>> welcome to the january 17th, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer this evening is board president darryl honda. he's joined tonight by our vice president frank fung, commissioner ann lazarus and bobbie wilson. rick swig will be absent. brad rusty is a deputy city attorney. he'll provide the board with any legal advice tonight. gary cantera is the board legal assistant. i'm cynthia goldsteen. we're also joined by represent

from the city department. at the table in front is corey tee the assistant zoning administrator. he's also representing the planning department and plans commission. sitting next to him is chris buck urban forester, urban forestry and we'll also be joined by senior building inspector joseph duffy. we have deputy city attorney ann pierson on behalf of the department of public health. the board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other devices so they will not disturb the proceedings, and that you carry on conversations in the hallway. appellants permit holders and department respondents are each given search minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. people must include their comments within these seven or three minute periods. others have up to three minutes each to address the board. please speak into the microphone.

so assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card to board staff when you come up to speak, and we have speaker cards on the podium for your use. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions and we have customer satisfaction forms on the podium for your convenience. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board's rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or you can call or visit the board office. we're located at 1650 mission street in room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on friday at 4 p.m. on channel 26. we have dvd's of this meeting available for purchase from sfgov.tv. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and

wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if you're able, raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. so please stand now. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you very much. so, the first item on tonight's calendar is general public comment. this is for anyone who would like to address the board on something within the board subject matter jurisdiction, but that's not on tonight's agenda. >> welcome. >> hello. i came here to say one thing, but i'll probably end up saying something else. i think a lot of us hope that when you interview for the next

executive director, you look for somebody as qualified, but somebody who has some compassion for those people who cannot afford a lawyer, who are basically being stepped all over by departments, who maybe are not good public speakers, who can't prepare the paperwork correctly. i hope you would find someone who has that kind of ability. for myself, this entire year of trying to get information out of the arts commission is, i just can't do it anymore.

i have health issues and other things. i can't every day be trying to understand what ann tricky is trying to say or defense against vague allegations which make so sense and have no merit. i just can't do this anymore. just withdraw my appeal. >> thank you. >> any other public, general public comments? okay. seeing none, we'll move to item two economy is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? >> no. >> thank you, commishers in. item three is your consideration of the january 10th, 2018 minutes. >> unless we have any changes, deletions or changes may i have a motion to accept those minutes? >> so moved. >> okay. thank you. is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes. on that motion, vice president

fung? honda. >> aye. >> commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> that motion passes with a vote of 4-0. before we take item four, i know president honda i know we talked about item 6. i don't know if both sides are available. >> president honda: we're willing to take this out of order? is it just on the settlement? okay. thank you. >> let me call the item which is number 17-161. todd esker. the property is 21 rosemon place. protesting the issuance on september 08, 2017 to rosemont place llc of an alteration permit revision to bpa. this has not been heard. it was continued at the party's request on several occasions to allow time for settlement. >> president honda: prior to you

starting i wish to disclose i am a partner that has hired counsel in a project. reuben's appearance will not have any effect on my decision. >> good evening. ryan patterson on behafr of the appella appellant. first want to say thank you very much for giving us time to settle this case. it's the third in two weeks, so that's good. appreciate the help and to staff as well. i'd like to briefly read into the record the items that we are amending in the plans, both so that it's on the record and also for you to have a list of what's being changed in the plans. should just take a moment. for the roof. wood planter box 42 inches in height above the roof deck finish surface with copper pipe water supply. the planter box will be at the eastern edge of the roof extending continuously from the northeast corner of the roof to the southeast corner of the

roof. installation or use of hot tub is prohibited. for the third floor deck, the door providing access to the third floor deck will be tempered glass. extending the obscured tempered glass screen around the northeastern corner of the solid guide rail. height on the eastern side to be the same length, 15 inches. the installation or use of a hot tub is prohibited. third floor unit. privacy film misty model number mfy-2555. uni angle range translucent installed with translucent range to the left. screen views into the bedrooms of 231 and 233 clinton park will be installed by page glass maintained on the interior of both the center set of windows which replace the juliet balcony on the east wall of the plan as shown on sheet a2.2 in accordance with the manufacturer specifications. if the privacy film needs to be replaced and that model is unavailable an equivalent or

