>> remote meeting of the san francisco court of appeals. president honda will be presiding officer tonight and he's going by commissioner swig, lazarus and chang. we expect commissioner lopez shortly.

we will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. on board is the board's legal assistant and i am julie rosenberg, executivedirector. we will be joined by representatives from the city department that will be presented before the court . the zoning administratormatthew green,senior building inspector for the department of building inspection . guidelines are as follows . the board with cholesteatoma all phones and electronic devices so they will notdisturb the proceedings . appellants permit holders and respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case . people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these seven minutes periods. members not affiliated have up to two minutes each just before and no real. mister long way will give verbal warnings 30 seconds before your time is up . for both are required to grant or determination . if you have questions about requesting a rehearing please email board staff and board of

appeals at sfgov.org. access is of paramount importance and every effort has been a to replicate the hearing process. to enable public participation we are broadcasting industry in this era live and we will have the ability to receivepublic comments for each item on today's agenda we are also providing close captioning for this meeting . what's the hearing go to sfgov tv cable channel 78. it will be rebroadcaston channel 26 . alive stream is on the homepage of our website . now public comments can be provided in 2 ways. one youcan join the zooming by computer, go to our website and click on the leading the or you can call him by phone . 1-669-900-6833 and her id 822 6851 3235. and again, we are broadcasting

and streaming the phone number and theseinstructions across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the broadcast . first dial á67 and thephone number . listen to the public comments portion of your item and donald start nine which is the equivalent of raising your hand so we know you want to speak. will be sought and when it is your turn. you may haveto die dark 6 on yourself . you will have three minutes to speak. our legal assistant will provide you with a warning 30 secondsbefore your time is up . note there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is live streamed on tv therefore it is important people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their tvsor computers otherwise there's interference with the meeting . any participants are attending need disability accommodations or technical assistance you can make a request to us conway reports legal assistant or send

an email to board of appeals at sfgov.org. the chat function cannot be used toprovide public comments or opinions . now we will affirm all those who intend to testify. note any member may seek without taking an oath pursuant to their rights underthe sunshine ordinance . if you plan to testify tonight's proceedings and the board. your evidence way raise your hand and say i do after you've been sworn in order for. you swear the testimony you're about to will be the truth, truth and nothing but the truth ? >> i do. >> if you're a participant and you're not speaking your speaker on mute and we are now on to item number one, special . consideration of production of resolutions which makes findings to allowteleconference meetings under california government code 54953 80 . >> president: iwould make a motion to accept that . >> a public comments on the

motion to this resolution? if so please raise your hand. i don't see any public comment period on this motion, i believecommissioner lopez . >> i am here, i. >> commissioner lopez. [roll call vote] that motion carries 520 and the resolution is adopted. item number two general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone to speak on the board's jurisdiction that is not on tonight's calendar. anybody here for general public comments, pleaseraise your hand . i don't see any hands raised so we will go on to item number three, commissioner comments and questions. >> i like to wish everyone a happy new year and may 2022 the easier and more pleasant than

2021and welcome commissioner lopez, happy new year to you . >> is there any public comment on this item? if so, please raise your hand. there is no public comment so we will want to item number 4 whichis adoption of the minutes . we have before you adoption of the minutes of the september 15 21 meeting. >> president: unless we have any additions may i have a motion tothose minutes into the record . >> i would love to makethat motion . >> we have a motion from vice president swig to adopt the minutes. any comment on that motion? given that there's no public comment on thatmotion commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] that motion carries 520 and the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item number five which is appeal number 21 104, presley versus

apartment building inspection. subject property is 2736 20 street. appealing missions to lost resorts of an alteration permit installation of permanent framing for one seasonalfabric sunshade in rear patio, sunshade to be installed annually in the rainy season . this is permit number 2021 / 10/28/1322. mister presley, you have seven minutes. >> thank you for the opportunity to you tonight. my name is todd presley and i'm asking the board torevoke the patio awning the lost resort because of the increased noise it creates in my neighborhood inside my home . for background the new ordinance as force me to make extensive market modification to the bars patio increasing its size, replacing a formerly

solid wall with a wiremeshwall and removing a long-standing coloring over the patio . november 2021 vote lost resort installed the current awning which is a significant gap between the top of the wall and the awning itself which is oriented in such a way that directs and amplifies the patio noise towards neighboring home including mine on york street . you can see the extent of the patio modifications of the bar before it was remodeled and afterwards in the exhibit i submitted i canshare now that's awful . i will do that quickly here. great. this first photo is the current outside wall which faces york street. it's west facing. just to show you some of the modifications that were made.

