i am representing the appellants, , foster, -- margaret foster, sherida ireton, and sheriann ireton. relief they are looking for from the board. the appellants filed this appeal for the very narrow issue of assuring that the permit holder, john britton, who is also the owner and the landlord of this, does not use this permit in order to eliminate the appellants' long-term laundry facilities at this. they recognize and have never disputed that the notice of violations issued by the department of building inspection do, in fact, identified and list serious problems with conditions of the decks and the stairs at this property. on top of that, the appellants welcome repair work if it is in the scope that he will conduct pursuant to this permit. they welcome that repair work to actually abate these notices of violation. it is very important that the board understand that that is not an issue here at all. the only issue here, once again, is that based on permit holder's communications with appellants based on the permit holders lack of response to the appellants' fears over the last few mo

the matter is -- >> i will toss my question to an appellant does well in. -- to an appellant as well. >> you spoke about -- whamr. gladstone is here, he is the person to handle both of the appeals. i do want to say that at the hearing back in 2003, i don't know what his title is. he indicated that proposition g did not apply to signs legal before the passage of the proposition. >> the rationale is? >> the rationale is that it was part of the amendment in 2006. let me read through what was said. the owner is allowed to use their properties. that does not mean this is not a new sign, this is an existing sign. they are applying to put up a replacement sign that is legal and permitted. >> thank you. >> i am not here on behalf of anyone and i was not intending to speak. >> comments, commissioners. >> i could not agree more with most of the comments made by the appellate and i could not disagree more with the comments made by planning. i think we just opened up the idea and this had to do with the signs that are not new and the city attorney went to miriam webster and decided that a reasona

let me ask first if there are any representatives of the appellants that are here. i know they have submitted written elements, but let me ask if there any written representatives. ok, seeing none, colleagues, we had received the written documents from the appellants. are there any you wish to speak on behalf of them? >> ♪ unbreak my hyde street heart fit it again, and do this work ♪ president chiu: thank you. and other members who wish to speak or sing on behalf of 1945 hyde? ok, seeing none, we will move. it is up to you to determine how you want to spend your time. >> thank you. my name is garrett jones from the planning department. given that we have not seen the written arguments by the appellants, and they did not present today, i am just going to quickly present the project and explain what the cost 32 exemption is. as i say, my name is sarah jones. i am a senior planner with the planning department, and i am joined today with the case planner, chelsea, and also a presentation planner. we said the board a letter. as well as responding to the three previous le

it would be in the pellets -- the appellants' breeds. commissioner goh: my question is whether the nov affects this? >> i do not see it noted, but it is typical but the contractor should check the whole deck for any signs and take care of it all at once. it should get a full inspection. commissioner goh: is that a deck? the ground floor? commissioner fung: it is only six or 10 inches above, but it is made out of wood. commissioner it -- commissioner goh: ok. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner goh: comments, commissioners? commissioner fung: i have comments both ways. on the one hand, there is dry rot, and it needs to be taken care of. on the other hand, the issue on the upper levels did look to be as it was impairing the entryway. however, i think mr. britton is an experienced property owner in san francisco, and i think he realized this could take him to a number of different venues, and he should be looking for a matter to these solutions so he is not in court all of the time. i would assume that this building is g

this is on for a hearing today, and we will start with the appellant. please step forward. >> hi, good evening. we are appealing the decision because we are in small business. my name is katherine viranyi. we are appealing this. we are a small business, unlike some that have restaurants or bars. we do not have anything else to sell. we opened this at the end of december 2008. there was an exemption for places that were prior, opened prior to 2009, december, which was the year. we were not informed that if we would have moved to a commercial building, which we would have done, we would be exempt from all of this. we found out about that in 2010. they sent us a letter, which was already too late for me to ask an exemption. we got the permit and everything in 2008. 2009. no one informed us to move into a commercial space. so this is a small business. we are trying to relocate. to a smoke shop with an outdoor area, which is very difficult to find, so it is taking us some time. we are not going to be opening a bar with an outdoor space, which is another exem

