Universally in the neighborhood would like to see that developed as housing. I mean, we have a housing crisis in this city. And the parking lot itself, you know, in the long run, isnt what the community, i think, is going to want or need. The communitys becoming more tech focused. I think well see a decline in cars. Unless somethings done with the traffic situation there, i mean but tigers will be there forever. Tigers and glen park station, and la corneta, i think, will never go away. You know, this is a dilemma that im probably going to ask the department to explain, but you know, my auntie rosa owned the dry cleaner on the corner for years that had all the Police Uniforms on it. Yeah, thats my dry cleaner. Yeah. Yeah, i really think and to the degree that the five years im here, this is something i would push aggressively to see housing develop, because we do have a crisis, and for me personally, the more we can fill around the glen park b. A. R. T. Station, these are units that dont need cars. Maybe you can help your fellow comrads help the Planning Department write some legislation that would help us do this. Yeah, ill do that. Thank you. Okay. Is there any other Public Comment on this item . Come on up. Dont be shy. Good evening. Welcome. Hi. My name is joel campos, jr. , and im i wrote my speech on the phone, if its okay. Im the manager of the la corneta restaurant in the glen park neighborhood. We have been open for a little bit over 22 years, and our restaurant and other Small Businesses depend on the existence of that parking lot, whether its the market down the street or the Hardware Store on the corner, or other Small Businesses. The parking lot definitely needs improvements. The changes that the hayes family wants to implement, i think it would help the whole area significantly, because its not just customers, and you know businesses and employees that park in that area. Its residents. Many residents, they use it to stop by their housing and stuff, and im the one that operates security cameras that are aimed at that parking lot, and we have a lot of breakins. Theres certain permits that need to make lighting and all the other stuff that they dont give you because its just basically a grofl lot. And the sfpd officers are constantly calling me because theres always breakins in that area. And we believe that making that area more professional with asphalt and better lighting, it would help defer those individuals that are coming. Just like two weeks ago, in five minutes, three cars were broken into. Police cars were broken into. Its an ongoing thing in that parking lot, and i think it would help. The gravel is a problem. With the cars going in and out, it goes into the street, and theres ae all these dump trucks going in constantly, and theres potholes when it rains, and i think just putting concrete asphalt there im not asking for much. Just a temporary thing until they do their housing project. And having said that, i think if they do decide to turn it into housing in the future, i think the neighborhood would welcome it. That area im not sure if you guys are from the neighborhood. Yeah. I remember olympic savings. Theres some houses that are being renovated across from it. And with the traffic, there can be temporary parking on diamond street to alleviate parking for the merchants, people just trying to make a quick stop. So if they do want to build a hows in the future, its fine. Its not going to be affected, and i would implore you to please take into account theres no negative kops consequences in the area putting it into a parking lot. Its already a parking lot. Just let them put some asphalt, paint some lines, and some lighting. I dont think thats an issue. Your question, if theyre entitled to build a parking lot, and your customers love it, and then, seven years down the road, they want to build a unit, arent you going to be mad about that. I think theres several options that can be taken into consideration. I think you said youre supportive but i think theres options. Right now, they need the money to obviously develop it. Once they do that, i think theres some options for us merchants in the area that we can do. Other areas, they have this temporary parking. Thats fine. Or you know, the meters, instead of putting it for two hours, you can put it for 15 minutes or 30 minutes, well the bulk of the all right. Thank you sir. Any other Public Comment . No other Public Comment, we can take you look like no, no, you have rebuttal, so if no one else wants to speak under Public Comment. Well give you rebuttal after Public Comment, okay . Trying to be shy with us . Dont be coy. Welcome. My name is 4 oy campos. Ive known this hayes family for over 20 years. I came to the united states, and know this family since. You cannot find better lenders than them. They help you, they listen to you, and we are we are very happy if you succeed by allowing you to work with the property. For me, the parking lot is crucial. They stated already, patty stated already, and i just imagine that if i if they took the same thought that i was going to take with my property years ago, if the Planning Commission didnt allow me to put what we needed for that site, i was going to close it, and leave it there for my children or my grandchildren to develop it. Finally, they were sensitive. They agreed. I remember those great commissioners, like mike antonini, and all of them that allowed me to do it, and now, that building is going to be finished in a couple of months. I know the Planning Department takes forever to grant you a permit, but why not take the chance and allow this family to use it, to improve it. And later on, we will see. And finally, in other cases that i hear, the previous cases, one side was going to hurt if the other situation was going to be taken. In this case, in this particular case, the hayes family is hurting nobody. So if they decided to close it, its going to be less sales, less taxes, and probably less employees. So take the chance. Give them the chance. We are here to help them and you are supposed to help them, too. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Any other Public Comment . Seeing no Public Comment, we can take rebuttal with the appellant first. Yeah. I just wanted to comment on when we mentioned the longer Term Development plans, that certainly, as we talked with the community and planning, that we would theres options here. We could incorporate parking within whatever Development Plan that is, whether there would be some parking aside, that we could continue to support the community and the businesses. And as supervisor sheehy said, a lot of the feedback that ive gotten is from glen Park Community is that they do want to see housing there. Its a transit rich area, right across from b. A. R. T. , but with some parking. And so we do think they would be supportive of down the line of a Development Plan for residential and commercial. Any other. And were only talking about 20 parking spaces. Were not talking about, you know, a double or triple structure. Its, you know, a reasonable number, 19. And the ones weve talked to have said yeah, it would be great to clean it up, make it look nice. Weve got that green path thats right alongside it, parallel, and you know, put a sunset date on it, if you can, or a commitment that after so many years, well give you time to work on a longer term plan that incorporates parking and housing and commercial. We just wanted to make those comments. Thank you. Anybody else . I guess, just to follow up on the process that you your name, sir. Im sorry . Your name. Im sorry. Im dan hayes. Just to follow up on the process taking as long as it would if there is no, you know code or sentence or paragraph that you can lean on, can you create it . Is there something you can do so that if you kind of have some empathy for this situation, is there something that could be legislated in a decent amount of time that would allow that window, or to answer that question, if the process takes that long, thats a legitimate the legitimate thing to bring up. And but if something could be legislated in the meantime, instead of just sitting there, in the time it takes to develop. I have a question, whoever would like to answer. Have you charged for parking there before . Im sorry . No. In the over time, with the you know, my father and the breefs busineprevious busi there we there were periods of time where they did private parking, 12, 15, but once we took ownership, there was no paid. That was a while back. Yes. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Mr. Teague, rebuttal. Boy, scott leaves you the easy night, huh . Oh, sure, sure. You know, all the talk of process and timelines and current events, i think it is worth pointing out that one of the major initiatives mayor lee was working on was asking our departments and oc departments to develop plans for additional process improvements on top of what weve done in the past, and we worked really hard on that and actually submitted a plan to the Mayors Office december 1st, so hopefully in the future, the process times will go down even more. I know that is a big deal to him. We appreciated that. Specifically to this case, i would just provide one request, which is if you do decide to move towards overturning the letter, i would i would advise to think about whether or not you want to use the rationale of well, its been there for a certain amount of time, so it should be considered legal. This is a fairly feelgood use. The community likes it. Ive been tangential review of the Planning Departments use of this over time. The owners seem like good people. Theyre good people. This is kind of a good scenario for that type of event, but there are other scenarios with other uses and other people where that you know, that principle does not exist in the planning code. Theres no statute of limitations for how long you go operating without permits that you automatically become a legal use, so i would just maybe advise that if you go that route, that maybe if theres another rationale, whether give us some guidance. I mean, theres other things in there in in the public documents for this site. I mean, it was a parking it was basically being used as unauthorized parking when the city owned it, and they sold it to the private to a private member of the public, so that doesnt for the code to really convey that land use legality there, but the statute the statute of limitations kind of concept would be a little concerning, so if you do go that route, i would just advise to maybe consider another rationale if you can. What do you mean what do you mean, the statute of limitations. Im saying theres no statute of limitations in the code for how long a parking lot can operate without permits, and then be considered for legal use for a period of time. The statute is clear, public use has to be legally permitted. There was the argument its been here for 40 years, so it should just be considered legal, and i was making the point in this situation, this is a feel good situation but your point is [ inaudible ] that would not always feel at good in other situations, and so thats the only advice that i would give. That it would create a dangerous precedent. Yeah. Sure. Can i get further clarification on this. So so if we were to find for the letter of determination, we could find it based on the that the that the letter of determination was issued in error or if and what youre saying is that if we, again, found for the appellant on the on the basis that because the city historically had had authorized and or had used this space as parking, therefore, it should be authorized for that use in in the future, is that the slippery slope that youre referring to . Well, actually, first of all, i mean, i dont want to recommend a specific basis, obviously, to overturn the Zoning Administrators decision, but the slippery slope was the other, which is if you overturned it on the basis that its been operating for 40 years, so might as well call it legal, that would be more of a precedent issue, and slippery slope, so to speak. So im still confused about whats the hook . Theres no statutory provision. You cant just makeup a