of sale or is it a series of sale that continue to pass down that pre-2015 exception and that permit. >> so i understand it is confusing, and it took me a while when i took over the program to get my head around it, as well. there are exceptions, but with the exceptions, you have to hit all of the marks. so even if we considered it a retail food market, they have to have the -- the original tobacco permit exception qualified, and then, they have to have had that location selling tobacco for five years prior to their application in march, so it's not just the retail food market piece. they have to hit -- we actually are creating a flow diagram that we will share with you in the future. >> commissioner tanner: and just to kind of just make sure it's crystal clear, so the facility of purchase has been three different things is that correct -- or there's three facilities. three facilities and they've all been owned three times. you're the current owner of each facility. and so in that case, would they even be eligible to apply for the exception, based on a previous permit holder if the permit holder didn't hold that prior to 2015. what is the sequence of events -- what's original considered in this case? >> original is who had the permit on january 18, 2015, yeah? >> yes. >> commissioner tanner: and it was sold twice since then. >> once. >> commissioner tanner: only once. >> right. >> commissioner tanner: to the applicant. so then, they would be eligible to apply for the exception if all the other things were grant zb . >> right, so they have to hit all the exceptions. >> commissioner tanner: so retail food establishment. >> yeah. so why don't i bring -- and each case is different, too. >> so we have to look at who the original owner is, and here, it would have been 2015 -- january 18, 2015, that there was a lapse, and then, they came in, and then, they applied. so under that, we would consider them as a new permit, and we would look at all the criteria, the density. then, we would look at how close they are to a school or retail permit establishment. so based on the law, that's how we would review. but there's a bunch of check lists, that we can't go through all of them. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> commissioner honda: and on the one permit where they're next to elysees flarance high school, so is that permit based on the entire property or where the cigarettes are actually sold? >> so the law states it's the property line of the school as well as the property line of the school? the maps, we get the mapts created by the planning department? per ordinance, they are required to make them for us and give us the data. the -- what it doesn't show is that the property parcel that is just an addition is just south of the school is also the school property, it just wasn't captured in that specific map. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> commissioner tanner: in which case even more of the subject school property would be within -- >> correct. we've done some just rough estimates, and it was around 450 feet, yeah. very close. >> clerk: okay. anything further from the department of public health? >> touch base since you had a question, commissioner honda, about this. i did extensive research for the board of appeals, and i did some research on the parcel here for elysees school. it actually sits on four parcels. so you have the main structure, you have the playground, you have a building here, and then, you have the parking lot. so it's really actually a large square. so i think what happened for the zoning referral, they took it for the property line here. but then, if you come into the whole four parcels, it would actually be here. so i did the research, thinking maybe there's a possibility, you know, because it was close, to see if, you know, you know, doing extra research, and i found it was actually four parcels and not just one. so i checked from here down, and i did that extensive research, and as commissioner honda stated, that the properties are, like, 26 feet. so if you look at the map that i have here, this is the actually block. the gas station would be at this corner. you would have all of these here total 371 feet from the end of the property line to the end of this street. you add maybe, i don't know, some more for the diagonal to the gas station. but i did take into effect that -- 'cause it was a concern of mine, too, i thought maybe we could give them the permit, but it actually looks worse by looking at the property line. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> sure. >> clerk: thank you. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioner lazarus: i don't see how we get out from under naeth this case. honda honda-underneath this case. >> commissioner honda: i don't, either. imagine you had a business for 20 or 30 years, and trying to resell it, and that permit doesn't transfer forward, but i agree. >> commissioner lazarus: i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the department acted appropriately under the application. >> clerk: okay. we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeals and uphold the department's denial of a retail tobacco sales permit -- sorry, retail tobacco sales permit on the basis that the permits were properly denied under the health code. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that appeal is denied. we are now moving onto item number 9. this is appeal number 18-134, marc bruno versus the department of building inspection, protesting the issuance on september 21, 2018, to paul bouschetti. to comply with n.o.v. number 2018-40721. this is application number 2018-08278441, and we will hear from the appellant first. so mr. bruno, you have seven minutes. [inaudible] >> clerk: absolutely, i'm just letting you know when you're ready to start -- no, no. okay. if you could speak into the microphone, please. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is marc bruno. i am a tenant in the building 15 nobles alley. what's been confused by the permit applicant is this is a single building on a single piece of property. so there are people here today, paul and linda, myself, we're three-quarters of the people who live in the building. why? because this middle unit here is empty, and this middle unit here is empty, but people live here, people live here, people live here, and people live here. it's like a sandwich effect. there are people on the third and first floors of the buildings. on this side, i'll do it for you. 15 nobles alley would be here, facing north, and union street would be here, 472 union, so there are people that live on the top of 472 union. they're actually ill tonight, so the didn't -- they didn't come, and mr. lau lives beneath me on the floor of 15 nobles alley. and over here on union street, linda lives on the first floor. so how could it be -- i pointed all this out not only because they took the time to come and speak to you, but because as you know, under prop m, one of the laws of our city policy with regards to rent is to allow us to have a diverse community and allow seniors to live in this building. everybody except for me in this building is a senior. everybody in this building has contributed to the restaurants of san francisco, and now face eviction because the new owner has been consistent in evicting many people sfr many of his building -- from many of his buildings throughout the city. what we face now is a supposed permit application for a remodel, but let me address the actual permit application. it says the word lies up here because the permit application was changed after i spoke directly with marla chapman in the building office, which is called the permit initial review office. the new owner, he just purchased it several months ago, claims that he is going to redo a unit at number one on the first floor here. i've scratched out ground floor, that's what was changed. it says in a studio unit on the first floor. well, if you look at these plans, that's what this is for. there's three sets of plans, and the first two are for a studio unit -- i'm sorry, for a studio unit, skb it doesn't tell you what floor it's on because there is no studio unit on any floor. if you recall, i introduced mr. lau and federic, who live on the first floor. so how could there be a redo where people are already living? there can't be, but this owner approached me prior to purchasing the building, how would you feel about me redoing this unit down here and making it a residential unit, making it a seventh unit. all the history from the city and county make it clear that there's only six residential units on this property. there's only three floors on each side. and more interestingly, what marla chapman told me directly is that we in the city do not have the means to go out and examine whether this permit application is accurate or is filled with lies. we don't do that. we expect the owner of the building to tell us the truth about the real world because it's so easy to rectify it if mr. bruno came in and said wait, but that doesn't make sense. but how many people do have the time and take the time to look at these permit applications in this case? well, we did, and we're telling you there is no such thing as a studio apartment or studio remodel or studio of any size or nature in this building. much less on the first floor or ground floor as was originally claimed. the there's another confusing thing. when the owner asked me about that, i said billion, if you get an additional a.d.u. down here, then, i wouldn't object to it, but there is no a.d.u. for this. there's no a.d.u. that's been applied for, and there's no a.d.u. that's been given. moreover, even if he's doing this to humor himself, it's next to the garbage, and there's no exit down here. the point is it's in the basement, which is okay, you could get an a.d.u. permit to do that. but you have another problem here because everywhere on the city and on these permit and blueprint applications, it says this is a three story building, and this is a three story building. well, all of a sudden with no permission from the city, he has a four-story building, and he only has one entrance. it's past the garbage, and none of this is legal unless it's done properly, so all we're worried as residents of this building is to make sure that the city is watching, that these plans comport with the reality on the ground, and that you or the commissioners and our other representatives are watching out for us and making sure that the rule of law is obeyed and it is done, if it's done at all, in a safe and healthy manner. but certainly, this can't move forward at all. it even tells you right here under square footage of the project area, 233 square feet. well, i don't live in a place of 233 square feet. these people on the other side, meaning union street, they live in much units than i do. they're not recreated studio bedrooms, they're more like 633 square feet. they're not 233 square feet. everything that you look at with this project is goofy because he's tried to force in undered auspice -- under the auspices of an abatement proceeding. finally, the sexd licond issue has registered this as a hotel rather than an apartment. