with some of the broader policy issues, that would be one thing. the charges dealing with this particular permit, which is not only dealing with demolition but also the construction for the patio deck area. it is my opinion that given the fact that perception of sound is so different, it is incumbent upon business and the owner to confine all sounds within their building, and i think this patio will not do that. >> the commissioner stated the acoustics since he has been in business has improved, and it is

disappointing debt -- disappointing that you want everyone to agree who is a scientist. how can you call it science if there is not reliability? maybe they are all having the same answers. the way they choose to express about is different. it seems the science is all the loose, and i had hoped it would be straightforward, and everyone would say the ambient noise in this area, and there would be a range of times and a range of evenings. as to the merits of the case itself and the process, i was

really disappointed that he had an opportunity to have involved his neighbors, not just to make them more comfortable, but to reach shot and have them understand he is aware that they are there, and the way he could have demonstrated that would be to have involved neighbors in the process all along. he is coming out at such a time. he would later give a report that would be delivered in plenty of time to respond prior to this hearing. those kinds of things should have been done. i am sorry that did not happen. some measures came up that had to do with swinging doors, and if that turned out to be unnecessary, that is why we did not hear about it. if we did hear it was

unseasonable economically to have done that, but when it gets down to the last analysis, what is important to me is the fact that when you read what comes out, you feel as though it was pretty carefully vetted. i did not know about any improper influence or whether people are registered as permit expediters, but in terms of the people who looked at this, they came up with nine different measures having to do with mitigation, because they were aware of some of the issues, and there were things they thought were reasonable. i feel i do not have a choice but to place my trust with the

entertainment commission to properly establish their own rules and things that exceed that by age decibels so we must rely on them to monitor the situation to try to keep a vibrant business that is not to the detriment of that neighborhood. i intend to uphold the permit. >> i will go next. i put on the record earlier, but i will repeat that i watched the video of the last hearing, and i did hear the audio recording of the new ways zeroth

-- of noise. i think it is one chance were the permit owner may be hurt by his own success. we hear the noise of people having a great time at the bar. if people did not go to it, there would not be a noise problem. i noticed the commissioners were struggling with how to address the noise. it looked like a second floor deck. it was mention that we should consider the neighbors and quiet enjoyment of their homes. we have heard there are manuals

-- heard there are many homes. we tried to look at it from the perspective, and we heard from the permit owners that they did not do that. we also heard garcia mentioning that he was leaning to requiring them to a close it now and asking them to think about what mitigation measures, and the swinging door mentioned by a member of the public, and other mitigation efforts were discussed, and what we thought was to try to work together, and

wouldn't it be nice if you came back and said, here are the mitigation measures we can live with, but instead what we heard is basically, we are not offering any mitigation measures. we are a successful business. we are busy, noisy, and isn't that great? i am troubled by that. the neighbors do have a right to enjoy their homes. we saw the pictures of the babies. the babies have a right to do that. i would like to see something happen. close the deck, enclose it with class. -- glass. my response is not to uphold

the permit as it stands. >> i would echo the disappointment of wanting to see the parties come together. it gave you some time, and i do think the way this process has gone for the neighbors is not a good one, and i found a pretty persuasive the report of the appellant in pointing it out and referencing this noise ordinance. i am not an expert, but it would appear the given the response of the permit holders to the same question, i would put on a point in favor of the appellants, but

i think the bigger picture is not about an -- is about not coming to this together in recognizing you have got serious problems, and it is not going to end here, and we were hoping the some mitigation measures would be proposed cut would not kill you or your braiank, that would help the neighbors feel their concerns were addressed, and i do feel the experts' report speak to me, and i find morning and convincing the report of the appellants. >> are was going to make a motion.

-- i was going to make a motion. i did notice the patio was operating more like a deatck, ad what crossed my mind is similar, that the doors need to be closed earlier or closed. it is not operating as a simple patio. i do not think i am prepared to completely overturn what has been granted by the permit owners that there is anything we can do.

>> i would remind that something has redone -- has been done, and it had to do with one door being opened in your your -- being opened. these issues have been addressed. i was very disappointed that someone said the reason they did not want to do swinging doors. i still feel there is no reason to overturn this, and i would move that we of hold the planning department, -- we uphold the planning department, and to any to state the reason spellman -- do i need to stay the reasons hammond reaching the reasons? >> that is part of it.

>> i wonder if before we call the roll on the motion, it looked like you had another comment to make. >> i guess part of my thoughts on this is that some of those mitigation measures do not really help, and that is the problem i had with the permit itself. some of those measures are not substantial.

>> did you have any you wanted to recommend? >> there could have been solutions. it is not up to me. they were asked to examine it, and they chose not to. it is a question of one way or another. >> you want to call role then? >> would you like to make a motion? >> i am glad to make the motion. >> on the motion to uphold on the basis that it complies with the code. [calling votes]

thank you. now the vote is 1-4 to uphold the permit. >> we need another motion. >> of least two votes are required to uphold the permit by default. >> we do not need another motion. >> if there is no other motion, the permit would be upheld. >> a motion is required for the vote to secure your -- for the vote. >> the finding is to be adopted.

