there? >> i can say there's no requirement in the planning code for lighting on decks. i would defer to mr. duffy if there are any such requirements in the building code. >> no lighting except that mandated by the building department. >> and i don't know if there's any in the building code, so i would defer to mr. duffy. >> okay. thanks. >> he looks very pained. good evening, commissioners. joe duffy, dba. that type of lighting wouldn't come into plan a single-family home, like emergency lighting like you see on a high-rise building. but if they have a roof hatch up there to that, you're going to need lighting to get off of that, so it's more of a common sense approach. we do see track lighting in the floorings of decks. now, there would be a light requirement inside the stern in the lower area, so it's really -- there isn't a code provision, i wouldn't think, as much as your common sense sense code. >> well, there's some general comments in the code that talks about that. >> yeah, but no emergency lighting. there's no such thing as that in a single-family home. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you for your illumination. >> oh, you're so -- >> i'm so -- >> okay. >> we have two issues. one deals with the height of the building, and the other, how far you want to strip the deck down. >> i'm fine with the height. >> i'll live with that. >> yep. >> okay. >> they lost the pen how tthou. i'm not fond of decks, as everybody here knows. >> no. >> but you have to allow normal usage. >> so do we allow a barbecue pit? maybe a freestanding barbecue? okay. i see the fire pit's a no thing. what about the permanent structure in regards to the storage, the 15 feet by 36 inches? is that a no? >> i'm not supportive. >> i'm not supportive. >> okay. so that's a no. so what are -- let's go the other way. what are we actually going to allow on the deck? >> no lighting. >> well, we have to have some lighting. we established that already. minimal requirements as peregress perthe city and code. yeah, thank you, you're welcome. so -- >> no gas service yutensils. >> okay. so no permanently affixed gas to the property. >> how about heaters, because it gets cold? >> then, that -- there -- you know, that's where we -- >> that's the thing. well, he can use the temporary five gallon ones that he can just fill. unless we're going to be here all night. >> anything that's portable. how do you want to phrase it? >> i don't know. >> just think about enforcement, please. >> mr. teague, you look eager to jump up here. >> joe, you, too. you guys can come together. >> i don't want to speak any more than i have to, but just wanted to say that in your discussions, which things about wanting to prohibit or permit when it comes to open flames or cooking facilities is just what are you trying to prevent? is it light, which the fire pit would create a light source? is it danger from fire and cooking? is it gathering around cooking and serving food? and if it's more of that, you maybe want to be more comprehensive in just no cooking facilities, be it in that area or not. just whatever you're trying to prevent that would kind of help guide what you prohibit. >> so no cooking facilities, no permanent storage facilities, and no permanent lighting except that required by any safety provisions. >> and no four story, going future, perpetuity. >> nsr? >> yeah. >> is that a motion? >> yeah, i guess it's my motion from before, with the modification that the -- that the new building height, with the exception of the -- how do we get the -- how do we get the new building proposal in there? >> isn't a permit on revised -- >> well, we have the revised plans, which you're asking to be modified to eliminate this lighting, cooking, storage that you just discussed. >> so it's the motion -- motion from before with the opportunity to move -- grant the permit based on the revised plans, with the exception -- >> with the restriction. >> with restrictions to a limit of no more than a 500 square foot deck and -- and restrictions with regard to no cooking, no permanent structures, and no permanent lighting with the exception of that required for safety purposes. >> we need to say no cooking? i just want to be clear. >> i -- i'm okay with that, but you know what -- if that's -- >> that's what mr. teague suggested, so -- >> and -- and no fire pit, which would go along with lighting. >> and just to be specific, no additional fourth level. >> okay. so the motion -- the motion from commissioner swig -- >> excuse me. mr. duffy would like to speak. >> welcome back, joe. >> sorry commissioners. just when the word permanent structures, i think fixed would probably be better than permanent, because people do bring things up there that are movable, but fixed and permanent would be better if that's okay. >> i would accept mr. duffy's friendly -- >> well, i need some clarification because i don't understand, then, if that means someone can bring a fire pit -- a portable fire pit with a propane tank. that is not fixed. it's just plopped down and taken away or if they can't. >> so like i said, no fire pit, no cooking. >> and weber -- okay. so a heater, they can bring out if they want, that's not fixed. i am raising this because it's going to become an issue with the neighbors. >> no, then no -- then no barbecue on the roof, really? really, you're not going to let -- this is what we're trying to protect. >> yeah, i think no fixed is fine. >> no fixed. >> okay. >> and that would include any gas utensil, i guess. is