better product will be used. a front door to the third floor unit, unit number three, as shown on plan 1 sheet a2.2 delta number 3 may 15 revision will be added to the center of the landing at the top of the third floor such that the only access to the roof deck is from the third floor unit behind its front door. on the second floor deck the installation or use of a hot tub is prohibited. upon the north property line of the second floor will be an obscure tempered glass screen six feet in height above the second floor deck running the lengthed of the roof to the northeast corner. on the basement lightwell, the sides of the basement lightwell will be composed of wood. for the rear yard, the installation or use of a hot tub is prohibited. installation of a heater is prohibit prohibited. the owner will finish constructing the fence between the rosemont property within 14 days of the execution of our agreement. and there will be a deed

restriction recorded on the title as well pursuant to the settlement agreement. thank you very much. happy to answer any questions and we'll heed remaining time. we also have copies of the revised plans, excuse me, to present to you as well. >> president honda: dated? >> they are dated and initialed by counsel. they are dated -- thank you. this is delta 4, december 14, 2017, appeal revision and i think that's the latest on any of these plan sheets. december 13, 2017. thank you. >> president honda: thank you, mr. patterson. >> commissioner, do you want the plans to be given to you? >> president honda: i think they're going to ask us to incorporate the conditions. >> our request is that they be issued as a special conditions permit. thank you.

>> president honda: thank you. >> do you have any -- i just have concerns whether the departments have had an opportunity to review them. we take public comment right now while we're waiting on the departments. any public comment on this item?

we can give them more time. we can call the next case and bring this back after they've had more leisurely opportunity to look at the plans. >> president honda: yes. i think that would work. >> so we are going to let them take some time to look at those plans. in the mean time we're going to call item number 4 which is 17-167. abdulbasit al-hubuishy doing business as uptown market versus department of public health. this is 684 larkin street, appealing the revocation on september 28, 2017 of a permit to operate a food facility.

we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes to present your case. >> good evening commissioners. thank you for taking the time to review this matter. there's a lot of details and facts and history behind this. but i'm representing the appellant uptown market and abdulbasit al-hubuishy. instead of going over the history of this within the seven minutes, i am going to break it down to four core issues that have led up to this appeal. the first being the failure to provide by client with any records which created the basis for the audits relied upon by city officials in alleging unpaid wages. if i can direct your attention to exhibits a and b of the declaration.

this is all that was provided to my client in alleging unpaid wages. so is this an audit done on the city's own accord. and when he requested the, any further evidence on the basis that they were relied upon, he was denied. he repeatedly did so. and to this day, we have no idea what the -- where these calculations come from and, in fact, we have two, at least three individuals who we have written statements from that state they were fully and tpaeurlt compensated. and those were not accepted by mr. pastrich as part of his determination. and then the next main concern that we have is the improper revocation and preemptive revocation of my client's permit

to operate at the property. and i'd like to direct the court's attention to the notice of hearing which is exhibit e and our notice to appeal. as you can see, it's dated july 26, 2017. and has a hearing date to determine the issue of revocation of that permit on august 16. on the same day, july 26, 2017, my client's business was closed, locked up, license suspended and the following day, in an attempt to figure out how he could reopen his business and why the store was closed pending the notice of hearing, he was given a settlement agreement that gave him 30 days to pay back the alleged unpaid wages of $99,000. and, of course, my client,

reluctantly signed it, as this was the only -- this is exhibit d of the declaration. and this was the only way that the officials agreed to reopen the business. to this day, he has not conceded that he actually did, in fact, not pay these employees. the entire time he's tried to figure out if any of the wages were unpaid, then to who and how much. and he simply can't be held liable for $100,000 in alleged wages based on the official's own records. that we have still to this day has not been able to verify. like i said, we've got three individuals who have signed written statements, no matter how informal they are. they were written on paper and signed. some of them in english, some in arabic.

