starks >> my name is stanley -- appellants? >> my name is stanley. i will start on a lighter note by wishing you a happy birthday yesterday, president chiu. i am here to announce that the knob hill coalition, of which i am a representative and which i represent, and also four individual appellants, have entered a settlement agreement with the project sponsor, the owners of the masonic temple. the individuals are william carroll, donna muse, elizabeth d'amato, and giacommo. but agreement with the owners of the masonic, we have entered into the agreement. as background, we are here before you on the appeal of the decision of the planning commission to approve the application by the owners. the principal issue before us is the planning commission approved the motion with provisions which would allow for 68 large entertainment events, and 219 large events, not including more of the entertainment -- as conditions of the c.u.p. but agreement, the owners of the masonic have agreed to request the board to amend the motion so that the n

owner of record and appellant, 1004 magnolia street, oakland, california. action requested by appellant to waive the assessment of costs. >> members of the board, good morning. i'm the chief housing inspector. this is a single family dwelling in which a notice of violation was issued in march of 2010 and i just want to point out there is an error in our staff report. we have that down as march 10. it was march 4. the notice of violation is in your package. and going to show you a photograph which i think is going to help show the area in question of the building which is in your package. here is an aerial photograph of the property. this is the property in question. the area in question is this what right here. -- is what right here. along this wall here, there was peeling paint. this is a building built prior to 1979 and this was brought to the attention of the department through a neighbor a complaint. the notice was issued and as you can see from this photograph, someone after the notice of violation was issued, the work was still outstanding. the notice

we start with the appellant. the appellants attorney. >> good afternoon. president garcia: let's give them three minutes both, if they need it. would you repeat your name? >> my name is krista shaw. i am council for the appellant. we are asking that the matter be continued pending our ceqa appeal. we are also hoping to be able to come to an agreement with the neighboring property so that we do not have to waste any more of the city's resources in hearings. there is also litigation pending and with all of those items outstanding, it does not seem to make sense to tie up the boards time with a hearing on the permit at this time, especially given that the environmental review is in question. if you would like, we can move to the merits of the argument -- president garcia: right now, we are hearing on the continuous issue. how long is your window of opportunity bint to appeal? >> the cat x accompanied this building permit and it was dated early february. under the city attney's guidance, we are timely on the ceqa appeal because it is pending before your board.

the appellants questioned the number of operating hours. the commission clement's the -- limits live and non-live entertainment events, based on research performed by department staff. rather than recommending an arbitrary and addition, staff proposed a new limitation informed by historic operating patterns from 2002 through 2007. with separate return to the number of events that may be considered live -- wheat separately pounded number of events that may be considered -- we seperately counted the number of events that would be considered live entertainment. we approved a 20% above the average number of events during the considered time, but significantly below the maximum. we are below the historic high numbers during this time of review. this should be emphasized that the conditions of approval to establish a maximum number of annual event. based on historic event data, it could be reasonably expected the center will not host the maximum number every year. a hypothetical maximum of no more than the average number would reduce the events a

can we hear from the appellate? please state your name for the record. >> good morning, commissioners. i am a member of the little house committee and advocate for good government and an appellate come along with mr. butler. this deal concerns a new contract for a final inspection on a project. when in fact no work had ever begun on the original permit expired for nine years. the new permit was issued without complying with the mandatory conditions imposed by the building code. we're here to oppose the failure to issue a determination on the back of code violations presented to her, and to request of building inspection commission to reimburse the statement of the permit. the errors made by the executive and regular staff members in issuing the permit were brought to the attention through complaints made in july and august. there was no resolution of these complaints by the staffwith no r was again accosted on february 3 for her determination of the effects of the alleged code violations. she did not reply. to her c

you are one of the appellants, right? you can speak under rebuttal, but you cannot speak under public comment. we will move into a bottle. you have three minutes. -- rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> i am not afraid of this technology. i do not fear anything about this. i did want to say a couple of things. i do not know if this is the kind of forum to have this decision made. what i what so bad is to have been denied their permit and take this back to the appropriate forum for discussion. maybe that is the planning department. many other cities buried this equipment underground. why aren't we doing that in san francisco? it is not like we do not want the technology. we all want our computers to move faster. but it is how it is being placed in the city. they have a right to put this equipment and a public way, but san francisco has a right to oversee the whereabouts. i found a case in new york were this particular village, at the same thing was happening to them. a visually similar to box and antennas. the people were

