pollard dropped and he could have straightened things out and that didn't happen. all i'm asking as a matter of due process is to restore us back to the position we were in, and let the thing continue and let the chips fall where they will on the issue of the variance. i don't think it's fair to make me wait until next august or september to have to start this again, given the circumstances involved. thank you. >> mr. murphy, condolences for your father-in-law. i wanted to ask the same questions i asked of mr. sanchez, the zoning administrator about the no-shows in may and july. >> i went to a hearing in april. he was right about that. we continued it, mr. pollard was there with me with mr. sanchez and mr. pollard said he was going to submit in documentation to the planner and i left at that.

i was not aware there was a hearing in may alt all. the first i heard about that was this evening and i was gone. again the problem is staff could have and should have in my mind reached out to the architect. weas my he was my agent. >> thank you, mr. murphy. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for mr. sanchez. when we hear testimony that your agency should have reached out to the applicant, when they don't show up multiple times, would that be your protocol to reach out to the applicant, in this case the architect, rather than the property owner? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. in hearing the jurisdiction

requestor's testimony this evening and i think getting a better understanding of the facts of the matter, actually the department would not oppose the jurisdiction request at this time. i would agree that the department does bear responsibility for contacting the appropriate party. we did have a meeting with staff and mr. murphy and mr. pollard and i believe at that time it seemed pretty clear to staff that mr. pollard was an agent, an authorized agent of the property owner. so i don't fault staff for making that mistake, but certainly i could be more proactive in ensuring, especially when we didn't have the attendance of that may 25th hearing that we could have been more diligent and contacting mr. pashelinsky as the agent of record. we simply did contact mr. pollard and never heard back from him and mr. murphy. so i think we do share some responsibility for that and the consideration of fairness to them for how they were let down by their agent.

the department would not oppose it. >> okay. thank you. >> commissionersing we have [h-eufgs/]ally have been quite lenient in allowing people their day in court, so to speak. and i would support granting a jurisdiction this instance. i would move that we grant jurisdiction on this particular case. >> okay. just for the record, there are two matters that you are granting jurisdiction on. >> right. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner fung to grant both jurisdiction requests. on that motion, president hwang? >> aye. >> >> commissioner hurtado is absent. vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 4-0.

the jurisdiction requests are granted and mr. pashelinsky has two 5-day appeal periods in which to appear these matters. thank you. >> we'll call item 6a through 6d that will all be heard together. appeal no. 12-105,106, 107, and 108. josh bleecher synder and also dennis stewart versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval. these are appeal protests the issuance on august 20 2012 to brendan fox of a permit to demolish a building, two story single-family dwelling with 1083-square-feet of ground floor area and also protesting the issuance on august 20, 2012 to brendan fox of a permit to erect a building, four-story, two-unit building with 1413-square-feet of ground floor area. these were alluded time to

submit code-compliant revised plans and the hearings were held on october 17th an again december 12th, 2012. with the president's afreedom what i would recommend is that we hear from the project sponsor first and give each party three minutes to present their cases. >> that makes sense. >> good evening commissioners lou, the project sponsor. purpose of the continuance was to allow us to redraw the drawings to make sure they were code-compliant. we offered to reduce the height and make other modifications and i would like to use my time to review those with you, because there was a question as to what was sent to you was

accurate. so i want to go through with you, if you don't mind. i would like to use the overhead. commissioners you may recall what you are seeing right now is actually a section through the original permit set. the building has been reduced 2' in height. comparing apples-to-apples. our other drawings measured height, the way the planning code does it to the roof. there is a 6" difference. basically the roof has been

lowered two feet in what is being proposed now. the front wall on the 4th floor has been setback 2' 6", this whole stair assembly in orange has been removed. as a kind of compensating factor the front bay window was moved forward about a foot. but reduced in width by 9". and then at the kind of first living level there was a pop-out inserted which projects another 5' 6" beyond what the stair assembly had. there is a stair going down to the yard. that section basically shows the changes that have been made. here is a rear yard again. the existing stair assembly, and what has been added, approximately 2' and 5 '6" on the second-floor pop-out.

