Guidelines are as follows. The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. No eating or drinking in the hearing room. The rules of presentation are as follows. Appellants permanent holders and Department Respondents each are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these 7 or 3 minute periods as members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal time may be limited to two minutes of the agenda is long, or if there are a large number of speakers. Mr. Long, our legal assistant, will give you a verbal warning 30s before your time is up. Four votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a permit or determination, or to grant a rehearing or jurisdiction request. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearings schedules, please email board staff at board of appeals at icgov. Org. Org now Public Access and participation are of paramount importance to the board as govtv is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to receive Public Comment for each item on todays agenda, as govtv is also providing closed captioning for this meeting to watch the hearing on tv, go to govtv cable channel 78. Please note that it will be rebroadcast on fridays at 4 p. M. On channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on the home page of our website at sf. Org. Forward slash voa now Public Comment can be provided in three ways one in person two via zoom, please go to our website and click on the zoom link under hearings three by telephone call 1669 906,008 33 and enter webinar id 8229589 6911. And again sf govtv is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen. If youre watching the live stream or broadcast to block your phone number when calling in first dial star six seven then the phone number listen for the Public Comment portion of your item to be called and dial star nine, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. You will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn, you may have to dial star six to unmute yourself if you will have 2 to 3 minutes depending on the length of the agenda and the volume of speakers. Our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning. 30s before your time is up, please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and live streamed on tv and the internet. Therefore, it is very important that people calling in, reduce or turn off the volume on their tvs or computers. Otherwise there is interference with the meeting. If any of the participants or attendees on zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request in the chat function to alec longway, the boards legal assistant, or send an email to board of appeals at. Org. Now the chat function cannot be used to provide Public Comment or opinions. Please note that we will take Public Comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the hearing room. 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 pursuant to their right under the sunshine ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of tonights proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say, i do. After you are sworn in or affirmed, do you swear or affirm that the testimony youre about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . Okay. Thank you. If you are a participant and youre not speaking, please put your zoom speaker on mute. So as a preliminary matter, president swig would like to address the parties for item number seven. This is appeal number 23 042 at 1228. Funston avenue. But before he does, commissioner trevino would like to make a disclosure. Thank you. On item number seven, i would like to recuse myself while my recusal does not not on any of the legal legally established grounds personal relationship with one of the appellants as well as other Members Associated with the matter. For i feel it is appropriate that in an abundance of caution and an appearance of fairness for me to recuse myself. Okay, thank you. And so we do need commissioner, we do need to have a vote on this recusal. I dont believe we do. Yes thats the direction from the city attorneys office. We are required to have a vote. Weve never had it before. So if you insist, we might as well. So is the first. Is there any Public Comment on this recusal, please raise your hand. I dont see any. So we would need a motion to recuse. Im motion to allow commissioner trasvina to recuse himself. Okay. On the basis of a personal relationship, on the basis of his ability to be entirely fair and in an abundance of caution. Mr. President , if i may or if you would state what i its not its not an inability to be fair. Its an abundance of caution. Abundance of caution to the appearance of fairness. Thank you very much. Okay. So on president swigs motion, Vice President lopez high commissioner trevino high commissioner lundberg. I commissioner epler. Aye. So that motion carries 5 to 0. Thank you. Thank you. Well let you know when the when were finished. Okay so president swig you, you would like to address the parties for item seven. So on item seven, i read the brief and it reminded me of, of it was like a horrors of christmas past. And a christmas past was only a couple of weeks ago when we heard a tree case that is still under discussion. But where we went through an entire hearing and we realized, man, we are just full of holes here and there are things missing and theres testimony from the department thats missing. There were holes and this is not to criticize the departments or criticize the appellants in those cases. It just happened. And we went through a two hour hearing and came up with absolutely nothing because we realized we didnt have the materials in a full enough fashion to enable us to make a just decision for both for either party. In that case. And we motion to postpone having the hearing. So we could get all the data in front of us so that we could do our jobs properly. And there we, i, when i was reading items seven brief there, there was again holes on the appellant side, holes, holes on the Planning Department side. So i just had made a couple of notes because im, im going to recommend that we have a continuance on this and because the appellant argues that the Planning Commission improperly imposed conditions on the permit. But the appellants material do not include the Planning Commissions decision. 