but these are verified legally binding statements, signed and dated by these individuals who are alleged not to have been paid. and so in sum, the course of actions taken to bind my client to this settlement agreement, you know, it does amount to economic duress and counsel for the city claims that it doesn't fall within the term of economic duress because it wasn't a wrongful act. however, the assertion of a claim known to be false is one of the indicators of a wrongful act and we allege that the wages owed are known not to be true and accurate based on the failure of the officials to provide us with the appropriate documentation of how they reached these calculations. and i'd like to take the last two minutes for the

commissioners to hear from the appellant himself. thank you. >> president honda: good evening and welcome, sir. >> good evening, sirs and your honors. thank you very much for this opportunity to tell you what's going on. as a matter of fact, i am harassed for almost two years. i have to pay or to close the business that has been run for 21 years. the amount first was almost half a million dollar, which is $450,000 and something to be paid. for people claimed to work for me for all that period and when we come to the calculations, there are few individuals that already begun and i had nothing to do with them and they were paid that money to the last penny. and i, each one of them, they

just work for almost two weeks, three weeks maximum, one month helping me. half a million dollar was extraordinarily unbelievable. when they called me to the city, i was -- i couldn't believe what they are telling me. the whole business is a convenience, small store on larkin street. the whole building at that time maybe is not really equivalent to the price. then graduating, they have made it like a discount and came to $99,000. during this period, my employees, the people who are working the store, were harassed frequently. these guys, they go to my store and they harass my employees, trying to coerce them to come

and witness against me that i don't pay them. most of them, they said, we are paid well, we are happy, we -- >> president honda: i'm sorry, sir. your time is up. you'll have time in rebuttal. we have a question, sir. >> the issue of the accounting of nonpaid wages, was that brought up in your hearing? go ahead. >> the director did not give us the opportunity to address that. she said it was beyond the scope of the hearing. >> did you formally ask? >> i did. >> for these accounting records? >> yeah, i did. >> to the department? >> yes, i did. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the department now. >> good evening commissioners.

ann pierson from the city's attorney's office appearing on behalf of the department of public health. as you've heard, this case concerns revocation of up town market food facility permit based on appellant's failure to comply with the minimum age ordinance. it's been a couple years since the board has heard this type of case, but the board has previously upheld a food revocation based on a violation of the minimum wage ordinance. and the board has done that then and i hope will do that again tonight because the law is very, very clear. the california retail food code is the state law that regulates all food facilities, and it provides that a food facility, a permittee in its operation of a business must comply with all applicable statutes, laws and ordinances. the code further provides a food facility permit may be revoked for violation of code. therefore, where a food facility violates the code by violating the minimum wage ordinance its

permit is up for revocation. you will hear someone who received a complaint from an employee who alleged he had not been paid the minimum wage. you're gonna hear about all of these investigations into this complaint which involved an audit of the records, of all of the records that were produced by the appellant and interviewed with all of the employees. and olse based on this rigorous investigation, determined that six employees had been under paid, paid less than the minimum wage in an amount that totalled over $90,000, which is a very significant sum to low wage workers. they did what can be described as its job. it advised the appellant of the violation. it gave him multiple opportunities to challenge its determinations in administrative hearings which the appellant did not appeal, did not request hearings. it met with him several times, i

think as many as seven times to reach a settlement of the violation. and finally, since no payments were paid, as a last resort, olse referred the matter to the department of public health for permit revocation which is specifically authorized by the minimum wage ordinance. and that point the appellant must have seen the writing on the wall and entered into a settlement to pay the back wages, but he didn't pay them. so dph moved forward with the permit revocation. appellant now argues the permit revocation should be returned because he entered into the settlement under duress, but that argument is simply without merit. economic duress is a specific term used in law. courts have legaled that it is only applicable when there's some type of wrongful act on behalf of the party to whom the charge is made. these bad acts can be lies, can be false claims. and there were no such bad acts here.

olse did nothing more than its job. it is not duress to not have enough money to pay. it is not duress to see that these city agencies are about to enforce the laws that they're charged with enforcing. the other reason this argument is misplaced is because we're not here because of the settlement. we're here because of the unpaid wages. even had he never signed a settlement, we would be here today. because the issue is the underlying violation of the unpaid wages which amount to a violation of the california retail food code, which is grounds for revocation of the permit. so let me now turn things over to mr. pastrich, who can tell you more about his investigation. >> thank you very much. i think she covered the basics of this case very thoroughly. this case began in march 24, 2015, nearly three years ago. over the course of the investigation, we conducted four site visits to speak with

workers and to review records on site. most of the records that we found were literally kept written on the back of cigarette cartons. and so their argument that they have not been provided the record, it is, in fact, the employer's obligation to keep the payroll records. he has provided none. we have met seven times with the employer, as well as many phone conversations in an attempt to resolve this matter. he was given ample opportunity in keeping with mr. fung's question to have a hearing process. minimum wage ordinance provides for a full and fair hearing. he did not request that hearing or participate in a hearing. and eventually the bill came due. we continued to work with him through the dph process. we continued to meet with him.

