strumental in getting jeff and laura's to open a restaurant called north of panhandle prior to moving to the broke that was a laundromat and there is currently fighting over the church that's been active and not active for about a decade now i remember which was a stool place and a plant plays i got my transmission fixed i've been to this restaurant not for will dinner i understand the plight it goes further down down grove street and protrudes into the residential neighborhood but again, this is a permit and

i think that i differ from many of the public here that if they are not abiding by the law that there would be enforcement i would like to see as my fellow commissioners see a compromises and openness with the neighbors although the neighborhoods has changed dramatically over the last 15 years those folks call this home this is where children are in their living room i i mean, i have two children they do homework and if i there was a giant game blow that will not be the most conducive things for them to do their homework in that window i don't know what we can do this is a permit for the outside seating i want a compromise or some kind of

genius efforts on the part of restaurant to work with the neighbors many say a permit it can be taken away as the department indicated that's kind of what i'm coming green from. >> i'm confused go permits the appeals going in two distributors are confusing i want to tell you what i want to see i'd like to see that we uphold the dpws notation of the 20 seat 10 tables 20 seats and uphold dpepz recommendation that those that's good until 9:30 p.m. but the permit contingent on closing the garage doors at the time the

outdoor seating permit stop which i guess is 9:30 p.m. >> that's what i like to see so i don't know how to make move that but that's - i think that's again, the restaurant gets 20 seats not the full compliments in front of of the doors the neighbors are protected with the buffer zone and litter buffer zone and protected by the closer of the garage after a certain time and are protected therefore restaurant guys are not going to be happy about that so that would be my recommendation for a compromise i don't know how to present that in terms of the permits exploding u colliding with each other.

>> there was a automobile repair shop sorry automobile repair shop and a garage when the doors are shut when it is shut it is relatively stuffy so air conditioning and the technology in the upper roof (laughter). >> your take. >> i'm of a different opinion. >> okay. >> a business establishes itself and if it is creating noise it needs to be controlled internally there is no basis for a business to utilize the public air space for their sound i've been consisted otherwise this permit holder should do that however that is not before us what is before us is the two appeals i'm not

supportive of them getting the change on the condition and i'm supportive of the neighbors the appellants in revoking this permit until they have the ability to communicate better and work better with their neighbors. >> i'll occur the communication has not been good and not in the interest of the neighborhood to approve that request i am not how can we condition this deny it or give them more time to - >> they're going to have to make the first move and improve the situation arrest but that takes 4 votes. >> i don't disagree with your

position i was trying to find a compromise a way to stimulate a compromise but to follow our lead commissioner i'll support you. >> if we deny the permit how soon can we apply is there years. >> there's the year moratorium. >> unless we have a condition. >> either condition or move it down the calendar. >> the other approach which is quite different we have the permit but limit it to 6 months during which time they need to work things out and dpw needs to monitor it but - >> but a year moratorium when a permit is denied by definite existing conditions that

prevents the permits and one year prohibition is denied that condition is recommend later they can reapply before the one year if it is not recommend it is piloted for one year. >> and in this case for your guidance mr. bryan if that condition is the noise that goes through the neighborhood if they made the took the step of closing the doors that wyoming that - provide that opportunity for them to reapply given the testimony we've heard when the doors are closed the noise is quieted significantly. >> the only concern or the

ambiguity is how to determine that the noise has been down sufficiently so a decimal situation it is hard. >> i think we're going to use the scientific terms squish area i don't know if there is an approach make it 9:30 they have to stop usage of the outdoor tables and the dpw access after six months the situation. >> i guess i'm resist to that we know the basic reason it is unacceptable level of noise with the windows. >> thank you. >> i think the outdoor tables have the potential for addressing adding to the noise

reporter and so we have very little ability unless we condition an approval to be able to say you know i'm not supportive of a 9:30 closer people should have no more peace than that and the concern as commissioner swig said none it is going to leave happy here and to i mean because the neighborhood again has flushed failure richard and changed and as many of the public has stated not here to stop growth if we condition it to the point our happy and frank is happy and still give them a limited leash at which point they determine