. >> was it done as much as the appellants photograph shows? >> i know that the work was not completed. >> when you do the posting, and specter, do you take photographs? >> we do not. >> that is a procedure that you don't have to? >> there is no requirement to take a picture at that time. >> take a picture at that time. anwe are required to place the document on the building. it does not stipulate where on the building. >> any other questions, commissioners? >> one last thing come up when you did their reinspection you posted it again that said you were there and nobody was there to show you around? >> there was no time during my interactions with this property did i ever step foot inside. >> thank you. >> any other questions for the staff? >> i am actually sympathetic to this homeowner. i believe that -- >> are you deliberating now? i want to make sure we close the questions. >> final rebuttal? >> if there are no more questions, we should have a rebuttal. >> i am sympathetic i also know about neighbors and anything can happen to those notices.

we will hear from the appellant. to go good morning, commissioners. appearing as property owner. >> can i interject for a moment? what is before us is a decision to grant a hearing. just whether or not we should grant rehearing? i did not see in the attached. that is what we would be listening to now. >> i did not see anything in the application that required me to submit any new evidence. i do not know where that is coming from. i did not see anything to that effect. just for the record, the main the primary reason for seeking a rehearing is in order to proceed in superior court to have a prior decision reversed, i have to exhaust my administrative remedies, which includes this proceeding. i think your prior decision was erroneously, because into the state department has produced no regulation, law, or anything that requires me at any point in time to allow that they would have to inform and inspection. and they have not done that. i argue that with the last hearing. given the new opportunities that they failed to submit any law. the law is to the co

the appellant property is located to the south. given the location of the south, they would not feature any direct sunlight into that like well. -- light well. the deck is set back from the property line and matches with the light well. when they step back a few feet from the railing, he will not have a direct line into the adjacent property. the appellant has created concerns about privacy, about the potential impact of the grille. i did not even know if there is a requirement to show the gril ol on there. if it were someone to bring a charcoal grill onto the roof, i do not know that would need to be shown on any plan. these are items for the board to consider in your decision making tonight. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> i do not have much to add either. the real hyper code would be 42 inches high. -- the rail height per code would be 42 inches high. i do not see a problem with the gas grill. i think it is far enough from the property line to make code. i am available for any questions.

we will start with the appellant. >> i am representing the appellant in this case. first off, we think the board for continuing this matter at the last minute. we were in negotiations to settle this matter globally with the permit holder but never got a response. here we are, one week later, again going to the merits of this appeal. for the board members who were not here in january, the board granted a jurisdiction request in the mid-january based on improper notice to our client. this permit was originally called back in march of 2011. the permit holder waited eight months to have the permit finally issued and it was at that point that our client failed to get notice of the act will permit. we came to the board and now we are here for the mayor to be appealed. i and the appellant is believed -- i believe and the appellant believe it is a simple issue before us. it is invalid. the permit holder has admitted this in a prior testimony because, basically, the roof portion of this permit is going to be revoked and remove from the permit. the permit holder attempted to

that the appellant has expressed concerns of people hitting it by jumping. we will try to work to make sure we find a way to possibly move it higher if that is the case. i am available to answer any questions. president garcia: it would seem like redwood is giving off that color. >> [inaudible] >> could be required -- could be required that they painted some color that would match? that is a lot to absorb all once. they have a low height on the base. something that is not yet painted. they have that natural look to the wood. bat is creating some of the problems having to do with aesthetics. is that possible to work and to some tort of -- some sort of regulation? >> the department will require that they painted the equipmente color of the existing put to the best of their ability. we will verify that the requirement. right now, -- the permit was suspended, said they had to cease operations. that was one of the reasons they were not able to move forward. president garcia: thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. president garcia: something does se

you are one of the appellants, right? you can speak under rebuttal, but you cannot speak under public comment. we will move into a bottle. you have three minutes. -- rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> i am not afraid of this technology. i do not fear anything about this. i did want to say a couple of things. i do not know if this is the kind of forum to have this decision made. what i what so bad is to have been denied their permit and take this back to the

i agree with the appellant, it does not look appealing compared to the ones on the web site. why does it have to look like this? >> because it is a utility pole attachment. when you attach to a utility pole, you use a certain type of configuration to meet the coverage objective. they are very low powered as well, but a different frequency. it covers in a different way. when you attach to street lights, which is the allowance and francisco, you have to fabricate the antenna in a different way. when we see transformers -- >> she showed us this equipment attached to label. >> of the picture was a street light that was fabricated securely with an antenna to be part of one unit as a new pole into the public right-of-way rather than attaching to an existing pool. -- pole. it's not allowed in san francisco. anything else? president garcia: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. in our brief, we stated that there were some sort of argument stating as it relates to the notification of these facilities, it was applied prior to the adoption. it would require me to process the spermi