supervisor wiener: i have a question of the appellant.uestion of the side that could be appropriate in your neighborhood, -- one of the sites that could be appropriate. in these appeals, we obviously apply ceqa, but for a broader perspective of the city, no matter where eight cellular telephone company proposes to do this, there will be objections, based on the issues, whether it is because there is a deck on the rooftop, or there is no debt on the rooftop, or it is within 100 feet of my window. i am in no way passing judgment on those claims. i think a lot of people have concerns about cellular tower radiation, but we also need cell coverage in the city. i think we will all agree, and i do not have at&t, but my friends who do have at&t, it drives them crazy because of the constant dropped calls, and i think at&t is trying to work on that. how do we work on that? >> i think there's a difference between a baseless appeal and an appeal with bases. -- basis. by definition, no one can be within that 50 foot fcc perimeter. that is not the case

but the appellant -- i mean the clerk or the appellant went ahead to sell the cigarettes anyway. i'm wondering how thorough the training has been for such a clerk to go ahead to sell a cigarette to a minor, after the minor told him that she's not 18 years old. it is very apparent here what transpired. somebody was not paying attention or willing to adhere to the law. and i was sitting with the police officer who was with them at the time. the person was 16 at the time and looked her age. in addition, the decoy told the clerk that she was not 18. they proceeded to sell the cigarettes. many establishments that came before the board in the past have always argued on the side that such suspension will cause -- they should have taken adequate precautions to make sure to adhere to the dictates of the law. the department strongly feels that the 25-day suspension is very reasonable and the department is respectfully asking the board to deny the appellant's appeal and to suspend the permit for 25 days. thank you. >> doctor, i have a question. we heard about and we read about a cash regist

to start with built by planning and it was voluntary because the appellate has this action, all the appellant has done -- we are able to negotiate a contract that is more valuable than what cbs is paying me and therefore want to enter into this new resourced. they spent over $100,000 trying to defeat the idea that it was a voluntary action on the part of the appellant. they were voluntarily asking that the sign be removed but not deciding that they want to relinquish the right to display this outdoor advertising sign. this is removed by order of the accord. i feel a reasonable argument could be made when we talk about the sign can be removed. the calamity is that you're getting an income of 700 year for something that is worth 18,000. this is something beyond the control of that party. this was beyond control of the appellant that the sign be removed. i think this raises the issue that there should be an upper senate seat to replace. what you want your government to do is for them to be a shield to protect you, not a sword to come after you. right now, there is debate going on about whether o

>> i am representing the appellate here. he could not be here today. permit application 201107019385 was issued yesterday. the fees were paid. $17,000 in permit fees for $680,000 for work to comply with two notices of violation. notice of violation 05134. it deals with reconfiguring the buildings and reconfiguring the rooms and bringing the building essentially up to code. the thing is the permits for a year -- that permit is for 12 months. we are asking for beyond the six months. we are asking for more time to coincide with the permit. plumbing and electrical permits are also on file, and there will be some other ones issued as well. if this could simply coincide with the permit or pretty close to it. i understand that this building was a real problem. a number of permits, as you can see from your staff report, have been taken up, but this latest one has been issued. commissioner murphy: how much time do you need to get the project finished? >> comfortably, i would guess nine or 10 months. and the life of the permit says 12. to get the sign-offs' and

the matter is -- >> i will toss my question to an appellant does well in. -- to an appellant as well. >> you spoke about -- whamr. gladstone is here, he is the person to handle both of the appeals. i do want to say that at the hearing back in 2003, i don't know what his title is. he indicated that

president goh: just that side. >> the deck with the adjacent to appellant-- width adjacent to appellant's property. vice president garcia: could we have translation on the next agenda? it seems to come up every once in awhile. sorry. president goh: could you read that again? >> the motion is from commissioner fung up hold the permit on condition that a six- foot high screen you cannot see through be added to the deck width adjacent to the appellant's property. commissioner peterson: minimum 6 feet is what he said. minimum 6 feet. maximum of 6 feet? we are hearing from the department it cannot be more than 6 feet. >> my sense is both departments would appreciate some clarity on the maximum so it is not an open-ended condition. >> just 6 feet? commissioner fung: make it 6 feet. if you same maximum, it could be two feet. >> you could say six to 8 feet. commissioner fung: does make it 6 feet. >> a six-foot high screen will be added to the deck width adjacent to mr. leung's propery. president goh: aye. vice president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the boat