he, at one point, had made an offer of paying $500 a month, which was gonna take something in the neighborhood of 30 years to pay off, which we thought was unreasonable for workers making less than minimum wage. workers that were working often 12 hours and more per day. we did not think that was reasonable. and we discussed him taking out a business loan to pay for this, and that was the basis of the settlement agreement. he talks about some -- he brought in some letters that were supposedly signed by workers, saying they weren't owed money. they were written very unclearly. the signatures did not match at all the signatures of the workers that we spoke with in person and interviewed. and these do not suffice as records. you have to have the records. you have to be able to prove as

an employer that you paid workers correctly. both in fairness to the workers and in fairness to other businesses that are paying the minimum wage and have to compete on a level playing field. thank you. >> any questions? >> did you speak to any of the three that had the letters? >> yes. we have spoken to -- >> i'm supervising compliance officer. >> are you all finished? >> i think he's trying to answer the question. >> no, no, no. he's chastising me for not letting you finish. >> you still had time. i would finish. >> okay. sorry to interrupt you, commissioner. sorry. >> that's okay. >> how about if we ask the workers if they signed those documents? >> the three that he spoke about? >> yes. those three. >> we did. even the signatures don't match with the documents, the interview forms that they need to fill out at the beginning of

their claim. signatures don't match. we called them. we asked them if they signed those documents and they said no. i basically can show one. if you want to see it, i can show it to you. >> do you mind if i take a look? >> no. go ahead. >> i think that's interesting. >> no problem. just set them on the overhead like you're looking at them perfectly. >> this is one of the ones who said they would pay -- >> yes. >> let me finish my question. this is one of the ones who said they were paid properly.

is that right? >> yes. but this is -- >> this signature is not. >> right. what is that bottom signature from? what's the reference? >> i don't know. this is a document that the employer brought. >> okay. >> just a statement. >> let me put it back. this is the document that he is brought to us saying this is proving that i paid everything. >> i see. okay. and then -- you answered my question. thank you. >> sure. >> the other question is, you said six employees out of how many -- this is not a question for you. >> she can probably better answer it than i. >> so those are the only six employees that we've found. we found two employees when we went for the first time visit.

we interviewed them. they were actually switching. one employee was working 16 hours and the other was working eight hours. and the employee working 16 hours a day, seven days a week. the other was working eight hours a day, seven days a week. >> was it only six employees total or six out of another higher number? >> probably there were a lot more, but only six came to our office and filled out the form and complained. some of these employees came probably on a visa that they cannot stay here, so they left. they stayed only for a few weeks with the employer. sometimes we cannot find all the employees. >> the employer never provided the kind of contact information and the records of who worked there that are required by law. >> i see. >> we were having to find them on our own.

>> i see. okay. thank you. >> are you finished? >> yes. >> i have a question. >> why don't you go ahead? >> for the reference, how large is this operation? is it a two employee place, six employee place, eight employee place? >> it's basically a typical kind of corner store. >> give me a size and location, 400 square feet, 1,000 square feet? >> maybe the size of this room. >> so this is probably 2500. how many employees are usually at this establishment? >> i think they would normally have one at a time. it was a 24-hour establishment. on occasion i went in and there would be two. >> one to two employees. i'm just trying to do the math. so if the period, according to the brief, were covering from 10/19/2014 to 5/10/2015 and the

am was 90,860 -- >> it was a three year audit. >> it says was based on the audit covering the periods from 10/19/14 to 5/10/2015. >> okay. >> as per the brief. that's seven months. at $90,000, that's a $21,000 penalty, divide by seven months, that's 10,000. so that's an additional 666 hours. that's what i'm trying to figure this out here. >> so each employee, i do have a summary here. each employee were working, for example, in one of the audits, 84 hours per week. and they were -- if you -- i can

show you. >> so what period to what period is the audit from, ma'am? >> okay. so i'm just gonna tell you right now. hold on a second. so the period covered from october 19, 2014 to may 10, 2015. >> that's seven months. correct? >> not for all of them. i have another worker that worked from march 25, 2012 through july 14, 2012. >> okay. thank you. >> i have two questions. was there an audit report? >> yes. >> was that provided to the appellant? >> yes. >> so what we received was only a summary, right? like a spread sheet? >> probably, yeah. the audit will break down -- we