versus what thebarn is to look like along this wall which you cansee was a solid wall . the awning now currently looks like this . thisis from my , the front of my house with the steps looking towards the bars patio. you can see it is an awning essentially has a large opening over the patio which this is what funnel sounds towards my home. versus what it used to looklike . this is essentially looking at the same wall that i just showed you. it's justfrom inside the former patio before it was modified . you can see the covering is solid. there is no gap between the wall and the awning itself . i will stop sharing now. the effects is the bar patio noise is regularly audible inside my home seven days a

week. therefore i'm asking that the permit be revoked or if the board doesn't feel that revocation is warranted, i asked babar he was required to work with its neighbors and make modifications to their patio and the awning in order to mitigate the noise from their patio so that it isno longer audibleinside our homes . thank you for your time . >> thank you. so i don't see any questions at this point. we will hear from the permit holder. i'm not sure, is mister valentine here? >> i am. >> you have seven minutes. serve. >> thank you for your time. as the appellants todd mentioned we have opened in 2019 after the remodel of the long-standing location. that is lost resort and it's

been a restaurant and bar in this location for almost 100 years . we were targeting to replace theprevious awning with the awning that we , that and the goal of replacing it is that during the winter months in particular especially in the last few weeks we have heavy rain and a place that basically if it's not replaced there's no one foranyone to sit in an outside environment . we opened in the middle of a pandemic which we now believe unfortunately it's an end and. the ability for us to see people outside his parentus for our ability to survive . more so now than ever. our goal is not to open when this is happening but itis a reality now . we did reach out to the appellants. we reached out to other neighbors. no other neighbors expressed concern or issue with this noise. and as requested by the appellants we would happily

work with them to develop a process and a plan to blockany noise going towards them if the design is notworking on illinois. that's not our goal . our goal is to serve our neighborhood and be a great neighbor . there's been probably 12 or more times where various agencies have come out which have been told to us by one complainants calling the abc which has the ability to regulate and monitor our noise and if we are about our noise limits they can issue petitions. they've come out. the last time they came out was a couple saturdays ago with the awning in place " was passing carsare lower than the noise from the business . the entertainment commission has come out a number of times. all these visits are unannounced. the entertainment commission in their hearing which the meeting

minutes were provided as part of our brief, they de-prioritize any complaints with regard to our location because every time they come out there have been no noise issues that weren't any action on the entertainment commissions part. both entertainment commission and abc have the ability to monitor our noisewe monitor our noise . my business partner brad is their most nights and our business has been instructed to shut down the patio around 10:00 and we close the patio soon after . because if they are telling guests that they are making noise to please the client . some of them we live with and we care about deeply. we don't want to be a nuisance this isour livelihood . where not aroundbusiness . we are a neighborhood location. the rest of this area as destination places and we tried to be a place for the kids, for the family to come by people have told usthe only place they

feel comfortable sitting outside is in this environment . i would reiterate we would be happy to do anything we can and that was our goal of reaching up to the house to makethis an environmentthat works for all our neighbors . is there anything you want to add ? >> you know, primarily we want to be a neighborhood spot where everyone to the left, right, front and back and enjoy with their families, friends and feel like they are in a safe place. i personally am on the floor when i do see other guests that are kind of being loud, i do try to tell them to calm down. it's not in my interestto make anyone around us uncomfortable . and we've mentioned before that we would be more than happy to help dampen the soundthe best we can .

i've spoken to their closest neighbors and they come to us saying we can talk aboutit . i hope that this situation, we could have a conversation over this other than the moment we aresitting in . but we are just a friendly, family-friendly neighborhood spot for everyone to come enjoy and with that patio awning that helps everyone stay safe in this environment as well as keeping everyone drive during the rainyseason and that's why we hope to keep it . >> are you finishedwith your presentation ? >> president: vice president swig. >> thanks very much. i very much understand living in the city presents us with all sorts ofnoise opportunities . and the reality is of a

restaurant which has been there for a longperiod of time continuing business . it's one of those opportunities that the neighborshave to put up with . there seems to have been based on the testimony there were some changes, physical changes made to the building that may have changed the sensitive direction of the sound . may have inadvertently amplified the sound because of the boost exchange or whatever. i am certainly not an expert in that area although i'm awareof it and have been in similar situations . can you tell me was there any formal initiative taken to measure literally measure the

sound and to see how many decibels were now coming out of the awning whereas before obviously there were less because it was a solid wall therebut is there a measurement of decibels and if there has been , does that decibel level needs city standards? >> the answer to that question is yes. when the abc department and entertainment commission came out they do a measurement of ambient noise and that is where we had no citationissued or complaints issued by either party because we were not above are requiredlimit . i believe what the appellantsis stating is there's two things . one is the solid wall is not there anymore to , there's a

gap in the roof which points down towards them. and we have not done a measurement with the awning on and off to see if there's a difference and one of the things my business partner said we're happy to make the investment in ensuring this is not worse when the awning is in place.we need to make sure the permit gets approved as opposed to spending money and havingthe awning permit not been approved and we expect more money and not be able to do it if that makes sense . >> have you been advised by professionals as to how sounds might be mitigated during the time that the condition when there seems to be the most noiseexists ? with acousticmaterials or other tactics ? >> the answer is we have not engaged in a professional acoustic engineer at this point. we believe we have solutions we

canimplement with regard to the gap in the awning . there's a sound acoustic panel you can put in place that would enableair to travel through but notdown is our understanding . we be happy to implement those things . we're more than willing to look at options.we discussed internally like the ability to put some plastic over the wall. our goal is to also make sure publishing the ability to be safe in an environment, that were not liking aaron so we need to work to find a solution that works for usas well as our neighbors . >> i understand your intention and your challenges and appreciate those sentiments. thanks, that's allfor me . >> you, we will nowhear from the planning department . >> good evening president honda and members of theboard . deputies owning administrator, 2736 20 is in the arts to zoning district.

