as you can see from the appellant's complaints and as mr. elman touched on today, the true nature we believe is found in their discretionary review where the seligmans raised issues of light and privacy. they have come to this board to attempt to stop a project they simply do not like by raising what purport to be safety and building code concerns. considering whether any of these new complaints have any merit, it's important that they assert that the city was incorrect not only tonight, but all the prior permits issued for this house over many years. the permits show the fentons and prior owners sought permits for that work and had that work inspected and signed off. not withstanding this conscientious record, in addition they claim the planning department and zoning administrator were mistaken in their prior actions for many years before they even owned the house. all thoi it has no bearing on the issues before you tonight, they would have you believe the city has repeatedly erred in issues permits for the building over many years. again,

this fact is acknowledged on i believe page 2 of the appellant's brief. secondly the appellant alleges there is new work on the site without permit. this allegation appears to stem from a potential misunderstanding, again of information available prior to your august hearing. even if this wasn't the case, work without permit would be subject to a separate code enforcement matter that would be aside from this permit and this appeal. thirdly, the appellant alleges that there have been improper inspections. here too, even if there were the case and we understand from colleagues from dbi that it is not, the appropriate remedy would have been to stop the work and obtain those permits rather than to rehear the matter. fourthly, the appellant alleges that work at the summit may impact possible historic resources. the project won't have any such impact, mainly because work is not proposed at the summit. this was stated by rec park staff and planning staff both at the august hearing and before that hearing -- and those statements were acknowledged by the appellant

action requested by appellant, appellant has requested additional time to complete the work. >> for the address 16 54 haight street, 2011, 52 853, the evaluation is to a permit was issued, evaluation, accessability issues, that permit expired. the date we renewed the permit, the work isn't finished yet. so, we would recommend that you uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment of costs. i did get a call from the representative of the appellant. the appellant [speaker not understood] members of the family were not able to attend today. the representative stated that they would comply with whatever decision you make today. thank you. >> commissioner walker? >> what is your estimate of time for them to complete the work for the permit? >> when they originally filed the appeal, it was on the assumption that the work was going to be completed in a matter of weeks. but because of an illness in the family, their whole timeline changed and i would expect it should be fairly soon, but because of an illness in the family it's kind of unclear. >> well, -- >> excuse me. the accessability i

additionally, appellant disputes that she has to be penalized for her efforts to abate. and this set of permits here, some issued and expired, some filed and not processed, and some new which cannot be reviewed because of the discretionary review, it shows that i am the appellant who is trying to fix the problem to abate the notice of violation and it is unfair to penalize me. for what? for trying to do the right thing? so i ask to allow the hearing. >> i just wanted to point out that council for appellant has prepared a written statement attached to her request for rehearing titled exhibit a, so if the commission would like to review that, that's essentially her argument for rehearing. >> yes, this is where i was reading from. thank you. >> but in addition to what she filled out on the form, there is an attachment and it's titled exhibit a. the first point that counsel makes in exhibit a is that there is a dispute as to the ownership of the wall. just for clarification, i went and reviewed the july 18th hearing where the commissioners sought to clarify whether or not th

we will start with the appellant's agent and you have seven minutes. >> thank you.abraham -- appearing on behalf of mr. ahmed. the reason for the appeal is the decision of the department is that it is overbroad and punitive. in addition we request a -- that the board review de novo the denial of the exemption request that the appellant submitted timely in a timely fashion. the smoking of huka pipes and the enjoyment of the camaraderie that occurs around that have great cultural significance. unfortunately, the smoking ban in san francisco allowed the huka bar to fall through the cracks of that regulation. as i stated in my brief, mr. ah med because he is a muslim is not able to sell alcohol and it does not comply with regulations regarding bars or tafns s -- taverns so he could not fall within the limited exemption to the ban. when he submitted the exemption he put a little box written next to it huka bar in hopes of continuing to operate it that way. he did not receive a clear indication that he understood that his exception request had been denied, up until the ti