audit workers based on all the records that we're able to get, either through the workers or through the defendant. in this case, there were spotty records, we rely on credible testimony of the workers as prescribed by law. >> olsc has enforcement capability in what way? what manner? >> in terms of collections? >> your enforcement, yeah. >> we can go to a hearing. after that, we can either request revocation of city permits and we can go to su peer kwror court and go through collections. >> you could go directly, right? >> to collections? >> yes. >> yes. and like we will in this case. >> i'm done. >> can i just have one more question? the minimum wage.

forgive my ignorance. is it like some other statutes that require there to be a minimum number of employees or is it across the board? >> across the board. >> okay. >> the minimum wage is currently $14 an hour. >> does it matter if you have one employee? >> part-time employee. >> okay. thank you. >> i have a question. you made reference to being there and not finding any kind of accurate payroll records. just scribbled on cigarette boxes, cartons, whatever. i don't think this is necessarily pertinent to the city enforcement, but aren't there requirements that employers keep those rorsd filed with the state, the feds, etc? >> absolutely. >> that wouldn't be a basis necessarily for you to take your action? >> no, but as a state investigator, like a bureau field enforcement agent come in there, they would have cited them heavily for that. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment

on this item? i see no public comment. we will have rebuttal from the appellant. >> try to get through in three minutes. commissioners, i'll address this first. mr. patrish's own declaration he said he spoke with the appellant three times in two years. just to reframe this, we're not arguing the city or the county's authority to enforce records. we're simply requesting the basis of the audit summary, the audit record. to this day we still have not received it. this is the first time we even have knowledge that there was an intake form that was signed and there's a dispute with signatures on appeal. we have requested them repeatedly and repeatedly been denied. and to the question of economic

duress, i mean, without proper accounting, i think it's reasonable for a presumption of an answer to rison the city's part. to not have these records, even me as counsel, to compare them or to work with uptown's account. they do have an accountant. we weren't even able to communicate and coordinate these records at all. and like i said, i was anticipating the august 16th hearing that i could come in and present these records. if there was any discrepancy in the minimum wage, then for us to reach an agreement on the actual number. and for me to inspeck these records. you know, i think we cannot simply rely on the official's determination of, you know, the

weigh of evidence. and, you know, he is entitled to a hearing, due process substantive procedural. he had none of it. and, you know, i understand he missed a hearing and he missed his opportunity to appeal. when i first spoke to mr mr. pastrish i explained he didn't receive the notice in the mail. but for that to be a fatal error to close down a small business is absurd. to this day, he's still not open. this process has essentially bankrupt him. all we're requesting is for the commissioners to rule the settlement agreement as being void and any amounts due or alleged to be due and owing for unpaid wages to -- especially without any further evidence. for that number to be zero. thank you. >> counselor?

>> yes. >> when did you become counsel for the permit holder? >> i was first retained on july 29th, i believe. >> okay. >> and so you have had conversations with the department? >> yes. >> so you have spoken on behalf of the permit holder and they refused, according to you, refused giving you records that you requested. did you request those via e-mail, phone or how were these requested? >> i had two or three e-mail conversations with mr. pastrish who passed me on to miss yu. she said this isn't my jurisdiction. he said this isn't my jurisdiction. i was passed around between the both of them. throughout the whole time, to be honest, especially mr. pastish was quite hostile with me. when i spoke to my client about what conversations did you have

with him, what information has been exchanged, where you guys at? he said he's not receptive to anything that i'm saying. he's not accepting my evidence. he lashed at me when i gave limb the proofs that i do have. obviously, the business records weren't kept up to the standards required by law. >> okay. and then also, was he aware that there's an account? does the accountant have better record than the permit holder? >> yes. we were able to get -- there was a separate cigarette issue. i was able to get a spread sheet from the accountant of every single pack of cigarettes, carton that's been owed, that's been purchased, which was with the accountant. but for the wages, we weren't able to get into it. >> because the question or concern that i have here is if you're running a market, you're dealing with, you know, alcohol,