that better terminology, including a fire pit or cooking. >> or no permanent gas supply. >> fixed. >> no permanent gas supply to fourth level. >> i think the propane tanks in the area was okay, then? >> yeah. >> okay. okay. so the motion, then, from commissioner swig is to grant these four appeals, issue the site permit on the condition the penthouse be removed, that there be allowed a deck no more than 500 square feet with transparent railings, and did you want an nsr? is that part of your motion? okay. and that there be an nsr recorded to document that no fixed lighting is allowed except for what's required by code. no cooking facilities, and no fire pit be allowed. no permanent structures, and that there be no fourth story is what you said, as well. >> how are we ever going to replace you? >> with the adoption of these revised plans, but these plans also need to be revised further to reflect -- >> reflect. >> the decision. >> the requirements just imposed. and previously, you said this was on the basis that these features that you're removing or the restrictions are out of context with the surrounding neighborhood. is that the same -- >> true. >> okay. okay. on that basis, then, and on that motion, vice president. >> vice president fung: fung aye. >> >> commissioner lazarus: aye. >> president honda: aye aye. >> commissioner wilson: >> no. >> okay. the motion passes with a vote of 4-1. item number 8 is a rehearing request, the subject property of 259 avila treat, the appellant, patrick mulligan is requesting a rehearing. we decided november 15, 2017, at that time the board voted 5-0 to deny the appeal at that time that the permit was properly issued. mr. mulligan, you have three minutes. >> thank you. good afternoon -- or good evening, president honda and commissioners. everybody now agrees that the one update from my presentation before -- everybody agrees that the house was rented in 1992 to '93. i have a couple of questions that you might think about. what is the -- >> i'm sorry. i can't hear you. >> could you raise the mic, sir. >> raise it? >> yeah. you're kind of a tall guy. >> what is the legal basis that planning sites requiring evidence, that actual physical residency is the sole determining factor for occupancy in san francisco. my second question is about the permit holder install the bathroom and shower, etcetera after they bought the building in 1993? the whole structure at 259 avila was rented in 1992-93 era. there by, the san francisco rent stablization statutes govern, merging the current illegal inlaw unit under the current permit eliminates an affordable unit, a rental stock of san francisco. the basement garage and residency aspects are all considered under rent control. likely, the in-law was established in 1993 when tenant k moved out and before the permit holder moved in. the property owner, terry cook, leased the rental to miss kay and sold the property to current owner. miss cook's son has had his own construction company at that time for 25 -- for 27 years before he became a winery owner. it makes sense that any property owner would enhance their property in every way, especially as it likely suffered some damage from loma prieta in 1989 before putting it up for sale in '93. it doesn't matter when the unit was established, either before the rental or after, because it exists today as an affordable unit of housing and there by requires that 311-312 notice for its removal. this means that the permit was not issued correctly, and we'd respectfully ask for a rehearing. in regard to the permit holder's point that the costas hawkins renders that mute, may i say it doesn't address any local rent control rules passed before 1996. frankly, it's not eliminating limits on single-family rent. the local regulations defines a unit and does not specify any occupied unit. it does not say that anything or anybody needs to occupy the space. -- all gomped by the san francisco rent control act, with no residential occupancy requirement. hundreds of whom are currently constructed in san francisco, see the chronic will on monday. i have a copy if you want to see it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holders. >> welcome back. >> hi. president honda, board of appeals commissioners. my name is alfonso. the permit holders respectfully request that the board deny the rehearing request regarding the approved site permit issued for 259 avila for the following reasons, and these address the issues raised in the appellant's brief. the appellant claims that the planning department staff was negligent in their determination that no rental unit would be lost during the proposed remodelling project. we contend that the review performed by planning that the appellant described in his brief is consistent with the standard of due dill dense on all projects reviewed by the department and therefore no due diligence. the appellant claims that because a miss patricia kay rented a room at this property, that a second unit exists. she stated myself and my husband along with our son lived in the entire home with no in-law unit. the owners at 259 avila street contacted miss kay and spoke to her by phone. miss kay confirmed she rents the entire residence are no additional tenants. this is confirmed in the attached e-mail which states, in the fall of 1 # 92, my son, husband and i rented the residence at 259 from teresa cook. my memory of the down stairs is it was a large room which we used for our tv and toy room for our son. the appellant