in the front just to clarify, again this shows at the fourth floor, the setback. that concludes my comments. thank you commissioners. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the appellants now. go ahead. >> mr. stewart: >> good evening members of the board, my name is dennis stewart and i'm a [ra-ert/] round the corner. i would like to make two brief appeals on this one, as i think the board has already decided, but for the public record i do wish to reiterate for the reasons set forth in previous testimony. this building even with the small reductions in height is inconsistent to the department's codes, with regard

to its compatibility with the neighborhood. i want to say it for the public record this is not compatible with the neighborhood and sets a bad precedent for future decisions that will be based on a comparison with this building, assuming that you approve it. the second is a procedural objection to this, which i raised at the last meeting. and that is i take with due respect to commissioner honda, i do take umbridge with the fact that he is taking part in this. i would take note to assistant city attorney, subsequent to the oral statement this was cleared by the city attorney's office i filed a formal request with the city attorney and they are not in compliance with foya in terms of responding to my request. i conclude that this is a

decision which i object to and i object to with all due respect, commissioner honda, to your participation in this decision. because indeed, zephyr realty is involved. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. i will be brief and wanted to note we reviewed the most community revised plans were submitted to the board of appeals on january 10, 2013. the date on the revision set is january 7th,2013 and these comply with the planning code and i'm available. >> i'm sorry they do comply? >> they do comply. that is correct. thank you. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted.

commissioner i reviewed the drawings and they reflect what i remember of the proposed changes at that point in time and i'm prepared to move to uphold the permit and condition it on the documentation that has been provided to reflect the changes. is that the appropriate -- >> it sounds like what you want to do is grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition that it is revised, to reflect the changes. and i would ask just that plan set be noted by date. submitted to the board, which is january 10, 2013. >> okay. so moved. >> i'm inclined to move in that direction -- to go in that direction as well based on the testimony of the zoning administrator that it's code

compliant. >> the motion has been made if you could call the roll mr. pachecko. ex-we're upholding both permits the demolition and the site. motion from commissioner fung to uphold both permits and the condition is that they -- that the permits be revised with the revised plans dated with our stamp, january 10 2013. >> just the permit to erect the building needs to be revised, not the permit to demolish. >> do you want to separate votes? >> i think you can do one vote. >> we're upholding the site permit with the revised plan dates january 10. on that motion, from commissioner fung, president hwang? >> aye. >> thank you. commissioner hurtado is absent.

vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4-0 and the demolition permit suprahold as-is and the site performance is uphold with those revised plans. thank you. >> calling item no. 7, appeal no. 12-14 1 gration wu versus the department of building inspection, subject property at 42 lapp hamm way. appealing the imposition of a penalty on november 13th, 2012tor construction work done would you tell us a permit. >> good evening. this is my first time to remodel the house. i hired a contractor. and i followed his instructions and i didn't know he didn't get a permit. right now i already got the building permit and i'm looking for the electricity and the plumbing contractors so i can get those two permits to fix

the property. so i hope you can reduce the penalty for me so i can have more resources to work on though fix this problem. thank you. >> excuse me. did you say you are looking for a replacement contractor? >> yes. >> how are you going to do whether or not the new contractor is able to file the appropriate permits? >> i already asked for recommendations and they are still looking for the proper ones. i haven't gotten one yet, but pretty soon i'm going to have one. >> okay. thank you. >> thanks >> mr. duffy? . good evening commissioners. congratulations on the new appointments. >> thank you. >> on this case we received a complaint that -- the department received a complaint on the 9th of october, 2012,

remodeling done without permit. we did go out. we opened a case on the 11th of october and we tried to get in. we were unable to enter. we left a 3-day notice. it took them until the 31st of october. we wrote a notice of violation and it was remodel of kitchen and bathroom without permits, obtaining permits called for start work inspection on october 31. the applicant then came in on the 13th of november, got an over-the-counter permit to comply with the notice. i believe the penalty and notice of was nine times on value of is $15,000, so it is in our code to put the nine