yet the appellants are still using examples from this time to make their case. with these conditions in case come out -- in place, the planning commission unanimously approved this patio in january. the brickyard has taken more measures to address noise than any other businesses in union street. we've tried to work within the existing physical structure because changing it would result in construction costs and cause further financial strain on a struggling business. noise ordinance compliance is not dependent on physical structure in place. it also requires responsible management. if it were physical structures alone, no venue would be allowed to have windows or doors that open to the street. giving the existing structure with the conditions in place, there will be no violations of the noise ordinance. we are responsible business owners and neighbors. we do not recommend additional changes. in closing, thank you, we do not recommend changes for the physical structure. we request the board denied the appeal and upheld the conditions imposed by the planning commi

>> i am representing the appellant in this case. in response to mr. murphy's question, there was a roof deck there. this-that we are talking about today is what we call a floating debt. it is not really attached to the roof. it sits on top, and it is in a series of four by four panels that can be taken up for maintenance purposes when debris, etc., gets below a debt. it can be combustible, and it needs to be serviced and cleaned. it is kind of a floating back, if you will. that is what is on the permit application that we have filed to comply with a notice of violation. we were looking for permits in the past but this deck in theory the problem is years ago, the old property conservation division, which is the precursor of code enforcement when the department was a bureau, issued a lengthy report in 1973, and that included -- mentioned a drying platform, which is basically what this so-called debt is. it is really a driving platform. deck is a misnomer in this case. -- it is really a driving platform. it was done with a permit and sign off in 1980. th

since the last hearing, we have had productive dialogue with the appellants. i introduced additional compromises with hopes that one of the two options would be acceptable by the appellant. the first option was using the existing bifold door system and keeping one open. 27 square feet or half of what have. -- bayside used to have. the second was a structural modification that removes the door system and built a wall with two windows. this would be 29 square feet of open space, just over half. this does address the structural modification changes requested by the appellant. [chime] as can be expected, hire third- party firms may present conflicting viewpoints. what is not conflicting is that the only government agency in place to measure noise has concluded that with three petals open, there is no noise ordinance violations. this would reduce the amount of open space by an additional 66%. we view both of these as being more than fair compromises. is that all of it? ok, sorry. president goh: thank you. from the uphappellant now. >> i'm with the golden gate valle

i am on behalf o thof the appellants here. they are the owners behind front properties. cdf did file a brief and in my opinion they are trying to read litigate things this board decided 10 years ago -- relitigate things this board decided to end years ago -- 10 years ago. this if for your use. if it becomes an issue, it is not in my presentation but given the way the process is before this board, i cannot respond. usually i file a brief and there is a response. i do not have the right. i could not do anything so i am trying to anticipate problems. >> you're asking the board whether it is going to accept -- jul >> i am willing -- asking if they are willing to accept the transcripts. >> we need a motion to except it. is there motion, commissioners? >> i would so move. president goh: is there any common from planning on this? any comment from planning to accept additional evidence and transcripts proposed? is there any comment on the motion? if if you could call the roll. >> on the motion from the vice- president to accept additional documents from the appellant, commission

it was my understanding that, vice president garcia, you ask a question of the appellant, to make a motion for a continuance, and then commissioner hwang clear 5 what "continuance -- commissioner hwang talked about what a "continuance" means in this context. vice president garcia: to clarify my confession -- to clarify, whether this has more to do with delaying the suspension than try to have additional time and to hire an attorney, so i feel a motion to continue is unnecessary. commissioner goh: in that case, we can call public comment on the substance. director goldstein: are there any members of the public who wish to make comment on this, and if so, please step forward? commissioner goh: i see other people approaching. are there other people who want to speak in public comment on this item? go ahead. >> my name is kathleen maxmara, and there were 13 letters -- i am kathleen mcnamara. smoking hooka, it permeates our building. even leaving the windows open year round is not feasible and does little to negate the impact. a tenant on the second floor of our building has already had two bou

