Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  May 17, 2019 7:00pm-8:01pm PDT

7:00 pm
which will be another $50,000. it will be over $400,000. >> thank you. >> mr. zucker, are you finished? >> yes. >> any other questions we are happy and available. >> thank you. we will now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you planning department. what is before you is appeal of notice of viallation and penalhe o violation which is in the moderate transit zoning district. there is no question and this is a question whether or not a violation. it is appeal of notice of violation. no question it is a violation. the property owner has acknowledged and sought solutions. we are close to having a solution implemented. on the simple matter before the board of appeal on whether or not to uphold the notice of
7:01 pm
violation we can agree the notice of violation should be and must be upheld. they are in violation and they have plans to correct the violation. i would like to give history on the matter here. i guess, you know, it is who came first. i don't think that is an issue. 55 page street the application was submitted in 1997, received approval 2000 there after completed construction in 2008. the plan to build housing predates the operation of espetus. they stated it opened in 2003. this is not the first enforcement case we have had related to this business. in 2006 there was an issue with window. they sought window replacement permit. they did not replace the windows on the storefront with the windows on the plans so they had to correct that violation and
7:02 pm
subsequently in 2007 they expanded next door without can bauthorization. that was resolved in 2010 when we allowed the expansion. number 7 in the august 13, 2009 requires noise and odors to be controlled not to present a nuisance to nearby residents answer businesses. this is one of the most challenging types of complaints to handle. i am happy in the past the smell of certain types of food may be more offensive. when i saw the materials the neighbors brought to the zones enforcement hear being, i was persuaded this was a public new
7:03 pm
sasnuisance. this was going on for quite some time. thousand do we get to 2019? there were 200 plus complaints made to the bay area quality district. under their rules they were not in violation as i understand it. we received our first complaint to the planning department in march last year. in reviewing the case and the conditions of approval and it does regulate odors. while it is subjective the materials we were presented with were persuasive. you will probably hear from the neighbors today. we issued notice of enforcement may 4, 2018. in may 15 we met with representatives from espetus on
7:04 pm
the district to discuss the issues and options for abatement. we agreed to provide additional time to espetus to resolve the matter. we received all of the complaints that were first sent to us in may. on july 5, 2018 a ventilation consultant that was hired to evaluate the duct system recommended the electro stat precipitatetor to eliminate the odors. he stated the current equipment is near or at the useful service life. that is a quote from their e-mail. while i can understand if, you know, a residential building is built and you can complain they are new to the neighborhood you have a responsibility to maintain equipment on your building. it seems maybe they had but at the end of the useful life. new equipment is needed to deal
7:05 pm
with the very specific type of cooking done here which is more intensive. it is not a salad shop. it is more intensive cooking so they need more elaborate equipment to deal with did he e of cooking. they requested a zoning administrator hearing at the end of july. we held that on august 29th. it was attended by the property owner, espetus and neighbors and the representative from the air quality management present at the hearing. i was persuaded by the materials from the neighbors including videos that show the disturbing smoke. i would not be comfortable opening my windows if that was right outside. no doubt this was an issue. we issued our final notice of violation and penalty decision which is now appealed before
7:06 pm
you. that was appealed within 15 days of the issuance on october 12th. once the notice of violation penalty decision was issued, i noticed a shift. we have the property owner at the hearing the property owner and through their attorney, mr. zucker have responsible. it is a positive effect. it has taken awhile to get to this point. there is a response. initially i found the response inadequate. key had received after the appeal was filed we received one of the proposals to deal with this. i think we need it in the middle of november. it was dated the end of september. if you have this why are you waiting a month and-a-half. >> you get 14 minutes.