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from -- is mr. larocca, the attorney for the permit holder? yes. you have seven minutes, sir. >> my name is leo larocco. i'm here for the permit holder. all of this information is news to me. as the board knows, there was no briefing filed by mr. brubakbruno in support of his appeal. the only information we have in regards to his appeal were some generalized comments found in the appeal itself, indicating essentially four categories. one, he implied the project title and the permit title were not compatible. the second is project title includes reference to a building component that does not exist. the third one was a project description that makes no reference to existing work at the same site, work that exceeded the scope of the project permits, endangered building permits resulted in successful abatement proceedings by the ccsf against sponsor, and the fourth one were penalties and consequences referenced by the above abatement proceedings. there's no indication about my client building some additional unit, making what is noted as a six-unit building into a seven-unit building. what he is trying to do is to complete work on a -- on a unit located at 15 nobles, apartment two, that had been gutted in a -- and a studio apartment that had also been gutted. all's he is trying to do is comply with the order of abatement that was issued at the time escrow closed on his purchase of the property in july of 2018. in order to comply with the abatement proceeding, the city requested certain corrective action. they wanted him to file a building permit, and they wanted him to submit plans. he did both. the violation description also required him to renew certain permits. the numbers -- one permit was taken on in 2016, another in 2014, and another in 2014. our understanding, based upon the permit that was submitted that is now up on appeal was that that permitted -- permit superseded the in esty of renewing those earlier permits. i ---necessity of renewing those earlier permits. i will work with the department in getting those permits cancelled. also if there are any notices of violation concerning this building, we are also prepared to work with the building department to complete them and to close them. i am at a loss as to what is being described here today. i was to have my contractor, mr. chan, appear. i was expecting him to appear, and he did not. so if you require some further information from my contractor that was retained by the owner to complete the construction of what are now two units that have been gutted, i would request an opportunity to do so with a continuance of this hearing. but i don't think it's necessary, given that what mr. bruno describes here today describing what my client is trying to do with regards to this building. what he's trying to do is complete the work that was started by the former owner prior to his purchase, and complete the unit so we can have units to rent in this city. now he, mr. bruno discusses certain comments made by my client concerning the addition of an additional apartment in this building. i'm unaware of that. i should point out to you that i had a conversation with mr. bruno before this hearing. we considered it confidential settlement communications, and no -- and i can -- all's i can say that the issue concerning the addition of an additional unit in this building did not come up in those discussions at all. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from the building department. >> good evening, commissioners. joe duffy, d.b.i. permit under appeal, renovation of existing bathroom, unit number two, came into d.b.i. on the 27th of august. it was inspected, it was routed through code enforcement, building inspection mechanical, fire department and central permit bureau, issued on 21st of september and suspended on october 5. i, too, like the attorney, they're not having a brief, and it kind of leaves you a little bit with -- from a -- the -- the appellant, it leaves you at a bit of a loss. he brought up a number of dwelling units. on the building permit, it says it's a six unit building. now there's two addresses on the property. i've never been to the property, however, i know 15 nobles, we did have other appeals on it, as well, possibly a garage, but there's 472 union and 15 nobles alley. probably the question everybody wants answered is how many dwelling units are in the building. and then, the other discussion came up about this studio unit, adding a studio unit on the ground floor. this -- i'm not sure what that's about. we issued the permit with plans for the -- as a six -- existing six dwelling units, proposed six dwelling units. there are references in other permits at d.b.i. going back to 2014 actually in the notice of violation we issued, it does reference other building permits that reference apartment number seven, apartment number nine, apartment number 12, so there's definitely a discrepancy with regards to the legal number of dwelling units and the addresses that would probably need to get cleaned up. there's only one -- when you look at block address -- block 0104-021, it comes up with 15 at nobles alley, and then, the other address is 472 union, as i said. i'm not sure what the units are configured in both those buildings, certainly, d.b.i. would not be given permits for a six-unit building if there was nine units. so we might need to maybe continue it and have a look and see what's going on. i mean, mr. bruno, not having the brief, i didn't know what i was going to -- we didn't know what he was going to bring up. we're happy to look into it for him. on the building permit itself, it's pretty harmless what they're doing. if they're all legal units, you're renovating a kitchen, bath. it's usually not something we raise our eyebrows at. it would be usually pretty easy inspections. so he did bring up the -- in his brief -- in the items in the brief about -- that