attorney. this is a conference of legal counsel regarding the anticipated litigation against the city area the anticipated litigation is based on the following facts -- connolly was convicted of two of two people in a drive-by shooting in 1989. he served 16 years in prison. in 2010, the supreme court granted his decision for writ of habeas corpus and granted a new trial. he cannot be retried because the important prosecution has died. he was released from prison and the city anticipates he may bring a lawsuit against the city seeking damages alleging wrongful conviction and incarceration. before we take public comment, i would like to turn this over to commissioner slaughter. commissioner slaughter: i have a conflict of interest. my law firm represents him and so i will not be participating in the discussion.

just so there is no concern, i will be leaving the room. i will not be here. if anybody has any concerns, you can raise them in public comment now. president mazzucco: is there any public comments regarding this item? seeing none, let's call the next item. >> item #5. a vote on whether to hold item 6 in closed session, including a vote on whether to assert the attorney-client privilege with regard to items 6d and 6e. president mazzucco: we are doing a roll call. we have commissioner kingsley. commissioner chan. commissioner slaughter.

vice president marshall. in voting to disclose anything we discussed in the closed session. any public comment, hearing on the, i moved to adjourn. and we are adjourned.

[gavel] president goh: -- director goldstein good evening, and welcome to the board of appeals meeting of wednesday, september 1, 2011. we have president goh and victor

pacheco. i am director cynthia goldstein. the acting chief building inspector is here. seeing next to him -- sitting next to him is scott sanchez, also representing the planning department and planning commission, and behind him, the municipal transportation agency. we're also joined this evening by a representative of the entertainment commission. at this time, mr. pacheco, if you could go over the board meeting guidelines and then conduct the swearing in process? secretary pacheco: the board requests that you turn off all cell phones and pagers and carry all conversations on in the hallway. appellants, permit holders, and a bar and representatives each has seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rare bottle.

-- for rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the party have up to three minutes each to direct the board and no rebuttals. to assist the board in active preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board a staff when you kick up -- when you come up to speak at the lectern. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the lantern. the board also welcomes your questions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the lectern, as well. if you have questions about a rehearing, please speak to board staff during a break, or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located on mission street, room 304, and this meeting is broadcast live on the san francisco government television, sfgtv, cable channel

78, and dvd's of this meeting are available for purchase directly from sfgtv. thank you for your attention. at this time, we will conduct our swearing in process. if you wish to give testimony and have this be given evidentiary weight, please stand, raise your right hand, and say, "i do," after you have been sworn or affirmed. please note that any member of the public may speak pursuant to the rights of the sunshine ordinance of the administrative code. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. thank you. director goldstein: thank you. commissioner peterson, commissioners, -- president goh,

commissioner, some of these items will not be heard this evening, and those are with respect to the property on mason street, item six. also, items 7, regarding another property, they have jointly asked that the meeting be rescheduled. with a board vote, we can move it to that date, december 17. president goh: do we need a motion? director goldstein: we do. president goh: so moved. director goldstein: any public comment? seeing no public comment, mr. pacheco, please read the world. secretary pacheco: on that motion, commissioner fung, vice

president garcia: , commissioner peterson, that is rescheduled to december 14. director goldstein: thank you. moving back to a regular calendar, item number one, public comment. is there any member of the public who would like to speak on something that is not on tonight's calendar? please step forward. >> my name is ross wilkinson. good evening, commissioners. i am a tenant, and i brought an appeal in 2006, regarding with fans that the property owner was putting in the exterior walls of each unit, and i essentially got a 50% victory in that appeal. we got an agreement from the landlord to put on off switches

on those fan units so that tenants could turn them off to prevent all of the conditioned air from being exhausted from the apartment. i recently discovered that the department of building inspection disregarded your order. they were very aggressive in opposing my efforts to have them make the building order to comply with the california energy code, and so, essentially, they turned around and allow the property owner to continue the project, and they never incorporated the requirements of the order, so i have a letter to you, a copy for each commissioner, and attached to it, two attachments. one attachment is the order, and i have highlighted the requirements of the on/off switch, in the second attachment

is the documents -- and the second attachment is the document to incorporate the requirements of the order, and it was a backdraft damper. it was nothing that i requested. the essentially omitted everything that i won in that hearing, and i went to great expense. i hired an attorney. i hired an independent mechanical engineer although i am a mechanical engineer myself just to provide the board with an independent qualified opinion. those bands should have never been installed. it was unfortunate that the compromise was even accepted by the board. i was hoping to address the merits of my case and get into the technical issue of the legality of what the landlord was doing, so this is basically for your information, but i would really appreciate it if the board some help with its own motion could go back and get the department of building inspection to do its job.

