>> any other commissioner comments? >>[gavel] vice president garcia: i would love to see a monetary fund that might not end up putting someone out of business. as of now there is no provision for monetary sanction. >> the motion is to uphold the

70 day suspension with several findings that a second sale occurred during a 12-month period. that the store is in close proximity to various schools and the owner was counseled by dp age. on that motion, commissioner fung, aye. commissioner goh, aye. commissioner garcia, aye. the 70 day suspension is upheld with those findings. >> thank you. item 5a. the appelants are aristo investment group. there is

locations for a mobile food facility permit, no. 11 [unintelligible] issued to docks of the bay. the dpw president of would like to speak first. >> good evening, commissioners. the department is requesting a short continuance for these appeals because the department did not receive briefings from the appellate bodies. it was not until we contacted the director last friday that we received documentation. we did not have sufficient time

to reveal the briefing. we are requesting a sure continuance. >> is it a one week continuance you are requesting? >> as soon as possible. >> are you interested in submitting briefs? >> that is the intent, yes. >> i recommend that we hear from the other parties on this issue. we can start with the appellants. do you want to set a time limit? >> on the continuance question? >> we have a full house. why do we wer-- don't we wait. how about two minutes. >> they can speak on the issue

of continuance. >> this is on whether or not you object or agreed to the proposal to continue the matter for one week. >> that is fine. the board has another scheduled mobile food trucks coming up next wednesday. that is permit 0027. we are going to be speaking again on 0029 and 0027 so next week is fine. >> is next week the same facility? >> is there an appellate here that would like to speak?

>> hello. i am debra sellers. i am fine with next week if we can schedule at the same time. if we have to schedule two different times on two different days, it is difficult for us to always appear. and here we are today and it is after 5:00 p.m., it is going on 6:00 p.m. if you are going to schedule a you can schedule it during business hours, that would be appreciated. >> the board only meet starting at 5:00 p.m. >> if we can do them both at the same time that would be preferred. i also have something at would like to submit. can i do now or later for your review? >> the time for some middle is passed. -- past. is that on the merits?

perhaps that should happen when the merits are heard. >> thank you. for this appeal,. >> i am the lawyer for 101 california which is one of the locations that is subject to this appeal. there are several other people who are appealing here on the same permit which raises the question, do we have seven minutes apiece or do we have to do by the time among the appellants. there is several others that are on appeal. the one week extension is not a problem. i would like from a procedural point of view to have a better idea of how we're going to

handle that. there are several other people here today who want to speak on this permit. because of their separate locations. could you give us some guidance on that? >> would be happy to speak with you after this item and i can explain that in detail. >> ok. one other thing. if the department is going to put in some additional briefing, his widow to have an opportunity to respond to that and we can do it orally or in writing but it is a lot having served on boards like this one myself, it is always better if you can get it in writing ahead of time. >> the board's rules do not allow for a rebuttal brief. the brief is being submitted by the department is the board -- if the board allows it would be the initial brief which is only late because it did not receive the appellant or they permit holder brief on time. you can address it during your testimony at the hearing. >> thank you. i want to make sure.

we do not have an objection to the continuance as long as we understand the ground rules. >> for appeal 11-117. >> hello, i am here on behalf of the appellant najmabadi. we don't disagree with the issue of continuing this matter because there are additional matters going to be heard next week on similar locations and similar permits, we do have one person who is here tonight who cannot be here next week. if you wanted to allow some time for that. i wanted to echo the comments that we would like an opportunity to respond to the brief or at least get it early

prior to next week's meeting so we can respond to it at the hearing. so some arrangements to be made for that. but it is a serious matter and we're concerned with having heard completely so we really want to make sure that we have all the opportunities to speak. i am afraid only one of our people can be your next week. thank you. >> the person who cannot be here is part of the appellant? is that the appellate and not someone who would speak in public comment? >> no. we included her to be part of our palin team to speak. -- appellant team to speak. within my seven minutes. >> the permit holder?

>> good evening, commissioners, jermemy paul. the permit holder for appeals -- this legislation was completed by the board of supervisors on unanimous vote year ago. the issues are pretty clear to the agencies and to the community which was very involved in the process of creating this ordinance. i believe that it is time to hear this matter. i do not believe that there is going to be a significant new evidence or new arguments coming out in the coming week that would change that. i believe this permit holder has a right to their hearing and i would encourage you to hear it.

if not for that reason, then for the reason on tonight with four appellants, i would have 28 minutes at this podium and next week, with nine appellants who would be 63 minutes for a combined total of 91 minutes of jeremy paul at this microphone and you do not want to do that. i would encourage you to hear this tonight. [gavel] vice president garcia:>> we ture office. as the permit holder, we submit to the board office. the appellants are the ones who are required to serve. >> have you been in touch -- is that not correct?