claims the rental of the property by miss kay proves that there was a second unit on the property. the appellant's submitted excerpt from that ordinance said -- and is not exempt from the ordinance unless both units are rented together as a single tenancy. as stated previously, miss kay has confirmed that she and her family had rented the entire house at 259 avila street, and therefore, the ordinance does not apply. as discussed in the previous hearing, the owner had signed an affidavit asserting that their family has been the sole occupant of the residence since they purchased the property. the neighbors have also signed letters stating the owners have also been the only occupants of the property since 1993, and these are attached as exhibits 3 and 4. in conclusion, the there are no extraordinary circumstances in the case, there is no evidence that any portion of the home was separately rented as an independent residence, and there has been no documentation provided by the appellant that proves that a secondary tenant ever existed. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. teague? >> good evening again, president honda, commissioners. cory teague for planning department staff. yeah, the only new piece of information that's provided here is the same argument that was provided in the original appeal, that there was, in fact, a second unauthorized dwelling unit in the building. as such, the removal of that unit should trigger a conditional use authorization. as we discussed before, actually, the dr hearing at the planning commission was continued, i believe, for one or two weeks to give the planning department time to research that further. they did, and determined that there was no evidence of any unauthorized dwelling unit. the typical procedure we go through there to determine if there are any documentation in the public record related to the space having being used as a separate living space is we look through our files, case files, we look through building permits that have been issued. we do an eviction history request with the rent board to see if they have any documentation related to a second unit at the site. we also just do a basic internet search, as well. all of that was conducted here. the rent board are no evidence of any eviction history in an unauthorized unit or a second unit of any type at this site. we had no other documentation to indicate that the -- that the space in question had been used as an independent unit. and as was mentioned, the appellant made the case about a specific prior tenant, and that prior tenant made clear in her e-mail communications that her family rented out the entire single-family home, and that the space in question during the time was never used as an unauthorized dwelling unit, so with that considered, i would ask that you not grant the rehearing request. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> anything, inspector duffy. okay. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, commissioners, the matter's submitted. >> i think this falls short. it doesn't reach the bar for a rehearing, as far as i'm concerned, and there was no manifest injust. >> i would agree. >> that would be my motion, madam director. >> okay. thank you. president honda's motion to deny the request. on that, commissi. >> vice president fung: aye. >> commissioner swig: aye. >> president honda: aye. >> commissioner wilson: aye aye. >> this was item 8, the property's at 21 brompton, appealing a letter issued on december 1st, 2017 regarding whether the subject lot at the subject property currently being used for work could be considered a single nonconforming use, and it could be paved with a surface parking lot. >> other geng and welcome. you have seven minutes. >> good evening. my name is patricia hayes, and i'm here with my mother, brothers dan, sisters geralyn and joanne. as you've read in the background materials, this property has been in our family for over 43 years. last december 16, our mom with our family support purchased a 50% interest from our business partner mr. bernie kelly, which included the 21 brompton parking lot. it's important for us to keep the property. we're san francisco tied family. however, we were immediately concerned about the parking lot and the need for us to address it's status once we became the sole owners. we he were mindful that the lot is an unsecured, unlit and unwanted liability. we also know how vital the parking is to the glen park community, as an interim use. we wish to pursue its interim use because we know it's zoned in ct and rh 2, and our long-term goal is to develop as a residential next use. if our intention was to pursue permanent parking, we would be pursuing a change in the zoning, we reasoned that in the short-term, we could develop a paid parking lot which could improve the property with paved parking, landscaping, lighting, and safety. it will generate income which will hasten our long-term development plans, providing a good out come for the city, visitors, residents, and tenants. this led to our request for a letter of determination to the zoning administrator. mr. sanchez acknowledged its use as parking since the early 70's, but he did not find it to be a legal nonconforming public parking use. we believe that the record shows very clearly that the existing parking use is a legal nonconforming use. the city is on record since 1971 prior to the hayes's use of nonconforming parking, it has continued for 46 years as such. in recent years, city planning