addition much, much shorter if you come from the
backside we definitely did alteration and it was going to rain in the 21st century i i'm sure we have limits it didn't shooem seem like a big issue. >> are you done so where your rear sunroom our planning on adding a deck what material are you thinking of using for railing. >> i believe that is wood but it is not - >> would you be open to putting potentially something more so through like glass or something. >> absolutely. >> okay. thank you. >> uh-huh. >> let's go back to what changes have occurred in that project. >> when you said the front setback that was required by the planning code. >> yep. >> right. >> your initials project
drawings the fourth floor extend from where the front wall and i believe that went all the way. >> to the rear wall of the pop up. >> yes. >> all right. >> so, now you cut it back from the front based on what planning wanted the 15 feet from the street side. >> uh-huh. >> now it goes to the main wall of the back in the the pop up wall that was done for what reason. >> yeah. i i'm not sure what - >> was that done because planning brought that up also. >> or the neighbors. >> scott sanchez planning department. so sounds like well in terms of the process when staff saw that i don't know when they first saw
it but to the residential design the comments from the rehabilitation rehabilitation /* residential design the 15 feet would have been taken off in response to staffs comments. >> either way and - they'll need a variance to do that i don't know if they came in with that staff said they need a variance or went i don't know if they ever covered that. >> from the get go. >> right that is code compliant. >> so the slot that was asked for by your staff on the south
side. >> that was made yes definitely this can i have the overhead, please? can i have the overhead, please? >> this was definitely added after the r e t with the setback on the front i don't know if that was made at what point but before the rdt. >> your residential design guidelines kaultdz railways for that. >> exactly. >> how about for the rear where's the rear yard setback line. >> there are in this case given the nature of the case they're able to avail the 45 percent. >> that's why your stopped short. >> exactly, exactly the building to the rear line in terms of the materials of the deck that they have at the rear on the plans they are they've
highlighted that called the metal guardrail so certainly from the board wanted to specific small business owner something with a greater level of transparency i understand that. >> can i after you're done can i see those plans again sorry. >> sure thing sharing is caring. >> what - where's that plan that he had - >> so this is the sun where that comes starts here and going this way with a large matching
lightwell but by giving something here about increase more light and not that much loss here i don't know. >> you're the architect so if it didn't make a difference it doesn't make sense. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez did you have any rebuttal. >> thank you so anything else mr. duffy commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i think the the preliminin market i know in the richmond's
there are fourth floors. >> but i also remember. >> don't date yourself. >> no, no i remember discussions that occurred and people saying that the one project was probably the last fourth floor you know arched to brought in the richmond and i guess with the residential design guidelines probably changed a little bit but there was - in fact, one of the former supervisors lobbied heavily against fourth floors. >> you know. >> jake. >> yes. >> so i think the - for me looking at where whether i agree
with the residential design team in their determination this is appropriately scaled for that neighborhood the other issues if the permit holder is adding a floor up, of course, they have to come back with the appropriate flashing that deals with picture adjacent neighbors that is commonly done we'll ink expects that i agree with them they you know it is difficult to do construction without noise but perhaps they can arrive at suitable timeframes for the day not as with the building code allows that is almost the whole day and everyday of the week i mean the neighbors deserve some respite from noise you know and i don't know if we want to get into thinking about conditions in that respect.
>> i think that so you're thinking about approving or denying the appeal is that what you're leon towards. >> this point in time. >> probably. >> and i don't mind conditioning the construction hours it is set in stone with no ordinances and that way no problems. >> that protects the appellant. >> can i have the appellants come to the podium please. so folks i'm sure you're not going to want to hear but we're leon towards approving that project you asked for limited construction times
no >> so you don't mind them working from morning to nights. >> we do. >> what hours when you limit construction hours you have to remember instead of them doing it quickly it takes more time the shorter the more it takes them to complete the process what do you think that fair that is a question at this point. >> 8 to 5. >> 8 to 6, 8 to 5. >> 5 days a week. >> 8 to 5 no saturday or sunday or holidays. >> okay. okay. >> that was a question okay. thank you. >> what about the sunshine definitely block the sunshine especially in the summer. >> that the code compliant
they're not asking for anything special this is what is allowed by the city and county of san francisco unfortunately, the laws have changed over time. >> can you require the flashing. >> oh, yeah, the flashing is definitely definitely definitely done okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> can i have the permit holder step forward please. they're requesting we'll probably put limitations what do you feel in regards to the 9 to 5 no saturday or sunday. >> i believe so we don't have construction people here to ask you it. >> once we set it in stone. >> anyone have any questions. >> okay. thank you. >> so we'll have to accept the appeal and condition it. >> i'll let you do that.
