came to purchase food from them and acted like he was part of the neighborhood and hanging out when he was secretly videotaping them. if he had said to them would you please lower it. it's too loud especially at this time of night. >> i don't think that was the question. >> it's okay. i understand. >> how well do they know the rules? >> clearly they don't. if they do, it appears to be cloud them. >> how many times was your

client informed that there was a problem? >> as far as i can tell there was the june 1 phone call that came through to them. other than that, i believe it was sometime later in june that the notice of the hearing went out. >> so one time or one time you checked your e-mail. >> it an appears that one time. >> after i was notified just as he stated i was not out there playing music. i was packed after 1:00 after that that was a big misunderstanding of mine. i would shut down at 1:00. at that time i would have to walk

at least 6 blocks. i apologize and now i know. i thought i was an abiding by the rules and i wasn't, now i know. >> wait a second, according to the gentleman that just spoke who video taped you after june 1st, he video taped you still selling 6 times. you are saying that the video tapes are not correct? >> no, once i found out. >> you found out june the 1st, right? >> whenever the phone call was made. i found out i needed to be completely gone by the area. i was confused and i thought i had to shut down. shut down to me meant turn off the cart and don't put new stuff in the cart. >> i guess what i'm trying find out if do you admit that you were out there june 2nd, june 3rd, 15, june 24th after were

you packing up and getting ready to go were you still selling at that time after 1 a.m.? >> if there was still food in the cart and still able to be sold, yes. people would walk up to the cart and ask for food and i would sell it to them. at the same time there was two of us and as long as we were packing up and trying to leave the area and do everything to abide by the rules. >> but you didn't understand then that you have shut down a half hour before 1 a.m.? >> i didn't see that written down on anything. when i was handed the permit, i was handed at the department of public works. the permit said i could

do business until 3 a.m.. will -- were you present at the hearing when you were attempt ing to get the permit. were you present at the hearing when there were objections at the hearing? >> yes. >> you were there, i heard mr. kwaung say the objections were based on the concerns regarding noise and late hours? >> yes. there were 3 or 4 people concerned about the late hours. >> at the hearing itself or soon thereafter, i don't know the time, that you were granted a permit that was supposed to end at 1 a.m., is that correct? >> sort of. here is the reason i was confused this is a permit for three locations. when i voluntarily decided to drop the lowest part, that was up to date on my granted time, yet

the other locations for the mission still said 3 a.m.. i knew the corrections that we had made at the hearing that were spoken about were noted on this document however it said i could still work until 3 a.m.. the spot that i dropped the location. it still said the same thing. stamped by the department of public works. >> if i may add one thing -- >> is it in response to a question or further argument? >> i think it's in response. >> okay. >> the permit there is only good for friday night to saturday, saturday to sunday morning. it's not during the week. this is not during the week. this is a weekend. >> okay. i have nothing further.

>> thank you. mr. fung? >> good evening commissioners. i just want to clarify one last thing. the existing locations from the operations were from thursday to sunday at night with one position at late evening for the proposed location also at 100 montgomery from 6-8 p.m.. i have nothing to add. >> the dolores park. was that for late night? >> they wouldn't even allow

coffee at dolores park. >> actually it was daytime. >> there wouldn't be any confusion as to the carts that needed to close down by 1 a.m.? >> that is correct. >> how would someone find out they would have to break down 1/2 hour before? is that written? >> it's not written specifically in the order. what the requirement of the code and the good neighbor policy is the merchant, the applicant must police the area and clean up all garbage and debris from the location to remove all trash and debris. the expectation is you need to shut down early in order to follow that good neighbor policy. >> so the expectation is by your cutoff by 1 a.m. and

everything should be cleaned up and out. >> that is the expectation. yes. >> but that's why you give people a cutoff time, is that right so they know when they have to leave. leave means leave? >> yes, desis of operation is like tables and chairs. there is an end time on tables and chairs. the expectation of the last service is not at the end time, but to break down. >> okay. >> mr. kwaung, your director hearings and revocation hearings, are they recorded? >> yes they are. >> by tape? >> it is typically done by tape. >> do you have an idea? >> i don't want to hear them.

>> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> comments? >> i will start. the complaints concern me. the numerous complaints even after the june 1st telephone conversation where the appellant admits he knew the time cutoff was 1 a.m.. the multiple instances of operation after 1 a.m. to me signal a blatant disregard of the permit of the rules of neighbors. i don't know how anyone could think that glaring music like that. i

don't think it's a good practice to have two locations and one permit for this exact reason is that there has been no due process on that permit and no hearing on that permit. i believe it's unfair to do it that way. i would lean towards revocation of the 16th street but upholding the new montgomery. >> yeah, i think the -- that was the main question in my own mind. i think similarly as commissioner hurtado said, i don't think there was any question in my mind that there