a property located on a 2200 where like to order lot at the northeast corner of york and 20th. built in 1895 the main two-story mixed-use building at the corner while the one-story structure sits at the rear along york street. based on survey valuations to the property the main building was heavily altered and we can find that such property was determined to not be a historic resource. records show the commercial use on the ground floor more specifically the bar and restaurant use is the existence of the 1960s and as such the property is considered limited for nonconforming commercial use in the residential distric . the area between the main building and the detached structure has been used as an outdoor patio /dining area for the restaurant. given the long-standing restaurant and bar news on the property outdoor patio is considered a grandfather for

lawful activities use that is part of the property. the permit is to install permi framing in the outdoor patio to accommodate the use of the seasonal campus . given the location as a patio area has been the physical area of the lot that is not considered apermanent structure and the proposed project does not trigger trigger neighborhood notifications . the permit holder and the appellant have been notified there was aprevious patio cover of some sort in the same location . while noise is a primaryissue for the appellants planning code does not regulate noise or say . article 29 of the francisco police code otherwise known as the noise control ordinance generally do allow for atypical noise associated with restaurant use operations and doesnot find it to be excessive or a violation . having that said to the business operator who wishes to redesign or find a patio cover would address any potential

noise impact to the residence theplanning department be supported . however as it stands the permit installed a new framing for the patio cover was properly reviewedby the planning department . the scope of work was confirmed by the zoning administrator to be compliant with the planning and section 311 for notification. thisconcludes mypresentation . if there is any questions . >> thank you, i don't see any questions at this time we will hear from the department of building inspection. >> that evening president honda and members of the board. matthew green representing tbi. this permit was approved by planning , approved over-the-counter by the building and health department and was issued on november 9, 2021. we believe the permit was approved and issued properly however as with planning the

permit holders are willing to make some changes to support those i'd be happy to answer any questions . >> i don't see any questions at this time so we will move on to public comment. is there anyone who would to provide public comment? please raiseyour hand. if you call him pressá9 and that will show us you would like to speak . i see the phone numberending in 6149, go ahead . you may need to press á62 b unmuted. phone number and in 6149, press start 62 onmute your self . >> caller: hello. >> welcome. please go ahead, you have 3 minutes.

>> caller: and i speaking? okay. disregard the awning application for the bar or restaurant lost resorts at the corner of 20th and york. i'm a nearby neighbor and i'm currently with thebar although i've never been in . i want to give all support to the lost horizon, the lost resorts establishment to end or erect a permit for their awnin . i see no reason why this would be an impediment to anything but rather the whole bar by the way although i've never been for drinks, i don't think bars but it's a wonderful establishment . i enjoy the activity and i fully support the owners and operators of lost resorts. it's a well-run organization

and i just want togive my full support for whatever application may have regarding their awning . i've had numerous this licenses throughout san francisco over the last 40 years and50 years actually so i know a little bit about applications for permits . so that's the just of what i want to support. >> we are now moving on to the fellow whose phone number ends with9934. please go ahead . you may need to press á62 unmute. >> my name is the old gordon calling in to address the appeal and the lost resorts patio. and a homeowner across the street at 810 york street and

lost resorts is a great neighborhoodbusiness . it's aunique small business . it has a vitality to the neighborhood. they felt a lot to increase th neighborhood character and give us a place to gather . as someone wholives across the street i never hear noise from the bar . i myself have stopped by for a drink or a bite. i hope that this board and other businesses. [inaudible] it adds to the character of this area. i've chosen not to eat indoors or drink indoors until things get better ... [inaudible] it's

part of my community and i would not want you to take that awafrom the community . don't let one neighbor take it away because of the character it gives to our city . i frequent greatlocal restaurants and other businesses . it's what a lot ofus love about san francisco . [inaudible] if i wanted a very quiet quiet neighborhood i would live in the suburbs. it's what makes san francisco still the city and i hope you allow it to remain that way . please reject the deal and allow this going forward. >> we will now be from the caller whose number ends in 5189. please go ahead. 9489. yes, go ahead.

>> my name is jeremy and i've lived in san francisco for 17 years now and i am asking you to reject the appeal and approve this project. i think that as we go into recovery, we're going to have a lot of trouble with our small businesses. a lot of them havebeen struggling to hang on and we need to do whatever we can to support them . make sure they can stick around because we really without our small businesses, we lose a lot of what makes francisco san francisco . i think we ended up in a position where we have the default of saying no and adding more and more restrictions on businesses and we need to have the opposite approach where we take a more permissive approach in general businesses that want to do interesting things that make theircustomers happy.

