vice president garcia: $8,250. that is what you're fine is tantamount to, relative to your sales and based on your gross profit percentage. i just want to leave that hanging. >> can i answer your question? >> i do not know that i have a question. >> if it is a 25 day suspension, i still have to pay for the loss of revenue, which averages. part of the franchise agreement is based on 50/50 of the profits, not net profits, but gross profit. even if it is a 75 day suspension. i am obligated to pay them that money. >> that does not make sense. you said there would be a loss of revenue to the city. you would have to have an assumption that everybody who bought cigarettes from you would not buy cigarettes for that 25 days. that is not loss of revenue. that is not a reasonable argument. but how can you paper profit you do not get? what profits do you have to share? >> based on the past 12 months of numbers generated for that category. whatever the gross profit was, the average growth -- average gross process -- profits, i

vice president garcia: in all fairness, i think mr. jarvis wants to address the board. president goh: do you have a comment to make in response to my comment about my confusion? >> i want to note that in this particular situation, even though it has dragged on for so long, we are not necessarily opposed, if the application of the current coze is used today. however, for future reference, we are using that for this particular situation. this is not something we expect on going. we have cleaned up the situation quite a bit. in that vein, because of the various things that have gone on in this matter, we are not necessarily opposing it. however, there was a statement that made it appear we would not oppose it in the future. we would absolutely oppose it in the future. i just wanted to make sure that was clear. president goh: is there a motion? vice president garcia: i would move this board overturn the denial of the application for a medallion, based on grounds that -- go ahead. >> we are overturning the decision. given the various comments by the commissioners, the unique

vice president garcia: no. commissioner peterson: aye. >> the boat is 4-1. the 25 day suspension is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. call the next item, which is kalesilassie bebresilassie -- gebresilassie versus the municipal transportation agency appealing the denial of a taxicab medallion. the matter was continued so it could be considered when all five board members are present. mr. alexander, you will have three minutes. >> three minutes? madam president, mr. vice president, when we were here last, the question was, if given the opportunity to do so, would we be able to show he complied with the current driving requirement for consecutive years. we did not know it would take this long. when we were here in april, he was prepared to show that he can and has complied. he has continued to be driving, while we were waiting for this hearing. the mta does not dispute that. he has met the requirement. he is a full time driver in every sense of the world. this has now been pending since 2008. his record is

vice president garcia: thank you. president goh: i have a question. maybe you can answer my question. it sounded from your earlier comments, and maybe mr. salter might be better to respond to this -- it sounded as if the measurements were taken at the ground level, and not a but the third level. i think i heard you say there is not a difference. >> that is correct. president goh: yet they were not measured. >> we extrapolated and used our experience to make that statement. president goh: ok. thank you. >> thank you. we can hear from the appellants now. >> i am still a little bit nervous, but i am getting better at this. i am representing golden gate valley. i also live across the street from the brickyard. we are here to request this board rescinded the permit for a second store deck with adjoining open doors. although this board requested that the applicant themselves investigate the noise impact caused by their project and work with us to find technical solutions to meet our reasonable concerns, that unfortunately did not happen. instead, they came

vice president garcia: i appreciate that. president goh: before we call the roll, if you don't mind, i have a question for commissioner fung. i thought i heard you say you would overturn the department with regard to the rare setback but you supported the front said beck. did i miss here you? commissioner fung: may be i was unclear. i felt the front setback was sufficient to define the upper story a, having less impact on adjacent yards. president goh: you would not vote to overturn the department with regard to the front step back? >> if i may offer a clarification, we suggest in the front setback proposed by the project sponsor is sufficient? commissioner fung: is sufficient. maybe i was not clear. president goh: i'm sorry. i understand. >> we can go ahead and call the roll. when you are ready. >> we have a motion from the vice president to grant this appeal, overruled the denial, issue this permit with this 5 foot 10 inch front set back, as proposed by the appellant, no rare setback, and with several findings that the 5 ft.

vice president garcia: what was the range? >> in our report, the outside measurements were about 63 dba or so. vice president garcia: that would be a medium or a mean. what was the range? >> i do not have that information. vice president garcia: did you choose the figure you chose? >> that is what is typically done in environmental measurements, what is known as the leq of the time we were there, the term. it is used in planning analyses to arrive at the contribution of a particular noise source as compares to the already existing noise sources. if you have a freeway, for example, and want to add more lines of the added traffic, what does that do to the overall noise level due to the freeway, or a rooftop fan, for example? you add it to the environment that is on 10 hours a day. how does that change what is already existing in that neighborhood? we looked at what are the changes in the ambient noise levels, or noise levels at that site due to various operating conditions of the brickyard bar and restaurant. doors opened, doors

vice president garcia: certainly to me. we are results oriented. president goh: i am concerned about precedent. >> again, on this motion from the vice president to overrule the denial and issue the permit with those conditions, and with that amended finding -- commissioner fung:aye. president goh: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the boat is -- vote is 5-0. a permit shall issue with those conditions and findings. [applause] >> thank you. president goh: let's take a minute to clear the room. >> if you could please clear the room quickly and quietly, we would appreciate it. we have one more case to hear. >> will call item nine. 3030 noriega street is the property. we are protesting the issuance to abel huang -- mabel huang a permit to modify a building, including constructing a new deck. appreciate your patience waiting here this evening. we will start with the appellant. >> good evening, president and the commission. my name is kenneth leung. i lived in this property 20 years. recently, the owner next door, the house -- th