tobacco and abc. their records and requirements are quite strict. i'm hearing two different sides here. i'll ask the rest of the questions from the department. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry. >> the reference to your client's failure to pay the registration certificate on that timely basis? >> that's paid. >> was it delinquent? >> it was. >> was there an explanation for why it was delinquent? >> his business practices were not up to standard. when he retained me, i sat down with him -- >> okay. thank you. >> so you indicated that the accountant concurred on the cigarette sales. what about payroll? are there accounting records? >> there are none besides what he has in his own hand written records, which were not accepted by the department. >> you also indicated earlier in your presentation that you have

depositions from three of the former employees, but that was not provided in your brief. >> you're right. i wanted to limit the issues on appeal to what was discussed at the director's hearing. you're correct. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. we can take rebuttal from the department. >> very briefly, i just want to assure you, commissioners, that he's been given a right to due process. with each determination that olsc has issued, they advised him of his right to a hearing and he did not request one either time. the department, as you'll hear, has given him access to the documents that they have, with the exception of those documents that they can't give to protect the privacy of informants. but he has been given every opportunity to appeal this before a hearing and he did not

take that opportunity. we're hearing tonight about records from other sources, these three letters. we've not seen them. they're not part of the record on appeal. we're hearing about accountants. i have not seen any documents. they're not part of the record as part of this appeal. i think we should stick to what we have before us, which is the testimony you've heard today. i want to let mr. pastrish follow-up more about his investigation. >> we keep going back and forth on the records, but at the very end you'll notice he admitted there were no payroll records kept. there were no payroll records kept. we cannot provide those kind of records. in the absence of that, we relied on the spotty kind of records we were able to get on the back of these cigarette car tons and we relied on the credible testimony of the workers. as policy of the olsc and also as mandated by the ordinance, we are to protect the privacy of the workers as able under the

law. and so we do not hand over the interview forms that we have with workers, which include both their names, their addresses, their phone number, things of that nature. but we discussed at great lengths the claims that were made, the hours that were being put forward by the workers, that what they made and what they worked. and that those did comply and correlate with the records that we had in terms of the few on the back of the cigarette boxes. he also claimed that he was not given the properly served. these were sent by certified mail and hand delivered to the store. so, he was served as properly as properly can be done. these are served twice. we made every effort to try to reach settlement with him.

we finally did reach settlement, and he immediately reneged on that. >> one question. is there a reason why your audit report was not provided? >> the audit was provided. >> the audit was? >> yes. >> it was not in our packet though. >> i meant to him. we can provide an audit. we have one. >> there's two conflicting stories. one party says one thing. one party says the other. how many times did you actually speak with the permit holder, as well as his counsel stp? >> i met personally with the permit holder four times. spoke with him any number of times on the phone. spoke to him at the dph hearings. we would always go after the hearing, we'd go into the hallway and have a discussion with him. so we spoke -- i have spoken in person to him at least six times.

spoken to him on the phone probably another six to eight times between me and officer byay. i have spoke -- the attorney came in very late in the process. i spoke to him a couple of times. he opened up, of course, saying that i was -- that he had been coerced. that this was all racism and based on anti-muslim intention. so he came out -- >> president honda: attorney said he came in in july. it's been awhile, right? >> it's been awhile. that was already into the dph process. >> president honda: okay. thank you. >> the settlement had already been signed at that point. >> president honda: okay. thank you. >> commissioners the matter submitted. >> commissioner fung: i have one last question for the appellant.

the department has indicated they gave you the audit. >> that is not true. all we have is the summary. i just asked him again. all he received was the summary. both the notice of determination as well as the amended notice of determination. all we received were summaries. that's all i was trying to get was the record. thank you. >> i can pass this around. this is the audit.

>> the determination letters are all accompanied by the audit.