i think if people live in a city , there's some element of expecting you to get along and be willing to accept the diversity of businesses, of people . that's what makes us whowe are as san francisco . so i hope you reject the appeal and allow this business to continue to servetheir loyal customer base . >> thank you. is there any furtherpublic comment on this item ? please raise your hand. i don't see anymore so we will move on to remodel . mister presley, you have 3 minutes. >> the only thing i would say i guess is i want to be clear. i've lived in sanfrancisco since 2003 . i've lived in this house for 70 years and wasfamiliar with the prior bar establishment . i understand what it's like to

live in an urban environment i never had an issue with the jmp club. it was fine. i'm just saying the modifications were made to this establishment in particular this awning has significantly magnified the sound to a point where it is truly a nuisance. and i understand all the challenges the bar is facing. i get it. i personally also want to eat outside and sit outside. the bar also has seating in addition to this and we worked with edc during the permitting processand were told that sound should not be audible within our home . that just has not been the cas particularly with this awning. having said that , i feel like i can see where the tide is going and the last thing i would say is that no outrage

has been made from this far to help mitigate this issue. the only moment where they reached out to me was when i appeal this permiti guess i'm a little skeptical that any change will be made . thank you for your time and i appreciate all your dedication and contributions to try to keep the city running well have a good night .>> we will now hear from the permit holder, mister valentine. >> i'd like to speak directly to the appellant and say that i'msorry if you feel we haven't been a good neighbor . that's not the case. we've been struggling to figure out how to get to the next day and operate a business and stay alive and keep our employees employed and approved our first email will be to you to figure

out a way we can work together that creates an awning that will work for you your house and living. it is notour goal to be a nuisance . it's our goal to be a great addition to the neighborhood and i'm sorry ifthat hasn't been something you feel is the case . i didn't know how toreach out to you . we have come to your house a few times and tried to talk about things that we didn't know how to solve the problem and we kept getting things coming through city agencies versus coming to usdirectly and havingconversations . it's something we welcome and we'd be happy to work out a solution . by nomeans do i promise we will be perfect but we will do our best . i hope wecan approve this permit . it's important for our business and ability to stay in operation is something we take seriously with regards to being a good neighbor and everyone on the stall as my word and brad and i will try to find a solution with regards to

acoustical standpoint or blocking off thatpenetrates . we will stop there and go from there and continue to work with todd . aslong as you can have that we are neighbors and we have to work together there'sgoing to be somenoise , we will do our best to get to a place that you can be happy and wecan operate in a successful manner . that's it for me .>> does the planning departmenthave anything further ? >> no further comments . >> how about dbi. >> no further comments. >> this matter is submitted. >> president: i will start first. if you don't mind, we had a bar similar to this afew months ago . the big difference was the use on the back patio was not permitted . the work that was done was non-permitted . and in this particular case, first of all sound is very tricky . we've heard this through the years. especially when there's alcohol

fall. these operators in my opinion have done the right thing and gone the direct path to achieve this permit. it would be nice if the permit holder does honor that agreement and reached out to the appellate after but the entertainment commissioner has been out there, abc has been out there unannounced and on one occasion on saturday evening so in my opinion i believe the permit was issued properly . any othercommissioner would like to comment ? vice president swig. >> vice president: i'd like to take somethingout of your playbook . i agree with everything you said . it's a tough situation and the slides will change in aphysical structure and do things that are unexpected . i like the attitude of the

permit holder and wanting to makethings right . the thing i want to take out of darrell's playbook is a reminder that as we say to all those who have to live together after they come to a hearing like this is that you have to live together aftera hearing like this . have a long life and i hope the bardoes very very well . i hope the appellant lives in peace and and as much quiet as he can get. it will be nice if there was frost between the two parties so i would encourage the permit holder to live up to that promise of reaching out and also investigating measures of insulation and acoustical mitigation under the circumstances. but i agree with commissioner harness direction.

>> president: if anyone doesn't have any comments i will make a motion that we deny the appeal that the permit was issued correctly. >> we have a motion from president honda to deny the appeal on the basisit was properlyissued . on that motion, commissioner lopez . [roll call vote] that motion carries 520. thank you. we are now moving on to item number six, appeal number 21 103 cityview restaurant incorporated versus department of building inspection. property is 665 clay street and 662 commercial street. appealing the issuance on october 29, 2021 to chinatown community development center of an alteration permit .

install ground-floor concrete moment frame on rear wall to complete mandatory unreinforced masonry buildingretrofits under 4099 and associated connections . designed for sf building code 4 a and 4b. correct bolts with a direct irregularities and accessibility upgrade . permit number 2019 10 25 5615. mister legal will be addressing thepoor. you have seven minutes . >> thank you very much. i'd like to clarify it's not our intention to appeal that original 2005 permit. that permit was issued on a cooperative basis after a great deal of back-and-forth and discussion. between both the permit holder and the restaurant.what we are concerned about is this most recent complete revision

of the approach to the seismic work on the commercialstreet side of the building . if we look at the statement from the engineer which is the second page of the calculation sheet perhaps we could screen that at this time. alec, are you ableto do that ? >> you can. >> could you go ahead and put that second page? there we go. this is how the justification was put to the building department in 1991. to change the permit that had been issued in 2005.

