The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones or other Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the meetings. Parties are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttals. Members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. For jurisdiction and rehearing requests, the parties shaf three minutes to present their case with no rebuttal. Four votes are required to grant an appeal or modify a permit. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please email board staff. This is broadcast on sfgov tv on channel 26. The video is also available on our website. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath. If you intend to testify at any of tonights proceedings and wish the board to give you evidentiary right. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. [indiscernible] clerk if you could please put your zoom speaker on mute now. Thank you. Id like to announce that Public Comment will be taken by phone. To block your phone number dial star 68 and then use the toll free number and then the meeting id which is 830767599 and then you enter the participant code which is 442013 and then the password, 442013. When you listen for the Public Comment portion of your item to be called if you would like to speak, you dial star 9, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we can call on you. Now were moving on to general Public Comment. This is a time for anyone to speak on something that is not on tonights agenda. Is there anyone who would like to speak . Were going to slowly go through this because its a different platform for us. I also wanted to put a reminder out there if youre calling in, please turn down your television so there is no interference. If you called for general Public Comment, please press star 9 now and i can see if you want to speak. Were waiting to see who is online. Please mute your if youre here as part of the meeting, please put your cellphone on mute so we dont have the interference. You can also go ahead and mute them if theyre not doing that. I do not believe we have any general Public Comment. We will now move on to item 2, which is commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners. Well just go slowly through this too. If you would like to say something, please press star 9 if youre a commissioner and you would like to address the public. No . Okay. Im just going to go slowly. One last chance. Any commissioner comments and questions . Okay. Thank you. We are now moving on to item 3, which is adoption of the minutes, commissioners were before you for possible adoption are the minutes of the may 6, 2020, meeting. Commissioners, any changes, deletions, addition to the minutes . No. Is there a motion to approve . I believe that motion was from Vice President honda to approve the minutes from may 6. On that motion. [ roll call ]. So that motion carries 40 and the minutes are adopted. We are now moving on to item number 4 and i would like to provide a reminder from president lazarus that pursuant to article 5, section 10 of the boards rules, the commissioners role is to determine whether or not the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal. Item number 4 is jurisdiction request number 203, subject property at 3340 geary boulevard. Letter from five stars investments l. L. C. , requestor, asking that the board take jurisdiction over alteration permit number 2019 06 28 4655 u. S. Postal code service. Which was issued on june 28, 2019. The appeal period ended on july 15, 2019, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on april 24, 2020. Determination holder jalal nasser. Permit description for Planning Department purposes to document provide two additional Parking Spaces at rear of property in nc3 zone for residence usage only; no construction work performed. Scrpt. The participation in a law firm that i have dealings with will not have any effect on my decision. Is mr. Conolly present . I am. Thank you. If we could put him on spotlight, that would be great, please, alex. Alex . Yeah, im trying to find him. Alex, are you able to put him on spotlight . Hes on the lower left. Which one is it . Patrick conolly. Hes on the lower left. Right here, me. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Conolly, please proceed. You have three minutes. Good afternoon, everyone. Madam president and distinguished members of the board. My name is Patrick Conolly and im the attorney for the owner of the property at 3340 geary boulevard. The owner is five stars investments l. L. C. The owners, as well as the project architect, Jonathan Pearlman are in attendance at this meeting. We are here on a jurisdiction request on a permit issued to the permit holder for mr. Nasser for a parking in his rear yard at 3340 geary boulevard. Thats the adjacent property to my clients property. Let me give you background. My client five stars investments l. L. C. Bought the property approximately three years ago, the property at 3340 geary. They were alerted that mr. Nasser was conducting a parking business in his back yard, sometimes covering every square foot. Some cars were only parked there during the work day, such that they understood the parking was being rented to local businesses. Sometimes the only way for them to access the parking was to drive on a driveway of 3330 geary. And five stars objected to this. When mr. Nasser refused to cease the illegal operation, five stars constructed a fence on its property on june 2018, which made it impossible for mr. Nasser to continue his illegal business. Fastforward to a few months ago when five stars happened to discover the subject permit. They discovered it by looking at the information map. The permit was kept secret by mr. Nasser. Its apparent why five stars is late in filing its appeal. It had no knowledge of the application or the permit. Why was five stars late, because of the action or inaction of the city. When mr. Nasser applied for his permit, the documents he filed with the city established that he knew the permit necessarily involved the use of my my clients property. Im