we would have brought a letter saying the appellant could appeal it. this happened on friday, the 20th. it was brought to our attention monday morning. we suspended if the following day. i believe and and and and and notice was issued february 1, so there was a lag, and our suspension was done before the appeal was actually filed. this was filed sometime after. january 20 was a permit issued. february 1 was the appeal filed. that gave the 10-day window, and the appellant also filed a request, but before the permit was issued and the appeal period would have occurred, they could have had the hearing, and the income would have been factored into the decision on the permit. good >> you would not have set issued a permit? >> not until it had been completed. >> the appellant is going to be able to hear it right here as well as -- there will be a dr hearing. >> we would have otherwise had the dr hearing, the permit issued, and presuming they had approved it was proposed, this is where we would be, but we did suspend a permit to do the bbn. we have a dr sched

i'm not trying to create sympathy for the appellant. there is a description of this family of four children, i am assuming the husband and wife, doing without christmas gifts, not buying this and not doing this activity. because all their hopes and dreams and finances are wrapped up into this process. it falls upon us, this board, to do whatever we can to try to ameliorate this situation. i dunno if we can do it properly with the law or not, but short of being able to, i'm not sure how we can get the things that they asked for, i am going to overturn. but there are real issues having to do -- i will vote to overturn. there are real issues having to do with the waterfront bakery, having to do with whether or not this operation needs a vendor's permit from the police or an mff permit from public works. i guess iwhat can happen, she an can start operating, and because of these problems, they can come and revoke. i would hope that rather than revoke, and they tried going to ward at some of the things that we are requesting -- that i am requ

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 attorney's guidance, we are timely on the ceqa appeal because it is pending before your boar

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

this is what the appellant in this case what request. again, these are processes that the department can follow. we tried working with the applicant to determine if it is available because a search for a secondary location to provide for it is unfortunate -- appeal the decision of the nile for the department. i will answer any questions you may have. this correspondence was between my staff member specifically. >> the answer is yes? >> there is a time yet for when the police sent this. . the notice came to disapprove. is that normal? >> since your documentation shows that your folks were prepared to approve it. >> this is an interesting situation. we informed the police department requesting updates. what happened was, during that time, the individual processing does permit were no longer allowed to work for the tenacity and county of san francisco. the process up to that point, we had to follow it up in november. specifically, the local police station to determine if they received misinformation had what their findings would be. we fina

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

this is what the appellant in this case what request.gain, these are processes that the department can follow. we tried working with the applicant to determine if it is available because a search for a secondary location to provide for it is unfortunate -- appeal the decision of the nile for the department. i will answer any questions you may have. this correspondence was between my staffhat time, the individual processing does permit were no longer allowed to work for the tenacity and county of san francisco. the process up to that point, we had to follow it up in november. we finally got it in november of 2011. there were also issues during that time for the other permanent that we discussed earlier. this was all during that time when occupy sf was in the area. they were trying to clean the area and handle a more compelling situation. there were certain delays and built in to the sperm that. for that, i will apologize. >> my question was going to be, until you showed us the communique, and there were nothing's -- there was nothing in a

is not here region one of the appellant is not here. if you will step forward. you have seven minutes to speak. he was not intending to speak, so commissioners, i think we should proceed. >> the subject matter is going to be heard next thursday at the planning commission, so i would like to out for a continuance so they have the chance to review this matter and make a decision. >> we will go into details, and then we will hear from the party as to whether or not they object to a continuance. >> planning is going to read your the standards of window replacement and the guidelines to determine appropriateness of the windows installed a few years ago into my building, and we are going to determine the appropriateness, and we have neighbors coming to speak as well. >> is this not ready for a hearing today? >> there was a procedural hickock -- hiccup. there was a request for notification but was not acted on. the permit was issued and appealed, and that means the permit was in the board's times fiction and the planning department and jurisdi