to do a wholesale redesign of the seismic work that would directly impact the front of and dining room of the restaurant. i'm not going to have the time to go through in full detail but you will see in our brief that many years ago, this building was sold to the permit holder by mister john yee and at that time negotiations were undertaken under the supervision of judge david garcia.and an agreement was reached to effectuate the lease terms in the lease between the restaurant and permit holder which require that any

construction be carefully considered and that the restaurant ... i'm sorry, that the permit holder use its best efforts not tointerfere with business operations of the restaurant .under that negotiated agreement supervised by judge david garcia , whitney jones and die, the two designated representatives were able to move forward and as this document admits cooperate and i huge event of work that did impact the restaurant for a great deal of seismic work at this building. for reasons that were not explained to us at that time, see cdc abandoned the job and did not perform the work involving the steel frame on

the commercial street frontage. that work had been discussed in considerable detail even to the point of the method andmode of construction , timing, how it would be done and agreed and see cdc 10 years ago abandoned that . now very recently they submit this. and they say that for various reasons that want to change the design from the redesign. and that their justification is that the restaurant was denying them the ability to do the wor . that is simply not true. we were facilitating the work. we were cooperating all the time and what we were ultimately told very recently

was the permit holder ran out of money and that's why that work wasn't finished 10 years ago . our complaint today is that this permit was obtained in part on representations that are untrue. and that without any consideration for the agreement that's negotiated for this entire project which clearly required the permit holder to use its best efforts in designing and doing the work to avoid impacting the restaurant operations so the highlighted paragraph here, the fourth paragraph says for various reasons are design is for a bunch of concrete instead of some nice clean steel beams. a complete change in the most impactful part of the project with no prior discussion. with the restaurant, no notice to the restaurant.

no conversation with the restaurant and when this came to our attention recently after 10 years, over 10years of delay , i said to counsel who wrote the brief on behalf of the permit holder, warned about our agreement. whatare you doing? why are you making this change ? he did not remember the agreement . he asked me to send him a copy so i did and he said okay, we will honor it but they pulled the permit. we did have a meeting. and whitney jones and i for the first timein many years were able to talk again . and i said what's going on? why did you changethe plans ? i was not able to get an answe . before the permit was full i asked joanna lamb who was the first representative of see cdc

to reachout with this information . he said these various reasons, what are the various reasons? we all know this massive concrete construction was the toxic debris that it's going to create and the noise is going to be completely destructive to restaurantoperations . our previous agreement was the steel beams would come in from above. they would be dropped in and contained. it would be a nice clean job and i was never given any answer so i simply think that the whole spirit and purpose of the underlying agreement under which this work was performed was first denied, then ignored and is still being ignored and i believe that this body should tell the people involved in this to follow their agreement. mediate if necessary.

>> thank you mister winkle, we have a question from president honda. >> president: first question, when was the retrofits on this building required ?>> the permit to do it was issued in 2005 . >> president: i said when was the retrofits, is it amandatory retrofit ? >> that was not clear commissioner honda. they thought they had to do it so they were doing it and we were cooperating. i'm not sure that therewas a mandate order for that they were on the list . >> second question is you understand that this board is not here to honor personal grievancewe're here to determine whether the permit is properly issued, correct ? >> i believe the board has a legitimate interest in whether

permit was issued based on mis factual representations and that is the case here . >> we will now hearfrom the permit holder . and the attorney representing the permit holder, welcome. you haveseven minutes . >> actually tyler ferguson will be presenting. >> tyler ferguson on behalf of the chinatown community development center.cityview has filed his appeal as part of a broader scheme to obstruct the cdc's efforts to complete mandatory seismic work. cityview has refused to mediate or cooperate in good faith and has now filed the appeal to by itself more time before the seismic work begins. cityviewcannot be allowed to continue delaying this

necessary work and the board should deny this appeal for three reasons .first, cityview's claims are governed by the parties mediation agreement. second, ccdc's permit was validly issued and the city has not regarded any claim issuing the permit.the permit relates to mandatory structural improvements required to ensure the safety of the building's residents as well as cityview's own guests and employees . my first point, cityview's claims are governed exclusively by the parties needing mediation agreement. cityview admits its own priest at pursuant to the mediation agreement garcia retained restriction over any matter involving the construction of the improvements of the buildings . here cityview isappealing a seismic work permit . seismic work involves constructionimprovements to the buildings . thus by cityview's own logic.the judge garcia has retained restriction and thus theparties should be in mediation resolving this

dispute rather than before the board here today . second, ccdc's permit was validly issued and cityview has not raised any claim of mistake or wrongdoing by thedbi and issuing the permit . rather, this appeal is founded on a breach of contract issue as explained in the one-page statement cityview submitted when this wasinitially filed . looking at that statement, cityview explained it was filing this field caused the plans did not comply with the terms of the parties agreement and because ccdc was required, should have prepared seismic work plans to bothparties . there are two problems with cityview's reasoning. the first is that cityview has based this entire appeal on the terms of the parties agreement rather than any independent grievance with the permits validity this means the parties dispute should be resolved according to the agreement i.e. mediation rather than year before the court ofappeals . the second problem is that cityview's claims have no actual basis in the parties agreement.