documents eventually dropped the term unauthorized parking and grandfathered to parking. the 2012 board of supervisors adopted glen park community development plan and the environmental lot refer to our lot as parking, stating if the parking lot along kern is ever developed, parking plans in the area include a gravel parking lot, and if you ask most people that have parked on our property, they believe it's free public parking. furthermore, the city has never taken steps to prohibit the well known use of parking at 21 brompton, so we request that the board of appeals allow the continued use of 21 brompton as a parking lot, albeit a paid parking lot. as we stated, we would like to develop the property sooner. the alternative will be to fence off the lot as is, we will eliminate parking, and traffic in the area is already very grim, and it will create more double and triple marking in an already grid locked area. it will delay long-term development for an unspecified number of years. alternatively, approval to proceed will provide he aesthetices, status quo and development with a long time family. we hope you will concur that 21 brompton has operated in a legal nonconforming parking lot in direct planning as soon as possible to allow our family to proceed with a paid public parking lot. we truly believe this is a good solution for glen park. we are together as a family in our goals. we have an existing good working relationship with the planning team, good relationships with the glen park community, and an open collaborative mindset to create thoughtful long and short-term development plans for 21 brompton, and we thank you very much for your time and consideration, and we hope you agree. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. mr. teague. >> thank you again, president honda and commissioners. cory teague, planning department staff. so on august 21st of this year, they submitted a letter as to whether the property at 21 brompton avenue could continue the use as a parking lot current property is split zoned with a smaller portion to the east towards diamond street, being zoned glen park nct neighborhood commercial transit district, and the majority of the parcel to the west that fronts on brompton being zoned rh 2. but the subject property originally consisted of several adjacent properties that were zoned r 2 and contained two single-family houses. those properties were purchased by the city, and the single-family homes were demolished or removed. the city vebl in making his determination, the zone being administrator searched for any authorization during that time to establish the parking lot as a legal use of the property, but no such documentation was found. instead, as noted in the issued letter, the r 2 zoning at the time did not permit public parking lots, and the 1971 general plan referral required for the city to sell the property specified that the current use of the property at that time was unauthorized parking. as was mentioned, there's no dispute that the property has been used as various types of parking lots since that time however with these facts in hand, the zoning administrator could not determine that the property was a legal nonconforming use and had been established at in point in the past. in his letter, he clarified that a paid parking lot is considered an open use as considered by the planning code. it's otherwise not permitted in the rh 2 zoning district. additionally, other requirements regarding trees, landscaping and screening would apply, and if were not met, would require application for a new parking lot. it's important to note, that the purpose of this was only to document the actual existing uses on the site at that time, and those documents did not evaluator otherwise confer the legality of any use at that time. finally, the appellant also requests in the brief the allowance to use the site only temporarily as a public parking lot until some future time when the property can be developed. however, the planning code has very limited provisions for certain temporary uses, and they do not allow any provisions to allow a temporary public parking lot anywhere in the city. so to conclude, the issue letter of determinationed not dispute that the initial parking lot has operated in some form or another since the early 1970's. however, just based on the facts that were available, the zoning administrator felt econot find that the existing parking lot was a legal nonconforming use. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> so with -- i have no problem with the the -- the continuances of the public parking lot, and it could be a -- a parking lot as the -- as the appellant stated. what concerns me, i look a little further down the line. temporary is an ambiguous word. temporary could be six weeks, six years, or 20 years. and then, the appellants -- appellant wants to develop the property. and i -- i see us or our future peers sitting here having a conversation with the neighborhood -- somebody in the neighborhood appeals the dismemberment of a parking lot for the purpose of -- of building that -- that future structure. that's the thing that bugs me the most. that's -- that's where i see the biggest problem. >> and just to clarify further, you know, the letter didn't address the potential temporary use or the future development of the property, really. it really just looked at the question of is the existing parking lot, can it basically continue as a legal nonconforming parking lot. some of