their own future but a short leash and at which point not net the conditions or adjusted to the neighborhood the petition can be withdrawn. >> 4 months and the doors come down at 8. >> 8? >> wow. >> i support that. >> make a motion. >> madam president. >> so for clarification purposes so that would be 20 seats in the areas as ruled by dpw which would stay out there until 9:30 according to the dpw approval with the conditions the garage doors koumd come down at 8:30. >> you want to bring the garage

doors the same time as the tables and there's no reason for dinner time. >> the restaurant operator in me felt the same - and the - and the realization that 9:30 it is the end of the dinner hour and the dinner drinking i stuck with the fact that dpw noted a 9:30 stop time that seemed to be keep is simple and close the door at 9:30 and give them 20 seats. >> i'm more inclined to 6 months to give it a trial there's a capital investment that can be mitigated after 4 months also gets us more of the calendar to see if if there

recent seasonal differences. >> i'm hesitant i'm not sure either of the things will work. >> none leaves happy it is 9:30 or 9. >> maybe i should go with my gut i'll make a motion i'm going to move on the permit holders appeal of the conditions to depend on the basis that their existing relationships with the neighborhood in terms of sound has not been good and the idea to grant the appeal

from the neighborhoods and to revoke the permit on the basis that the - there's excessive sound already coming out of the restaurant. >> commissioner fung through there are two appeals in fact only one permit so our last part to revoke on the boos of sound it is one permit for the staff and your correct i'll stay with that. >> it is 20 to revoke this on the basis of excessive sound. >> okay or revoke a permit. >> an this motion commissioner president lazarus no

commissioner vice president honda snow commissioner wilson is absent and commissioner swig no thank you the vote is 20th century 1 to 3 the motion fails and absent another motion this permit is uphold as is. >> so my motion would be to - again, i'm getting - i need our help cynthia goldstein's to uphold dpws notation of the 20 seats only in front of the areas why they've designated 70 feet off of divisadero and to their condition that is until 9:30 at night and on the other added condition the garage doors come

down at 9:30 p.m. and no later and that in consideration of the neighborhood disturbance of the ongoing disturbance of noise which. nationals from the bar. >> do you want to have the permit extend for every or for 6 months. >> please. so you're asking then to uphold the permit with additional conditions one that the garage doors close at 9:30 p.m. and a six months duration on the basis of the concerns of the neighbors with respect to the noise. >> sound disturbance by the restaurant. >> okay.

>> with the expiration date they'll have to reapply and it could be appealed again, the administrative action. >> yes. >> okay. >> that's the only for me, the only test to see if it works. >> okay. very good. >> so to reiterate we have a motion if commissioner swig to upholds this permit on two conditions that the garage doors be closed at 9:30 p.m. which is the same time as the condition on the adversary seating on conditions that this permit expire in 6 months and this is on the basis of ongoing neighborhood sound disturbance okay on that motion commissioner fung

with conditions it requires 4 votes. >> what if they get their permit. >> i from commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner vice president honda commissioner wilson is absent thank you the vote is 4 to one this permit is uphold with the conditions on guess garage doors and expiration of 6 months thank you. >> thank you seeing none is happy next item rosemary and margo versus the department of public works the property on 5th avenue protesting the folks of an alteration permit for the

construction of changes to front stairs and reconfigure the stairs with a landing >> thank you, commissioners i'm rosemary as indicated. >> can you bring the mike closer. >> is that better as indicated i live at the property adjacent to the property at it 21 where the garage project is in process i'm filing this on behalf of myself and my neighbor and margo she's not able to be here due to family obligations two small children we're filing this because the stairs that were rebuilt for which the permit was issued didn't consortium to the standards for the property and the character of the neighborhood included in the

packet as identified it is important to note while the permit was issued on april 28th the demolition and reconfiguration of the stairs took place other than march of 2015 this is sub stated by letters that were present by my neighbors and that should be included in under is also a letter included in the packet from john howard dated excuse me. there is also included in the packet the permit from april 25th and eight pictures in the packet that show the current configuration of the stairs and you can see there is substantially complete i don't know if it is worth putting up the pictures for purposes of sharing with the public and with the commissioners and i'm glad that somebody went

before me i couldn't figure out how to use this devices there are pictures of the demolition okay that took place on or about the first part of this year and as you can see the demolition of the stairs took place - the prior industry that existed shows this kind of open space this is the permitted property and as you can see the front stairs were straight down okay. thank you i'm not really good at this bear with me add built structure for which i don't know if you can quiet quiet see that well, that xhuldz