7:07 pm
please give him seven more minutes. >> you have rebuttal time, sir. >> i have never run out of time before. there is a lot to say here. there was this proposal was an effort but also why couldn't they have submitted a month and-a-half earlier. they gave it in time to reschedule the appeal hearing for december 12th. we disagree with the rescheduling request. we felt they were trying to gain the system. during the course in the hearing on august 29 we asked for alternatives. we wanted to work with. we understand they are a small business. give us options to review and find something cost-effective. they did work to make changes to the haven't. it didn't help. it made it worse. maybe it was a good effort on their part trying to be responsive. it wasn't the right way to go
7:08 pm
about things. it was without permit and it made it worse. we got a newer more updated proposal to include the electro static precipitatetor on december 6th. this is many months after the consultant recommended it in early july. it took from july to december for them to put forward a proposal the consultant had recommended. we did think this was a step in the right direction. we agreed to reschedule the case. we continued that hearing to march to allow time to review. we reviewed the proposal with the air quality management and neighbors. there were still comments to address. we continued the case to this hearing date to get the permits resolved. i met with the property owner, their attorney and espetus in the middle of february and
7:09 pm
outlined a pretty aggressive schedule of getting plans submitted. this was the middle of february. we initially agreed would would get plans by march 8th. that did not happen. an issue from getting the plans came up. it didn't seem they were doing what they could to resolve that. you have to wait 30-days if you don't have approval of the architect. it wasn't clear they tried to get the approval. i think they submitted the request late. they didn't get the plans until the end of the first week of february. when february 15th was missed we didn't get plans until may 3rd. that was recently. we are very close. in addition to the plans we have notice of special restrictions with specific conditions how the facility is maintained and conducted. we worked on that draft with the
7:10 pm
attorney in the building, with the property owner with a consensus on the conditions these will be. now we have to get them implemented as part of the permit. that is where we are. i asked them to have the permit to me. they got it approved over-the-counter with dpi. we had them resubmit. we should have those plans shortly. we have very close. i see no reason to not take an action tonight. we have a violation that has been confirmed. this process has been a decade for many of the tents of the conditions they have been living with and having to come to multiple hearings and they are rescheduled and continued. we are very close but i don't see any more continuianses will
7:11 pm
resolve this. there needs to be a solution. that needs to happen here. they are committed to that. i know the property owners have been more thoroughly involved. we need to get to that point. i am available for any questions. >> i have a couple. there were a series of conditions with the conditional use application. to your knowledge other than this major violation have those conditions been met? did you talk about a community liaison officer? there was never any reference to that by anybody. >> the conditions have been met. the manager is serving as community lie a son. it is my understanding conditions are met. >> do you have an amount that is now owed for the penalty? >> no, because the penalties have not been accrues because it
7:12 pm
is held in abeyance before the board. there is no accrual of penalties. our goal is to get compliance. assessing penalties is a way to get complains. we don't make it when someone is making diligent efforts. they have a permit on file if they can diligently move that forward to get compliance. they will be liable for time and materials but they may not get to the point with the penalties. the goal is to get compliance. >> if we when all is said and done support your action, then there wouldn't be any financial penalties. >> if they can work to get this done in a schedule we can agree to, then, yes, that would be a possibility.
7:13 pm
we have the ability to say when the penalty clock starts and ends through the enforcement process. it is typical when a permit is submitted. we don't charge penalties every day it is reviewed by staff, assuming they are working and responding to staff and staff says we need it. that is the goal. >> i have a question. what is the total in the six and a half years i have been on the board i see you flustered. the question here is. >> if i have never run out of my time before. >> i have never seen you flustered. >> i guess i will figure it out. thank you. >> how many are here for public comment?
