mr. kwaung, your director hearings and revocation hearings, are they recorded? >> yes they are. >> by tape? >> it is typically done by tape. >> do you have an idea? >> i don't want to hear them. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> comments? >> i will start. the complaints concern me. the numerous complaints even after the june 1st telephone conversation where the appellant admits he knew the time cutoff was 1 a.m.. the multiple instances of operation after 1 a.m. to me signal a blatant disregard of the permit of the rules of neighbors. i don't know how anyone could think that glaring music like that. i don't think it's a good practice to have two locations and one permit for this exact reason is that there has been no due process on that permit and no hearing on that permit. i believe it's unfair to do it that way. i would lean towards revocation of the 16th street but upholding the new montgomery. >> yeah, i think the -- that was the main question in my own mind. i think similarly as commissioner hurtado said, i don't think there was any

mr. kwaung returns? >> yes. let's wait until the department representative is here. is there a problem with the computer? >> he's back now. >> we need the mic. >> i reside at 3155, 16th street. i'm asking respectfully that you uphold the revocation due to good neighbor policy. when you had the hearing when this license was granted, i was there. it was changed, they applied for 3 a.m. but they granted 1 a.m. closure which the rule stayed they should start closing a half hour before the time granted. i have basically 9 videos of them operating past 1:00 in the morning. and i would like to play you one. this is from 5/13 at 2:03 a.m. right outside my apartment window. it's very short. >> it's the noise from the bar? >> no. they have a boom box and a sound system. they are also operating a gas powered generator that powers i don't know what, maybe the electricity for this. there is also a side table and chair. you can see it draws 6 bars on my block and it draws everybody underneath my window. [inaudible] i have another one that's from july 15. at 1:55 a.m.. same scenari

mr. kwaung returns? >> yes. let's wait until the department representative is here.

kwaung, architect and retained by the pell appoint appellant to review the case. >> before you continue, i need you to disclose quite a long time ago i had a financial relationship with mr. kwoung. i was his employer for his first job. that was a long time. >> i haven't spoken to you about this case at all. >> the respondent said that the owner, the appellant has never looked at the files of the case which is not true because i was representing her and i did go to the planning department and research the history of the docket and found a lot of discrepancy. first thing that is missing in the final set of drawings is a survey plan which was included in your submittal. a survey was part of the original submittal by a previous architect and subsequently the survey is removed from the final set. so it's like asking you the size of this room without giving you any tape measure to figure out how big it is. so i was able to get a hold of the copy of the survey and i did some analysis and the first mistake i find is that the point they picked as a start point for measuring the building height is inaccurate. this is very unusual. the front of the side is an angle. so the code me