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

commissioner lee: no question with the appellant. no? i have nothing to report other than we filed for the permit a couple days after this hearing in november. commissioner murphy: so isn't planning now? you did not receive the permit? >> yes, we received the permit. commissioner walker: do you want a continuation? >> yes, until we get the permit. commissioner murphy: does anyone know how long this would take? >> we could consider treating both cases similarly, if that is ok with you. commissioner walker: 90 days? commissioner murphy: i am not sure if that is enough, talking about planning. commissioner walker: maybe they could come back in 90 days to let us know. commissioner murphy: second. >> roll-call vote. is the public comment on this item? thank you. we can continue with the vote on the motion. [roll call] the motion carried unanimously. item e. new appeals to orders and abatement. 6755, 336 pear street. seven minutes for the department to speak, seven minutes from the appellant. rebuttal then public comments. >> members of the bo

the appellant made a comment regarding that they could not speak. everyone got the same amount of time as far as process is concerned. his comment relevant to a vote that was taken and then not approved and another motion that did not pass after testimony had been concluded, and another motion was put forward. we do not allow public comment after failed motions. i want to leave some time for the officer to respond because i think public safety will come up over and over. with respect to the numbers, the specificity of complaints, officer more has information that will be helpful. >> as far as the calls to that location, i brought up 3000 calls in 24 hours. i do not know at the time line or dates. i ran all calls to the exact location, 4649 geary blvd. i also ran all calls on that unit blocked, the 4600 block as well as the intersection of 11th ave. i broke that down into the 2:00 a.m. to 6:00 a.m. period. i went through each call for service and figured out which once belonged to jack in the box. since january 18, we have 37 calls. that is about one

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

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.

the appellant thought she fully describe the product she was going to sell. i think it is problematical. i do not think what she is selling is edible food. it seems as though she may require a permit from the police, so that is one problem. another problem is i see no similarity between the coffee and tea being sold there and that being sold in burger king. it is not their principal business. i do not see why that would be any competition. i was little surprise over the uproar of this particular business. this is a unique product. i just assumed i knew the answer. it seems unfair that someone could come in with a much lower cost and compete with those businesses, but we cannot have this kind of food operation within 1,500 feet of a school. it seems there are certain areas of the city where this should be prohibited, and this would be one of them. they could only par for an hour, and the department would require them to be there. it is not thought out, and the amount of expense is a pilot has had to go through to find out a lot of things that should have been

the appellate court is just another type of jury, right? the supreme court is a very different kind of jury because the supreme court, and having only had one case before them, i learned very quickly that president -- precedent is not as important as the justices, who will decide what the law is. they will change what the lot is if they get a majority of their sisters and brothers to go along with it. to have a jury made up of diverse cultural views and understanding only makes us a stronger society. so i think -- i personally think it is a good thing. i do not think you ever separate your life from what you do. your personal experiences -- some of the personal experiences i talked about tonight shaped my life, and i think they are important parts of the decision- making process in may, that they did not overwhelm -- but they do not overwhelm the legal obligations i have in the case. >> i am going to ask a different kind of question, which is -- do you see the difference between the idea of a constitutional democracy, which is a term you ha

. >> i did not mean him as the appellant. >> you mentioned supervisor mar and the appellate counsel mentioned him. did he take a position on this? >> as i understood it, with the conditions put in place, he supported it. initially, he did not. i did not have face-to-face conversations with him. i do not know. i know his staff suggested various things, security guards on the weekends. that came from him. they did it. >> this could become a political issue. we just got caught between a two issues. public safety, my employees and my family, if i think it is unsafe, i would not be open. >> any more questions? >> thank you. >> we can hear from the department now. >> good evening. entertainment commission. i apologize, i am nervous. i have not done this before. we issue a lot of permits but do not get many appeals which hopefully speaks to our process. hopefully you had a chance to read the brief. as somebody mentioned, it was pretty clear. i do not want to repeat a whole bunch of things but i will explain there has been some question about why the entertainment is -- commission is involved. we hav