enforcement action on that i do note that there are several different proposals now to devise controls. our department is working on trying to come up with a broader approach because a lot of these changes have been district by district. in the hayes valley maybe different than another district and it should apply citywide and most of the city's zoning districts. not all of them are subject to formal retail control but it's much easier for us to implement one form of standards for each of the districts with a different definition. that would ultimately result in legislation that would not be enforceable. some of the ideas that have been floating around are including international stores which are not currently done and also looking more into the corporate structures of the

businesses. these are things we discussed and is practically and difficult to do and looking at the research. we have to apply to every permit basically that comes across our counter for any kind of work and any kind of new commercial use. we want to ensure the permit process for the small businesses is not undully burden some and we have to provide. there is a balance here and we caution that we have go n down a bad path in the past when we have a notice and at first it applied to all changes of use and we find that the only uses that could wait for 30 days was the larger stores for waiting for the process to conclude. that is provided and the section notices were withdrawn and the former use controls were applied. we are looking to have

a happy balance here that would still allow small businesses to thrive and to have appropriate review. and regards to the findings, while i disagree with the boards decisions, i find it crafting by the boards to enforce this change and interpretation which would include leases and we would suggest the board adopt these findings and we would take this into account and bring this up and any retail former use changes to specifically change to not include that. thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question, mr. sanchez? what happens wha when a former retail like gap opens something that is g bop and find out it belongs to gap.

is it formally a retail because it belonged to the larger? >> no. simply being owned by a larger corporation would not trigger the the formula retail control. that is one thing being considered by the board of supervisors is that the parent company itself is a former retail use, then any spin off would be considered formal retail use. if you are owned by gap, then that would be considered formula retail use. we would have to rely upon affidavits for this. these are permits processed over the counter. >> i imagine you wouldn't find out until after they are already installed and up and running. >> that's why the affidavit getting synagogue testify -- someone to testimony whether or not is to testify afterwards. >> mr. duffy?

>> commissioners, i just wanted to the work currently taking place at the property is under the rendition replacement. that permit which was suspended and then reinstated by the board inspections how to take clear from the building inspector. i went to the site to check that they had not started work. they suspended the permit. i was not able to get to see the plans but our inspections services will check that all the work is they are doing it under. they got it on the 12th of june for covering up some walls. >> so you are monitoring it is what you are saying? >> i spoke to the owner of the property today and he said they

are only doing work on the permits that were issued. i will check to make sure that is the case. i wasn't able to see the plans today on short notice but yes, we are monitoring it. >> i would imagine no matter what former retail or tenant, they are going to apply for various small permits, right? >> right, we would consider it retail and it's an existing retail store. we leave all the other planning zoning the formula retail playing. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> madam president, i'm thomas reynolds. we met before on this

issue. i would infer on you to adopt the findings which i think is important and in recognition of the reality of what's going on with these kind of stores opening in finding as you did last time that the lease should be considered as well. that seems to be a very important step and now with others, with short circuited the process that should be on the record and should be there to guide the planning department and the others. i think you made a very wise decision and is helpful. i do think we'll see legislation coming from the board of supervisors that will include international stores, we know that osca has another 50 stores internationally. we had this before on fillmore street where the gap opened an athletic brand and it was a part of the whole gap process. same with starbucks that opened a new natural food store and so,

these are clearly ways around the city's i think very wise attempt to limit the affect of chain stores in small districts such as ours and your finding is a very important part of that. i would encourage you to adopt those findings. >> any other public comment? >> seeing none, the matter is submitted. >> you were credited madam director on working on this draft and i want to ensure that our city attorney has given his stamp of approval? >> he participated in the draft >> okay. i did review it analyzed i -- and i would be comfortable to adopting the findings. >> move to adopt. >> you forgot to thank robert. >> mr. pacheco?

>> that was from the president? commissioner fung. okay on that motion from commissioner fung to adopt the findings, no new changes. president hwang? aye, lazarus? no. commissioner honda? aye. the vote is 3-1. thank you. >> call item no. 5 item 5: appeal no. 13-056 walter haas, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent planning dept. approval 1 spruce street. protesting the issuance on april 25, 2013, to john maniscalco & mary tesluk, permit to alter a building interior remodel and horizontal addition at rear on 1st and 2nd storiess. application no. 2012/02/23/4708s. for hearing today.>> call item no. 5 sf 51234 this matter is on for hearing tonight. i

understand the parties have an agreement. i have the appellant here to speak to the board. >> is there anyone here representing? >> maybe he can come up at the same time. that would be great. >> thank you, commissioners. i'm scott on behalf of walter haas. there has been some amended plans that mr. maniscalco is a permit holder. it allows everybody to move forward and be neighbors again. we would like to have the permit approved with the amended plans and we can be on our way. >> okay. thank you mr. maniscalco. >> on the project sponsor. i agree, we have come to an