going to try to share a document with you. Are you able to see this on my screen . When you look at this document, this is a site vicinity plan submitted to the city on june 20, 2018. As you see here, it shows the parcels in the middle and it shows mr. Nassers property here with cross hatches. Beside it on the other side of the Property Line, there is a line and an arrow. This is on my clients property on 3330 geary. It shows that as part of this permit what was filed with the city, that use of my clients property was necessary for the permit and the city knew the use of my clients property was necessary for this permit. Wait a second. When the permit uses the property of another Property Owner, the city has to request documentation from the Property Owner from the permit applier of permission to use the property. They needed a written or signed easement or license agreement or, at a minimum, from the owner of signed by 3330 geary. No such letter was provided and theres no letter in the citys file. The cause of the delay was that the city didnt ask for the required documentation. Thank you, mr. Conolly. In the event a commissioner has a question, you can raise your hand and i will call on you. Im not seeing a hand raised. We will move on to mr. Justin zucker, the attorney for the permit holder. Mr. Zucker. You have three minutes and alex will give you a 30second warning. Good afternoon. Im here on behalf of the permit holder. The jurisdiction request is what the city did. In this case, the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the appellant to be late. That is the single question to be addressed by the board, whether the city caused the appellant to be delayed, inadvertently or intentionally in filing their appeal. The city did not. They are arguing much of the merits of their case but present no evidence about how the city inadvertently or intentionally caused them to be delayed in filing the appeal. In this case for this permit, no neighborhood notices were required. There was no error in notice. Furthermore, as acknowledged by the appellants in their brief, they concede that mr. Jalal has been using the rear of his property for parking. This has been a longstanding use. It was only recently when mr. Jalal came to know he needed a permit to park in the rear. Upon learning that, he submitted the permit for the parking in the rear. There is a shed in the rear of the property that may not have been permitted. Notwithstanding that that shed was not permitted does not impact what the city did or did not do with respect to this permit for the parking in the rear. It does not say whether or not they caused the appellant to be delayed in their appeal. The heart of this request seems to be about an access easement for mr. Jalal to access the rear of his property. That is a civil matter left to the courts to adjudicate. Like a previous jurisdiction request that this board heard in august of last year, 141 to 143 albion which also addressed an easement, we strongly request that this board deny the request and allow the Building Permit for the parking to proceed and allow any issues with the easement to go forward. Thank you. I have concluded my presentation and the permit and i are available for any questions. Thank you. It looks like we have a question from Vice President honda. Counsellor, is it required that the appellants property would need to approve before your client got his permit if it requires access on the neighboring property . Its the permitholders permission that he has an access easement to get to the rear of the property. There is a challenge by that by the appellant sorry to interrupt you, counsel. The question is, is it right here for the appellants property to be notified that a permits been issued for the using of their property . No, that is not the case. Pursuant to 311, no neighborhood notice was required. And that neighborhood was the appellants the owners of the property that are complaining, the appellants, are they supposed to be notified when a permit is issued that requires use of their land . I dont believe so. So the question is i can get a permit going through my neighbors yard and the city has the right to issue it . The access is a civil matter that would have to be addressed by the courts. Ill address that question to the department. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. No see any other hands raised by the commissioners. So we will move on to testimony from mr. Sanchez from the Planning Department. Thank you. Good evening, president , members of the board. The subject property at 3330 geary to 3340 geary, the scope of work which was limited to the addition or legalization, as it were, of two Parking Spaces in the rear of the subject property does not require notification under the planning code. I think whats been raised by the jurisdiction requester is a separate matter when it comes to the easement issue. The city does not typically get involved or in between Property Owners when it comes to the access issues. Had the permit proposed any work on the adjacent property, then that would require a separate permit. But as i understand it, the permit does not propose any work at all on the adjacent property. The scope of work itself doesnt require any notification. Its stated by the permit holder that this was to document and legalization the situation, i dont see any planning violations in the property related to the parking, but when i was reviewing the materials, i do have some concerns about the plans themselves. Separate from this jurisdiction request, which is a question of whether or not the notice was required and under the planning code no notice was required. I dont think any notice violations have occurred here, but the concerns i have with the permit would lead our department to request a suspension of the permit because as provided by the permit holder, they show the shed structure in the back is more than a shed. Its fairly substantial. It appears to have been constructed around 2014. I dont see any permit for that structure. It doesnt even show