7:14 pm
if you could line up against the wall and commissioner tanner. given the number of people here thank you all. we are limiting time to two minutes. you will have two minutes to speak. i believe there are lights to tell you how much time you have left. there is a buzzer when you have 30 seconds left. there are speaker cards. give them to gary for the record. >> first person come on up. welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. i am the legislative aid for supervisor brown. thank you so much for having me this evening. i am here to speak on behalf of the supervisor who represents district five. regard to this issue our office has been in conversation with
7:15 pm
administrator sanchez, with the planning department, with the tenants since last fall. supervisor brown has patiently waited with hoping the property owner would do the dew diligence. we are hoping for substantive and comprehensive solution we are encouraged by the news we are close. she is concerned about the environmental impacts and quality of life impacts of our residents. we have sat down and heard from them and monitoring the issue. it is important that our constituents and small businesses can live in harmony and be good neighbors. she does understand the property owner and businesses working hard to come to an eminent solution. she is hoping, one, the
7:16 pm
construction timeline is communicated clearly and immediately. we are also hoping any corrective actions can happen as soon as possible. thank you so much. >> next speaker, please. >> welcome. thank you, commissioners. i am a resident at 55 page. i appreciate your time. i suffer from respiratory disease and smoke is an irritant, and i have a very hard time sleeping at home at night. if the wind changes i look at the weather report and i know if the wind is blowing the right way, blowing the smoke to my unit i am not going to sleep. i will be stuffed up and not sleep. i am unable to enjoy my unit and home because of the smoke.
7:17 pm
char comb make -- charcoal makes food taste great it causes disease and it is not safe to have it in a densely populated area without significant cleanup. i am encouraged espetus is moving. i would like to see faster action. no more extensions and excuses. please help me have a healthy life in san francisco. thank you. >> a question for you, sir. in california we have very strict disclosure laws. was it disclosed to you at the time when you purchased the property there was smoke emitted and smell and noise. evidently in predates the construction of the building. if it is running 12 hours each day it should be evident to the developers this was a current and present condition. >> i was never informed before i moved in of the issue.
7:18 pm
>> thank you. next speaker, please. >> steven hammond of clark hill llp. i represent a group of neighbors. i submitted briefing last december. it is a horrible problem. enough is enough. the continuous delays leave them with no faith the system works. there have been 244 complaints since 2009 just through august of 2018 of last year to the bay area quality management district, and i submitted 35 letters opposing the appeal with the briefing submitted last december. there can be no more continuances. this board does have the authority to impose as a condition of denying the appeal the ability to impose conditions. i ask on behalf of the neighbors that the board set a condition
7:19 pm
to impose fines immediately on the basis that the appellants have avoided exposure to fines to date for upwards of a year by continuously delaying and finding ways to extend the process. at a minimum this board should condition its over ruling of the appealing on a deadline for compliance after which time fines will accrue and based on appellants prior representations that should be no more than six weeks. i would like to address briefly the cost. i understand mosser has agreed to share the cost. we have seen the bil the billbon the 101. i apologize, justin, i was under the impression you told me the
7:20 pm
equipment was ordered quite some time ago. thank you. >> i have a question, sir. do you live in the building? >> i do not. i represent a group of people who do. >> since you are the counsel representing them did you seek questions or answers in regards to the developers regarding disclosure of said noise, smoke and odor? >> this is what i would note, commissioner. they moved in the restaurant started in 2003. in the san francisco chronicle article yesterday the manager acknowledged there are no upgrades since 2004. >> the question is the building came after the restaurant was there. that was a current condition when the building was being built. the first complaint i am aware of to the bay area air quality management district was in 2009. since there there are 244
7:21 pm
complaints through last august. from that i infer prior to 2009 it wasn't much of a problem. the system failed during this time. i understand the building was sold so there was no complaints. >> prior to 2009? >> that is my inference. >> that is not the question. the building came after the restaurant and have you seeked answers. if this is an ongoing problem since that period of time that was a disclosure item meaning one of the questions asked is there a nuisance, unusual noise or odor in the neighborhood. that should have been a disclosure question answered by the developers of the projected. that is what i asked you. >> before 2009 i don't have information. >> thank you. >> your time is up. thank you. >> next speaker, please.