these appeals will be heard together and we will start with the appellants, mr. snyder, if you care to go first, you have 14 minutes for the two appeals. we're going to hear them at the same time. >> good evening, honorable members of the board of appeals, the three of you. my name is josh bleaker snyder, i live two doors down from 530 sanchez, which is the property in question. i am opposed both tohe

we'll start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> thank you, president, commissioner lazarus, vice president fung. i put this picture -- can you see that? this is the property in question, where the construction is going on. and you can see just to the right, in the photo, is my house, which is -- starts at the street, and goes directly back. the house under construction begins a couple -- back, and then the houses are cojoined at that point. the purpose of our appeal is not to overturn the project. we would like to reduce the risk to my house. and by the way, i have my engineer here, rhine hart -- who knows much more about this. if you have a question for him, let me know. we'd like to narrow the scope to make it safer to reduce the amount of risk where we're really concerned is the excavation of this property, and the geogrouting that's occurring up to the very property line. this area is hillside, and it is do you knodune sands all the wao broadway. this tunnel of a double -- the double garage in the fro

which, as the appellant says, began in september of that year. we purchased the building in march, 2012, and we are as contrary to what the appellant says, we are not real estate professionalsment we do hold the building in a corporation but my wife and i have full-time jobs elsewhere. we merely hold this as an investment property. upon meeting with a lawyer to discuss various issues we learned about the perils of holding illegal units. in fact, the lawyer told us what the right thing to do was in this case, which is to declare it illegal and to obey the laws as they are required to do with respect to this property. the appellant just makes several statements now that really are the same as in his brief. he refers to his lease, if he wishes to litigate against the previous owner for false information or for not informing him of the status of the unit, he is welcome to did that. he asks for inspections to be made. we provide ample evidence in our brief and rebuttal, i will have my contractor's speak, about the various safety issues which are very

the documents the appellant just showed you, we have not had the courtesy of seeing them but if we had, i would tell you they are not relevant to the issue before you. you back in june this board spent a considerable amount of time looking at all aspects of this particular property and gave the property owner, considering the conditions at this site, from staff standpoint what were more than generous conditions. the property owner, if she does feel these are items that will meet the code requirements, should file the building permits to do so to ensure that the occupants of that space, the occupants of the rest of the building, the adjacent property owners, are protected. unfortunately this is the department of building inspection, under state law, under local law,. >> you can see from my point of view it's confusing, i am being asked to fix ceiling heights that are now legal. how can i pull a permit to correct a safety department that doesn't exist? the smoke detegtors are fine, i'm in compliance already with the january 2013 requirements even though it's not january 2013 yet. the lis

we will start with the appellant, if you will please step forward. is the appellant here? you have 7 minutes when you are ready. >> okay, larry paul, architect with la paul and associates representing robin steele in this appeal against the zoning administrator's letter of termination. our design as you can see features a 16 he will sloping roof covering the entire building (inaudible) there is our building right here. these are the adjacent buildings off dividero street. it's one of two or three modern homes, most of the others are spanish mediterranean, something like that. the front portion of the house is similar to the adjacent neighbors but smaller and the adjacent 4-story house right over here is quite large and we are set back, whereas this one is not. in working with the planning department this house has gone through at least 5 or 6 different designs over the course of about 6 or 8 months trying to resolve some of these issues and we've come to an impasse. we could not find any basis in the planning code for the comments that we were getting from the planning dep

seeing no public comment, then we will move into rebuttal, starting with the appellant. you have 6 minutes. >> good evening, commissioners, i've been asked last week to do a peer review. my name is pat buscovitch, of both briefs. i keyd in on two specific pretty much nonrefutable issues. in 2002 there was a permit to enlarge the building. a cfc was issued. some of the enlargement may not have been papered correctly but what was president in that 2002 permit was a roof deck. in 2002 there was no deck and there's a little confusion about the complaint made monday. the complaint was from 2002, when there was a permit that didn't show this deck, there is no permit to build a deck that now exists, to build a deck. there is a permit to build a fireplace on the existing deck, but a deck isn't existing legal if you don't have a permit for it. so from 2002 when a cfc was issued, which is a controlling document, no permit was issued. this permit is going to legalize a deck that never a permit to be built and decks are counted as a level of occupation for exiting. so someone needs

