here. is there a problem with

the computer? >> he's back now. >> we need the mic. >> i reside at 3155, 16th street. i'm asking respectfully that you uphold the revocation due to good neighbor policy. when you had the hearing when this license was granted, i was there. it was changed, they applied for 3 a.m. but they granted 1 a.m. closure which

the rule stayed they should start closing a half hour before the time granted. i have basically 9 videos of them operating past 1:00 in the morning. and i would like to play you one. this is from 5/13 at 2:03 a.m. right outside my apartment window. it's very short. >> it's the noise from the bar? >> no. they have a boom box and a sound system. they are also

operating a gas powered generator that powers i don't know what, maybe the electricity for this. there is also a side table and chair. you can see it draws 6 bars on my block and it draws everybody underneath my window. [inaudible] i have another one that's from july 15. at 1:55 a.m.. same scenario. i was notified by the dpw that they called the person, mr. stevens that they violated the permit and he received a certified

mail notice that he was in violation. after june 24th for whatever reason he was not for the most part was not showing up. so there was none after that. he was operating a sound system, a power generator. the gentleman before me said there were other carts in the area, but there haven't been any that i have seen. there are more on mission street. since he has been gone i saw one which i called the police and they came immediately and moved that person on. needless to say this attracts people lie magnets under my windows this is a mixed use area. thank you. >> can i clarify one thing. you

indicated that they weren't there after june 24th? >> no, i'm sorry. that was a misstatement. i was not videotaping. they were there once, button july 5, all the other days, they did not show up. whether they would have stayed passed that time is -- [inaudible] >> okay. [inaudible] okay. we

can start rebuttable now. i assume we have no public comment. >> you have three minutes. >> mr. stevens would like to make a brief statement and i would like to continue on the rebuttal. >> first of all i would like to apologize. >> can you switch the microphones? >> i would like to apologize for what i saw was not acceptable. however, i will say that gentlemen there was acting like he was a decent customer of ours and his house is directly over our cart. we weren't aware that we were causing a situation like that. a lot of people really really enjoy this cart. we had support from the bars in front of us. if he had

asked us nicely at all or to lower that music. i would have done that in a heartbeat. i didn't operate at 100 montgomery because i wanted to purchase a better cart. recently i have operated there and it has a lot of support by everybody there. a lot of the businesses as well. thank you. >> couple of things on the rebuttal. on june 1, [inaudible] he noticed that he did receive something from clint over at the dpw and it says, let me look into the non-permitted vendors, can you provide me with information so we can do an investigation. i heard mr. kwaung say the only

policing power is against the people who actually follow the rules and get the permits and go through licensing procedure. the other vendors who truly present a hazard to the public are the ones that they have the power against. that's not very fair. i also want to get draw the attention to dpw order no. 180469 which says a suspension of revocation in the public right of way at 3153, 16 street. it doesn't specify montgomery nor the order. which again the following one location and it gives the location at 33153. in it's

power, if the board see's fit to uphold the revocation based on neighbor comments or whatever else, we would request that the new montgomery street, they have been operating there and they have been following all the rules. the young man would bring a passion to what they do. i think you saw that in the video that they do bring a passion to what they do. mr. stevens said it was not acceptable. he apologized and i truly believe they are sorry and we hope the board allows them to utilize both locations in its discretion. thank you. >> i have a question. how withel -- well does the appellant know the rules on the food cart. there is one specific related to music of

noise ambient. it's not very loud delta that above the ambient that they are allowed to provide. >> the video is damning. as mr. steve's said this is a man that 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