we look at i think are of interest to this board. it is really a structural in nature. we are looking for things that suggest control is beeing applid to people working there, that different coercive measures might be taken by the operators against the people working there. for instance, certainly locked rooms are a concern in places like massage parlors or salons. private rooms should still have a curtain or a window in adore -- in the door that allows inspectors to see what is going on in there, so if we see rooms that are curtained oftef to

inspection, if nbwe see hidings basis, they fully, we do not see many of them now, i thing to to the scrutiny we apply to these places the certainly the was a very common thing. now we are special victims, but before it was vice. one thing you need to know is where the hiding spots are, and every place had them. we have done a lot to remove them, but if we let up, i think it might reappear. things that we do see that are suggestive of coercion and that could ordinarily be innocent, bob but help with the reality that commercial sex is occurring. some things that concern us are

places where then law- enforcement officer will have to be botbuzzed into one door, investigated, and let into another door. some of these places are hard to get out of. that could be by design. interior camera systems. obviously, there are legitimate reasons to have camera systems, but we see many of them are connected to the internet so the proprietor can remotely view what is going on. if it is beneficial to the proprietor because they have about separation between enterprises possibly going on. those are just a few.

living spaces. no one thing but really concerns us is indications the businesses are also being used for living herriot's -- and living areas. we see that one room will be set up with costs. region -- with cots and small coking units. where you should see one bed, you will see a row of tenbeds, d again, places it should not necessarily have small rooms, all of a sudden if you have all hallway with five rooms in a place that is a nail salon or something like that, that is suggestive of that kind of activity.

>> thank you. >> can you tell us how many massage parlors are our in our city? but i do not think i am qualified to say. there are quite a few. i cannot say all of them are engaged in prostitution, but it is widespread. >> you have of ball park as cement, and -- new ballpark estimate? >> over 100. how many of them are fronts for commercial sex, it is hard to say, but i could guess perhaps half. there are going to be different levels of prevalence. in one place it could be some employees but not others.

some places are focused primarily on commercial sex. other places in -- but do not require it. other places to turn a blind eye, and so there is a lot of variety. it is hard to save. we can make inferences days on what we know about the places. -- based on what we know about the places. >> 20 years ago, this commission would your massage parlor of appeals in weekly. over the last year and we have had one or two. >> there were 172 licensed massage parlors. i think one thing we are seeing is they are they regulated, so we are seeing a proliferation of entities that call themselves

spas, and that is one of our state challenges, but we do not have the regulatory capacity to address things there, and nail salons are often the front for places like that. >> thank you very much. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, thank you very much for your time. i am going to move on and call item no. 5a. we received a letter asking that the board take jurisdiction over a building permit application 2011, which was issued on november 10, 2011.

the jurisdiction request was received on december 6, 2011. the project is to remodel and reconfigure the kitchen, bath, laundry, removed part of galway, and reconfigure bedroom closets, new furnace, and new exterior stairs, and replace skylights. we will start with the requester or their agent. you have three minutes. >> thank you very much. i am the attorney for the jurisdiction of requester. we are asking for jurisdiction 40 w 0 -- 42 reasons.

-- for 2 reasons. the permit was originally approved by the city in march of 2011. there were eight months during which the two condo owners negotiated over the scope of the work but was going to be approved and the work of was going to be done, and they negotiated over efforts to mitigate the impact of the work. this work is a complete remodeling of the unit, totaling almost $200,000 worth of work. i am sure you had time to review the papers. while this with john, the parties were unable to reach an agreement on the accommodation. my client went out of the country.

now the upper unit permit holder was aware that my client was leaving the country. he then pulled. this board's powers and ability to exercise of authorities would be deprived of such maneuvering is accomplished and people were deprived of their right to have their grievances heard. there has been a short delay in the filing of the requests. there was a lot happening over thanksgiving. my client, when she got back to the day before thanksgiving realized she had limited time. she came to my office the following week, immediately contacted the board of appeals. my office set up an appointment, and we moved quite promptly to

seek late jurisdiction. we believe under the circumstances of this particular case, that allowing my client to have this appeal heard would be a simple and easy request to be granted, and we asked late jurisdiction be granted. as to the substance of the appeal my client will bring for you, there is a roof deck included in the project. the roof deck is part of the common area of the building. it is our view that they did not have authority to file for a roof deck that is not part of the units, part of the building itself. that is something that would require authority of eight show a -- of the hoa. we ask that be brought before you and decided. >> what were the exact dates?