they hadn't paid their costs yet, the abatement costs. abatement costs cannot be paid until the permitted as are sig off. you can pay your penalty fees at the time of issuance. there was no penalty fees at the time of violation. if the cases were paid to the code enforcement at the time it's signed off, we send you up to the sixth floor, to code enforcement. generally, that bill's around $2,000 because of staff hearings and that kind of stuff. the other thing that i wanted to give you was since 2000, the year 2000, there's been 38 complaints at the property, 35 since 2011. we have abated 33 of them, i believe, and there's two or three outstanding. the other two notices of violence that are outstanding at the minute are for housing, main nance issues, to do with -- maintenance issues, windows that aren't closing, paint. i can read it all to you, but i don't think you need all that. i did speak to the attorney on the phone because the notice of violation asked them to renew some building permits. they didn't quite capture all that, and they do need to cleanup a couple of older permits with regard to permits that had expired. because we now have three building permits on unit number two. i think the problem is there's been a change of ownership. some knew -- this gentleman, i think, explained that. so we have a lot of permits out there for the same unit, and then, this new thing about the number of dwelling units and the studio and adding the studio. i'm sorry to say, i can't standup here and tell you exactly what is agoing on apart from kwha we just heard. >> commissioner tanner: can you speak to the notice of violation and what was trying to be abated. you work in one unit or was it two units that work was being abated in? >> thanks for asking that. that's a good question. i can read the r.t. because four permit applications have expired, stop all work until permits have been renewed. adding new permit required and additional permit. schedule an inspection before any work is done. two of the permits listed were for unit number two. one of the applications was for unit number 12, and the other one was for unit number seven. and subsequently, one of the building permits actually got cancelled, which tells me that the work wasn't done. they decided not to go ahead with it, which is their right to do. they get a permit and cancel the permit. so what they did, in fact, instead of renewing the permit, they just got this permit that was appealed for unit number two. they still have an outstanding permit for unit number seven, which expired without a final inspection. so i'm not sure -- that would have been by the previous owner, as well, in 2014. >> commissioner tanner: at the meeting, it was referenced that there was a meeting when the current owner closed escrow to discuss abating this problem, is that correct? was i understanding that properly? >> i'm not sure. [inaudible] >> commissioner tanner: the question was i believe the brief from the permit holder's attorney stated there was a meeting that occurred when the escrow notice occurred. maybe i misread that. >> no, that would be sound right. that would be something you would typically do. you would come down to d.b.i. if you buy the building, you buy the violation, and that's what they want to do. i probably would have advised them differently on this one, but this is kind of taken care of. if they want to do work on unit number two, instead of renewing the old permit, they take out a new permit. there's permits out there that needed cleanup and see what's going on. the studio unit is a separate matter. >> commissioner tanner: separate issue. >> yeah, i don't know what that's about. i do know that we have two addresses, and we've had other permits issued for units above six units. this permit says six units. addresses are always difficult -- when there's two units on a property, you can have four units in one building, six units in another building. which typically -- each structure requires its own building per milt. he can't have 12 building units in two addresses, so that's probably what's going on, but that wasn't part of what was in my brief to look up tonight. mr. bruno brought it up, i'm happy to look into that. there's no issue at all. i think the attorney here representing the owner asked for a continuance, as well, just to figure things out, and that might be a good reset for everybody. that's just my thoughts on it because i'm unable to answer some of the points that he brought up. >> clerk: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? i'm so sorry, scott. >> commissioner honda: now that you're not the zone administrator, just no respect, right? >> acting former -- scott sanchez, planning department. although the planning department did not approve the permit, i agree with the senior inspector duffy, it would have been great to have a brief that outlined these issues and we could have actually researched it. i do see some issues with the plans. first, the plans don't provide a lot of context. they just show the units themes, not where -- themselves, not where they are located in the buildings. it appea what is shown as the studio unit, the configuration of it is concern being because as you can see -- it's shown as being 472 union, which has pretty notable curved bay windows at the front, and it has a garage below. but when you look at the plans, which are appearing to refer to a unit that is facing that front of the building, that union frontage, it doesn't -- you would imagine that this would be the front or, you know, perhaps even theis, but there's no windows in either locations. so my guess would be it's probably at the ground level behind the garage. but this wouldn't be a coat -- code