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

and we will start with the appellant. >> i am here for the appellant. we understand that it is not the role of the board to be the arbiters of good neighbor behavior. we're not here to impose this person on you tonight. the building code does exist to establish requirements necessary to protect general welfare of the general public and it is this role that we ask you to consider this evening. what we have here is a property owner that consistently performs work without acquiring permits as required by law. she has admitted to this behavior and having been cited as such, the conduct unfortunately has persisted. sometimes she is caught red handed. sometimes she is caught after the fact were able to persuade an inspector that she has now done what she has done to her property. the appellant here has personally witnessed a substantial amount of work being done by unlicensed contractors in and out of this building. and at the time the complaint is made, it seems the word is taken in she says no work, therefore nothing is done. when this property was marked f

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

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

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

i think you said that the appellant's attorney was in fault in the revised proposal but that the appellants themselves or not? >> that is correct. president goh: okay, thank you. >> we will hear from the appellants now. >> my name is richard zillman, the applicant. we are appealing the decision by the starke preservation commission. they took a very technical view of our plans. if we accept that the hpc is correct in both instances, which a doorway with appeals. the board of appeals job is to consider all goals, encouraging property owners to maintain their properties, and recognizing community support. the project should be evaluated not as to the effect on the carriage house but on the effect of the overall site itself, since the sot must be removed for repair work. it is considered an unavoidable, defacto demolition. we have decades of experience renovating san francisco victorian apartments. in showing our places, if we have heard it once, we have heard it a thousand times, light is very important to me and i love the detailing. we decided the facade contains historic elements arranged

president goh: just that side. >> the deck with the adjacent to appellant-- width adjacent to appellant'soperty. 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?

i am glad the appellant has not denied the fact that they did sell cigarettes to minors. it is strange the did not even ask for the id. the way he was told, the clerk was told that the minor was not 18. he went ahead to sell the cigarette. i think they should take responsibility for the action of their agent. i am going to respectfully ask the court to deny the appeal until probably 25 days have closed. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. vice president garcia: i am tired of hearing myself might the same argument over and over again. ever since this ceased to be a police operation and became department of public health, i think department of public health for some reason has blinders on when it comes to the economic effect of the penalties that are assessing on these particular businesses. i think if the facts as presented were accurate, the police department made a mistake, in that the decoy should have said i am not of age. it is not a lie of commission, but a lot of omission. but beyond that, i hope it resonates somewhere in the department of public health but t

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

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