times penalty on. sometimes we do get them up here with paying the penalties. i would not be against a reduction, of some type. people always make the excuse that they didn't know that they needed a permit. there is a lot of resources in the department to find out if you need a permit or not. there is the website and other ways to find out. you also need a building permit, electrical permit and plumbing permit for this type of work. so i'm available for questions, but the penalty was properly imposed unfortunately. >> mr. duffy, are all of your complaints anonymous? >> no, not all. they are harder to investigate because we don't know where they are coming from. the complaints online, there is a lot of detail and a lot of people like to remain anonymous. i understand. it's about half-and-half. >> thank you. is there any department made by

your department of which particular contractors are doing unpermitted work through the city? do you keep a list? >> i wish we did:no with, we don't. in my experience i have seen the last three or four years, maybe with the economy, things are doing a lot more work without a permit and it annoys me when i hear a contractor didn't get a permit. they are licensed contractors and know for this type of work particularly. there is a loot of investigation time that goes into this and they are not big-money permits so to speak. but we are bound by city charter to investigate the complaints. there are -- to answer your question, we don't keep a list, but contractors should know about and advise homeowners when this happens. i saw they applied for another

permit to legalize some rooms on the ground floor which is not part of the violation and there seems to be a contractor in place on that permit and that permit has not been issued yet. i noticed that before i came up to the meeting. >> what is the name of that contractor? >> homeworks construction service, one bedroom and bathroom at ground floor. that permit has not been issued and still has to be reviewed by the planning department. it will probably be an over-the-counter permit, but there seems like there is somebody on boards anyways >> thank you. >> you are welcome. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, miss wu, do you have anything further to say? have you three minutes of rebuttal, if you want to use it. okay. commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners i know that the property owner does not own other properties, is not

involved in the industry and therefore i would support a reduction of the penalty to the minimum that we can, which is two times. that is my motion. >> okay. mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll please. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to reduce the subject penalty to two times the regular fee. on motion president hwang? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0 and this penalty is reduced to two times the regular fee. >> before i call the next item, i'm curious if a mandarin interpreter is in the room? she wasn't expected until 6:00,

so we'll call item no. 10, appeal no. 12-104, bashir shahin doing business as marrakech moroccan restaurant, appealing the 30-day suspension of the tobacco sales permit. the reason for suspension, violation of state law and the san francisco health code which proprohibit the indoor smoking of tobacco products. director's case no. smk12-09 and we'll start with the appellant. you have seven minutes >> good evening, my name is bashir shahin, the owner of marrakech restaurant. thank you to the board of appeals for giving us a chance to express our thoughts and feelings. i am not here to argue or ask for anything unreasonable. just hoping that you will give us some leniency andtry to give us some mercy on this case, which is a small family business, trying to keep our doors open. we have been in business for

the last 16 years. i have clean record with all departments. for the last few years we have been hit very hard by the recession and economy and it's been hard to keep our doors as well. we like to comply with the ordinance, with any laws that come through. just this particular matter is kind of confusing and that is why we got into this argument. and we're hoping to resolve it and get better results from this. thank you very much. >> mr. shahin, this case has been continued a number of times. one of the reasons you have brought forth was to exhaust your inventory of tobacco. has that been accomplished? >> we removed most of the stuff. i bought since the health department allowed me to do the hooka lounge since 2005, i bought inventory and i had to fix the ceiling and put in fans

and spent over $40,000 on the place, you know, by the time to get it ready to be a lounge. besides the restaurant that we have. so i am complying with everything that you asked me for, but it takes time to get rid of all of the inventory. i bought a lot of stuff. i need to sell it and i'm just trying to get some leniency to try to sell the rest of the products. and hopefully we'll resolve in a good matter. >> thank you. >> thank you. miss young. >> good evening commissioners. congratulations on the appointments tonight. i am senior health inspector jennine young and work for the department of health. prior to the department issuing the director's order, which actually suspended the tobacco permit for marrakech for 30 days, environmental health has notified marrakech that smoking and smoking tobacco products