>> president honda: i'm sorry. do you have an extra copy. can you explain what these numbers mean, by chance? i don't quite understand them. >> commissioner fung: there's a whole bunch of the same thing. >> president honda: there's a whole bunch of it. over head, please. just face it as if you're looking at it yourself, sir. >> this was sent via certified

mail. what you are looking at -- >> why will -- why don't you drive the microphone over. >> this would be a summary page, i don't know if you can see that, but this is for -- over in this corner it will have the date of the pay period. regular 40 hours worked in that pay period. 40 hours of overtime. that's hours worked after eight hours in a day or 40 in a week. four hours of double time. and meal penalties. there was one worker, these workers were not properly relieved for their meals. so across one, it has the pay rate $10.74. that was the minimum wage at that time.

it calculates how much is owed for overtime rages, meal penalties for a total of $1235.10. in this particular pay period. he was actually paid $588. calculates the difference. and then the law requires a 10% simple interest. so it will calculate out the interest giving you a total owed per that pay period $739.47. >> president honda: let me give you this last one. thank you. thank you. >> commissioner fung: welsh it's pretty hard to verify an audit

when there are no time sheets. there's nothing related to what's normally done for payroll purposes. and it does appear that there were a number of assumptions made in how the calculations work. however, the question is, is whether dph erred or -- we find, you know, there are issues in terms of equity with respect to that decision.

and question whether there was due process. the fact is that the audit was provided. we have a certified. there was no attempt made to argue with that or to question it or to make corrections to it. so at this point, i don't find much basis to be able to grant the appeal. it does, however, on a simplistic logic basis that you close this store and however, how are you ever going to get the back pay for the people that worked there? >> just for clarification, commissioners, it says the hearing, the board -- >> does as it wishes. yes. >> my per spebive is there's a

pattern here of disregarding obligations and this one clearly is a violation of the permit. i think this is the appropriate action. make a motion unless anybody has -- move to deny the appeal and uphold the revocation of the permit on the basis that it was justly done. >> thank you commissioner lazarus to uphold the revocation on the basis that it was justly done. vice president fung? >> you mean properly done. >> commissioner fung: i would prefer that word. >> commissioner lazarus: i was just asking. revised motion is that it was on the basis that it was properly done. okay. vice president fung? >> commissioner fung: aye.

>> president honda? >> president honda: aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> commissioner lazarus: aye. we can return to item number 6, which is appeal 17-161 tout esker versus department of building inspection.

digging through them all we were able to determine the proposed changes would not have been impact that would be non co compliant regarding the planning code. defined by the planning department. >> subjects never have an easy time, that's the way it works, thank you. >> inspector duffy. >> i agree with that comment from planning as well. it looks like there's no building code issues that would come up on the changes. >> thank you, senior inspector. >> commissioners and the matter submitted if you wish to adopt we would need a motion. do we have a copy of the plans.

ok. thank you. move to deny the appeal. >> grant the appeal and to accept the drawings dated december 13th, 2017 as a condition. >> ok. is that on the bases it reflects the agreement of parties? >> that's correct. >> thank you. that motion is to grant the appeal and issue the permit it be revised to reflect the plans dated 12-13-17 and submitted tonight opt the bases it reflects the agreement on the party. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> thank you. that motion passes. and now president honda, if you agree, we can call item number 9 out of order. this is appeal number 17-180

scott mack figure kristen marvin with planning department approval operates at 844 duncan street on october 30th, 2017 to check of an alteration permit. to modify approved building permit 201510028711 with changes to a2.1 at wine cellar, add door and 82.2 increase window size and bedrooms 10-inch deep picture cal bonnie relocate master bath and take out exist ing roof in front and extend deck to part of the demolished roof. i'm calling this oust order because we've heard from three of the four appellants they wish to withdraw their appeal. we haven't from the fourth. my question is mr. openerman in the room? it appears none of the appellants have decided to pursue this matter.

we do, i believe, have a representative from the permit holder in the room, that is correct? if you'd like to you can hear from him otherwise we can see if there's a public comment. and if not, you can take action. unless of course, the agent for the permit holder -- >> could the permit holder come -- >> i have a question for for the building department. >> senior inspecter, batter up. >> this is not meant to derail the setment. the drawings, your department requires to show existing. >> this does not show existing except they show proposed was done on, i presume, was done onto the original drawing. everything looks like it's new.

it creates massive confusion to the appellate. >> it's a revision permit to an easterly year approved permit. >> i'm not even sure it's that. the fact is all the things that the a a a brought up relate to items existing. >> yeah. i mean, revisions are common occurrence, as you know yourself people file them every day of the week to make changes. i can make the department aware of your comments to double check this one if you want. >> i think it's just a suggestion to the department, if they're going to do a revision, the revision should be on the different format. >> yeah, they're normally bubbled and that's the way it's supposed to be. the areas they're changing is supposed to be