>> she returned on the 23rd. there was a ticket. did we supply the airline ticket? >> i did not see that. >> i will check my files of the other side makes their argument, and i will have that for you. if i get a chance to answer that question, i would be happy to do that. >> i would like to hear about the error on the part of the season. is it a lot number? >> if the permit required a permit application on behalf of the molding itself, there are two particular slot numbers a condominium is a post of, and there is a condominium area, and one member does not have the authorities to do work without the authority of the others, so permit should have been issued not just for one lot.

i understand they are changing the scope of the work and suggesting they are not going to do that work, but that work is approved by the city and in our view should not have been approved based on the notice in this case. >> was there ever any question as to the area of the work was intended to be done? >> i think my client -- there had been a negotiating between the owners. my client did not understand the permit holder was going to be filing a permit application for a deck where they did not have the authority to do that. the effect was not part of that particular lot the permit holder owns, so i think there was harm to my car -- to my client. we would be happy to bring that before you.

>> good evening. i am appearing on behalf of the permit holder. he is also here in case there are any questions. also, of the permit holder and the contractor submitted declarations as part of the paper work and you have to be for you. i will summarize briefly the arguments that were submitted, but this was a interest fictional request that it be denied, because there is -- this is a jurisdictional request that it be denied because there is nothing but that caused her to miss her deadline. we have provided as evidence in support of the opposition to this request copies of the homeowners' association covenants and restrictions.

that shows this is not a common area, that they have the exclusive right to maintain and approve the deck, so it is a disingenuous argument about sympathy for the requester, but because there is no showing, all we have is an unsupported accusations of a permit holder somehow mitigated procedures to get noticed. that argument must sail. that is not the standard. they have to show the city did something to inadvertently deprived her of the right of timely appeal. secondly, this arguments that the permit holder somehow manipulated things to prevent her right sales on a number of respects. first, the evidence that the request was submitted demonstrates that she informed mr. specter she would only be travelling until november 15.

this permit period was open until november 28. at the same time, the evidence shows if she had employees and a personal assistants keeping her of to date on daily goings on, so it is presumable she had actual notice soon after the november 10 notice was sent to her dress -- to her address. there is no excuse in the paper work that nothing can be done until december 6. what has been offered, and i think what president don'goh pid up on is the evidence is incomplete, and one could conclude it was intentionally done so. we do know that they have not met the standard of the sport for granting jurisdiction of request, and because of that, it has to be denied.

only the request alone would allow entitlement to open up a permit period. >> is your client and the permit holder intending to modify the permanent? >> i do not think there is any intention to modify the permit. with any major renovation job, it is possible not everything that had been initially pulled on the permits would be completed. some of that is due to the cost and delays that are unforeseen, sometimes called by neighbors and other incidents. if that is the case, that is something that will have to be corrected upon final inspection, but i do not think there is any great intention to modify the permit. you may interrupt me, but i do not believe that is the plan. if there is no other questions, i will step aside.

and >> if you are going to speak, you need to come up to the podium. >> i am responding to the question about modification of the permit. >> my name is brian shepherd. i work for the contractor of the project, and there is an intention by the owner and to do the rooftop because of the cost of doing the work, so that is going to be modified through an application to change the current permit. >> you have a business card? >> not on me. >> any other commissioner questions? ok, any departmental comments?

>> good evening, commissioners. if they want to take the roof deck of the permit, they would file a revision permit, and that would be over the counter, but that should be done before they start work if they know they are going to do it, and if someone wants to file a complaint, we would investigate it, but if anyone has further questions, i think a permit went through the fproper process, and i do see that on march 24, i do not know what happened until november 10. it looked like it was approved in someone's possession, and they came in almost eight months

later, paid their fees, and garth of permits issued -- stock of permits issued. the permits are in the applicant's possession during the time, they have the right to come in whenever they want. it does seem a little longer than normal we would see someone doing that. >> you describe the permit. it would cause a permit to be appealable? >> that provision permit is appealable, yes, but it is only to remove the work from the original scope. >> only that part of the permit would be repealed all, or the whole permit would be appealable it would only be for the removal of the roof deck, but the other work is still shown on the permit, except the

roof deck with not be on it, because there is another permit to remove its. >> it would reset for the scope of the work. >> only on the scope of the revision permit. rite aid do not want -- >> they do not want the roof deck. >> you mentioned that was a bit long. what do they normally see? >> people like to get it as quick as possible. a few days, a couple weeks. i am not sure why we are waiting so long. i did see someone was out of the country, but i do not know. there must be a reason why it took almost eight months to get a permit. i just want to point that out.