were -- the appellant was not following the correct procedures and rules for the 16th street location. some of the issues that were brought up, the illegal or non-licensed ones i don't find that jermaine to the discussion. if someone else is not licensed and playing loud music and going after hours, i'm not sure that's the reason why i would be allowed to break the covenants that i signed. i guess i'm in agreement also then on new montgomery on the basis that nothing has been discussed on that. they haven't even opened that particular location and it would be a serious lack of due process. >> i do agree with my fellow

commissioners. i do believe that you have seriously donald a bullet this evening. that you are an allowing that this board has actually allows you to keep one at this point. i hope this is a huge lesson. i have got a 24-year-old, trust me, i know. so i will concur with my fellow commissioners. >> okay. so i will make a motion then to uphold the denial of the 16th street permit location. but over turn the revocation of the 100 new montgomery street location. >> on the basis that there wasn't due process for that given location? >> correct. no basis for, no evidence that it should have been revoked. it would be a violation of due process for us to uphold the revocation without a hearing.

>> okay. >> we have a motion then from commissioner hurtado to uphold the revocation for the 16th street location and we are basically reinstating the permit over ruling the revocation for the 100 new montgomery lotion -- location and this is on the basis there was no evidence. on that motion for the split motion, commissioner fung? aye, president huang? >> aye. the revocation is upheld for 16th street. >> we are going to call item 6

a and 6 b which is heard together. >> item 6a & 6b: items 6a and 6b shall be heard together: 6aa appeal no. 13-043 omar zaarour, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent 785 valencia street. appealing the imposition of penalty on march 27, 2013, for construction work done without a permit. application no. 2013/03/27/3171. for hearing today. 6bb appeal no. 13-044 omar zaarour, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent 570 green street. appealing the imposition of penalty on march 27, 2013, for construction work done without a permit. application no. 2013/03/27/3175. >> item 6a & 6b: items 6a and 6b shall be heard together: 6aa appeal no. 13-043 omar zaarour, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent 785 valencia street. appealing the imposition of penalty on march 27, 2013, for construction work done without a permit. application no. 2013/03/27/3171. for hearing today. 6bb appeal no. 13-044 omar zaarour, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent 570 green street. appealing the imposition of penalty on march 27, 2013, for construction work done without a permit. application no. 2013/03/27/3175. for hearing today. #1234 1234 you will have 14 minutes total. >> my name is omar zaarour. i work for city atm. we do installation and service for atm machines. we did no construction. they were installed inside the door ways

off the street. i didn't think we needed any permits. we received the violation, got the permits to remove them and removed them since. i would like to appeal the fine. >> did you say this is what you do? >> yes. >> and you have never been notified that you needed a permit? >> we didn't do any construction. >> but you have never been notified? >> we have applied for permits for construction when we put them through a wall. but since there was no construction and it was basic leaf in the doorway. >> it was solely for the electrical? >> no. we didn't do anything. >> it's a stand-alone? >> yes. >> but you needed electrical. >> we just plugged it in.

>> you didn't install any new electrical. >> it's just plugging it in. >> this is your business, so you wouldn't know all the rules and regulations applicable to your business. >> 90 percent they are inside. >> it's those outside ones that you typically need a permit for but not the inside ones. >> inside is just a fix you are in the business. >> there has never been a violation? >> everything is inside the business. it's like a fix you -- fixture of a business. >> these don't require any anchors. >> some of them are bolted to the floor. >> there is some construction. you are bolting to the floor. otherwise they can take it

away. >> bolting is like hanging a picture on the wall. >> okay. >> i understand. let's let them sort that out. >> have you ever installed something in the same manner and never received a violation. >> we removed all the ones we've had notices on. >> so that means you were aware that this process was improper. >> at the same time we received violations on four locations at the same time. prior to that nothing. >> but you had previously done these without permits. >> no. i had one location on sutter street and we put the setback and that was permitted from the beginning and another one i took over a location on

hey street. >> she's starting specifically prior to these particular atm's did you install in other stores the same similar atm's without a permit without a problem? >> no. these were the only ones. >> you had done those without permits? >> these are different. these are stand a -alone. >> okay. i understand. thank you. >> how long have you been doing this? >> 2001. >> san francisco only? >> all over the bay area. mostly san francisco. >> okay. >> is this a new type of atm? >> no. same ones you see everywhere. >> you have been doing the same ones and you never had the similar situation prior? >> we don't put very many

outside. >> if i said i think i can do some atm business and you would come and if i called you four years ago, where would you put that machine in my business? >> sure. >> that's what she was asking, have you done previous applications without any problems before just anchoring them down. you have never done that prior? >> no. >> no one has ever -- i have never heard anybody having to need a permit to do it inside. >> do you understand why you need a permit now? >> if i had to do construction i would. >> you don't understand what construction was? >> is that your understanding now? >> now it is. >> okay. all right. i guess

we'll hear from them. thank you. >> mr. duffy? commissioners, joe duffy. the department received a complaint around august 2012 atm bolt down installed and other disabled access. there is a couple of things. around that time if i'm not mistaken, listening to all the inspectors, i think we received multiple complaints of atm's installed, 50-60 complaints. when that happens, it could be companies turning each other in. we were in inundated with these. we had inspectors going around writing these up. you do

need permits for these even if it's storefront. i mentioned the disabled access. there is a whole code in the building code for atm's for reaching. it has to be access ebl for the wheelchair. it may topple over someone. a building permit is required. if it's plugged into an existing, it's probably not electrical but if it requires new wires, it requires an electrical permit. we did issued notices of violation on 21st of august 2012 on green street and 24th of august for