compliant unit. these windows are probably on the property line, maybe who knows where because there's no si site information to show any of this. i think the plans are seriously flawed, but we're happy to work with d.b.i. and with the permit holder to try to get to the bottom of whatever is going on here. thank you. [inaudible] >> clerk: thank you, mr. sanchez. is there any public comment on this item? >> my name's steve shevlin. thank you for hearing me today. i'm speaking on behalf of 15 nobles. i'm here to testify about an n.o.v. that hasn't been rectified yet, and it has to do with loose carpeting in the stairwell, the main stairwell into the building that is rather new and has -- is not fastened down. it's -- because it's not fastened down, it's unravelling. it's a hazard for me, friends, and the tenants of the building. i believe this was an n.o.v. that hadn't been rectified yet. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. is there any -- any other -- anymore public comment? no? okay. so we will move onto rebuttal. mr. bruno, you have three minutes. >> i wasn't here, none of us who came on this issue was here at the beginning of this issue today, and i would like to be sworn in, if you don't mind -- >> clerk: okay. just be prepared for the time. >> okay. >> clerk: do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing by the truth. >> i so do. >> clerk: okay. so gary, you can start the time. >> thank you. to be clear, i've lived in the building for 33 years. all of the tenants have lived there for a long time. we pay very little rent. we thank god every day that we're allowed to live there. there is no such unit in the building as was pointed out by mr. sanchez. this studio is exactly the way -- it is fact just behind the garage. the window doesn't face anything except a bunch of garba garbage pails. the entrance where the garbage men and women would go in to pick up the trash is here. to clarify something joe duffy said something about seven, nine, 12, yes, until three months ago, this building was owned speculatively until three months ago by mr. morris herculavic. this owner has decided it's not in his interest to put his name on our building. we've been told by the city that he himself has delayed this project. but again -- delayed the project of merely identifying who he is so the n.o.v.s can be cured. this was told to me this morning by mr. dennis yee, part of the housing d.b.i. he said i can't move forward on this right now because there's no clear identification on 15 nobles on who owns it. he also said on 472 union street, it says it's a hotel. so i receive this today from d.b.i. i'd like to leave this with gary. >> clerk: we can put it on the overhead. >> so you'll see, it says hotel. this is the only identification of 472 because -- [inaudible] >> -- has an n.o.v. on her side of the building for things that haven't been done for decades because we've all lived there for so long. so what this means is the city has on information and belief from the owner has decided this is not an apartment building anymore, this is a hotel. but how could it be that the same building, this same building, has here at 15 nobles, see, it says 15 nobles right here, it's called apartment buildings. how could one be apartment buildings and one be a hotel? this is just more confusion caused by a lot of people who want a lot of money as quickly as possible and are using many buildings in the city, ours included to do what they want. because all it is for us is a matter of frustration. i was criticized gently for not having briefed you. why? because i'm helping many people do the same thing, and we're barely keeping our heads above water. thank you so much for your time. >> clerk: thank you. >> clerk: we will now hear from mr. larocco. you have three minutes, sir. >> again, with regards to this issue of a hotel, i don't know what he just showed you, and i barely was able to see it on the overhead. >> i have a copy for you. >> can i? >> yes. >> thank you. it would have been nice if you would have provided this to me earlier. again, i have no ability to respond to whatever this notice of violation is. i don't know who put the word hotel with regards to 472 union. it's issued on november 26, 2018 relating to 472 union street. again, i'm going to ask for a continuance so i can clarify what all exactly is going on. it would have been appreciated if mr. bruno would have advised me either in a brief or a telephone conversation what issues he was going to raise today so i wouldn't have spent my time waiting to discuss what he pointed out in his initial appeal with regards to the problems associated with the plans. and now, when i come for the first time at approximately 8:30 in the evening, i hear that somehow my client is trying to squeeze in a unit that's inappropriate in this building and/or trying to expand the number of units from six to seven. i do not believe that is what he was doing. it is my understanding that there were two demolished units, one at 15 nobles, and another one, a studio at 472 union street. we will get to the bottom of this issue and will make sure whatever is submitted to the building department is approved so we can get a permit issued and we can get these units back on-line in the market so they can get rented. and finally, i take offense at the allegation that my client is seeking to evict anyone. all's he's trying to do is make the building safer for theist existing tenants. the two units that are now demolished, they've been subject to a notice of appeal that was done in 2015 by mr. bruno that was denied with regards to unit number two at 15 nobles. what happened next is that permit expired. my client buys the building, wants