the other information about its temporary use, future development provide context for the request, but the letter itself didn't address those specific issues. >> i think the appellants are asking for five years. >> yeah. >> so -- so i recognize that the letter doesn't address that, but i would like you to give me some thoughts on that. if the five years passes by, if there's a shortage of parking in the neighborhood due to traffic, and then, the appellant files for a -- a site permit for a -- the new development how do you unwind -- unwind that legally? >> sure. well, luckily, i think the temporary aspect of any request is not really going to be able to be addressed through any decision here because the question really is is the existing parking lot a legal nonconforming use? if the ultimate decision is yes, then that's its legal use, and it can stay that way in perpetuity. it's the legal decision that that's t that's the use of the site. if the other determination is not held, and that's not the -- it's not the legal use of the site, there's no provision under the code to grant a temporary authorization for the parking lot, so the temporary aspect doesn't really play into this specific decision here because both out comes convey a certain type of permanent to the parking lot. >> yeah, i think you're honing in -- i'd like the appellant to hear this and the family to hear this so they don't set themselves up for -- we don't grant them something that they want, and then, they find five years later that they got themselves into a -- an even bigger deal where the community can come back and appeal a site permit for what they wanted to do in the first place, which was build a structure, and then, they're turned down, and then, they really have a permanent parking lot. >> correct. so if it's determined here today that the letter of determination was issued in error, and that it actually is a legal parking lot, then yeah, moving forward, they'll have to deal with whatever issues they may face with developing it, either the current property owner are or any future property owners. >> thank you, mr. teague. >> i don't know if you were here, but there was a temporary use on a major site downtown. >> a major what? i'm sorry. >> a sign, and it was temporary use. and that's not too far off from this case, whether you guys considered it a cu or something else, because there's legislation there against signs downtown. >> sure. and signs are treated differently than land uses, so we do have provisions for temporary resigns. article six of the planning code is kind of its own separate beast. section 205, and it's subsections are outside of mission bay are the entirety of what the planning code permits. >> i don't want to get thoo that. i just remember that as a temporary. and perhaps i'm quibbling over the two terms, public, and nonconforming. now if the appellant can demonstrate it was a paid lot at one point in time, that makes it nonconforming. >> so a -- >> a nonconforming use? >> if i can elaborate a little bit here. i mean, any use that does not conform to the current requirements of the planning code for that site is nonconforming. the question of whether or not that's a violation for nonconforming use or a legal nonconforming use is if that use is ever legally established in the past, so we have lots of situations where rezonings happens across the city or plans change one way or another. you may have gotten a house built in the 1970's, and now, it's legally nonconforming, at the time it was legally authorized, it met the kurpt coded. we have many nonconforming uses. >> i was going to go to that second portion of that. >> and that's why the focus was on trying to find some documentation on such an authorization or permit. >> what was in the r 2 zoning? you're saying it didn't allow parking, but what was in it. >> it's very similar to the rh 2 that we have now, in the sense that it was a low density residential district that required a conditional use authorization for most nonresidential uses, whether they're kind of schools, parking lots, other things like that. i don't have the list, but generally not public commercial. >> no? it wouldn't have allowed it. >> if it did, it was very, very limited. again, the r 2 district is, from a use perspective is very similar to the rh 2 district that we have know. primarily, all the use permits require general use authorization, although some types of parking lots are permitted. a public parking lot, which is open to public, you pay to park, that's the definition of kind of a retail use, that's not permitted at all in rh 2. a private parking lot. >> understood. >> is permitted with a conditional use in rh 2, but that's exactly what's not been proposed. >> are you through, commissioner? >> yeah. >> so i've got a question. maybe not on this particular property, but in general, following up with commissioner swig. so say someone does have a parking lot. we don't want parking lots in san francisco, and so they're going for entitlements, permits, and plans, so on a lot like that, how long does it take to go through the planning department. >> there's a question if someone wanted to develop this site -- >> so if someone has a nonconforming parking lot that they're trying to build a strungture on, generally, how long would that take to go through the bidding. >> the nonconforming context of that scenario should not have any impact on the review time. there's nothing -- the planning code generally is designed -- >> so four