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 have a copy of what was sent to the appellants. vice president garcia: to the appellants and the other neighbors earlier enumerated? >> i do not have that, but i do have a copy of the notice that was sent to 1838. vice president garcia: thank you. director goldstein: is there any other public comment? seeing none, the matter is before you. commissioner fung: i think we should continue this case until some point where all of the facts are known. commissioner goh: the revision permits. commissioner fung: continuing, we still maintain jurisdiction over the jurisdiction request. commissioner goh: do you have a date, commissioner? commissioner fung: madam director? director goldstein: i am wondering if we want to hear from mr. sanchez or another? vice president garcia: before we keep going, and i am sorry, but perhaps we want to entertain this comment? >> that letter was produced when we went down there. it is an enigma to me when they produced a document saying 1850 and a house on pine street received the notification, and we were not

questions that were not raised to my knowledge, we did only received this week a report from the appellants that contains the sound engineer report, so we have not had time to review that with the entertainment commission, since we came in i believe on monday, so we have not had time to confer with entertainment commission. the noise ordinance is a bright line. they are in violation of the noise ordinance. they say they are not in violation. if we receive future complaints, they can go out again. we can have them investigate matters to ameliorate thought. >> the last question would have to do with commission staff. it had to do with the retractable awning, and that was based on recommendations by humanwhom? >> that was something that was developed by project sponsors and neighbors, so i different to the neighbors -- i defer to the neighbors on how it was developed. >> thank you, mr. smith. >> this particular case brought some interest to me, so i walked around area on an evening when it was relatively busy, and the intent was not necessarily to be able to do this, but what was important to

finally, the appellants will have up to three minutes for a bottle. unless there are questions, we ask supervisor kim, supervisor in the district of this project -- the you have any comments? none at this point. appellants, you have up to 10 minutes to use as you see fit. >> thank you for the opportunity to present this the afternoon. i am presenting my own appeal. the reason is simple. after presenting the facts of this case and subsequent discussions to counsel, it became clear the fact pattern that will continue to be presented by me stands by itself. it does not require a major law firm to take attention away from the real issues. at&t will attempt to use scare tactics to convince you that federal law prevents you. at&t must show the proposed project does not exceed our emission limits. they are incomplete and inaccurate, respectively. before i get to the history, i would like to point out that my wife, who was going in san francisco, and i feel the need to appeal the decision. by way of background, i have been a small business investor and have m

i understand in some situations it may be appealing to allow an appellant to continue for some time, but if you were to play this out, all this really does is allow the smoking to continue in a building where people live. i just don't think that there is anything in the equities in this case that suggest that not moving forward with the suspension -- there's nothing to suggest why that should not happen in this case. if you have any questions, that would be fine. i think this was a unique circumstance where, again, by allowing a continuance, she is just facilitating conduct that a number of the speakers have already said is harmful to the health of the tenants. commissioner garcia: i am assuming the lady next to you is your associate? >> she is. she is the senior inspector who did all the work in this case. they have taken the steps to get them to stop. we have already requested and they have already been ordered to cease and desist. we would now like to take their permit a way so they cannot sell tobacco. yes, that is missed jimmy young, a senior inspector from the department of pub

i thought we helped out the appellant, tonight the requestor. we helped her out because we thought that in her best interest, you know, things would resolve were she to except the arrangements offered having to do with the porta-potty. i do feel it would be reasonable to continue this and contemplated at some future time, depending on what happens at the rent board, whether or not to grant a rehearing. commissioner fung: i move a different opinion. the issues and information brought forth tonight are the same as what we saw last time. the resolution of those issues is not going to correct this venue. -- to occur at this venue. i do not see anything new added that is procedurally required. commissioner garcia: i don't need to be argumentative. i guess the manifest injustice to me is the fact that i just feel it would be manifestly unjust were we not to participate in making sure that this particular tenants' rights are protected. i am confused as to why she is not do some compensation. to me, that represents manifest injustice. >> we did hear som