they claim both parties were required to agree to a workplan but no such requirement exists in the agreement . ccdc had no obligation to create aworkplan that was mutually agreed-upon . i would address these two problems in turn. by basing this appeal on the settlement agreement's terms cityview clearly wants the parties to be bound by the terms of that settlement agreement yet cityview has seemingly ignored the agreementsdispute resolution clause by refusing and avoiding respondents mediation attempts and by filing this appeal . the parties agreement is clear and in theevent of a dispute the parties are forced to resort to good-faith discussion. if that is unproductive the parties are to appear before judge garcia in mediation . cityview claims the reason it has avoided mediation up till this point is it feels the parties have had sufficient time to pursue a good fourth faith negotiations these are

not endlessnegotiations. the parties have been in discussion for years regarding this work and at this point good-faith negotiations have been exhausted . simply put it is time for the parties to mediate the second problem with cityview's appeal is the agreement does not support their claims. the agreement does not require that ccdc provide a workplan that is mutually agreed-upon butthat ccdc provides cityview with written notice of the scope of work and contractor performing the work . ccdc has done this and has repeatedly notified cityview of the upcoming seismic work. as a result cityview has been on notice for years and ccdc hascomplied with its settlement agreement negotiations. the seismic work should be allowed to proceed . cityview also argues ccdc is required to use best efforts to minimize the disruption to cityview's operation of the premises that is true. but that does not mean ccdc must then use cityview's preferred solution particularly

when that solution is not code compliant.cityview's sole focus in this case is making the seismic work as convenient as possible for its restaurant. indeed the most convenient outcome for cityview in this case is for the seismic work to not happen at all and that is why we are here today. that is also whycityview has refused to efficiently resolve this dispute and why they refuse to cooperate in good faith . cityview fails to recognize sometimes convenience and public safety are two mutually exclusive goals you cannot always have both. ccdc has received a valid code compliant seismic work permit and is ready to begin work . ccdc has no obligation to create a workplan that was mutually agreed-upon and no obligation to use cityview's preferred solution.cityview has no complaints about the

validity of the permit itself and may not be convenient for cityview it is now time for the work to begin finally, the permit describes mandatory work that is necessary to ensure the safety of both the buildingsresidents as well as cityview's own employees and guests . it is unclear aside from convenience why cityview would seekto delay such important work . ccdc has tried to transparently communicate with cityview and keep them involved throughout the process . cityview has responded by repeatedly delaying the process by avoiding ccdc's attempts to efficiently resolve this dispute. in sum, this appeal should be denied. cityview has brought a claim that as required by the parties agreement should be mediated before judge garcia not before the court of appeals . moreover cityview's claims are not supported by the parties agreement. ccdc had no obligation to get approval before obtainingthe permit. furthermore they had no obligation to use cityview's solution and addressing the

seismic work . >> at this point the views of the city's residentsand own guests demand the permit be approved and this appeal be denied so the mandatory seismic work can begin . >> we have a question from president, >> president: you said this is mandatory work, when was this required is mandatory work ? >> i know ccdc received a noticeof violation regarding 2019 plan but i'm not sure of the date . >> that would be interesting and i read on page 11 of the brief that ccdc will use its best efforts to minimize disruption to cityview restaurant but someone mentioned earlier counsel mentioned from 2005 that's teen years. that's quite a long time without any disruption. so i have a fewmore questions but i'll wait for the apartment . >> we will now hearfrom the planning department .

does the planning department want to wait in on this item? i don't believe there was planning department approval so she may have stepped away. we can check in with inspector green. >> hello president honda and commissioners. a brief history of the permits here. the original permit in 2005 017-4019 was for structural seismic improvement of existing low income detail building with concrete replacement. the permit issued on december 20, 2005. they started work may 2006 to startwork inspection . the second and last instruction was in july 2006 for a sheer wall inspection. the special inspection for the structural work was submitted in august 2016. interestingly the special

inspections did include a steel frame. permit expired may 2008. the notice of violation was issued april 2013 for noncompliance with the umb ordinance. it was an order of abatement issued september 2019 or noncompliance with that violation. the permit was actually renewed for final inspection in 2019. the permit under appeal this morning was filed october 2019 to complete and alter the work previously approved in the 2005 permit. this is october29, 2021 . we believe the permit was approved and issued properly. you have some questions about whether umb ordinance came in place 1992, i'm not quite sure what the level of building it was but the last required

deadline was february 2004. >> we have a question from vice president swig. >> to confirm your testimony do you believe this permit application was fully vetted and without hesitation we will say that the permit was issued and it complies to every standard, correct? >> that is correct, it was approved and issued properly. >> vice president: i liketo deviate and this is important for a bottle . ask brad rossi a question about the proceedings here tonight. with your permission.