years? four years? >> that's a challenging questions. it depends on the required environmental review. >> and so understanding that there is no temporary parking situation, but given the fact that we know that the planning department and the building department are very challenging in the city, and your permits can take anywhere from two years to five years, current commissioner speaking, as well, right? so that situation, since we have a lot there, wouldn't it make sense to create some type of legislation allowing developers that are in process, that are paying all these fees to go forward for entitlements, to have a specific use for the land rather than having it set there and having to maintain an empty lot. >> that's an interesting policy proposal. it's not what was under the purview of the letter and not within the authority of what we have available to us now. >> okay. thank you. >> sure. thank you. >> okay. we can take public comment. supervisor, thank you for your patience. >> thank you for your patience. welcome, supervisor sheehy. i apologize. >> no apology necessary. >> and you're going to have to move that mic way up. >> no apology necessary, and i want to thank all of you for being here tonight. i know a lot of us are -- in fact, i think the whole city is challenged. it's been hard for us the last 24 hours, and thank you for the opportunity to address you. i have my remarks in a letterform. here's the original and a copy. and i'm requesting that the board of appeals exercise its authority to find that a determination of the zoning administrator that the surface parking lot located at 21 brompton avenue is unauthorized is in error and allow the lot to be developed in the appeal. i know this property well, and its ongoing operation is a benefit to individuals and families who shop or dine in the commercial district or who utilize the san francisco public library's glen park branch. i strongly support the individual development of the property to address our city's housing shortage when the property owner is financially able to do so. we're right across the street from b.a.r.t., and it should not only be developed, but developed with density. there is an interest to improve the lot so that it is safer, better lit, and more aesthetically pleasing to the residents. in fact we're building a grown way that this lot would be the opening to. that work started last saturday. as part of the city's fix it plan for gren park, the city identifies concerns about stray gravel in the street and inadequate lighting in the area. the quality of life concerns can be addressed with a design plan proposed by the property owner. the property owner filed for conditional use authorization to allow improvements to the lot on february 23rd, 2017. the planning department took months to conclude that the cu could not be allowed. on july 10th, the property owner requested a letter of determination from the zoning administrator, which was issued on september 21st, 2017. this substantial delay is harmful to the local community, which strongly believed the lot should be approved -- improved. various environmental review documents prepared by the planning department as early as 1977 include a specific description of the property as a parking lot. therefore, the zoning administrator could have found that it was a legal nonconforming use. his finding ignores the property's history and the documents prepared by the planning department itself. in 2012, the planning department and afmta prepared the glen park community plan. in its summary is attached to the documents. the community plan specifically calls for making short-term parking available for businesses in the village. therefore, i request that the board respectfully request that the board find the zoning administrator made an error, in his september 1st, 2017 letter of determination and allow the operation and improvement of the parking lot as contained in exhibit 9 of the appeal. and thank you very much for your consideration of my views, and again, thank you for being here tonight. >> thank you. i do have a question, supervisor. >> sure. >> as a city lejs legislator, currently in the books, there's no temporary designation, right, and so how would you suggest -- 'cause once they get the designation, they may not be able to develop? >> you know, from being in the neighborhood, my experiences is that i think people almost 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, isn't what the community, i think, is going to want or need. the community's becoming more tech focused. i think we'll see a decline in cars. unless something's 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 i'm 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, that's my dry cleaner. >> yeah. >> yeah, i really think -- and to the degree that the five years i'm 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 don't need cars. >> maybe you can help your fellow comrads -- help the planning department write some legislation that would help us do this. >> yeah, i'll do that. >> thank you. >> okay. is there any other public comment on this item? >> come on up. don't be shy. good evening. welcome. >> hi. my name is joel campos, jr., and i'm -- i wrote my speech on the phone, if it's okay. i'm 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 it's 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 it's not just customers, and you know businesses and employees that park in that area. it's residents. many residents, they use