789 valencia street. we issued a second notice of violation later that year because they hadn't still come in and got a permit. then in march of 2013, 27th of march they applied for a permit, we signed it on april. as much as we wrote 50 or 60 notices of violations, we signed to legalize them. one thing i noticed about the issuance of the permits when the gentleman came to get his permits, he came in and got them, he went through our building plan check but he never came to the 3rd floor where people come to pay for their penalties. we might have

been sympathetic at the time. you are not going to enjoy having this here. you are going to take it out and it's not on going. we are sympathetic. they never came to our counter to ask that. that's what i do as a senior building inspector, we get the penalties and sometimes we drop the penalties and we have that flexibility if i want to call it that. they never even asked for that and here we are. if anybody has any questions, i will be happy to answer them. >> i have question. say i have a drop safe and i want it attached to the floor so a thief doesn't walk off, does that require a permit? >> doesn't say in the building code it's exempt from the code. i would say yes. >> every buys that -- business that we have here has a notice of violation. i'm just trying to get the point that drilling

4 holes requires, i have a drill press at my home, if it's bolted to the ground i'm in violation. >> i think what inspector is saying is it's an ada issue. >> yeah. we definitely want to go over it. it's in the building code. there is a whole section on atm's. >> these are the little boxes. i must be out of tune because we've done a lot of banks and every atm ideal with is in concrete. >> they have some issues with them as well. from our point of view they needed the permit and we probably would have given them some reduction had they come to the counter. it never went through the building inspection division where

people come to ask for a reduction. we deal with that everyday. >> do you object to having reduction now? >> i wouldn't be opposed to it. it's up to you guys. that's why we are here. >> thank you. >> commissioners, it looks like mr. sanchez would like to speak to you on this. >> sure. >> real briefly, any at m that would be on the exterior would require a planning review. it may need neighborhood notice, it may need provisional use, we need to see this if it does have impacts on the public right away. >> thank you. any public comments on this item? >> seeing no public comment. you have 6 minutes of

rebuttal. >> are all the atm machines ada ready? i know the requirements of space foot by foot in front of them, all of these have that space. the were not ada blocking in anyway at all. >> thank you. >> do you want to respond to this? >> yes. i hired a permit expediter, he never told me that we can go there. i wouldn't be here tonight if i knew i could have done this over there. thank you. that's why it took so long. >> anything further from the department? >> no. commissioners the matters are yours. >> i'm going to move to reduce the penalty given what we've heard from the department. i'm sorry it had to come to this and we are here.

>> greechlt >> the motion is to reduce both to two times? >> yes. okay. >> on that motion from the president to reduce both fees. commissioner fung, aye, commissioner hurtado, highest, lazarus, both penalties are reduced to two times the regular fee. >> we'll move on to item no. 7. item 7:appeal no. 13-008nicole wright, appellanttss vs. zoning administrator, respondent 264 dolores street aka 260-264 dolores street. appealing a notice of violation & penalty dated jan. 05, 2013, addressed to revocable trust of edward litke and wellness 264 center, regarding allegations that the subject property is being used as an unauthorized commercial establishment in violation of the planning code.

for hearing today. note: briefing schedule re-instated by board on april >> we'll move on to item no. 7. sf 71234 >> this can start with the appellant. >> is there an appellant here or anyone on her behalf? >> from victor and cynthia we are looking at the option of rescheduling. >> why don't you state your name. >> my name is nicole. >> you are asking the board to reschedule this to a later date. why don't you explain at

to the board. >> there is a couple reasons, the three reasons is i'm using my home as a residence and i have leases and documents to prove that. the other reason is that when i was attacked last summer i had some pretty severe disabilities and i have been on bed rest for a few years. it's pretty difficult for know get things done on my own. so, i brought my friend in to work for me for a few days. i'm just physically in capable of doing this on my own unfortunately. i would like for you to have a chance to review these documents and the third reason is this woman is a suspect in my attempted murder. i filed a

restraining order against her and i feel very uncomfortable in her presence. i would like to be here another date where she is not in this room. >> are you finished? >> i think so. >> why don't we take into consideration the request for the rescheduling and hear from the zoning administrator. solely for the question of continuances. >> thank you. planning department. the department would be opposed to rescheduling request. this item has been rescheduled once. they called the board of appeals to allow four times to submit the materials. if i can go over that timeline. this hearing was scheduled for april 10 and rescheduled to tonight's hearing and ey