agreement that is tenable for both parties. it's to the benefit of both of us. we are happy with the proceedings and would like to approve the plans and move forward. >> thank you. any comment? any public comment. >> commissioners, it's yours. >> is that the plan that were submitted with the brief? >> yes. the revisions. >> okay. any comments? i'm going to move to grant the appeal and approve on the condition that the attached, the plans attached to the submissions by mr. -- and the changes on the condition that those are also adopted. >> is that on the basis of the

parties agreement? >> correct. >> okay. >> thank you for that. >> we have a motion from the president to grant this appeal, uphold the permit with adoption of revised plans. the plans are dated june 13, on the basis of the parties fremont. on that motion to uphold the revised plans, commissioner fung, lazarus, honda? ayes. thank you, the is upheld with the adoption of revised plans. >> thank you.

>> commissioners, that was the last item that involved the planning department of building inspection other than the one that was held off with jurisdiction request. i don't know if you have any concerns about the staff staying for that item as it comes back to us or? >> we can find out how much longer they need. if it's going to be a long time. >> they may not need to be here for that item anyway unless you think there is a planning or issue? can we call the next item? >> let's see if he comes back quickly just to give us a status. >> just to remind the public that item no. 6 has been withdrawn. this is the appeal at

744 carolina street. >> are you prepared to resolve the matter? >> the requestor is not in. >> let's wait in the the requestor is here. so we are returning to item 4 b. >> we did meet in the hallway for a while. >> tenants want a year and we offered six months until the end of the christmas break because he's a teacher which would be early january. we don't have an agreement on that yet. we were hoping for a

compromise along those lines. that's where it is right now. >> okay. all right. thank you. >> yes, again, i'm fine with them leaving sometime after the christmas break to accommodate mr. church who is a schoolteacher. he mentioned that and again i realize that they said that three months would buy be a little bit too short a time and i think that is a fair mutual compromise and i thank you and leave that at your discretion. thank you very much. >> thank you. let's return to -- are you giving them more time to continue their discussions or do you want to proceed to a vote? >> proceed to a vote. i don't think there is any reason to do that. >> no. we are in deliberation. i have already stated my view

of where i would like to go. >> the question is how to implement this without a granting jurisdiction. i'm not sure there is a way. well, if the permit holder is willing to continue negotiating, the amount of time, approximated 3 months if we granted jurisdiction into having the matter heard. it would be the same amount of time depending on the outcome or the permit could be revoked altogether. so there is risk. i don't think we can make the parties compromise on the spot here tonight. i feel based on my earlier comments, that jurisdiction is warranted here. i would move to

grant. >> okay. just a quick comment for both parties. i'm not prepared to revoke the permit. but i am prepared to support the jurisdiction and that i believe that will take us out to that timeframe anyway. >> okay. >> commissioners, another option is to delay your decision until our next meeting if you can reach more time. >> i don't want to delay. >> i don't think we should bring them back in a week. >> we are currently scheduling new appeals for august 14th. you can also order us to schedule it as a later time if you want or anytime >> let's go with our normal course and let our parties have an opportunity to resolve. >> yeah. i believe we have a motion from the president to

grant both jurisdiction request on demo and site. on that motion to grant both jurisdiction request which would include a five-day appeal period. commissioner fung, aye, hurtado is absent. lazarus? aye. commissioner honda? aye. the vote is 4-0. mr. church has a 5 day period to appeal. >> i just want to make sure that the appellants understand the time period under which need to submit appeals. okay? i see nodding. okay. >> okay. thank you. so then we'll call the next item which the item no. 7. 92 item 7: appeal no. 13-033 paula datesh, appellanttss vs. arts commission, respondent appealing the denial /

non-renewal on march 21, 2013 of street artists certificate. certificate no. 8663. for hearing today.item no. 7. 92 sf 71234 we will start with you and you have seven minutes. >> good evening, i remember you commissioner fung. >> wow, not really much has changed except i left. i was in new york for seven years and i came back and well, okay. so, i just want to talk about the san francisco arts commission code in section 2408 b regarding the procedure to assist then revoked whatever street artist permit. this section violates city article 6en titled executive branch and commission

which states that unless otherwise provided by the charter, the affirmative vote of the majority of the members shall be at the denial of the permits. if the street level -- there is a four commissioner and there is a vote t city charter mandates that it go before the full commission, 12 commission for a vote. in this case, my case, it did not. it didn't even appear on the agenda. i was in the hospital and by the time the papers were forwarded to me i had 2 days to prepare a response and send it. the first page of my response was a letter from the university of pittsburgh medical center stating that i was an inpatient. i asked for a proponent and i didn't get a response. they signed for my response and this idea where was i at the time it was clear.