7:22 pm
>> welcome. i am a resident at 55 page street, 128 unit condo building on behalf of myself and other residents that could not be here because of the time. thank you for listening to jessica samples earlier. espetus smokestack is 35 feet from our building. you can see the smoke day and evening before the sun sets. smoke and odor consistently is in our condos and in our garage and rooftop deck not use panel most of the afternoons and evenings when they are cooking. i am asthmatic. it makes me cough. it is exacerbating my asthma. she is worried about long-term
7:23 pm
health effects. it causes me concern for family planning. i have taped my fresh air events shut. purchased thousands of dollars of filtration equipment. being in the condo is worse than being in the steakhouse. it is better than inside. if they had that in the restaurant they would not have one customer. we don't have access to fresh air up to 12 hours a day seven days a week. it is worse when it is hot outside. i respectfully ask that the appeal is overruled. no more continuances. as a condition fine immediately. we can't live like this any more. it is frustraterring. i want to say thank you for hearing me out and thank you to supervisor brown for being here.
7:24 pm
>> one question. when you purchased your property the first day, was that odor in there the first day you purchased it? >> no, i bought in fall of 2012. i poured through disclosure schedule after this came up. it was not in there. >> was that condition there when you first moved in? >> i noticed it almost day one. hindsight is 2020. maybe i should have had a lawyer back then. >> there thank you. -- thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello. i am natasha. i live in the neighboring building at 55 page street. i want to say the smoke pollution problem is intolerable and has not improved over the course of several years. i am requesting for you to
7:25 pm
please over the appeal and set a convicted line for compliance. whewhen the restaurant is billog smoke there is polluted air. nothing new that you have been hearing all night. i think what i want to emphasize is that there is a cost to the residents because of this. it is unfair the financial and health burden of this pollution is forced on us. with no repercussions for lack of action and and the delays. i am here to request help in getting this resolved as soon as possible. thank you. >> next person. come on up. good evening. welcome. >> i am conner shepard, a resident of 55 page.
7:26 pm
i ask that you deny the appeal and don't do any future continuances. we have had enough continuances already. like the owners, i run a business. it is telling that the basic fact of this case agreed on by all parties they have costed what it is to fix the problem. they agreed there is a problem an unsafe and disgusting volume of smoke from cooking meat over an open fire for thousands of diners each night. it is not something i would do. i wouldn't cook meat over open fire in my apartment. effectively cooking meat in my apartment and asking the renters to subsidize this in the form of buying air filters and cleanup systems. please deny any future continuances and let's not have any more financial burden on the residents of the building who
7:27 pm
are of lower income. thanks. >> good evening. i am laurie. i reside at 55 page. my unit is 35 feet in the espetus smokestack. the smoke and odor is unliveable, it is outrageous. you have probably seen the video. nbc was running a piece on it this afternoon at 5:00. we bought expensive filters, sealed windows and taped vents shut. nothing has been done. espetus was on notice since 2009. they have been on formal notice from the planning department since last march. they have been submitting half baked proposals that were
7:28 pm
rejected by planning. i am nauseas when i come home. i am fearful of the health impacts because of particulate matter. they cook overcoming. i am forced to breathe this because they will avoid a meaningful fix. that is not okay. is their business more important than our health? is it unreasonable that the restaurant spending the money on freeway billboards are not able to meet the timelines in a in a timely manny. lease start finding them or shut them down. we can't wait. we don't have any more patience. we have been patient. we don't have that patience. it has run out.