on the plans that they submitted. So i think that these plans are flawed and that they dont accurately depict the conditions. Im also concerned somewhat about what was shown as the vicinity map. Perhaps the permit holder can better speak to what exactly their intention was by providing that document. Its unclear, a lot of handwritten lines. Its an official city document, they show the parcel on the left, but its unclear why they drew in the lines. They show a driveway, but its not labelled [indiscernible]. Quality that should be incorporated in the plans. I think we would have this permit suspended and have them correct the plans to either remove the structure or legalize it, which would require neighborhood notification of that structure and have them remove that site vicinity plan. I dont think that should be on there without at least some further explanation. There is an adjacent project proposed, but thats not before you tonight. Thank you. Im available for questions. Thank you. We have three questions. One from president lazarus, Vice President swigs, and commissioner honda. The permit is wanting to be suspended, but im not sure how that correlates with the jurisdiction request. Do we need a basis thats taking jurisdiction thats apart from the normal one . I dont think that the board needs to take action on this. Its up to the boards discretion on how you would like to proceed on the jurisdiction request. We would request a suspension of this permit that is a letter issued by the Zoning Administrator. That would be appealable by any party to the board of appeal, both the initiation of the suspension and the release of the suspension, should we get to that point, would be appealed to the board of appeals. Theres better points of getting this to the board of appeals beyond the jurisdiction request, if that answers that question. We dont need to take jurisdiction for you tab able to take the action you wish to take . Correct. We can act independently. Thank you. We will now hear from commissioner swigs. I may be walking on commissioner hondas lines. I apologize. Can you clarify something for me. If i have a driveway next to my house that i use to access my garage and my neighbor doesnt, but my neighbor has a backyard and they decide they want to take a permit out to park two cars back there, you can issue that permit and their intention is to use my driveway to get there, you can issue a permit to approve that without asking me . As odd as it may seem, im not aware of any provision in the planning code that would require us to obtain a copy of an easement or any other documentation from the adjacent property. We generally dont get involved into easement issues. Thats a civil matter between the parties. Were looking at and approving very specific parts of work. If the proposal wants to do work on your property, a permit would be required. But existing driveway access, that to my knowledge would not require a notification under the planning code. There is no provision in section 311 and im not aware of any provision in any other part of the planning code that would require notice. If its required under the municipal code, perhaps he can provide a citation to the section. It could be under a Building Code provision and perhaps acting chief inspector duffy can speak to that. Taking it into a further state of ridiculousness, if there was no driveway and somebody had a large enough backyard that could house a car, could anybody apply to house a car back there even though there was no access to it without any notice to neighbors . Its absurd, but they should be able to gain access. There is nothing in the code that im aware of. I mean, i share the reaction that you have to this, but im not aware of any municipal code requirement that would trigger the notification. Thank you. We will now hear from Vice President honda. That was part of my question. The second question is theyre applying for new parking. I thought the city doesnt allow for any new parking. We do allow new parking. A bit more than a years ago the board of supervisors amended the code to no longer require parking. The parking that is being proposed is within the allowed limits. They could have up to three spaces on the property, and this would get em up to the maximum, but it is not required under the code. Is there a 30 rear yard open space or theyre allowed to use that in their rear space . In the geary district, the required rear yard is at the lowest level containing a dwelling unit. In this case, the lowest level is storage and parking space, so there is no required rear yard at this ground level and it would begin on the floor above. They are allowed to park in what is called the rear yard, but not a required year yard under the planning rear yard. They are required to show open space for the dwelling units on the property. It does appear to be code compliant. There is nothing that says that since they have the open space, it doesnt appear with the midblock open space . In this case, theyre allowed under the code to extend to the rear Property Line at the ground level as long as it doesnt contain a dwelling unit. We would look at it from a design pif, but given that it is just an open parking space, it was not found to be something that didnt comply with our design requirements. What was required was only a space for two cars . Sh. Under the zoning district, a private parking garage or in this case its open air, so it would be a lot, would be allowed, but they would need conditional authorization if they were to have that be Public Parking or private parking for people beyond the parking. If they were parking more than three vehicles there, it would be a violation of the code. So they get three in the back and there was one in the front . A total of three, two in the back they were approved for two in the rear thats what i was trying to clarify. They were only allowed two in the rear and one in the garage . Correct, for a total of three. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Does the department of building, mr. Duffy . I think the permit w