screaming and welcome to april 18, -- good evening and welcome to the april 18, 2012 meeting. present are arcelia hurtado, commissioner hillis, fun, and

hwang. we are joined by some of the representatives who have cases before us. the minister representing the planning department and the planning commission. jocelyn kane will be here, executive director of the san francisco entertainment commission. at this time, if you will go over the board meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests to turn off all phones and pagers. the board requests [inaudible] please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and president have seven minutes to

produce their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes each to address the board but no rebuttal. to assist the board in the actor preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked not required to submit speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pans are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium as well. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, or hearing schedules or board rules, please talk to staff after the meeting or call the office tomorrow morning. the board office is at 16 edition -- 1650 mission street, room 3 04. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government

television, cable channel 78 and dvd's of the meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgtv. at this point in time we will conduct our swearing-in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or firm. please note any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance of the administrative code. thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. we have one housekeeping item

this evening. item #seven. appeal 12-017 regarding a permit at 15 valencia street. the permit holder has submitted a request to the department of building inspection to have this permit canceled. dbi is indicated it expects cancellation to be filed tomorrow. staff will dismiss the appeal. in order to allow time for the cancellation, i would request that -- one continuance in weekend continued the case to april 12. >> so moved. >> is there any public comment? if you could call roll on that. >> we have a motion from the president to reschedule item 7 to april 25. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye.

commissioner fung, aye. commissioner hillis, aye. commissioner hertado. -- hurtado, aye. there are five ayes. >> we will move to item two. any questions or comments? seeing none, item three. before you for your consideration are the board minutes in april 11 -- from april 11, 2012. texting moat -- no comments i move we accept the draft minutes. >> is there public comment on the minutes? seeing none,, if you could call the roll on that. >> on that motion from president garcia to adopt the april 11 minutes, commissioner fung, aye.

vice-president hwang, aye. commissioner hillis, aye. commissioner hurtado, aye. >> whoever placed cards here, please take a back. a hand in call -- cards when you did -- you had in cards when you speak. we will call item 4a which is a rehearing request. property is at 1750 beach street. this was -- approval was decided march 21, 2012. the board voted 4-0 to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on condition it be modified to eliminate from the scope of work

the new roof deck, exterior stair to the new raft -- sha'reff dekema any resizing or replacement -- any resizing or replacement of skylights and a new water heater. the permit holder is sanford specter. we will start with the requestor, ms weesner or her council. >> good evening. i am appearing on behalf of the requestor. i understand i have a limited amount of time so i will defer to mr. buscovich will talk about the facts and circumstances that warrant a rehearing. quex after my testifying last week or month ago pro bono, i

was asked to take a look at the drawings regarding the stack issue and the -- the bering will issue. i still will say i'm doing this problem a. they have offered to pay me and i do not want to get involved with the charge. the drawings that have been submitted to them to show that the roof deck structure is what is supporting the deck. and also supports the framing when they remove the bearing walls. there is a a provision set that shows these structural members that were on the original on top of the red supporting the deck are being relocated in the attic space. that is apparently part of their religion permit you approve but i was here during the hearing and i did not understand that not only did you delete the deck, they have moved some of the structural framing members from above the roof into

the attic space. the new detail that i am not sure you know you approved show structural members been put in the attic to support this. the building department is looking at the revision and they are ok with that. i have to have something there to support the wall. i'm not sure procedurally how his client understands that they not only deleted the deck but they are moving structural members around to accommodate a bearing wall removal. they have the structural issue resolved. i am not sure you guys heard to -- there are structural members been put in the attic which may be an issue to you. i am fighting this out right now. you might have a comment about where the structure goes. >> i do not know where the structure goes but i do know that some of these issues have been brought to inspector duthie's attention by our

client. inspector duffy has been in contact with an engineer to look at these issues. that portion of it i will defer to him as well and that department's review. the new facts and circumstances warrant this board pose a rehearing this request are again the removal of the deck to comply with hoa approvals made this project structurally unsound and not go through the correct procedures in terms of the structural review the building department's review of the plan so we can make sure that our client again who was living underneath the unit for the project has a sound roof above her head. i will leave it at that. >> we can hear from the permit holder.

>> good evening. i am appearing on behalf of the permit holder. let me and just say as i said in a written response, there is nothing new that is being brought up. they have a new approach. mr. buscovitch was at the hearing. this is a new target. we have revised the permit but had a new system that could -- moved the support from the roof basically into the envelope of the building. the board for procedural reasons decided to adopt their original permit with some revisions. nobody intended to remove any structural support. the key -- the original plan did anticipate their removal of this load bearing wall. the plans put the structural support to the exterior walls instead of the interior.

she was complaining about the roof deck so we said no roof deck. that means instead of it being on top of the building, it is underneath and making a new ceiling. the city's representatives, mr. duffy is here. mr. hansen has reviewed this and determined that this is sound and is an attempt to misuse this process to gain leverage over the permit holder. we have been offered for -- on four for three months. we have no intention of building a building that is unsound. i challenge anybody to prove otherwise. this building will be more structurally sound that is because of the code update and the support that is their that were planned to support the roof deck and now there is no extra roof deck to way down. there are no new facts. there is no reason to have another rehearing on something that suspended work for three months.