7:29 pm
it has run out for them, too. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. >> thank you for your time. i am diana rivers. i also live at 55 page street. i echo what my neighbors have said. i do want to know. i know you asked about disclosure since they did the unpermitted work in the fall the problem has gotten so much worse. i have one window and patio door in my small unit with expensive air purifier. i have had weekend nights where i am home because i am studying and the window is closed. patio door is closed and air pure fire running. i cannot breathe. it smell goes like charcoal, odor and smoke. there is smoke damage on my
7:30 pm
ceiling. it is unliveable. we have to leave much of the time especially during the dinner hour when they are doing most of the cooking. i do want to emphasize they are open 364 days each year. they are closed on thanksgiving. i know that because on thanksgiving i have the door and window open and can breathe fresh air. the rest of the time they are open for lunch service. they start the grill at 11:00 a.m. when i am home i can tell when their grill is turned on when i don't have a window open. i think i have 30 seconds. i also suffer from as ma-- asthma and migraine headaches. they are exacerbated by smoke and oder. my doctor has said the smoke is
7:31 pm
bad for someone suffering migraines. i.e. could what my -- i echo what my neighbors said. they need to not be up held and fined. as my previous neighbor said. >> your time has expired. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> i am anthony new land 55 page street. you heard about the 10 year full decade this issue has been going on even in the planning department records there are complaints for 10 years. commissioner honda summarized this best in a prior matter when he talked about a baby sitter. this is accountability. there needs to be a babysitter. my partner and i am seniors.
7:32 pm
i am asthmatic. he is a cancer survivor. diagnosed yesterday with pulmonary fibrosis. this smoke is a health hazard and definition of public new as soon as. i -- nuisance. i ask a babysitter to get this done. thank you. >> any other public comment? is anyone else here for public comment. no. we will move to rebuttal. we will hear from mr. zucker. >> you have six minutes. >> i will keep my follow-up brief. i recognize the residents' concerns we are sympathetic for them. ascot mentioned back in february
7:33 pm
we met to come to a resolution for this. we did agree to an aggressive timeline. we did such because we wanted to and continue today to come to figure out what the solution is and get that i ammented and in place. today we have the solution. it is before the city. through the permitting process it is working through the channels. once we get approval we are ready, willing and able to engage the contractor to have the unit installed. as mentioned earlier i did tell him we had selected a unit. that is what we did. we selected it. we have to go through the permitting to get it approved. unlike the previous appeal we did not order the unit and have to get entitlement. we are going through proper channels and processes. we recognize it is taking time. the processes we have to add
7:34 pm
here to them. >> question, sir. they alluded to a series of actions by the planning department in response to complaints going back to a year ago last may or perhaps before. i don't know if you were engaged with this project during that time. i want you to have an opportunity to speak to why it has taken this long to resolve this and what part the property owner delayed in the saga that has been the permitting process and the violation process. >> good question. thank you. you know, at first ascot mentioned the prompt owner wasn't involved. as soon as we did get involved we have been working to try to come to a resolution. i recognize there are a couple continuances due to it is hard
7:35 pm
to fine people who sell the machines and hard to find the contractor in the city to install the electro static precipitation systems. we ran into a problem with the plans to figure out where the roof would go. we had hiccups. the contractor had a problem. these are problems we have been keeping everybody appraised so we can let them know we are working diligently. we are seeking to get this resolved. a lot has been mentioned about the complaints from 2009 forward. a lot of those were unconfirmed from their district. it is brought to our attention since last year. i recognize in their minds it is a decades long saga. we have been made aware this
7:36 pm
last year in the fall with the property owner and since then we have been moving forward to resolve this. >> when you get the permits, walk us there what your contractor has described as the construction schedule. do these take a long time to make, manufacturing is it a few months to get made and delive delivered? help us understand the timeframe in the time the permit is in hand until it is done. >> we are working on finalizing the construction timeline. this is the original proposal from emcore. it is a five phase process. phase one is two to three weeks permits. once that is in place the rest of the phases are two to three weeks, two to three weeks, about a week, couple two weeks. it really even in the initial
7:37 pm
timeline we are looking at about 8 to 9 weeks. our most recent conversation with the contractor it is looking more along the lines of nine, nine and a half. that is again completely can did it. we don't have the firm timeline. that is what we are told. we are willing to stick to what can stick to but we are be holden to what the contractor can do. >> part of what is a thought in my mind is thinking about the small business working hard to about -- about customers and the high cost this is going to have. can you speak to the cost how the property owner has thought about approaching this or kind of what are we looking at in regards to $400,000 is what the report is tonight or possibly more? >> i can't speak to the
7:38 pm
arrangement of the cost. i just know it is a significants. several hundred thousand dollars. we are committed to developing forward with it if approved. how that is all dealt with on the back end i am not part of that conversation. >> i am not trying to beat a dead horse. the department from planning stated that you had -- your clients got the plan and are implementing it. the department implemented it was sitting on someone's desk for six months prior to getting to the planning department. you understand the sheer upsetting of the people behind you. you are saying they are working on this as quick as possible. the representative from planning indicated those plans were six months prior to them coming forward. what did you do. he had a an a billion had the m.