to get -- takes out a new permit to get that work completed and is subject to yet another appeal, stalling the process and making it very difficult for my client to merely reconstruct these two units and place them in the markets for rent. >> commissioner tanner: mr. larocco, is it your understanding that the demolition was for one or two units? >> my understanding, it was for two. on ju on -- i was retained by mr. biscetti to respond to a notice of appeal that was filed by mr. bruno october 4. between october 4 and tonight at 8:30 we heard nothing about my client trying to build another unit in this building next to garbage cans. >> commissioner tanner: i think what the confusion stems from is to finish work in unit two, which has been noticed and understood from the notice of violation, but the additional renovations, finishing the work on another unit, the second -- it doesn't seem like we know the answer to what that unit is referencing. to mr. sanchez's point, what are the dimensions. >> to be quite honest, i don't, either. i was planning on having mr. chan here. you can tell m my brief, i indicate -- in my brief, i indicated he was going to be here. maybe he was and he decided to go home and have dinner. i don't know. i apologize. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. mr. duffy, do you have anything further? >> joe duffy, d.b.i. just on the notice of violation that d.b.i. issued, it did, indeed, get transferred to code enforcement. that would have been issued around 27 february 2018. i believe the previous owner, it did end up going to code enforcement, and there was indeed a hearing in july, and there was an order of abatement posted on the building, so it is in their interest to deal with the notice of violation because it just keeps getting more expensive if you don't. there's a monthly monitoring fee, and you want to take care of your violations, you want to close them. the -- they definitely need to look at unit number seven. that was part of the notice of violation that hasn't been addressed yet. the studio unit is definitely something we need to look into. the ironic part is the plans are, if you're doing an interior remodel without removing any walls, you can do this without plans, so i don't know if they needed the plans or not, but it's confusing and -- to see -- mr. sanchez pointed it out, normally, we see a floor plan on the buildings, so that's something that needs to get cleaned up. if there's issues with this permit, we'll find out, and then, they can take the appropriate action. i'd like to get more time to certainly get my head around it because it's certainly confusing. i do think the legal number of dwelling units -- like, mr. bruno will know this, how that building's let out. you never pointed that out in his time, how many legal units there are in the unit. d.b.i. -- if you've got six units, we're not giving you a permit to renovate number 12 without seeing where these units are. you've got to remember, a lot of these buildings are over 100 years old. they're nonconforming. you hear it all the time. i don't know what -- how many legal units there are, but certainly, i'm sure, and what i'm hearing from the -- from the attorney for the owner, they definitely want to take care of it, and i'm happy to roll up my sleeves, get in there and see what's going on and see what they need to do going forward to get their building into compliance. on the gentleman's comments about the housing complaints and mr. yee, is -- mr. yee is one of our housing inspectors. he has been out there recently. some of the complaints are as late as the 26th of november . tlas ae just -- that's just over a week ago, and i think he's dealing with any maintenance issues in the building. i do think the hotel reference is a typo on our notice of violation. i can bring that up with our housing inspection services. that's where the document was created and see if that can get changed because i agree, i don't think it's right. >> clerk: thank you. mr. sanchez, do you have anything to add? okay. commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> vice president swig: may i start? i think this is a -- probably the biggest mess that i've seen in a while. certainly, the biggest one tonight, and there's a mess on all sides. certainly, i would recommend a continuance, but i'd like to turn to counsel. counselor, i would recommend that your client get his act together a little bit. for us to make a good decision, i would recommend that you clean -- get -- find out what's wrong, clean it up, get it right, come back with a proper presentation that even goes to identifying every square foot or module in the building so we know what's up. i would suggest, given that there are two addresses, that you look into the title and see why there are two addresses. in fact, if there are -- you know, were originally two buildings or what. this is a mystery. i'm sure mr. bruno would love to get the history on the building that he's lived in for so many decades. so i encourage you to cleanup the various messes that were -- may not have been your client's fault. could have been the predecessor owner, but it's time for a good, strong housecleaning on your part, and i think it benefits your client, quite actually. second, i would ask that your client come up with a very much better set of plans, clearly, as mr. sanchez points out, you have these rounded windows in the front, yet the -- you know, yet the plans have afropt -- front, so if you could assist us in coming in with a clear picture, you're probably going to get a much clearer answer. mr. bruno, i would -- i would ask you, please, to present a -- a brief. we need to know -- it is unfair, patently unfair to us up here