statutory provision. Thats the legislative responsibility. Sure, and that is and that gets to the basis of its been here a long time. If you go on another basis. Thats not a relevant issue. Its been there before b. A. R. T. I remember when the glen park station opened. It was so cool. I was like in the fourth grade. Awesome. Except the danger there is there are other situations and other contexts where weve said and others have said that just because its been there a long time, does that make it legal, and so i worry about us doing Something Like that without some right, and thats my recommendation, is to not have that be the sole basis, if you make that decision, because theres so what other recommendation for a basis he said he didnt want to. Not really. Pretend youre on michael. Give it up. I want something. Mr. Teague. Yes. The literature has certain references of potential master plan referrals back in the early 70s. Did that that never occurred, then. Im not sure i understand what you mean. The general plan referrals, the one thats specifically cited in the letter of determination is the one that was cited for the sale of the property. But theyre referencing not so specific, but they were alluding to there were other referrals that are forth coming, but im not seeing anything else. Im sorry. Not specifically in your search. Not specifically to referrals, and that was the general plan at the time of the sale of the property. Okay. Actually, i have a supervisor question. You look like you have a solution or a request from the public. Yeah. I think what were talking about is the city established the use. Thats the reason. They didnt establish the use, so the city established the use years ago, so were not really talking about the city being, you know that gets to i think his question of having a having the nonconforming use, but now having to conform. Its really like the city, years ago, established the use solely to the Property Owners having established the use, and then, you know, thats why were here today. Okay. So just to acknowledge that the city established the use, and reject the letter of determination as being in error, i think that could be a way to cut the knot. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Now, the matters been submitted. So id like id like to make that motion, that we would you like to talk about it before you make the motion . Well, i think thats the answer that we just heard, is is that the city established the use of this parking the use of this parking lot. The city authorized and the use of this space as a parking lot and operated it as a parking lot, and that sets the precedent. Not the ongoing use over the last 30 or 40 years or whatever, but the city itself authorized the use and then operated it as a parking lot historically. So that thats a i dont i dont find that a slippery slope, and that would be the the intent of my motion if i were able to make it or anybody else. I would concur with that. Im in the neighborhood quite frequently. Thats a pretty dark, dark space, to be honest. Like i said, just if we could get to a space where were not setting huge precedent here, right . I would add an amendment, if i may. I have made the motion. You can make the motion. Yeah, you can make the motion. Can i Say Something first . Yes. Since were about to make a motion. I am completely sympathetic, empathetic, whatever term you wish to use. I would very much like to see this happen. I have not been persuaded that there are problems with the letter of determination, so im a little stuck on that. I totally can envision what it is youre trying to do, but i dont know if i can get there. Okay. Well, hopefully, frank will have some problem solving skills. Well, if you have a motion, go ahead. No. Im going to let you make the motion. Id just like to respond to commissioner lazarus. I think the problem with the letter of determination is that it does not recognize the citys authorization of this space as and use as a parking lot, and therefore, its denying that if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it must be a duck, because they saw it as a duck historically. So thats the problem in the letter of determination is that they didnt recognize that it was an authorized use, it was a practiced use, and therefore, the practice of using it as a parking lot in the future should be authorized. Well, its already established already. Its already established. Thats, i think my response to yours. Since were all on the same side. Well, im not i think the language is a little bit different than that in the sense that, you know, the basis in terms of what the city authorized is one thing. But the continued usage of it as a paid parking lot created a legal nonconforming use. That makes sense. I would also add that to if we were to overturn the lod that on that basis, i would add to oh, whats the right word . Not necessarily confirm, but to substantiate that legal nonconforming use, i would submit a time frame of five years for them to permit that substantiate that legal nonconforming use. Commissioners, i would recommend thats outside the scope of the letter of determinations before you, putting conditions on what can happen here in the future. Youre just here determining if the Zoning Administrator abused or reached his conclusions based on the letter. Youre saying only only that . I dont whats before you is not whether there could be a time limit placed on the future. Its whether the za has found correctly that the use that theyve have asked about is a legal nonconforming use, and has found that its not a legal nonconforming use. Do you have a comment, mr. Teague . Just to reinforce the city attorney, i mean, all of our all of our letters of determination that specifically state that, you know, this is just an interpretation of the use of the code. Its not a permit, its not anything else to comply. We dont apply conditions to letters of determination. Its simply a question, is this a legal nonconforming Public Parking lot or is it not, and the Zoning Administrator said its not. So the real the decision. But hes not