7:39 pm
>> in november before i was on site, there was a plan that was submitted to planning. it was dated in september. submitted in november. there was a little delay. i can't be speak to the delay. since then we have met with planning and come up with the solution to implement it. that was the next facet of the solution how do we get this on top of the roof 100 plus rear old building to support it and continue. that is where we ran into problems getting the rooftop plans and going from there so that we could prepare these for the rooftop units. >> going forward not so much a question.
7:40 pm
you know, this needs to be done expeditiously. i believe this body has ability to revoke. that would be tougher for everybody. thank you. >> last question. you heard testimony regarding the fines and members of the public. you have heard the members of the public talking about their desire to have this done quickly and accountability and the zoning administrator as long as you are in good standing the goal of the department is to work with folks to get compliance not penalties. what is your perspective on the matter of continues on fines what would you like to see happen this evening? >> we would like to have this however procedurally you would like to move this forward.
7:41 pm
continue it for approximately 10 weeks post permitting because we can't speculate when the permitting comes in. it is contingent on when the permitting is approved and have that 10 weeks or after. 8 weeks to get it built and deliver a week and-a-half to install. >> do you have complete materials submitted? is it fully submitted to the department? >> it has been fully submitted. there were comments requesting design confinements. they are resubmitted. as scott mentioned it was re-routed to planning to have their eyes on it as well. >> did you want to say somethi something, sir. >> i am paul klein. let me explain.
7:42 pm
why don't you do this before? because we go the city. we ask what kind of system we have to use up there. the city, we don't know what system you have to use up there because we have to do the homework to find out what system. if the city say you have to use a da restaurant. i know that, right? they don't know what system to use there. they have a wood burning and they have a system in place. why did the city say this system is in use. it is the same system in the place. the city the planning department didn't know what kind of system to use. you bring something to us and you approve. i don't think that is fair for us. you should say this is the system and you go after this system. right now it is on our shoulders
7:43 pm
because the city didn't want it. if the city said that system to use and the neighbors complain again. the city approve, not us. i don't know if you are following me here. >> ? i understand. >> that is why it was a delay. we go after the city. i sit down with the building guy, what is his name. >> inspector duffy. he is gone. >> i sat down with him a year ago. i asked him as a favor what system i use? he say i don't know. i want be to bring that to the table. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> anything further? thank you. we will hear from mr. sanchez. you have six minutes. >> i will try not to use all of it. >> timelines here. yes, we don't as planners have
7:44 pm
expertise in all of the possible ventilation mechanical equipment out there. that is why we rely on professionals. we asked espetus to get a consultant and get a proposal. they received that on july 5, 2018 from the same firm that said the equipment is at the end of the life they recommended the electro precipitatetor. that was not proposed by espetus until december 6th. they were looking for cheaper options. we said we would look at that and evaluate. the goal is not the most money possible, it is something effective. we had them submit proposals to us. i was concerned. one proposal was the end of september we received it in the middle of november.