all we have is the suspension. >> did you check the amador county referenced by the appellant in his brief? he indicated they had a monetary fine. >> the list i have, october, 2012, i don't even have amador county as even having an ordinance. i'm not saying they don't, they may. the list i have of facilities, of klts and cities that have these retail tobacco permitting -- i'm not clear where that information was gathered. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay, seeing none, then you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> first of all, i really appreciate the board's interest in the economic impact of these sales and in the fact that there really isn't any rhyme or reason to the 30 days. also, yes, it is true the way your statute is written, all you have is suspension. however, the party can elect to pay a fine outside of the suspension to avoid the suspension and just a personal agreement or as a side agreement with regard to the violation. there's nothing prohibiting that at all. i think more importantly if there is going to be a suspension that's upheld, and let's jus

we are the appellant. the board of trustees is a mayorial appointed and supervisorial appointed commission that is in charge of the veteran's building, the opera building, daly symphony hall and the zellerbach hall. the war memorial commission is the voice of the american legion in san francisco. >> you folks are tenants, the building were you folks involved in the program development and design development? >> we are not tenants, we are beneficiaries of the trust agreement from 1932. >> let's leave that aside. are you folks in the building? >> we are in the building, yes. >> were you folks involved in the program development and design development? >> of the retrofit and repair? we have tried to be but essentially the board of trustees has shut us out at most times, saying they are the trustees, we're the beneficiaries, they're going to decide what's good for us and they're going to decide what's good for the building. we feel that we have, as veterans, this building was built as a result of the 1928 bond

seeing none, then, sir, aren't you an employee or a paid consultant of the appellant? so you can speak under his remaining time but you can't speak under public comment. we are moving into rebuttal now. so the appellant, you have three minutes. >> we'd like to have mr. -- speak to you about the engineering side of this. but let me correct one thing. there was a comment about a stairway. we had a stairway between this work and my house, we wouldn't have any problems with the project. the stairway only goes back as far as the garage. from the end of the garage, it's all new excavation and there's nothing to keep -- it will be going right by my house. the wall is going to be three feet from each side wall, and the geogrout goes within one foot now. previously it went right to the line. now they're saying it will miraculously stop one foot from the line, even though it's liquid. and they also have that in their exhibit showing -- you can see, maybe he can point that out. thank you very much. >> thank you. my name is ryan heart ludky. i'd like to answer one question that wa

we will start with the appellant, mr. johnson. you have seven minutes to present your case. >> good evening to you all. i'm here today -- the decision that they made due to a fine that my first permit i should have kept, and instead of the second one. i don't want to waste too much of your time tonight, but i have a family to feed and this is what i do here in san francisco, tow cars for the last 17 years. and never had no problems here. so that's what i'd like

we will start with the appellant, mr. johnson. you have seven minutes to present your case. >> good evening to you all. i'm here today -- the decision that they made due to a fine that my first permit i should have kept, and instead of the second one. i don't want to waste too much of your time tonight, but i have a family to feed and this is what i do here in san francisco, tow cars for the last 17 years. and never had no problems here. so that's what i'd like to say. >> vice president fung: sir, i was a little confused by what is really before us in this case. you applied for a tow driver -- you submitted a tow driver application for a new company named nelson. >> no. for bay ridge. i have previously held one for numerous years, just until i branched off to get a second job with a second company. >> vice president fung: and what's the name of that company? >> the company was named bay bridge. i previously held a permit for like 15 years, already, before bay bridge. >> vice president fung: okay. perhaps i got to hear from the dep