that case went up to the appellant court and the appellate court affirmed that decision. that decision is final. the city filed a lawsuit trying to stop the operation of the property as the hotel. raise issues under the planning code, under the hotel ordinance. the city abandoned that lawsuit and chose not to proceed. here we are. in the last 15 months, the superior court has dismissed that lawsuit. we left with the certificate of use and the operation of the property over the last 10 years as a tourist hotel. there are significant other legal questions that we raised in our brief. at the end of the day, it comes down to a question of fundamental fairness and trying to avoid the manifest injustice. in this particular case, allowing the kinds of inconsistencies that we see incident -- we see in this city decision making to happen. it had the effect of shutting down his business after 35 years. allowing that to happen would send a poor message to our citizens. i ask that you correct that injustice. >> you represented him in the hearing that took place before this board? >>

it is the safety issues for the appellant. president garcia: may be what we could accomplish, then -- commissioner hillis wanted to continue this. that would give someone from dbi an opportunity to go out there and check on life safety issues. i am sure mr. duffy would see that it happens in a timely -- si would support a continuation for the reason raised by commissioner hurtado. and i would so move. do you want to go to june? >> the board is currently calendar ring -- calendaring cases for june. president garcia: the appeal could be withdrawn if the client is ready to move. the board will not be generous about allowing her to remain past the graduation date. can you tell us the time when you think it is going to be? either one of you. i do not mean the day she will graduate. >> mr. president, if i may, with further stipulate a waiver of the rent for the duration of her occupancy. president garcia: thank you. >> she graduates may 19. i am not authorized right now -- i have to evaluate the issues, because that may affect our c

is the palin here for -- -- is the appellant here for eezy freezy? >> ms. lewis wanted me to ask the president if you could say one minute in response to the last comments. >> i don't think so. >> we're calling appeal number 12-024 doing business as eezy freezy, appealing a 20 day suspension of to bochco product sales stemmed from an imposed on that jury 15th, 2012. the reason is for selling tobacco products to minors. >> my name is rajai alkhalidi. i was not at the market when this happened. that does not mean much. i want to show you how desperate the financial situation is for that business at the moment. what i provided were bills from pg&e. i do not know if it was a sunny day or a sunday. the last piece shows until about 5:42 in the evening, what we took in was about 586. from these numbers, there is a sales tax that we have to pay. the numbers here show that this is not report the expenses over $2,000. this is over 3000 during the summertime. i made copies for about four invoices. those invoices, if we watched the time it would take and all of that, t

commissioner hillis: can we ask the appellant? if we modify the permit, to remove the water here from the roof, and eliminate any alterations to the skylight, the roof deck, would you agree there is no changes to the roof area? >> without seeing the plans -- commissioner hillis: this is the original permit so you have seen the plans for the original. >> correct. i have not seen the revision plans at all. commissioner hillis: we are talking about the original. if you remove the roof deck, alterations to the skylight, and the roof deck -- >> meaning keep it in its unit, where it exists? commissioner hillis: are there any other modifications being done. >> the only other thing i am not aware of is any work in the garage area. i do not know how that comes into play with any of these existing items. that is common area, how that falls into play. i have not seen the new plans. commissioner hillis: what is before us is the old permit. >> ok. as long as, without modification, is that going to be appealable? commissioner hillis: no. this w

we will start with the appellant. the appellant will be speaking through a translator. if you could please give them 14 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. he is the proprietor of the restaurant. i am this friend and i and his translator. i have no financial connection. once in a while, i do each in his restaurant. that is about it. my name is richard. >> ok. >> greetings to the commissioners and the department of public health and everybody else. the pest control came in today. he wanted to cement the report -- submit the report from the past company. earlier, i gave a copy of this report to the health department. can you take this? we wanted to submit the report. president garcia: the you have it already? >> just today. >> they gave a copy of the department -- to the compartmedepartment earlier tod. [talking over each other] president garcia: you are free to summarize its contents if you like. >> we would refer to the department, which gave them a report. president garcia: let me explain the problem, and we can stop the clock for a second. if we are not able to pay

start with the appellants, they will have seven minutes.