7:45 pm
why couldn't we receive it sooner. we have reviewed it and working with the neighbors through their attorney. they may have specialists to make this collaborative effort for a solution for the best possible solution. we are very close to that. the plans submitted a couple weeks ago the neighbors have been reviewing them. i have not received full comments back as to any concerns. one of the issues was the location of the equipment on the roof. this is the building with three sides with the alley in the back and golf street in the front and market street at the front of the building. the equipment is right now at the back and basically off rose. it will still be at rose but moved closer to golf. hopefully it will be cleaner in terms of what is emitted it
7:46 pm
won't represent an issue for tenants. the building permits are corrected. i would like comments back from the neighbors we need it recorded and that permit will be ready for issuance and can be appealed if neighbors don't think it is adequate that can be appealed to this board of appeals. that can happen in the future. this is going to be expensive. early esi mats had -- estimate had several hundred thousand dollars. on the $165,000 may not reflect the costs. that is listed on the permit. in regards to the conditions proposed we are open. it is the board's direction to have a better definition as to
7:47 pm
the penalty timeline. if the board directed to have the penalties begin accruing upon issue once of the order and not abated until the cfc for equipment installation and final inspection that is the board's direction we are happy to have that or if they are given six weeks or a certain time to get it installed, we are open to that as well. the penalty is up to $250 per day. it could be reduced. the penalty is not going to make the air cleaner for the neighbors. we need the permit issued and get the work completed as soon as possible. i am available for questions. >> i have several questions. the permit holder brought up a good question. this has never come up in the city and county regarding noise and smell. >> i have only had one other enforcement case of similar
7:48 pm
matter, and that was resolved when the restaurant went out of business. yes, it is difficult. >> we have had noise in front of us, smoke in front of us several times. valencia street. is there a set standard they are to follow? he brought up a good point. you are asking the business owner to invest half a million dollars. this is not getting the standard we expect. >> there is no set standard. >> do you control it? the plans department has ability to control it but no set standard? >> is it the air quality management do they have a standard? >> from what i understand it was the density, not so much the odor.
7:49 pm
>> they passed that one but have the other issue. in the pictures it looks terrible. it looks like like a train. >> it is the responsibility of the restaurant to know what they need. they work with design consultants to know the filtration. >> there should be a standard. >> like the noise has a standard decibel standard. with smells there is a standard of cleanliness or what have you. >> it would be great if there was and public health would be the appropriate agency to deal with those, but there is nothing they have here that they can enforce on. we are doing our best and that is why we are the consultant. >> that is my question will this work. it will do something we are not sure what it will do. it will do whatever the cut
7:50 pm
sheet says it will do. if that will mitigates is question, is that fair? >> based on the equipment it is our understanding this is the best possible equipment thi this the standard. >> $500,000? >> if you look at the earlier proposals on the spec sheets it is not met for charbroiling. some of the manufacturing equipment will detail the uses it is for. >> can you refresh the applicant said that you had all of the permit materials with planning and you were viewing them and they are with the public. are all of the materials there or are there further materials you need from the applicant? >> the only item outstanding is notice of special restrictions
7:51 pm
documented. i heard today or yesterday from mr. zucker that they are okay with the draft language. we need to get that finalized. i haven't heard from the neighbor's attorney other than the location. that is the only place on the roof where it could be located. orotherwise if you move further away you need larger equipment and the roof wouldn't be able to support that. that is what i have been told by the attorney this is the location it has to be. >> assuming the nsr language is finalizedded and the neighbors respond, what is the timeline to issue? those are the two last things. >> days. it is a matter of the comments to see if there are other changes. we are trying to make this as
7:52 pm
collab berrative as possible. it is the best solution to have a conversation to get the plan that we can agree upon that there will be no appeals. >> all bodies have approved? >> on this plan set they had a permit issued. they have an issued permit for this. we had asked them because we needed to review it. if there are any other issues to address and special restrictions which is important. >> building, fire, is all done. >> that is reviewed and now it is for planning to impose conditions. >> any other questions? >> yes, going back to where i was before. the matter before us is whether we hold the notice of violation. i am having a hard time connecting that with the solution where the nexus is so we make sure the solution is in place. do you have a suggestion on?