i'm getting nods from the appellant. >> okay. and again that falls in line with the municipal code, the law is very stubborn. i have other applicants that fall into it as well. >> but you don't have with you the application for the renewal of the existing permit, do you? >> not for nelson's, no. >> vice president fung: perhaps we should hear the rebuttal, and then -- >> okay. i just -- it's been so back and forth, i just wanted to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. >> vice president fung: officer, you still have time to make your rebuttal if you like. >> sure. on the nelson permit because that's what we're talking about. >> i believe nelson's is, at this juncture, mr. johnson you can refresh me, but i believe it was -- it should have been expired. he was applying for the bay bridge. so i think it will be over any way by the time this year is over. >> okay. thank you. >> when i'm looking at what was appealed and what was given to the department, the letter issued by the police department seems to be crossing wires.

we will start with the appellant. you have 7 minutes. >> good evening, board members, sorry to intrude on your evening in this matter. however, i think there is something that really needs to be addressed on the punishment phase for this type of violation. >> before you begin, would you like to state your name. >> my name is howard hibbard, i'm an attorney. what is so important about these proceedings is that when i attended the other hearing, almost every single violation received the same 30-day suspension. when you commit a serious felony or even serious misdemeanor, many times the matter is referred to the probation board to do an investigation to have punishment fit the crime. this is not done in this case and it seems to be arbitrary and capricious assignment that for this violation is a 30-day suspension, period. regretablely, this 30-day suspension, my client informs me, would be peril lus to her business. what i would like to recommend is that the punishment be changed or modified, there be a fine or the 30-d

i do not believe the appellants have brought forward any evidence tonight about the site permit that is before you today and i would respectfully request this board deny this appeal and uphold this permit and let our client continue with this project to make this a family friendly home. and as i said, who is here with the materials, mr. moddox is here to answer any questions you have if you have any further questions about the matters that have been raised this evening. thank you. >> councilor, you said you had copies of the 2008 permit? no, not the drawings yet, you said you had copies of the permits. i want to see the permit first. >> he has the drawings, the approved drawings. >> you have the permit? >> the stamped drawings. would you like him to --. >> i would like to see those, but only that portion dealing with the deck. >> if i could give you a set and just refer you to two pages here on the set. >> could you put it on the -- i mean you don't have a set for all of us. >> yeah, but when you look at the page, what i want to show, one is the --. >> it's not going to work. >> too

on for hearing today and we can start with the appellant. >> good evening, my name is paul antono, the appeal that i am working off here, it was not that the construction was done without a permit. on august 9, 2012, that's when i picked up my permit to do, to convert this space which was a 15-room motel into a two-unit -- two condos. the original notice of violation was received in 1996, 15 years ago. we had purchased the property in 2005. when we purchased the property there was nothing on the title report that had said there was a cloud on the title or there was an abatement. the abatement actually occurred in 1998, director's decision 3.998 and there was an initial bill paid in 1999 and we didn't find out anything until 2010, september of 2010, that it was going to be referred to the city attorney's office. as soon as we received that, i actually went to the housing department and i spoke to anthony leppe to figure out how -- what was going on, how to fix this problem. so we construed a notice of vial violation, he came in and did the property, i had an agreement with the tenants.

the issues you heard raised by appellant is on construction methodology, seismic issues. if you're inclined i would be more than happy to cede my remaining time to my colleagues at the building department who would speak to it with measure accuracy. >> vice president fung: no planning department notification was required. >> correct. absolutely no section 311 or 312 notification, no planning commission notification, from our department. >> good evening, commissioners. patrick o'reardon, dbi. i won't even begin to speak to the complexities of the engineering involved with this project but it is complex and it does involve means and methods or personaliation grouting and tunneling, shoring, having to do with creating this additional basement space. so i did visit the site yesterday just to get an idea of what the -- was and what everything looked like, and reviewed the drawings. and i did note that the drawings showed the personaliation grouting to be within the property at 2865 vil ahoe and didn't show an encroach onto 2875 vallejo. no work was going on to this permit whic