inside a restaurant was prohibited by the local health code, as well as the california labor law. and, in fact, we have issued -- the department of environmental health has issued five violations in letter in 2009, a notice to comply letter in 2010 and after i did an inspection in 2011 they received a notice of violation and in 2011 there was an abatement conference held at environmental health. and a decision letter was issued to the owners as well. so all five notices including the decision letter stated the same messages over and over. smoking is prohibited in all restaurants. and it's a violation of the san francisco health code and those notices stated that smoking tobacco products is pro[h-eubts/]ed in all restaurants and a violation of the carriage labor code. and the continued violation of the san francisco health code and california labor code would

jeopardize the dph permits that they held for their facility. in the 2011 decision, the decision letter ordered the owners to immediately cease and desist smoking within the enclosed areas of the restaurant. it also required them to immediately remove all the smoking equipment and devices from the restaurant. so in response to the 2011 decision letter, marrakech has sent an email stating that they stopped serving the hooka and we found out later that was not true. we started to receive complaints in may and june of 2012 and i went out july 21st and basically conducted another unannounced investigation and i saw one employee was attempted to hide two group of patrons smoking hooka in a private area of the restaurant. i also saw an employee carrying a hooka pipe and when he saw me he turned around and headed

down a flight of stairs located in the back of the dining area. then i did go down to the basement level, where they have the hooka pipes and hoses in the storage rooms. and were also open tobacco containers, toric-containing products open as well. based on this investigation she received a second notice of violation and they were ordered to appear at the director's hearing. it was at that hearing that their tobacco permit was supposed suspended for 30 days. i would like to say this hearing was continuesd because they wanted to reduce the inventory. i observed ten table as round the dining table and there were hooka pipes on all tables. there were about 20 patrons sitting around the tables, they

were smoking. they were drinking. they were eating and another 20 plus patrons in the middle of the dining room dancing to [ ing to music. there were several wait staff, serving staff and bartenders, too. so the department really respectfully requests the board to uphold the 30-day suspension, because we provided numerous opportunities for marrakech to come in compliance with the state and local laws. marrakech is a restaurant that had over three years to make change oz their practice n. november, 2011, marrakech acknowledged they would no longer violate the no smoking law, but willingly made the twice to continue violating both state and local laws. a suspension will not require marrakech to close, because they are a restaurant. the smoking usually starts about 10:30 or so. so they are not going to close:thank you. >> i have a couple of questions

for you. >> sure. >> how prevalent is this type of restaurant, where hooka is being smoked throughout the city? like how many are there to nour knowledge? >> left? >> yes >> for restaurants, marrakech and one another. there is a tobacco shop, but they are all in enforcement. there were 18. >> so do you know if the restaurants that had hooka continue to operate as restaurants that may sell tobacco, but don't have smoking on the premisings? >> yes, they are all racing as restaurants. the ones that closed were tobacco shops and didn't have

any other type of business, but the smoking. >> okay. thank you. >> my young, just to confirm, when you said january 13th, you were talking about several days ago? >> yes. >> just a couple of days ago >> you have three minutes for rebeautool. >> the first letter we received was confusing about everybody running the hookeau lounge, which is a cultural thing. they socialize and meet together. it's a different environment. the first time we complied and stopped everything and said we're going to pull everything out. as soon as i do that, the other places next to us, they start opening hooka lounges and improving and doing bars and putting hookas until today. so

it's not fair for us that we were the first people to operate and the second people come after us, they don't shut them down. it's like you allah the taxi to talk on the cell phone, but not allow the bus to talk on the california. it's not fair. why is it only us? i would like anybody to come and see us. we have a 99 score with the health department. so we're not here to cheat anybody or wheat the government or do anything like that. if we came in the wrong way, we apologize for that. it's not only us. it's a lost people doing that. it's a cultural thing. we need to try to see how we can resolve this. we will stop