since this appeal, we have had nothing but opposition and resistance from the department of building inspection to cause this landlord to comply with the building codes. i already wrapped up, so. thank you very much. president goh: thank you. director goldstein: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i just wanted to get my three minutes in if i can now. is it ok if i do that now? this is with the removal of the case? w.b. coyle? at the moment, i am friends of the owners of 224 mason street -- 2244 mason street.

president goh: did you want to say your name? >> he has basically done the same thing to my property, and i find it an egregious, and i just want to bring up some of the outstanding lawsuits. that is all part of public information. the first one is against him and north beach partners. they breached the aforementioned fiduciary duties by, among other things, failing to inform planes of the sale of the filbert property. misrepresenting to plaintiffs that the sale of the film board property -- the filbert property -- converting proceeds from the sale of the filbert and jones street properties for their own use and failing to provide documents in conjunction with those properties. basically, the property was sold

four years ago, and that person was notified four years later. james gay versus creative alliance and w.b. coyle. on april 8, 2011, creative, w.b.coyle company, without plaintiff's knowledge or consent. the plaintiff first received unconfirmed confirmation that they had sold the greene street property on or about april 20, 2011. the plaintiff received the confirmation that creative had sold the greene street property on may 6, 2011 when he received a property of the grant deed conveying the property to the other llc. north beach partners versus --

[bell] as account manager, he performed. he removed or caused to be removed money from the operating account to pay the property taxes of the vacant lot which is owned by an entity that coyle owned for the tax years 2004 and 2009. [bell] another man has an lawsuit against coyle, and he will talk about that when he gets up to chat, and i think they are right behind me. president goh: thank you. director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> my name is jim baily. i am the owner of a company called transition llc, which is the owner of 2244 mason.

the appeal which was withdrawn was used as a weapon against me, and i had to drive two hours to get here to defend that appeal. i am a victim of w.b. coyle, like many others getting involved with him. he is like bernie madoff. he has, in my opinion, stolen i think $1.50 million over all of those people we have investigated. he is now using this board of appeals as weapons against previous people and now using it against us. we wish we could accept any appeal from any neighbor or anyone. we would love it if you could not accept an appeal from w.b., as i have fired him as our manager when we saw he had stolen hundreds of thousands of dollars from us, so as john mentioned, we have litigation against him, and we will try

him and hope the criminal- justice system will prevail in getting w.b. coyul -- coyle. again, my objective is to tell you there are a lot of victims and that he is using you to grass and cause terrorism to the victims. -- to harass and cause terrorism to the victims. please use your methods to stop that. director goldstein: thank you. next speaker, please. >> walter paulson. ♪ hope you find the time and that your items turned out great and that they are really fine, and go at it like a fiend, and the weekdays at city hall did not turn out like you planned, the things they did for knowledge on the items i do not understand it, because ain't

nothing like the appeal committee, ain't nothing like the real appeal, but it cannot talk to me, when i call your name, it is just on a frame ain't nothing like the real appeal committee ♪ banks. director goldstein: thanks. next speaker, please. >> i am a partner on the mason street property. i just wanted to clarify a couple of things. when coyle had appealed our permit, we had not even started on the permit yet, and he made it clear to us, he wants the listing on the apartment, and he made it clear to us that he

would drop the appeal if we gave him the list is, -- listings, so it is really a form of extortion, and he has intimated that he can continue with fabricated appeals that have no merit to drag the program out for some time, which costs us a lot of money. i do not know, and it was asked if you have any methods do not accept appeals from him, and i just want to second that. you guys know it is very, very expensive to drag out the program. $135, to delay this program that took six weeks to get here. we were not even doing any work on the permits that he appealed. so that actually makes no sense whatsoever. so i would ask you guys to please -- i do not know what the rules of the board are, but that