i have a feeling we shouldn't, simply that the appellant is here. she is here. she appealed this or she requested the rehearing and she is here. i don't think it's our responsibility that her support staff or her representative, her attorney, is not here. it's not our problem. >> i'm sorry. if i understand it correctly, janet, we would have to rule on the continuance issue first. >> that's correct. >> before we can take up whether or not we should be rehearing this matter, because we may not -- so we, by definition, have to tackle that if we want to get to the real issue, which is whether or not we want to rehear it. >> right. and the difficulty is going to be if you deny the request for continuance. >> uh-huh. >> then the party, then there is no continuance, then the rehearing is on for today and then the appellant is going to have to present the grounds for rehearing without council. and i think that might be a problem. i mean, i completely understand the predicament that puts you in, but she is represented by council. unfortunately you have the request for co

. >> is there anybody here from the owner's side, the appellant? >> i did get a call saying they were unable to attend and they'll live with whatever decision you make. >> just to clarify, they didn't request a continuance? >> they didn't request a continuance and they have no issue with whatever decision you make. they will follow through with that to the best of their ability. >> so, it seems like the straightforward option is to uphold the abatement. do we need to give them an extension time? >> i think maybe if we included holding it in abeyance until 30 days or 60 days, whatever seems reasonable to commissioners, i think. that's what i would suggest. >> what is reasonable? 30 days? >> 30 days seems reasonable. >> 30 days, let's do 30 days. thank you. >> so, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, could someone restate the motion, please? >> the motion to uphold the abatement, to hold it in abeyance for 30 days. >> second. >> are there other thoughts [inaudible]? is there an assessment of cost? >> i thought i was done. [laughter]

appellant provided further arguments with respect to the eir.he department did note the -- in question presented to the board. the previous hearing the board conducted and the appellant never requested a continuance or rescheduling for additional time for review. the board voted unanimous will you to deny the hearing request. the second and final item before the board that may be of interest to you was 4218 mission street. this was a building permit an appeal of a building permit for soft demo. there was no change of use involved. the reason this address may be familiar to you is because this is the proposed future site of the green cross, which is a medical cannabis dispensary. this was approved by you in february of this year, commissioners. however, the permit that would change the use is still under review by other city agencies, and has not yet been issued. the department did note that the permit on appeal, the soft demo permit does not itself change the use of the property to an mcd. however, the appellant did continue with extensive argum

they're also talking snow for the appellations. this system is dealing with a lot of moisture clashing with the cold air. look at all of the watches and warnings from the mid atlantic to the northeast. these winds are causing more power outages and bringing down trees as well. there are blizzard warnings also. unfortunately sandy will be very slow to weekenaken. >> rescue teams are heading to the east coast to help in the wake of hurricane standing. the national guard units are heading out to north carolina. they are carrying 60 helicopters that are going out pd >> they are ordered to stay until this crisis is over. >> you definitely have a much quieter folded this morning. there have been a hundred and 14 flights that have been cancelled and will show you how many major airports that are closed. we know that jfk is closed new work and philadelphia. these all major airports and they also had a triple down affect because a lot of them are used to fly and as a hub for international flights. these airports are shutdown and they antici

first, because it is a very important federal appellate court.second circuit is a very prestigious court. the chief judge is known as a conservative judge appointed by republican president. so you know, all of that makes for a very important decision anyway. but most importantly, this is the first appellate court say when we look at classifications based on sexual orientation, in other words, when a law treats americans based upon their sexual orientation that the government is going to have to come forward with a very strong reason to justify these laws. and no longer should the courts consider things like tradition or because we've already done it that way. and that if the government doesn't come forward with some strong justification, the laws will be held unconstitutional. >> eliot: let me try to compress ecan qual protection analysis to ten seconds. if the analysis need only satisfy a rational basis for the law, most laws are upheld. if they have to specify strict scrutiny, the law will be found unconstitutional. this one they said is the in