the plans are going to provide for a structurally sound building. we have lvl's running to the exterior walls and they just move from the roof to the attic. the ceiling instead of on the roof. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. today i met with -- i have the contractor come into dbi with the approved plans, he looked at the details, he spoke to the design engineer for the project on the phone. it went over the calculations. the span of the ldl's are per approved plans.

that is on the revision permits. if you have any questions, i would be happy to answer them. >> the revision permit is also appealable? >> there is a special conditions permit that gets issued after the board makes a decision. that is not appealable. >> that is the permit we're talking about that has the structural elements that have changed. >> what happened is the removed the roof deck. if it did get issued. that showed that is where the roof will be framed with the revised permit and if there is any other special conditions permit. >> there was just the board's notice of decision without special conditions permit. the board struck the scope of work that was under the appeal. >> they thought they would get the roof deck off. that was originally the issue

under contention on the appeal. the main thing was the roof deck so that got taken off and a modified it. it will be built according to code, according to designed. it will be built like that. it is a valid point to bring up if someone is taking out a wall that is supporting rove, what are you doing to reset and the question was answered by the engineer. according to the dbi. we're happy enough. >> is there any public comment? >> i work at sotheby's international realty and i'm here to address the board. i've seen this whole thing happened, i was here a month ago when the appeal to place.

this neighbor is literally trying to extort money from the sky. last this -- this guy. it is not how this system is -- he will finish up this project and get out of there. it is unbelievable how the system has been abused and i hope you guys deny the appeal. president garcia: any other public comment? seeing none. >> i was absent for the hearing. i did not review the tape. i did refer to hon had read the brief and i feel prepared -- i did refer and have read the

brief. i feel prepared unless there is any objection from the party's or my fellow commissioners. thank you. >> their response -- the response by the requestor of the hearing did not provide anything specific. there are certain generalized allegations of nahyan structural compliance. and denounce the new intimation. i except the department's explanation of their due diligence. i would not support a rehearing. >> i would concur. in denying the rehearing. >> do you have a motion?

commissioner fung: to deny the rehearing. president garcia: if you could call the roll. >> president garcia, aye. vice president hwang, aye. [calling roll] this is denied. vice president hwang: mosquito llc. this is 37 grant ave. address to -- 1337 grant ave. requesting that action taken to -- be taken to remedy a conflict between our recently issued place of entertainment permit.

the matter is on for hearing and we will start with the appellant. or his agent. you have seven minutes. >> thank you for hearing our appeal this evening. i run tecolote at 1337 grant ave and i am a longtime san francisco blues magician. i am joined by my partners. their friends and founders of the investment bank based in the city. we are serious business people trying to operate a model establishment and that is what we have done every day for five and a half months since we have opened. tupelo is my dream. when we decided to buy the business, we had three kite -- three criteria. the kitchen, full bar, and the ability to provide live entertainment trade we did our homework and look at several locations trade with -- several

locations. we had an entertainment permit. the entertainment commission issued a license with the full knowledge and consent of the planning department and renew that permit for six consecutive years. only after our business transaction had taken place and after the entertainment commission granted tupelo an entertainment permit did the zoning administrator decided he needed to intervene and putatively stripped tupelo of this important right. [inaudible] gto rectify what he claims was an invalid permit of entertainment, we would not have purchased the business nor spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on this venture. there have been numerous missed characterization's about our business. i will not spend the board's timer putting those now. i am happy to address an issue that may come out in the discussions today. suffice it to say that we're providing an exceptional

southern themed food service and run a comfortable, safe, professional restaurant. we do have the support of our neighbor merchants. we understand that it is the charter of this board to ascertain whether the bill -- t he erred. he has misinterpreted the cu. we are not seeking special treatment. r -- all we are asking for is to operate the business we paid for. and to not allow a litany of errors to destroy our business. thank you. >> thank you. my name is marke renny. ui represent tupelo. we're here to request this board grant the appeal and overturned the october 2011

determination letter. i will show how the zoning administrator clearly erred in his interpretation of the conditional use permit. in paragraph 4, he states the 2005 cu did not supersede conditional motion on the nature or the timing of the entertainment use. obviously, this is an error. as the conditions of approval in the 2005 motion, condition #eight required sound testing to demonstrate they amplified music in the project were building that does not exceed a five decibels increase over ambient. the termination letter also states in paragraph 2 that the conditional grant of 2011 id ec

authorized nighttime activities until 2:00 a.m. and again, falls. it allowed entertainment activity until 1:00 a.m. and 130 am on the weekends. there are two errors of fact in the october 2011 determination letter. the entertainment permit was properly issued by the entertainment commission. i would ask that you please take special attention to exhibit g. this is a fax sent by the senior planner to jocelyn kane starting a conditional use permit was did -- based on no evidence of existing entertainment use. at that point in november 2005 he was unaware that the planning commission had issued two cu's on the ro