7:53 pm
it doesn't sound like continues is a way to go. >> no, they are two separate action items. the question is if they are in violation. we agree they are in violation we suggest you uphold the notice of violation and then to correct the nov that is valid is the permit that is forthcoming. whether or not that is appealed. it would be great to get feedback from neighbors of the response of the permit. that is the next step. >> i am less concerned about that than additional delays not necessarily on your part but somebody else has a problem. is there any way and maybe the city attorney needs to addvation of other conditions that we can impostor anyways we can in some ways i don't want to say keep it under the jurisdiction because
7:54 pm
the permit isn't. do you know what i'm driving at. >> if you want to compel compliance as soon as possible, you can direct the penalties will accrue immediately. you can give that direction to the department or that there is a set time. they have six weeks. you could grant the appeal, uphold the notice of violation amend such that penalties begin on this date if they have not obtained or completed the project. >> i am willing to do that. that financial amount is a major incentive. if that is what we can do, that is what we can do. >> i would do this add mince the straighttively. >> we look for you guidance. >> i have had the nov you continued for years. i don't know. >> it has been years. >> i am happy if the board is
7:55 pm
going to give a timeline and wants us to implement that for the notice of violation penalties will begin at this date if it hasn't been completed or you can make that as part of you're decision. >> you talked about tieing to cfc. >> final inspection for work on the corrective permit by a certain date how ever many weeks out. that would be helpful for our department if that is the board's guidance. >> thank you. >> i would like to speak to the project sponsor's attorney. so you guys have a permit. you know what you want to put in. when could you get it in? >> we are waiting on the final permit before planning right now. if we get approval we could get
7:56 pm
in contract with emcore. >> the owner would like to speak to that? >> yes. >> i think we could do it 12 weeks after approval we could have it installed and working. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. any questions. >> no. >> this matter is submitted. the standard every view is error or abuse of discretion. >> i will start. it is a tough situation. i understand and no disrespect to the owners of the building or tenants in there. you know, they know it is causing a problem. i am sure they don't want to hear this either. it is just tough.
7:57 pm
let's dump in $250,000 to flip a coin to see if it works. no one is saying we have model 455 the way to do it. i would like them to fix it tomorrow. the reason why i had the permit holder come up is if we also have to be respectful of what can physically happen here. i heard them say 12 weeks. you know, i would give them 12 weeks. at which point the penalties to accrue shortly there after. you know, i will tell my 55 story you grew up in the city and my best friend owned that lot and 60s other auto parts stores. we played in the parking lot and i scuffed my knee and one day there was a big apartment building there.
7:58 pm
don't feel bad i am thinking 12 weeks. they can't get it done earlier. >> we agree it is tough for the residents and tough for the restaurant and no one is happy about the situation we have. i think we want to see clean air, we want to see a business profitable and continue to keep the area busy and not have a vacancy there. i agree with commissioner honda to have the penalties accrues after 12 weeks. i would keep it at $250 amount which is our discretion or whatever the statute states that would be the normal planning amount for penalties to accrue every day after, which the completion is not obtained for thetic permit. >> i would have the penalties retroactive to the date of the issuance of the nov.
7:59 pm
>> i can make the argument they have been getting the complaints for nine years. >> it is true only 24 substantiated by the air quality district. it is true. >> anyone ever remember the guy hitting the little soda cap in the corner with the golf club? >> what? >> i will go with yours if you think that is fine. do you think that 12 weeks is good enough for you guys? i have four people saying yes. if she is going to lower the womb on 12 weeks, i am telling you. >> we ask the planning department whether it is their position they would have authority to impose penalties going back. >> the decision would state that penalties accrue on the date
8:00 pm
that the corrective permit is issued. if the work is not completed within 12 weeks of the date of the permit issued to correct the matter, then the penalties will be collected. we have the ability to waive the penalties if the work is completed within 12 weeks. >> it will be collected between the time of the issuance date to 12 weeks later. >> it would start assessing on the date that the corrective permit is issued and if the department would wave the penalties if the work is completed within 12 weeks. >> i think commissioner lazarus is proposing from the date. >> no, from the date the board issues the decision and order. penalties on the date of the