>> absolutely. >> brad rossi, deputy city attorney. my connection is not very good on not going to turn my camera on but i can hear you. >> i wanted to get clarification as to why we are here. we are here to either to approve or deny a permit which was either properlyissued or improperly issued, is that true ? >> that's right commissioner. >> and that's all. so if there's a dispute between the two parties as to how we got there, how we got here and how the permit was approved that is outside of the evaluation as properly issued according to thestandards of the building department . none of that really matters. we are here to assess is this a

valid permit properly approved, is thattrue? >> that's right commissioner . >> now we're moving on to publiccomment. anyone here would like to provide public comment for this item please raise your hand . this is your opportunity for public comment. i see a few people in the queue. if you want to provide public comment please raise your hand . okay, looks like we do not have any public comment so we will move on to remodel and we will hear from mister winkle, you have three minutes. >> i don't thinki would have made the claim this was an improper permit . my claim is that the building department was misled. and that the building department should care about

that. i have seen many hearings where a little deeper inquiry has been made into the history behind disputes. and that theoverall integrity of the process comes of concern . this in this instance, there are many things being said which are not supported by the facts. there was no delay here caused by cityview restaurant from 2006 to 2019. there is no reason to offer for a deliberate change in 2019 of the construction approaching the manner in which makes it incredibly more damaging, invasive and disruptive of the tenants. the prior approved approach for which a permit was issued should have been the method used. no explanation has been given for why it should not have been

used or why there's a change accept to be disruptive to the restaurant . i think this commission is well aware of the disagreements of recent years between my client john yee and ccdc with regard to other projects. i think that it is clear. that the engineer here was not in fact told to use best efforts to minimize impact. he was probably told exactly theopposite and that's the only reason for the change in the plan and the new approach. if this body is not concerned about such things , that's just lumps we have to take but i do think thatthis is a more clear problem than it is being presented . >> we have a question from president tran five.

>> president: yes counselor. the umb took in effect as the inspector said in 1992. when did the buildingtransfer ownership ? >> you know, i do not have that recollection. i will tell you the building transferred ownership pursuant to ... [audio lost]

>> is it ready? >> it you wanted tostart over. >> a few points of remodel . appellants had agreed previously agreed on approach and i mentioned he's unsure what the various reasons are and why that approach was deviated from . the reason why that we moved from that approach is because what we agreed upon in 2005 is no longer codecompliant . ccdc is concerned with meeting current code standards and any size or retrofit that happens lives up to current code.if we were to implement what was discussed in 2005, that's not code compliant and would live up to today'sstandards . appellants asked how it would impact ccdc to wait months until cityview closes and i like to remind commissioners that there's a notice of violation on ccdc and they're

trying to remedy that and it wouldimpact them because the building issimply not fit for seismic activity right now. it needs to be retrofitted to protect the building's residents as well as the views onemployees and guests . it's beneficial for both parties if the worst happens . one other point of remodel. appellant says there was no delay caused from 2006 to 2019 of those dates are not of concern . we're talking about the current plans that have been trying to get pushed through.the current seismic work that's trying to happen there have been delays during thattime period. just to reiterate the main points here, cityview claims this entire appealis founded on the terms of the settlement agreement . they make no claim regarding the permits validity orwhether it was properly issued . they feel they did not comply with the agreement's terms but their claims are not supported

by the parties agreement . what they suggest is simply not there. and ccdc had no obligation to use ties make work plans that cityview agreed with. it simply had to provide notice to cityview which it did multiple times.this is a permit that relates to mandatorystructural improvements that the building needs for safety of its own residents as well as the safety of cityview'semployees and guests . >> wehave a question from president tran five . >> president: i'm trying to find mymouse . one quick question . in the previous agreement or plan that was done believe it was build a frame move on to a country house. as thedeviation , what part of the work initially is no longer codecompliant? if you have that information available . >> i would have to have duke come in and speak about that.

>> michigan on now?hi, i'm duke chrisfield . there's basically two things. one is that there's become this issue of lateral personal breaking on themoment frame that's been particularly made them , it's made so that you can't do that in buildings with low diagrams. you cannot brace them sufficiently . the other is that there's an element of its required really wasn't addressed with the steel frame which is that where there are beams framing to unreinforced masonry walls or peers that there has to be some supplemental support for provided and the concept is that is pre-applied shoring in case the brick gives way. and the ways that the steel

frames are detached to the existing steel beam across the front really don't provide that sufficient support for that. where the concrete moment frame it really integrates the whole front part of the building and it can't really move. and the moment frame has been designed tofit within the same surround as the steel moment frame and it's really thesame amount of disruption . so we did , i did take that very much into consideration that the destruction aspect exactly and how the work would be done. that's it. >>. >> president: i'm not an engineer but in essence what you're saying is the steel moment frame does not have a lateral support or ends up

being concrete if itprovides that full support . >> that's part of it, yeah. >> thank you. we will now hear from the departmentof building inspection. anything further ? >> thank you. the appellant said the department been misled. i'm notsure where that's come from . revisions andchanges are fairly commonplace . it's not dpi's duty to provide the applicant's motive. i will say if the permit holders had completed the work in the 2005 permit they would havereceived their certificate of final completion and it would have complied with the notice of violation that's outstandinghere . >> we have a question from vice president swig . >> vice president: to the

argument that things have changed, that would be the appellant's argument and to the argument that sorry, to the argument that the permit holder changed the game , change the design which the appellant made and then to the argument which is while the standards by which the project has to be done now have changed, may i have your thoughts on that. who overrules whom on this? if this were there was a plan that was submitted to you that was according to something which was acceptable 20 years ago was presented to you today, but it was not code compliant, would you honor that plan or would you say to the applicants

sorry, that was 20 years ago but we have new and better rules because we have new discoveries that make a project more safe andsecure ? which would outweigh the other please? >> i understand,yes. i would disagree with your statement that has to be done this way . you said, i have the 2005 permit with those structural designs that was started back then and thepermit was reviewed under those 2005 hundreds . if it was it could be built according to those 2005 plans under the renewal permit and get their final inspection based on that previously

approved design it would receive their certificate of final completion. then it would be in compliance with the ul the ordinance that said it wasn't completed so i believe they are ,they're in their rights to change the design here prior to the