all they had to do was read the papers before them. article 24, section 24, 08 of the san francisco police report talks about a fair hearing. i didn't get a fair hearing. they held the hearing without me on march 13th. i didn't have an opportunity to present any kind of evidence, i didn't have an opportunity to cross-examination anyone or to prepare for it. i requested a cd audio tape of it. what i got was a blank tape and when it appeared on the s f gov website was the first time i got to listen to it. there were a number of procedural violations that took place and in fact they forgot to turn off the microphone at the end. you

can hear howard saying we really got her this time and there was a lot of laughter. well, so that was not a fair hearing. i sent an e-mail within five days according to the policeman date. i didn't get a response. that was that. now, i just want to go through this enormous amount of paperwork that i got. first, lazarus quotes the basis of this hearing is a 1983 city attorney letter. he didn't cite this letter or reference it. i couldn't find it. i went through this entire blue book and i didn't find miss the anything and went through the police code and didn't find

miss the and without more information, he had nothing base it on. now i want to go through these violations. selling in a space not designated by the board of supervisors, that didn't happen. my only use is permit about 6 or 8 times. i spent more time in city hall before the full arts commission asking why is john constantly calling the police. it's all public record. or why is daniel hennessy making claims and running away and why is this going on. i spent more time in this room under public comment talking about these on going problems. i went up to rebecca quill twice because in 2005, howard made a mistake. he said,

call me and i will tell you if there is a quorum. lucky me, kathy barnes who told me to always leave a paper trail and always follow up with a paper trail. this woman accused me of stalking her. he did not appear in criminal court. i commuted for two years on that from new york. if i can quickly go through these violations, according to the blue book there is supposed to be minor and major violations. for minor violations and i'm talking about this blue book which is online. the first one by mail, it might be verified t photograph. the second morning would be calling in for a hearing where you would have a rebuttal period and then the

3rd one, i don't want where it would be. these are minor violations which i cannot even verify. i don't even see any proof of them but i didn't get any by mail. these occurred over a time period of december last year until i believe february. so there was plenty of time for mail to the sent to me. i didn't get anything in the mail. so they didn't follow procedure in that way. selling in a space not designated by the board of supervisors, going through this long book of howard lazar which is very strange, i did not find any photographic evidence. i found a portion of a logbook of december 7. 30 seconds? >> you have an opportunity on

rebuttal to continue. >> okay. i'm going to move right to the heart of the matter. i was selling at the top of the embarcadero which is half a city block from the plaza where john was. the supposed violations that did not take place took place in that location. the people that made these comments to me which are included in your packet which are -- >> finish your statement. >> okay. this is not stalking. this is howard lazar on a public plaza on a phone to somebody. i'm not in his face, i have not approached him. in a logbook, he claims that i got on a trolley from 25 van ness, went down market street and went down powell street. we

were talking about the giants. howard lazar and shook their both and he approached me and claimed in the logbook that i said something to them. it did not happen. i live close to the park. very often i walk to plaza and eat. >> you will have another minute to continue your argument. >> thank you. we'll hear from the department now. >> good evening commissioners, i'm howard lazar. by way of background. in 2003, the arts commission denied her renewal

of arts certificate after finding here in violation of not selling arts by the commission and disrupting the businesses of other street artist. in 2007, she applied for a street artist certificate and two hearings were held on her request, the commission denied her request. on november 7, 2007, the board of appeals over ruled the arts commission and ordered the commission to give her a certificate. we did. it's not six years later. she has committed the same type of violations as well as other is and once again, the arts commissioners are the street artist committee voted to deny her renewal of the certificate. the committee states clearly that an appeal on violations is not appealable to any other

level of the art commission, but it is appealable of course to the board of appeals. now, i wish if you will please hand these out as evidence can you pass them up? i'm sorry. >> you didn't submit any? >> i didn't submit earlier. i didn't have time. i was dealing with other cases. i want to apologize. what i have are photographed, i can go through each of the charges. >> has any of this been provided? >> yes, we provided this stuff with our notice of hearing to her. but there are photographs of, for example selling items she didn't make. >> you can put it on the overhead. i can see it better. okay. >> that is actually multiple violations of her on that one incident. first of all that table is over sized. it's not a

4 foot table in length. it's longer. it's not a designated space for the board of supervisors. it is opposite the entrance to the bart and our law says you must be within 10 feet within the outer entrance of an entrance and she is selling work that we didn't approve. the artist is mark tetro. i got a copy that he wrote to you extremely upset over this. this was never authorized by him. he is asking you to uphold the decision to deny her renewal of permit. you see multiple violations on that one incident. >> when was the time of the photo? >> hold on. i can get that for you. that would be february 11,

2013. >> okay. >> so it was that photo. in fact let me replace it with this one which is colored. if that's any better. same photo. >> so, and here is one. she said she showed a picture of nate talking on the phone. here is one by a street artist of when you can see how close she is to me. that's how she was following me around that day at the plaza. it obstructed my duty to gather information from street artist and prohibited them from telling me of violations that were going on at the time and prohibited the ability to answer