>> okay. yeah. >> grant the appeal and grant the restricted work hours 9 to 5, 5 days a week monday through friday. >> thank you. >> the permit holder to handle the flashing of the structures. >> that last part about the flashing i'm sorry. >> the permit holder to handle the flashing in an appropriate fashion. >> for the permit holder. >> i guess as an enforcement mechanism appropriate fashion is not something that. >> i think. >> do you want to leave it to the department of building inspection. >> not a code requirement and i see. >> so i guess normally we'll - >> how about this do to others as you would to, huh? the
flashing to restrict additional water rain wart flow into the appellants property. >> my problem is if would be - >> yeah. >> that will not work. >> intruchl. >> perhaps inspector duffy can help with the language. >> we whatever this is not a building code so we count the building code to connect the guess so together but flashing detail is something that a roofing contractor provides for the satisfaction of the property owners and they can come to an agreement on that in a civil manner in a civil - >> how will we. >> my problem we have to articulate a decision that is enforceable so unless there are drawings or specifications or something else i don't know how we can hither. >> with the additional flashing to the satisfaction of
the appellant. >> houses that. >> it's my motion okay. >> i don't want to go b there. >> maybe better to leave off the flashing if it becomes an issue contact dbi we have nice ways of encouraging the permit holder and contractor to take care of that. >> i'm sorry a little bit of flashing is not a big deal. >> i agree and so the motion if commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and uphold the appeal on the conditions that the hours of operation from 9 to 5 monday through friday on the basis that the permit is code compliant. >> on that motion commissioner fung and commissioner president honda commissioner swig percentage
okay. thank you very much so that motion passed its and commissioners one other item. >> this evening item 8 which is the discussion and discussion and possible action regarding the use of yellow commercial parking don or zone you may recall a memo was given to you a few weeks back with information about the law around the use of yellow zones by mobile food facilities and additional information with conversations with the public works and there was interest amongst the commissioners to have discussion that's why this is on our calendar this evening. >> since i made the request i think it is important that the law according to the mp a is
upheld which is yellow zones are for short time parking and the loading and unloading of things from trucks or cars or whatever their unloading once you muddy the waters and have those that are above the law or below the law in our point of view it is arbitrary and dangerous. >> are you sorry to interrupt are you talking about going forward or rooeflt to the permit issued already. >> i think absolutely going forward that there should be a clear message which is offered to those seeking food truck permit including a yellow zone trying to do it retroactively i don't think is fair and a burden and a hardship to those who have
already been offered permits. >> i think the departments impasse after the recommendations have generally i mean worked with us and so they'll not be issuing permits for yellow zone facility and not even bring that forward. >> exactly. >> so what's the proposed action. >> so the proposed action to suggest - who issues the - >> public works. >> so the proposed action to request public works to uphold the mta's yellow zone laws and by not issuing permits to - by informing the applicants that permits in yellow zones are not available. >> or the way not issuing the
permits where. >> i'm trying to prevent we're misleading the public by getting them to. >> thinking they might get a permit before a permit is issued they should to the public for food trucks will not be issued ever. >> i believe although the directors research into it indicates that that is not definitely in their code didn't that is a a request they consider they made a distinctive element. >> mta replied but by the exempt from that food trucks are exempt but sfmta never made that policy. >> correct. >> as far as a recommendation.
>> as far as a recommendation. >> i mean to me that feels like it is between mta and dpw and i'm not sure i want to insert myself. >> why not make a recommendation going forward someone is not appealing the denial of a permit. >> i understand the recommendations but didn't this have to be worked between the two departments. >> the alternative is we encourage we send a memo to both mta and dpw and indicating that there are continued issues regarding the issuance of permits for food trucks in yellow zones the law seems to indicate that yellow zones with without exemption or for the use of
loading and unloading for a short time but yet mta sorry dwp has made a request of mta for a waiver on this or an exception for food trucks we'd like absolute clarification on the subject going forward how about that. >> or vote our conscious and deny any food trucks into the parking zone. >> or uphold the law that means we will not accept - that's fine i think - the food trucks not permitting them in yellow zones. >> by us having the conversation they'll understand the situation. >> i don't know if i want to go there what if someone wants to serve a midnight crowd entertainment venue and the food truck wants to be there the yellow zone it is for the operateable i mean, i don't