>> i do not know if it is a question for you in planning, but if that is an error in, is that a fatal flaw? >> if something is going over a different property line, in condos we sometimes to get this problem. we would look into that and see if the plans are drawn in correctly, and we would siphon for about region -- would cite them for that, so it could be a notice of violation, but it is just like going over property lines, so that would have to be fixed if found to be wrong, but i do not know how that was shown on the plans. if we received a complaint, we would look into that, and we do

all the time. >> i am more concerned about whether or not it constitutes, because of that error, in proper notice? >> i suppose technically it would. i know there was a notice sent out. that is a good question. >> thank you. >> thank you is there any public comment? seeing none. >> there is a question outstanding. he was going to look in his file. >> thank you for the opportunity to address the board. my client left the country on november 1. she returned on november 23. the reason for the eighth phase is she suffered a life- threatening medical problem in what ramallah while she was on a

mission. that is why she was delayed. she was planning to return on november 15, but she was delayed by a eight days because of unforeseen events. >> if the monmouth -- if the modification permit is submitted, removing the deck, would that have any impact on this request? >> it would obviously give my client a chance to file an appeal. i think what is important is that should have been done immediately when the permit holder became aware they were going to do that, and they have not done that, and they would be able to complete the entire project if the board does not step in. parks are rules issued -- >> the root issue is not -- >> is outstanding.

>> assuming they seek a revision permits and that they removed the debt now as an issue, would that leave other issues? >> there would be. >> very briefly. the information is before you in the briefing, but in a homeowners association agreement, he had the exclusive right to do things on the deck. this is a disingenuous argument about what is happening. after -- if he chooses to maintain the deck, it will show it is exclusive, so on the zoning, they might say this is a common air regard, and evidence has been submitted in a timely manner. he has equitable rights to about. >> thank you.

>> do you stipulate to the fact that is an error? >> i dispute that. >> go over that for me. >> i dispute that is common area. i provided evidence that when it was turned into condominiums, it was designated by the declarant but it is exclusive. >> the requester has raised this issue having to do with there being an error in description. >> i think this is the same issue are was responding to. it is the correct lot number. their argument is it is the wrong number, up because it should have been done as a common number. none of this is a surprise.

they admitted the other owner has known about these plans all along. this is used to have leverage. >> you did not need to editorialize. >> i apologize. if there are no further questions, i will subnet. >> i did have questions. what is the reason for the delay? >> project reassessment. this is an investment property, and there is constant back-and- forth between this is what you can do. now you have to price them and see how much they would cost. then you have to go to financials people who tell you cannot afford to do that. >> that is after you apply for the permit. by to tell you what is possible, and there were efforts to do this in a neighborly way to lessen the impact on the

downstairs neighbor. good >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> comments, commissioners? anything? by the question -- >> the question is one we look at strongly with respect to jurisdiction, and i do not see that happening here. most of the issues that have been brought up our civil issues, and i do not see that as impacting my decision on whether jurisdiction should be allowed.

>> this should not be definitive, because i am still on the fence about this. in the past when someone has the inability to respond to notice, regardless of whether it constitutes any error on the part of the city, and we have greater jurisdiction. the fact that it has languished so lawong and when the requester happened to be out of town when notice was given is troubling. we do not know how we are going to deal with that, but i look forward to comments.

>> i did not prepare chronology too quickly referred to. can someone tell me the dates the appeal was filed? i am also missing my summary. >> december. >> they were about eight days. >> eight days after the deadline. gartne>> 28th was the end date. my inclination is more along the lines of the vice president garcia a. it is on that region -- it is odd that, given the efforts