the appellants have two locations. they have the location in the mission at 3153 i believe 16th street and 100 at montgomery street. when the original water was issued granting a license, they were giving until 3 a.m. to stay open. the provisional license said 1 a.m., but the actual permit that was issued said 3 a.m.. although the appellants did not stay out until 3 a.m., they operated passed the 130 a.m. or 1:00 a.m.. it became apparent to the dpw that the appellants were staying up past 1 a.m. and a call was made to them on june 1, a discussion was held and told it had been amended and the e-mail had been sent and apparently not been seen by james steven. the mission area there is two bars. it's very livelily in the mission. the card is a small card. it's in front of one bar very close to one of the bars. about 1:00 the starts to get crowded. it should be noted there were three unlicensed, unregulated carts which the appellant had made the report to the police which were taking business from them. the appellants had

if it comes back to us then will there be public comment or just the appellant? you're required to give the public the opportunity to commit. i apologize there were a lot of things filed after 5 o'clock but for 677 - okay one of them had an order of abatement. and the time mooinz has expired so are you saying that then you're wanting to continue the other maturate but uphold this matter because you see them as linked >> basically i can't separate it so we want to go back and take a look at it and staff put together their estimation of what the costs would be to the person then we can make a more educated decision. as the commissioner said i'm afraid to make a decision on this item >> i wanted to make sure i understood. >> deputy director. >> if i can make a request for the property owner to provide a water plan. i want an accurate record to review to see if the water hook up will tell you how many units and how many toilets and water closets. it's fairly accurate. >> i just want to say the appellant still has time for rebuttal if they can come up and talk and add

case item number 2 case 6775481 ministry the appellant action requested by appellant the appellant has requested that to 6 additional months work cited. >> members of the board chief housing inspector this was a case that was continued from the appeal board. we have 29 tourists and 49 residential. in the staff report that you received on page 3 you have a data entry there we did a reinspection and you have the information so far as the housing inspectors observations and i want to update that for you. we went out there yesterday and what we're seeing is there's substantial progress being made but none of the existing residents have been move forward into any of the new rooms but they have a plan - a spreadsheet they'll speak about in a few moments. this has been a year as of late saturday that the notice of violation was issued and we have approximately instead of 2 hundred and fourteen we have 80 violations that have been done and it's still not itself case. that's the certain to us. and while we're very happy you can see from the photos what we're going to get as a result is complete

>> the appellant speaks during the appellant's time. if the attorney gives the time. >> not very much. >> you are not considered public for public consideration of comment >> you are denying me the right to speak? >> your attorney spoke for you. >> there needs to be said in rebuttal and i would appreciate to be able to say something >> i don't have a question. i would like to say that there has been nothing presented that gives us any argument for taking jurisdiction back on this issue and i would like to move to deny the request for jurisdiction. >> is there a second? >> second. >> before a vote, commissioner walker would your finding be that the appellant failed to show that his lateness in finding and jurisdiction request were in error on the part of the city >> that's correct. there is something that i was looking for legal reason to take take back on jurisdiction that we have no jurisdiction of and there is nothing presented that gives us any legal reason to do that. our staff has worked with this, has issued the notices of violati

>> yes. >> i'mal son perry, the appellant. i'm here in person to talk about the request made yesterday and i'm confused because the copy of the request was agreed. the other party agreed to it. so anyway, i know that it's still a board vote whether to -- >> i believe i explained that the permit holder had agreed to a june 19th date but it wasn't a date that i could be here. >> that's okay. i did not get response brief before this date which is not a lot of time and we called and asked what to do about it and we requested the scheduling and i didn't fax this until yesterday and got the brief yesterday afternoon. so i understand that it's not the best way and nobody wants to reschedule it a month later but we were still stuck with having a day to look at it and figure out whether there was anything new and it might be obvious that i'm not an attorney. we are representing ourselves as neighbors and we keep going through the process and following the rules and for whatever reason i didn't get the brief. i don't know if it was an a

sf 71234 >> this can start with the appellant. >> is there an appellant here or anyone on her behalf? >> from victor and cynthia we are looking at the option of rescheduling. >> why don't you state your name. >> my name is nicole. >> you are asking the board to reschedule this to a later date. why don't you explain at to the board. >> there is a couple reasons, the three reasons is i'm using my home as a residence and i have leases and documents to prove that. the other reason is that when i was attacked last summer i had some pretty severe disabilities and i have been on bed rest for a few years. it's pretty difficult for know get things done on my own. so, i brought my friend in to work for me for a few days. i'm just physically in capable of doing this on my own unfortunately. i would like for you to have a chance to review these documents and the third reason is this woman is a suspect in my attempted murder. i filed a restraining order against her and i feel very uncomfortable in her presence. i would like to be here another date where she is not in this room. >> are you finished

case item number 2 case 6775481 ministry the appellant action requested by appellant the appellant has requested that to 6 additional months

to speak. >> the representative for the appellant. is that you. if you would like the person from the public that stood up to be part of your presentation. >> we would just ask that you not continue the hearing. >> would you state your name? >> my name is dan kramer and i represent the west portal association. i represent the newest process. the notice was for two days and not for 10. this is a violation of the rule no. 7. that's initially the process. also we feel that the applicant did not provide complete information on the application which is a revocable issue. so, furthermore, it sounds like the police department believes that the permit shouldn't have been issued. there is many members of the public who agree with that and the applicant has left and indicated her decision to withdraw the permit. so, we respectfully request that you make a decision this evening on this matter. >> thank you. >> in the past when boards have been confronted with permit holders that don't show, boards have revoked the permit. we would issue a know s