someone can file an appeal -- we do not want to waste your time to consider these fabricated appeals. ok? director goldstein: thank you. next speaker. >> my name is mike graphic, -- griffith, and i am the general contractor. i just want to say it has been a real big inconvenience to have this guy appeal our permits. he makes of this bogus claim and then shut us down for six weeks, and we also have another permit that is about to clear, and i

think he will try to appeal it on some other bogus claims. hopefully we will not see you guys again. thank you. director goldstein: thank you. any other public comment? seeing none, we will move to item number two, commissioner's comments and questions. commissioner hwang: just addressing the comments we have heard, having been on this for less than two years, has it been a year even, it does strike me that if there is any way the board can review its records to

determine -- i do not know how mr. w.b. coyle's appeal was withdrawn -- director goldstein: just this evening. commissioner hwang: maybe we can look into the past two or three years whether appeals have been filed and then withdrawn? i would be interesting to see what we come up with. director goldstein: and the other commissioner comments or questions? commissioner fung: i want to direct the board that i will be missing the october 12 meeting. vice president garcia: the first person was mr. wilkinson, an

apparently dbi had other feelings. is there anything this board can do to look into the to see if we can determine what should have been done and see that it gets done? director goldstein: we can do that. anything else, commissioners? ok. is there any public comment on the commissioner's comments? ok, seeing none, then we will move on to item number three, which is the adoption of minutes. commissioners, for your consideration this evening, you have the september 14, 2011, minutes. president goh: comments, commissioners? i will move their adoption. director goldstein: any public comment on the minutes? ok, seeing none, then, mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll on that then, please? secretary pacheco: on the motion from president goh, to accept

the september 14 minutes, commissioner fung, commissioner hwang, vice president garcia, and those minutes are adopted. director goldstein: will call item 4a, gebresilassie vs. mta, and at that time, the board voted 5-0 to grant the appeal, overall the denial, and issue the taxi medallion. they are in agreement with the findings as drafted. they are both here if you have any questions. president goh: i will move the

adoption of these. secretary pacheco: on the motion to adopt these findings, commissioner fung, vice president garcia, commissioner peterson, commissioner hwang, the vote is 5-0, those findings are adopted. director goldstein: a building permit application, and its variance granted on july 21, 2010, and the building permit was issued in 2011.

the variance is on presidio. it is for a rear yard and noncompliance structure, and the building permit is to demolish the rear wing, at the stairs and elevators, reconfigure the north, east, and south sides of the roof, the elevator shaft, two dormers, and windows. the requester is. you have six minutes. >> i am bob, and we are the owners on the presidio project.

we never received any notification of the last two variances. you understand, the planning department has sent out neighborhood notification, but we never received them. during the appeal period, the developers of the presidio were renting our building from 2009 until june 2011. according to our mutual agreement, they were to force us our mail on a weekly basis. however, we did not receive any neighbor notifications regarding the project. during the stay at our property, they had put barricades around our building, so we had no access to our property. please see the pictures. we sold our building to jackson street. the art exhibit -- they are

exhibit 10. there was o the neighbors. this had been sent to r jackson street address in august 2009. -- our jackson street address. we received notification at jackson st. one year later. all of the variance that they have pushed through. this was with regard to the presidio projects. we had never met him before 2009. presenting a letter, attachment h. in the letter, she indicated she

walked out of the meeting very confused and baffled by their procedure. she never indicated that she had walked out of the meeting abruptly before it even happened. they are falsifying documents. this is from a presidio project, not this other project from the presidio. as from the letter in september 2011, it contains false statements about us meeting with them on numerous occasions. we did not even know who the planner for the project was. please see the attachment d, asking about the planner's information. we tried to meet with them after we had found out that he had approved the two previous variance is. we wanted to know what he had approved two large light wells, because this does not comply with the guidelines. we also wanted to meet with him

to review the application and document the third variance. we had never met him and did not know what he looks like. we tried to contact him regarding the variance is, and he would not respond to our phone calls. we had to contact his boss to ask him to return the call. prior to may 2011, we did not have any reason to go to the planning department, because he was working on an acceptable solution they said. we are opposing the project in closure -- enclosure. these two light wells are larger than most in san francisco. they were being used by previous residence as patio's with barbecue grills and other seating and planters. this has been granted since 1960, approximately 51 years ago.