>> when you are ready to call the roll on about, please. >> we have a motion. >> if i were to make a motion to continue, that would take president, and my reason to want to do this is that it is a viable issue, and i would ask for a continuance to give the project sponsor one more opportunity to meet with neighbors and come up with a real mitigation measures. >> would you like a date certain amount -- would you like a date amazon -- a date? >> of the director have recommendations chairman -- does

a director have recommendations? >> i would say the october 5 or 12th meeting. >> should we see if the parties are inclined to bowma? >> the question i asked by one of the commissioners is why have a continuance if the parties are not inclined to continue to try to solve this problem in a way that is agreeable? >> if we offered to keep all of for you are pedals) keep one operating -- to keep the panels close and keep one operating. >> the basic question is do you

feel as though you would benefit from a continuance to continue to work this out? >> the same question applies to you. >> i will defer to what the board says. i just hope we can come to some mitigation. if you want to feel -- if you feel you want to give them an opportunity, i am ok with that. >> what changed you think regarding the permit holders just now? >> i will set aside my motion for the time being during the --

for the time being. >> is that a swinging door? >> otherwise, we are continuing for a few months. >> i totally respect that, but the brief said commissioner peterson: what did you basically offer? >> to surrender the condition of having three panels opened. it was either one open or three open, and that one acts as a doorway in and out of whatever that space with deep, almost like a fourth door, so it would be just wonder -- one can open,

four panels close. commissioner peterson: ok i could withdraw mine. >> is that a switch in door? commissioner garcia: of course, you have a right to ask questions because we are considering something that affects you. >> even the swinging door is going to allow, and i think that is what you're proposing, completing one door open and. that noise is going to come out of that bar. we talked about a swinging door. commissioner fung: commissioner peterson, are you still leaning towards wanting to resolve this tonight? commissioner peterson: i think my concern would be address by amending condition a. i do not know if anybody would

agree with me. commissioner fung: i would like them to go through some sort technical analysis and see what some sort of a longer-term solution would be. commissioner peterson: that is fine. a continuance. commissioner garcia: october 5? >> i am actually out of town that week. commissioner garcia: go forward or better -- back towards? >> i would prefer the next week. commissioner fung: i do not think this -- think this needs to go out that long. commissioner garcia: i think we will have to accommodate somebody else's schedule.

yes, commissioner peterson is not going to be here. >> august 24. >> i mean, if you guys want to do it, i mean, you what to do it earlier? commissioner garcia: there is a certain amount of harm to the project sponsor the longer we put it out, because there is a loss of revenue. >> september, is there some day in september? that is good. that would give us time, i think. christian garcia coat: i move that we continue this until september 21 so the parties can see if they can reach some solution that will satisfy both sides and this board.

commissioner fung: in the testimony. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> -- commissioner goh: how many weeks? i'm going to vote against this, because they had enough time. an oral report of two minutes, three minutes at the next -- commissioner fung: you want a brief? you do not want to continue it. commissioner garcia: why do we not vote on the continuance, and then we will set parameters. >> that is what was said, no

additional briefing? commissioner garcia: does additional briefing lead to more public testimony? >> there can the public testimony on -- if you hear testimony from the party's at the next hearing, there can be public testimony, public comment on whatever. commissioner garcia: so what is the difference between that and not having a brief? i always would want to try to understand something when it is presented orally, so i would want a five-page brief. we are hoping there will be a settlement, but if there is not a settlement, perhaps something will be said or done by one side that may sway one of the commissioners to shut the door on the fact that if there is no

settlement this thing is dead, and that is unreasonable. responding to our city attorney. i do not know. i do not care how long, personally. if you think you need more than five pages to explain something reasonably technical, i think that is fine. what is normally, 12? let's put it in half, six. that would be great, or you call us and tell us it has been resolved. commissioner goh: do you want simultaneous briefings? commissioner garcia: whenever it takes. i think simultaneous briefings. >> so the motion is to continue the matter until september 21 for the reasons stated, six pages of briefs allowed, and

they will be due prior to the september 21 hearing. commissioner garcia: which will be september 15. >> on the motion to continue this matter, once again, to september 21, three votes are needed to pass this. commissioner fung? commissioner fuing: -- aye. commissioner goh: no. commissioner peterson: aye. >> this matter is continued until september 21. >> calling than item number nine, appeal-11-077. margaret foster, sherida ireton,

and sheriann ireton, against the department of building inspection, for 122 tiffany avenue, protesting the issuance to john britton of a permit to alter a building, and we will begin after this clears. it will take a moment to have folks settle out. commissioner fung: i guess i cannot throw these away. i will just put it -- >> ok, you will have seven minutes. >> president goh, vice president garcia, my name is mcfarlin. commissioner garcia: you can

adjust that so you do not have to lean into it, so you will be more comfortable. >> i am more comfortable. thank you. i am representing the appellants, , foster, -- margaret foster, sherida ireton, and sheriann ireton. relief they are looking for from the board. the appellants filed this appeal for the very narrow issue of assuring that the permit holder, john britton, who is also the owner and the landlord of this, does not use this permit in order to eliminate the appellants' long-term laundry facilities at this. they recognize and have never

disputed that the notice of violations issued by the department of building inspection do, in fact, identified and list serious problems with conditions of the decks and the stairs at this property. on top of that, the appellants welcome repair work if it is in the scope that he will conduct pursuant to this permit. they welcome that repair work to actually abate these notices of violation. it is very important that the board understand that that is not an issue here at all. the only issue here, once again, is that based on permit holder's communications with appellants based on the permit holders lack of response to the appellants'

fears over the last few months in regards to their laundry, they filed this appeal. hopefully with better communication between the parties, we would not be here tonight, but unfortunately, there has been very little if any response from permit holder to indicate to the appellants that he will not, in fact, use this permit to eliminate their laundry facilities. all of this is a brief to, maybe a little bit too much repetitively in the statement appeal but the appellants submitted to the board. i would like to quickly go through the reasons why this board should, in fact, preserve the appellants' laundry facilities. first, two are disabled, one severely disabled.