the statement from the appellant was mostly correct. in the beginning we received multiple applications for location of this food cart. the primary one was on #16th street on montgomery. we had a public hearing on it and determination based upon the public hearing was to restrict the hours on 16th street, mondays through thursdays to i believe 1:00 a.m. and then, i stand corrected, to 12 midnight and fridays and saturdays to 1:00 a.m.. a direct order was drafted. at that point they had 90 days to get the fire department and the health department's approval. that information was provided to the applicant at some point subsequent to that we received appropriate information from both health and fire. one of my staff erroneously issued a permit for 3:00 a.m. and they quickly found out and corrected it and sent the applicant with the revised time which was submitted as part of the brief this this case. yes, we did erroneously issue a permit which has been corrected. over time we continued to receive complaints via e-mail with the documentati

the appellant has been given much time. it's been two times the appellant had the time to submit information. we request the board move ahead with the hearing tonight. the neighbor is key for running testimony about the illegal uses that are occurring at the property and would support the department's position. >> thank you. the subject property owner he or she be given an opportunity to speak as well. is there anyone here on his behalf? >> thank you. >> good evening. i'm the attorney for mr. lackey, the landlord. with regard to the request for continuances. we do not have an objection to it. it should be noted that we are in the process of an eviction action against the tenant. thank you. >> we should also take public comments on this issue. >> is there anyone who would like to speak on this continuances only. is there anyone who would like to speak? please step forward. rescheduling. >> jonathan black. i'm here on behalf of lily palacios. we would object to rescheduling as the d. a. has informed us. this matter was origin

letter from susan brandt-hawley, attorney for matthew & kristine leffers, appellants, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 12-171, decided on may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit on condition that there be further setbacks at the front and back of the addition; four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental action under the city charter, the permit was upheld as is with no new conditions. permit holder: martin roscheisen. project: one-story vertical addition to existing two-story residence; roof of 3rd story addition will include green roof; project will have a basement addition; bpa no. 2011/05/04/5332s.request. item 4a; rehearing request: subject property at 611 buena vista west avenue. letter from susan brandt-hawley, attorney for matthew & kristine leffers, appellants, requesting rehearing of appeal no. 12-171, decided on may 15, 2013. at that time, the board voted 3-2 to uphold the permit on condition that there be further setbacks at the front and back of the addition; four votes being required to overturn or modify any departmental act

the photo of the appellant says they rent out the kitchen for private parties. the minimum fee is $1200. this is a resident control dwelling unit and more of the materials which advertise that food body me operates at 264 dolores. another listing for american sign language class at 264 dolores and this was from march 20th. so there is substantial evidence that shows this rent control dwelling unit has been illegally used for commercial uses in violation of the planning code. i will be available for any questions. >> thank you. >> this matter is submitted. >> any comments? >> i will comment. i think the evidence is pretty overwhelming here. the space has been used as a commercial establishment and i would vote to deny the appeal. >> anything else? >> i concur that the president attempted to get to the issue with the appellant, however nothing came forth in terms of answering the charges of the zoning administrator and the planning department. that's what we are really here for. >>> i will make a motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the zoning administrator

. >> are you related to the appellants, the leffers? >> yes. you are not allowed to speak under public comment. are you a family member of theirs? >> yeah. >> okay. thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm sue, i saw you at the last meeting and spoke under public comment. i would like to read a letter on behalf of 55 year resident of buena vista west. she spent from the time she was nine years old and today and still resides there. she couldn't be here but she did write a letter. this is from isabelle wade. this was written to rodney. i am write to go -- writing to object to the proposed decision on 601 west. as a resident, i can testify to the horrendous mistakes to allow the inappropriate development on our street. mistakes the past commissioner told me would not be allowed today which is to allow two modern apartment buildings. there is such a thing as character in the neighborhood. it is a shame that 611 would be allowed to convert to a carriage house among modern buildings. the proposed addition would further exacerbate an inappropriate cha

i don't have anything else to add i think you need to hear in the appellant and the adjacent property owner. >> i just want to remind everybody that the department has 7 minutes and the appellant has 7 minutes and then rebuttals. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. david may appearing on behalf of the property owner who's subject to the notice of violation. the department is a little bit behind the curb here. what happened after the last hearing the contractor that the doctor wanted to use went out and spent 20 minutes to a half hour speaking with the lady to mitigate her concerns. he was unsuccessful so we decided to use the contractor that the neighborhood wanted to use. he contacted them and received something that was called an estimate but it wasn't simply a statement which was not sufficient. i called the agency there mr. bush who would send out on estimate for the job. and specifically i don't want to get catch up her in words but the notice of violations. without using that language in a technical sense with respect to lead inc. so we're still waiting for an estimate from t

a rehearing and significant resource are spent on this where it's very clear all along when the appellant knew from day one it was legally two units. the report from 1997 revert to two family dwelling. the significant amount of staff time. we have had staff review and write the letter of determination, multiple appeal hearings and the appellant is unwilling to provide adequate information to the ford -- board and we find that extremely offensive. thank you. >> thank you. commissioners i had wanted to work with commissioner honda to try get the mls information he was looking on the overhead so you can all see it and it would be on the record. the way his computer s it's not possible. i know sometimes he brings his ipad to the meeting. it's important that everybody here see the same information. perhaps if you can work with the commissioner and let them know what the web address is. >> give him the ipad to play with. is there any way to make it bigger? >> yeah. sorry. >> i understand. that's why the commissioner is presented to what you received. i'm definitely going to give you an opportun