822 that recites those conditions and the commissions decision. So basically were in hearsay land and instead the appellant submitted only the staff report prepared in advance of the Planning Commissions hearing and with limiting limited excerpts of that of that hearing. Secondly, the appellants main argument is the planning is a planning imposition of conditions from from the prior permit violates the housing accountability act. However we dont have we didnt get a brief from the Planning Department, which is problematic as we didnt get a couple of weeks ago. A brief from the bureau of urban forestry, which was problematic and therefore for the Planning Department, couldnt didnt explain their position on the housing accountability act and i will tell you, i dont know the housing accountability act verbatim. And i need thats exactly what a commissioner needs to provide the information on which to make a decision. So therefore, i came. Im going to suggest to this commission that we continue the item so the record can be supplemented with the dra 822, which is the discretionary review action memo 822 and, and a brief from the Planning Department for this case which answers the following questions does the housing accountability act apply to this case . If so, is the Planning Commissions imposition of these conditions consistent with the housing accountability act . And why . So thats rather than spending the commissions time and the publics time for an hour and a half or two to discuss this thing in a vacuum. Thats why im suggesting that the continuance and id like to give with the commissions permission, three minutes to both parties to address the board on whether they are not whether or not either party agrees or disagrees with this continuance. And then we can discuss it in front of everybody to make a decision on the continuance. So with that, im okay. Thank you. Well hear from the Planning Department first. Good evening, president swig. Vice president lopez, members of the board. Im tina tam, deputy Zoning Administrator for. Thank you, president swig for your thoughtful questions and consideration. I do appreciate how important it is for all of you to have the relevant facts to make your decision on while this property does have a very long permit history, i believe that the facts surrounding this case are very straightforward and you will have all the information that you need to make your decision tonight at my recommendation is that you dont continue this item for several reasons. One, i intend to provide you with a background and timeline for this permit. Two, i intend to address the issues brought up by the appellants regarding the Planning Commissions prior actions include whether the housing accountability act applies to this project. Three this property has been the subject of Code Enforcement actions since 2015, so a continuance would only delay abatement out of this confirmed violation. And for assessment of administrative penalties have been accruing on this property. Therefore, action by this board would only help the owners and the department move forward in resolving any enforcement issues, remain on the property. That concludes my presentation. Im happy to answer any questions. Number one question is, and youve heard youve heard this feedback before from this commission for a long time, if we dont have a we dont have a brief in advance, we cant do our homework if we dont have a brief in advance. That means the appellant doesnt have a brief in advance. Or if it was the appellant, that means the department doesnt have a brief in advance and therefore we are in extreme disability to do our our homework. In advance of this hearing. And so were not hearing it for the first time living in person, which for me places me at a significant disadvantage. I cannot speak for the rest of the commission so simply simply because this will place the appellant at a distinct disadvantage, because the appellant does not know your position on this case, and also because we will be placed us on the commission will be placed as a significant disadvantage. Do you really do you really think that it is fair for you to deny the opportunity for a continuance for all the reasons im not arguing with your reasons. Im just arguing with you. If you would have had a brief submitted to us in the first place, we could have done our homework and move forward. But you didnt. And now we havent been able to do our homework. And so im hesitant to move forward. Can you give me some feedback on that, please . Absolutely thank you for those comments. We generally dont provide briefs on permits, but if the board is interested in seeing a brief on the department, we can certainly provide one. Whether its for this case or any case down the road. But thats our general practice. We havent been providing these briefs to you. You havent seen much from us when it relates to a permit, other types of appeals like a variance or a letter of determination, we would oftentimes do provide one, but not for permits. And for tonights hearing, i intend to represent the Planning Commission in in their action. So its not going to be any sort of new information for the appellants. The appellants have heard all the comments and have seen the decision by the Planning Commission. So im