it to stop by their housing and stuff, and i'm the one that operates security cameras that are aimed at that parking lot, and we have a lot of break-ins. there's certain permits that need to make lighting and all the other stuff that they don't give you because it's just basically a grofl lot. and the sfpd officers are constantly calling me because there's always break-ins 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. it's 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 there's ae all these dump trucks going in constantly, and there's potholes when it rains, and i think just putting concrete asphalt there -- i'm 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 -- i'm not sure if you guys are from the neighborhood. >> yeah. i remember olympic savings. >> there's 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 how's in the future, it's fine. it's not going to be affected, and i would implore you to please take into account there's no negative kops consequences in the area putting it into a parking lot. it's already a parking lot. just let them put some asphalt, paint some lines, and some lighting. i don't think that's an issue. >> your question, if they're entitled to build a parking lot, and your customers love it, and then, seven years down the road, they want to build a unit, aren't you going to be mad about that. >> i think there's several options that can be taken into consideration. >> i think you said you're supportive -- >> but i think there's options. right now, they need the money to obviously develop it. once they do that, i think there's some options for us merchants in the area that we can do. other areas, they have this temporary parking. >> that's 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. we'll give you rebuttal after public comment, okay? >> trying to be shy with us? don't be coy. welcome. >> my name is 4 oy campos. i've 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 didn't 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, it's 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 -- there's 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 i've gotten is from glen park community is that they do want to see housing there. it's 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 we're only talking about 20 parking spaces. we're not talking about, you know, a double or triple structure. it's, you know, a reasonable number, 19. and the ones we've talked to have said yeah, it would be great to clean it up, make it look nice. we've got that green path that's right alongside it, parallel, and you know, put a sunset date on it, if you can, or a commitment that after so many years, we'll 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. >> i'm sorry? >> your name. >> i'm sorry. i'm 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, that's 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? i'm 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 we've done in the past, and we worked really hard on that and actually submitted a plan to the mayor's 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, it's been there for a certain amount of time, so it should be considered legal. this is a fairly feel-good use. the community likes it. i've been tangential review of the planning department's use of this over time. the owners seem like good people. they're 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. there's 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 there's another rationale, whether -- >> give us some guidance. >> i mean, there's 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 doesn't -- 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. >> i'm saying there's 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 it's 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 that's 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 you're 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 you're referring to? >> well, actually, first of all, i mean, i don't want to recommend a specific basis, obviously, to overturn the zoning administrator's decision, but the slippery slope was the other, which is if you overturned it on the basis that it's 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 i'm still confused about what's the hook? there's no statutory provision. you can't just makeup a statutory provision. that's the legislative responsibility. >> sure, and that is -- and that gets to the basis of it's been here a long time. if you go on another basis. that's not a relevant issue. >> it's 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 we've said and others have said that just because it's been there a long time, does that make it legal, and so i worry about us doing something like that without some -- >> right, and that's my recommendation, is to not have that be the sole basis, if you make that decision, because there's -- >> so what other recommendation for a basis -- >> he said he didn't want to. >> not really. >> pretend you're 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 70's. did that -- that never occurred, then. >> i'm not sure i understand what you mean. the general plan referrals, the one that's specifically cited in the letter of determination is the one that was cited for the sale of the property. >>

Related Keywords

Glen Park , California , United States , San Francisco , Bernie Kelly , Patricia Hayes , Brompton Asa , Cory Teague , Terry Cook , Joe Duffy , Patrick Mulligan , Dan Hayes , Joel Campos Jr ,