>> i be glad to. i think our job is to design withrespect to appellate counsel .and the cityattorney

>> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses and challenges residents to do their business in the 49 square files of san francisco. we help san francisco remain unique, successful and right vi. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i'm one of three owners here in san francisco and we provide mostly live music entertainment and we have food, the type of food that we have a mexican food and it's not a big menu, but we did it with love. like ribeye tacos and quesadillas and fries. for latinos, it brings families together and if we can bring that family to your business, you're gold.

tonight we have russelling for e community. >> we have a ten-person limb elimination match. we have a full-size ring with barside food and drink. we ended up getting wrestling here with puoillo del mar. we're hope og get families to join us. we've done a drag queen bingo and we're trying to be a diverse kind of club, trying different things. this is a great part of town and there's a bunch of shops, a variety of stores and ethnic restaurants. there's a popular little shop that all of the kids like to hang out at. we have a great breakfast spot call brick fast at tiffanies.

some of the older businesses are refurbished and newer businesses are coming in and it's exciting. >> we even have our own brewery for fdr, ferment, drink repeat. it's in the san francisco garden district and four beautiful murals. >> it's important to shop local because it's kind of like a circle of life, if you will. we hire local people. local people spend their money at our businesses and those local people will spend their money as well. i hope people shop locally. [ ♪♪♪ ]

>> this is a huge catalyst for change. >> it will be over 530,000 gross square feet plus two levels of basement. >> now the departments are across so many locations it is hard for them to work together and collaborate and hard for the customers to figure out the different locations and hours of operation. >> one of the main drivers is a one stopper mitt center for -- permit center. >> special events. we are a one stop shop for those three things. >> this has many different uses throughout if years. >> in 1940s it was coca-cola

and the flagship as part of the construction project we are retaining the clock tower. the permit center is little working closely with the digital services team on how can we modernize and move away from the paper we use right now to move to a more digital world. >> the digital services team was created in 2017. it is 2.5 years. our job is to make it possible to get things done with the city online. >> one of the reasons permitting is so difficult in this city and county is really about the scale. we have 58 different department in the city and 18 of them involve permitting. >> we are expecting the residents to understand how the departments are structured to navigate through the permitting processes. it is difficult and we have heard that from many people we

interviewed. our goal is you don't have to know the department. you are dealing with the city. >> now if you are trying to get construction or special events permit you might go to 13 locations to get the permit. here we are taking 13 locations into one floor of one location which is a huge improvement for the customer and staff trying to work together to make it easy to comply with the rules. >> there are more than 300 permitting processes in the city. there is a huge to do list that we are possessing digital. the first project is allowing people to apply online for the a.d.u. it is an accessory dwelling unit, away for people to add extra living space to their home, to convert a garage or add something to the back of the house. it is a very complicated permit. you have to speak to different departments to get it approved.

we are trying to consolidate to one easy to due process. some of the next ones are windows and roofing. those are high volume permits. they are simple to issue. another one is restaurant permitting. while the overall volume is lower it is long and complicated business process. people struggle to open restaurants because the permitting process is hard to navigate. >> the city is going to roll out a digital curing system one that is being tested. >> when people arrive they canshay what they are here to. it helps them workout which cue they neat to be in. if they rant to run anker rapid she can do that. we say you are next in line make sure you are back ready for your appointment. >> we want it all-in-one

location across the many departments involved. it is clear where customers go to play. >> on june 5, 2019 the ceremony was held to celebrate the placement of the last beam on top of the structures. six months later construction is complete. >> we will be moving next summer. >> the flu building -- the new building will be building. it was designed with light in mind. employees will appreciate these amenities. >> solar panels on the roof, electric vehicle chargers in the basement levels, benefiting from gray watery use and secured bicycle parking for 300 bicycles. when you are on the higher floors of the building you might catch the tip of the golden gate bridge on a clear day and good view of soma. >> it is so exciting for the

team. it is a fiscal manifestation what we are trying to do. it is allowing the different departments to come together to issue permits to the residents. we hope people can digitally come to one website for permits. we are trying to make it digital so when they come into the center they have a high-quality interaction with experts to guide then rather than filling in forms. they will have good conversations with our staff.

>> hi, everybody. our staff. i'm greg perloff, and what a pleasure it is to be involved in this celebration of metallica, and a metallica takeover of san francisco. >> that's right. that's right. that's right. >> you know, it all starts with the music, and the thing about metallica that makes them unique is their fan base and their fan club, and as the word of metallica has spread all these years, people from all over the world are coming to san francisco, staying in hotels, taking different