not here to surprise anybody. Im here to just basically reiterate what the Planning Commission has have said in their action memo. Ill walk you through what those action memos entail and go over whatever questions you may have still on the on the permit. So not to be argumentative and i dont mean to be, but i want to get the facts out there. You know, as i as i said, the Planning Commissions decision on was nowhere to has been nowhere to be found in front of my eyes or the commissions eyes. And so that would that would place the Planning Commission in in a position of hearsay based on what youre going to tell us and what the appellant is going to tell us, does that does that make you feel comfortable . Let me let me answer the second question. Go to the second question. I have no clue because it hasnt been explained to me and i havent been able to review it. What the account, the substance of the housing accountability act, whether it be the entire detailed act or a reasonable summary of that act going into given that that that seems to be the primary discussion from the appellant and therefore should be a primary decision or discussion of yours, do you really want us to go in blind on this . Thats entirely up to you. Thats your call. Im here to tell you that i do intend to respond to the issues brought up, including the housing accountability act, whether its applicable for this case or not. Im more than happy to go over that in detail. If you decide to go ahead and have the item continue to be heard tonight. The action memos were sent to the project team or applicant. They have copies of that. I have copies with me. I can certainly share with you. I do intend to walk you through the action memo tonight. Okay. Thank thank you very much. And obviously, its not my decision. Its a shared decision amongst the commission. But i wanted to share my discomfort with that. The appellant wanted, well, should we have the department of building inspection . Okay. When would you like to know . Okay thank you. Well hear from the appellant then. Thank you, mr. Patterson. Thank you, president swig and commissioners Ryan Patterson for the appellants. Yes, we dont object to a short continuance, ideally short because we would like to see a speedy resolution to this, to correct one statement. The penalties have been paused due to the appellants efforts at compliance and as well, we dont object to a continuance. We do object to the departments lack of a brief. That makes it very hard for us to respond to the arguments if we dont know in advance what theyre going to be in court. They call this sandbagging and the parties arguments are often taken as waived when they fail to raise them. In the briefing. It certainly puts us at a disadvantage in many cases, it wouldnt matter as much, but this one is pretty technical and on the basis of state law. So the short verbal explanation of a position at the Planning Commission hearing has made it hard for us to respond to it because it doesnt really make sense in our view, and i would love to see it written out and explained so we can respond and i think thats about it. If its possible to have it be a short continuance, were happy to provide a copy of the housing accountability act. If you would like to see the plain black letter law as well as a copy of the dra memo and anything else the board would like. Thank you and happy to answer any questions. Thank you. I dont see any questions at this time. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Please raise your hand. Theres nobody in the room and i dont see anybody on zoom. So commissioner, is. You want to start because i you know, my thoughts. Sure. Ill go. I agree with the short continuance. I think given on. Well i think that the plannings um. Mo with respect to not briefing permit matters is generally fair. But in this instance s given the close connection to the commissions memo to the hra, i think it makes more sense to distinguish in this situation. So i tend to agree that that a short continuance is appropriate. So i would be in support of that. Commissioner lundberg, thank you. I actually come out a little different on this for a few reasons. Number one, i think miss tams rationale for not continuing is very strong. I think her rationale is sound. And i think all of the reasons she cited are good reasons to hear it tonight. And i think theres several other pieces to this. Number one, regarding the housing accountability act, as weve dealt with several times in the past, in other appeals, we are not allowed to interpret state law. That is not within our purview. And that is something weve dealt with repeatedly. And i dont think its honestly, i just dont see its role in in further briefing past what what the appellants have already provided in addition to what miss tam would testify to as as to tonight and then i want to also point out that something mr. Patterson said, which is that a, he is correct when n arguments are waived, when not brought up in briefings. And i would apply that to the current case as well in that because the gr disin action was not included in the briefing that we should not consider that argument. And i think continuing this matter would actually not solve that issue at all because although we would get the decision potentially from a brief by planning, its still not included in the appellants briefing, which i will note was done by an attorney not an unrepresented party. And i you know, if one of their arguments in the brief is that we that the Planning Commission wrongly decided that the discretionary review and then did not include the discretion review for our consideration, its my opinion that we should just not consider that argument as part of the overall argument of this. And a continuance would not solve that problem because the appell