each party has obligation to deliver the race to the respondent which is the department. >> hours has been handled -- handed over as well as electronically on the following business day. >> have you not been in touch with the department? >> i have been in touch. i spoke with him. >> you feel they have nothing to add. >> i cannot predict what he might have to add. i just feel that this permit holder has a right to move forward. >> is there any public comment on the topic of the possible continuance? please step forward. you will have one minute. >> i have a question because i

am not next week. with that and push forward because if so, i am out of town. >> we would not reschedule any other matters. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none, commissioners, the question of the continuances before you. >> comments, commissioners? >> vice president garcia: i hate to go against that department but i do not feel that it is that phony an issue. we do have other cases coming next week. i guess it does make some sense to do with them all the once -- all at once. i am open. >> we have been consistent in

providing opportunity to submit a brief or place the position. for some reason it did not quite occur procedurally at this time. i would be supportive of allowing the department to submit a brief. i would also allow or would support the allowing of air bubble brief as well as they can be electronically handled before next friday. >> i would support a continuance even though i am disappointed not to have this matter heard tonight. on the procedure i think we need to allow the department to have an opportunity since it was -- the department was not properly served in accordance with the procedures. >> i agree. our rules do not allow for a

rebuttal brief. even in a situation like this were my be useful. i do not think we can order one against their rules. i would be disinclined to order against the rules. >> is there motion on the floor to continue? is there a motion? >> move to continue. the 20 to know when dpw will submit its brief. >> i would be fine with monday. >> we have an agreement that that would work. please call the roll. >> one thing before several people made mention of some sort of requirement that there be a restaurant permit or something

like that. i looked through the submissions. maybe it is there and i can missing it. i looked pretty hard for. there are two having to do with all the locations that are before us in the same place. i want to find out if that is adequate. and where to find between now and next week, where to find the requirement that be submitted. >> you want to have that included in the dpw some middle. -- some middle -- submittal. >> the motion is tho reschedule all four of these appeals to december 14, one week with a

respondent brief due monday, next monday, december 12. ok. on the motion, commissioner fung, aye. >> i am sorry to interrupt. was there a question about the submission or the timing for the submission? >> i was handed what i was looking for. commissioner fong, aye, president goh, aye, commissioner garcia, aye. these matters are rescheduled to december 14. to be clear, the brief is due monday, december 12. and the department is responsible for delivering copies either hard or electronic to each and every appellant and the permit holder.

>> thank you. the meeting will be here. >> we keep that secret. >> shot call last item on our calendar? >> let's give it a minute in case any of these people are here -- to clear the room. >> >> jordan kwang versus the

department of building inspection. protesting the issue on the october 7, 2011 addition. and relocating at second floor. application no. 201-- we will ft hear from the appellant or the appellant's representative. >> good evening, my name is jordan kwan. i am the property owner. this is a former property we

have purchased in 1982. there are building modifications. i am here today to appeal for the permit for the building extension permissions. this allows for ascension to the rear. which i believe is not in line for the neighborhood. we like to show you pictures. this picture was taken from my third story stairwell to show that there is no extension for the deck hot in this neighborhood. -- for the deck in this neighborhood.

right from the beginning, i did not receive any mail or notice for the permit in deciding process. i only got a letter from the central permit bureau on october 7 to my parents' house stating that the permits are already approved and the building can be started. in the extension has a 5 foot setback. it is along the length of the extension. however, on the south side, there is the setbacks at all. it is planned to build right along the fence. the second story kitchen window currently has beautiful views and plenty of lights. i would like to show you pictures of that.

it did not come out too good. as you can see, i can see a pretty good view and a pretty bright from here. what i did is i put a car -- tarp over the bottom, the third floor to simulate how the extension will affect our property. as a result, it is completely gone. and the kitchen is much darker. you can also see in the second photo, right here. i tried to make the best i can to make this before and after photoperiod but it is not that

easy, and especially once it is set up. the wind will start flapping in. i really don't believe the project is a good fit in this neighborhood. we got into the building and design guidelines which would be a five-foot setback. or 5 ft in from both sides of the fence. i also have a question on the plan drawing that is issued for the sperm that, and hopefully somebody here can clarify this for me. let me get this drying out. -- drawing out.

sorry. in his drawing, the elevation -- i believe this is existing. it shows the dotted line staircase. i am not sure which property this is. now if i turn to the same elevation, the self elevation, north. you see this bottom-line the staircase? it is twice as big. this is part of the extension, where this is somebody else's property. i understand this is a new addition, but what is that?

hopefully, somebody can explain that to me. in conclusion, i am not really here to stop the property owner , i just want the extension to be fair, reasonable, and enlivened the neighborhood. >> if i may, my name is john, brother of jordan and also owner of the property. my name is john kwan, brother of jordan kwan and co-owner of the property. i just want to mention, if this goes forward, it will block sunlight and certainly will block the window. i am proposing that sense right

now, since they are proposing the two levels, putting one back. to be consistent with the neighborhood, i have only found twenty second avenue and only one novel, in addition to that, i am also proposing to have a setback rather than completely built right next to our adjacent fence. hothead and also, i would like to see the extension to minimize the extension right now. i really do not see that much back yard space a all on the property. so proposing to maybe perhaps downsize a little bit. president goh: how far down?

>> that is what the city and planning has to look into it. president goh: what is the setback issue for you? and the size of the property build out? >> usually when people build out, they don't build a completely out. president goh: how does it impact you? >> certainly the view and the window and the lights. president goh: thank you. >> would you put the first page of those drawins angs and how me set back from where? i'm sorry, the first page of the set of drawings that show the site plan. page a1.01.

ok, so on the overhead, please. no, i'm sorry. do you have this? a1.01. i was asking her brother to show me on the drawing be set back that he is suggesting. >> i believe we are asking for the setback right along here. the building is right on the property line, right against of the fence. and the other side, there is a five-foot setback here. president goh: we can hear from the permit holders now.

you also have seven minutes and i apologize if i mispronounced your name earlier. >> the project for our residents has always had the intent to design and build what is within our rights according to code and guidelines, and to be neighborly. we have been up front and try our best to talk to our neighbors with a specific time lines and documentation that we included in the submitted a brief to you, which i think you for reviewing. we can understand his concerns, but we are not and will probably never be experts in a