. >> is the appellant present? >> good morning. this is quite new for me, so you may have to excuse me. from what i understand, there is this to be a posting on the house when somebody comes out. >> what is your name? >> i'm sorry. barron flemming. i was occupying the home in november of 2009. i was going in and out of that home until march the force. there wasn't no posting of any sort. i did not get an e-mail. i didn't get it at that address. my sister gets all the mail and that is at magnolia in oakland. my understanding is this to be certified mail. i believe that is what it says on the web site. there is this to be posting on the home and it is to be listed -- this to be from a certified mirror. i did not get that one or the third notification on the directors' meeting. -- certified mail. the only posting i got was the last posting telling me i was supposed to come here. i do have a p i saved it as a message to a friend of mine helping me do the work. it is dated november 1. >> which year? >> 2011. it is my understanding i was

the appellant has additional time for rebuttal if there is more that he would like to say. six minutes. >> he realizes that he should do his cleaning early, and he will continue to clean them up and he will ask the inspector to inspect, and there are employees getting unemployment now. his restaurant is not that small, it is 280 seats. >> any rebuttals from the department? gosh i just wanted to point out that there are approximately 300 restaurant facilities in chinatown and the vast majority of them are on compliance. they'll be looking at this to see how someone who has gone so far off the track will be treated. the philosophy is always to take care of violations and the problems of the lowest level. we want to do it at the time of my inspection. only a minority go to the abatement conference and even fewer still go to the director of public health. the was the first time i mentioned earlier at the director of public health for the first time in front of this board. it is unfortunate that it was revoked, but it is because of his own actions, the lack thereof. i want to po

we will start with the appellant. the appellant will be speaking through a translator. if you could please give them 14 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. he is the proprietor of the restaurant. i am this friend and i and his translator. i have no financial connection. once in a while, i do each in his restaurant. that is about it. my name is richard. >> ok. >> greetings to the commissioners and the department of public health and everybody else. the pest control came in today. he wanted to cement the report -- submit the report from the past company. earlier, i gave a copy of this report to the health department. can you take this? can you take this? we wanted to submit the

this could go to superior court, but that is a costly position for the appellant. it is not the best argument for this body to take a matter on, but also in the past, w to superior court, they may have resulted in mta later ratifying a staff action. thank you. >> the citation you gave us to the san francisco charter. >> that is listed in respondent brief. san francisco charter section 4.1060.

we start with the appellant. you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> to clarify the six-month period, that is before tupelo ever opened its doors. since we have opened our doors, we have not had a single incident, a single fight. we had had absolutely no problems. [unintelligible] >> thank you, commissioners. we have heard a lot of stuff. i was -- the most amazing thing was the actual police officers coming up. and talking about how much broadway has turned into a war zone. let's kill grant avenue, too. broadway went downhill when they started doing the 8:00 towaway. and turned it into an armed camp. the only people who would go down with the people that were used to armed camps. let's look at broadway. this particular venue is five blocks up. that is a crazy argument. i want to go back to looking at the total circumstances surrounding the 2005 permit. if that was issued, you have a continuation. in my brief, i talk about property rights and -- this is a first amendment protected activity. you have the fact that s

an appellate court turned that around. i don't think we're in any actual danger of having that happen. that's not to say that courts shouldn't be aware of it and deal with it. the problem is when you get enclaves in which not everybody has a choice about what law applies, and if you live in the enclave, the enclave's rules control. that's what's gone on in europe and that is what i think we want to avoid. yes. >> senator schumer has recogniz recognized -- [ inaudible ] -- >> sure. she's a -- she's a superb lawyer and a sepuuperb person. i've worked with her on a number of cases and i think she would make us an excellent addition to the federal bench. she is a good sound common sense lawyer with her head screwed onto the front, which is what you need in a district judge. she's also not easily bored, which is also what you need. [ laughter ] >> which is also what you need in a successful district judge. >> i've known her since junior high or high school. >> worked with her and i think the world of her. >> i thank you all. th

the appellant raised issues about the 2005 stating that somehow that supersedes the previous conditional use authorization. that is not the case. they did not apply for it. any changes to the previous conditions of approval. there were not granted any changes to this previous conditions. they argued they had -- i would appreciate their argument. i understand the current owner'' frustration at finding this out. this was not brought to our attention until last year, until december of last year. the had been operating in violation of their conditions of approval. had this brought to our attention when there were operating we would have initiated enforcement action for failure to comply with conditions of approval. we wanted to address this when this was referred. we perspired -- responded with what the requirements were in the entertainment commission did not attach those to the authorization. with that, i will be available for any questions the board may have. >> would you look at appellant exhibit c. and explain, it is the second to last page. it is the last page. no. 8 that was referred