not to know what we discuss before we come in here so we can benefit you by having a clear -- a clear picture. and so i would ask that you submit a brief in a timely fashion in advance so we can understand what you want to argue about so that we can -- so that we can serve you properly and effectively. >> clerk: can we confirm what -- how long the brief will be? normally, it's 12 pages, but given this is the second time, is there a limit on the pages? >> vice president swig: i'd call it six pages. >> clerk: and exhibits are allowed? >> vice president swig: i would think that exhibits are allowed. because if is it's the first time, there is no brief. now as far as the presentation coming bhack, i'm not sure we should allow six minutes on both sides because we've been presented what the issues are, but this is a -- unless one of my fellow commissioners disagrees, i think that we shouldn't go through the -- the six-minute presentation and the full thing because we've given them that opportunity. they blew it the first time -- sorry for that disrespectful comment, but they -- you know, it's not very good what we got today. and so three minutes -- we have a context, we know where the building is, we know what it looks like, and so fill in the blanks appropriately, and so we will trust that your briefs will clarify the issues as well as the plans that we are presented. so with that, i would move for a -- a continuance. i can't give you a date. i would like to look at the counsel and the owner's representative because i don't want -- i don't want to limit you to a time and have you rush through plans so that we end up having bad plans again. so the question is how much time do you need. >> commissioner honda: how much time do you need, counselor? >> vice president swig: okay. 45 days. [inaudible] >> vice president swig: where are we? >> clerk: january 23 or the 30? >> commissioner lazarus: 30th only has three items. [inaudible] >> commissioner honda: you're going to be away? i'll join you. >> vice president swig: february 6. >> clerk: mr. bruno, i'll send that to you. >> vice president swig: mr. duffy, could you be as cooperative as possible to the parties and maybe certainly meet with them to clarify all the -- the issues that exist and maybe go to the building, as well, or as you see any time, get familiar with the building. >> i have a list of things that we need to get to the bottom of. sometimes in these cases, we know that if this permit is faulty, rather than bring it back here, they have the option to counsel that permit which then obviously stops this process, but they will still need to deal with this on the notice of violation. i'm just bringing that to your attention, and sometimes, the appellants say but, but. the plans don't have enough information. mr. sanchez is right on that, when you look at it deeper, so maybe this would be resolved that way. >> vice president swig: counsel, you would talk mr. duffy's response seriously, and maybe you just want to wipe the slate clean and wipe out your notice of violations and come back and do it again. >> it's kind of setting the reset button where they should have started, rather than taking these permits out. call it a studio without an apartment number. it's not a clean permit. i think they want to do it. there's no doubt about that, but i just wanted to get them in the right spot. i just wanted to point that out. sometimes the appellant feels put out when the permit action goes away. >> vice president swig: or even there might be two different permits because there's two different buildings. we don't even know that. there's a lot of work to be done on this one. [inaudible] >> vice president swig: we will schedule it for the 6th, and if there is a transition because there's a cancellation of this permit or another direction, that's not up to us, that's up to the -- >> clerk: so what we have on the table is a motion from vice president swig to continue the matter to february 6 so that we can get a full set of complete plans from the permit holder and so that d.b.i. can do a site visit and review all the permits issued for the location and -- >> vice president swig: cleanup the notice of violations -- clarify cleaning up the notice of violations. >> clerk: and three to allow the approximaellant to provide brief and have the respondent to respond to that brief, six page limits, and i'll let you know the dates. i'll send out notice tomorrow. so on that motion -- was that motion originally -- >> vice president swig: any other comments in addition from my fellow commissioners? >> clerk: okay. this motion is from vice president swig. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, and this matter's continued. thank you. >> vice president swig: thank you, and that ends our activities for this evening. thank you very much for coming. [ gavel ]. >> vice president swig: meeting adjourned. - working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - our 28,000 city and county employees play an important role in making san francisco what it is today. - we provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco. >> clerk: i would like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or out bursts of any kind. when speaking to the commission, if you'd care to do so, please state your name afford. i'd like to take roll at this time. [roll call] >> clerk: we expect commissioner richards to be absent today. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance, case number one at 49 hopkins avenue, conditional use authorization. it is proposed for continuance to january 24, 2019. item 2,

Related Keywords

Togo , San Francisco , California , United States , Joe Duffy , Marc Bruno , Marla Chapman , Dennis Yee ,