a front structure that closes off and adjacent to the property on the north side so the concern that we have margo and i this building was built without proper permitting review rather the stairs was repositioned and not in character with the rest of the neighborhoods property in addition, this process of actually initially the construction before proper permits is something that happened more than once on that project the original demolition for the garage project condemn mentioned on or about october 10th the permit was approved october 15th and only halted because i complained as a result of the the excavation started to encroach on my property and it was readily plans to do

foundation work on or adjacent to any property this is not a loan incident this construction following the permit other concerns that we have as noted on page 2 is excuse me. page 5 is that the construction that was largely implemented didn't seem to be consistent with the building code it is the stairwell on the right side i don't know if you can see that arrest overhead please. this particular wall on the north side adjacent neighbor that wall is less than 3 feet from the property line and i don't believe that there's proper one hour fire resistant wall in place it was largely contradicted before a

reconfiguration of the stairs that's our concern in addition as you can see again, you can't see quite with you there is actually a lack of an 18 inch under execute into the black top in front of the house as constructed building we believe has substantial deficiency in terms of meeting the building code and lastly in addition to all of those issues i should state when we talk about overhead please - we talk about something that is consistent with what is in the neighborhood we're talking about something that is has open things that are consistent with the character and properly permitted and planned by

planning i feel like this has been something that is an ongoing project i don't want to get into a history of the project we're talking about the permits for those particular stairs but in looking at the as built stairs our belief it didn't conform to something that would characteristic of the neighborhood something with open balance industry and the ability to match the character of the housing hours in the neighborhood we want something will be consistent with the proper level of the permit and dbi seconds to insure a one hour property line and like so sfutd included in the brief are pictures that district the before and after as mentioned a letter from the gentleman my neighbor who indicates he too is

troubled by this and substantiates the stairs were built before april 28th and a letter dead october 11, 2013, substantiating this project commenced in total before a permit was issued i would ask the commission to review this and revoke the permit thank you. >> ms. gibb our building is to the south. >> yes. >> okay. >> it is let's see if i can find it an exhibit that shows that. >> page 18. >> okay. >> yes. sorry. >> page 18 shows the condition of the houses so this would be the house that

is to the north of my property my house is right there. >> thank you. >> i should also mention. >> thank you you've answered the question. >> may i ask a question what's the material i can see from the photos the front of the is a stairway what's itself material between the two walls of the stairway is it brick or wood. >> between the two hours you're talking about the wall or the - >> no what's the stairway made of. >> it appears to be made out of wood and so not a hint of brick. >> no and a hint of no greenery that front facade that faces the sidewalk actually looks to pursuing protrude into the public space. >> thank you. i've answered the question. >> thank you.

>> okay. we can hear from the permit holder now. >> good work i'm george pollard representing sf garage and the clients i want to get to page 6 of rose and margaret's brief brief sorry with history and we've had some history i agree with our

clients and garbage both made mistakes our firm made a mistake by not paying attention we have four permits on this project first a garage permit adjoining the property it clearly said if there's an underpinning project we spent months going back and forth on each side that was determined that rose didn't want the ground and we ended up moving the grounding garage to be 5 feet over and did the graduate injection we that permit thin o then the spares or

stairs are failing since the 60s another preservation i thought said they were not the original stairs so a work order to replace the stairs our nithsz we got a third permit the intent from the client not to replace the stays in kind but wished having to have the stairs as they are now to limit the neighbors property surveys stared our ethnicities was not to accurately show what the client wanted for stair we dropped the ball you are second mistake was actually not have planning sign it so any permit on the exterior of the property we need a signature from mr. larkin we made 2 facing mistakes

our last mistake not our last mistake is our fourth permit is we got the permit as requested to change the stairs as what they wanted we got that permit and went to the preservation fine they issued the permit the stairs were 80 percent built contaminate ironically i agree with the folks i actually don't like the stairs i don't care i don't like the stairs the massaging it the same as the adjoining stairs it is somewhat ironic my request we amend this permit and amend the drawings to comply with each of rose and margaret wishes the first one the stair design that we actually put in open