vice president garcia: is a greater than 50%? i am asking you to speculate. >> there are bearing threshold's that depend on the replacement of the structure compared with the upgrades. vice president garcia: speculating, would you state whether this building would normally be allowed to be demolished if it had no landmark status? >> i do not have enough information to speculate on that, unfortunately. vice president garcia: thank you. commissioner hwang: is landmark status in question at all? >> no, it is clearly a landmark. commissioner hwang:. president goh: commissioners, any more questions? i think we are in deliberations now. vice president garcia: i guess i will go. i think my feelings are well known on this. the reason i asked that question, i know it has landmark status, but it seems as though landmark status is purely a function of the landmark status of the building in front. it has an unknown origin. many of the original features out have been destroyed. and were something to happen to the front building, then we would

vice president garcia: could we have translation on the next agenda? 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?

vice president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the boat is 5-0. this permit is upheld with that condition. >> there is no further business before the board. president goh: we are adjourned. >> i have 2 job titles. i'm manager of the tour program as well as i am the historyian of city hall. this building is multifaceted to say the very least it's a municipal building that operates the city and county of san francisco. this building was a dream that became a reality of a man by the name of james junior elected mayor of san francisco in 1912. he didn't have a city hall because it was destroyed in the earth wake of 1906. construction began in april of 1913. in december 1915, the building was complete. it opened it's doors in january 1916. >> it's a wonderful experience to come to a building built like this. the building is built as a palace. not for a king or queen. it's built for all people. this building is beautiful art. those are architecture at the time when city hall was built, san francisco had an eno

vice president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the boat is 5-0. this permit is upheld with that condition. >> there is no further business before the board. president goh: we are adjourned. > ♪ ♪ >> hello, and welcome to the department of elections right choice voting instructional video. it is part of the department of elections right choice voting outreach campaign and is designed to educate san francisco rig franciscoht choice voting. today we will learn what it is and who is elected using this voting method. we will also talk about with the ranked joyce l. looks like and how to market correctly. finally, we will see how the ranked joyce voting process works and to you an example of an election using ranked choice of voting. so, what is ranked joyce voting? in march 2002 san francisco voters adopted a charter to implement ranked choice of voting, also known as instant runoff voting. san francisco voters will use it to elect most local officials by selecting a first choice candidate in the first column

vice president garcia: are they ? that is all. -- are they new? that is all. president goh: i am looking at your submittal below the subject property. there is another peaked roof building. maybe you can show us on your map. that goes a little bit further. oops. i see. two stories. thank you. commissioner hwang: can use circle around? i would like to see the rest of the neighborhood. president goh: that is a school across the street, isn't it? >> the play yard. some open space. president goh: what school is that? thank you. and you mentioned that the building into the rear yard was off the table. was that on the table at some point? >> it was my understanding that was a matter of discussion. the planning commission was considering the third story addition independent of a rear addition. i do not believe plans were ever drawn up for a rear addition, although i could be corrected. president goh: thank you. >> the staff asked the sponsor to drop plans for putting up two stories, i believe, into the rear yard, and doing a much smaller top floor. the client said tha

vice president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. >> this is upheld with revised plans. >> thank you. >> item 6. appeal no. 11-021. subject property is that 1649 haight street. replace billboard involuntarily removed without owner authorization. billboard to replaced -- be replaced exactly in kind. work is at exterior only. work is not associated with any commercial space. we will start with the appellant. who has seven minutes. >> if we could stop one second. 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. >>

i don't share the view with vice president garcia in regards to property rights. i believe that this was passed by a wide margin by the public, the people of san francisco. i think that there is an irony here and in many cases where you have these major corporations squeezing the small guy. this is tough from that perspective. on the reading of it, i don't think we have a lot of wiggle room. >> this case is difficult. this is quite compelling. it goes through the point by which the appellant is not comply. there is the issue of knowing about the application and its subsequent removal. also the issue as required by law and the order from the court which plays into that particular statement. on the other hand -- i am in concurrence. contrary to this is the question not so much for the property rights but to the issue is as we interpret the specific language of a policy and we are not able to redefine that policy so much as trying to interpret it to some degree. we then need to go beyond just a letter of the briefs, the letters of those actions and see if it was real

president goh: do we have a motion? commissioner garcia: i don't know if i am failing on the issue for some sort of device to prevent people from reaching over. president goh: i think it is a good idea, but i could not tell from the pictures where it would go and how it would function. commissioner fung: cumene the vertical screen so that one can't go over? commissioner garcia: that would be fine. would you, as an architect, suggests something? commissioner fung: it is relatively easy for us to suggest these things, but i am not sure is the root cause. if they had any desire at all to initiate some form of dialogue, they have to bring that force themselves. commissioner garcia: it seemed of all the problems that exist between those neighbors, the one that could be easily dealt with -- i certainly did not think that would solve all the problems and these people would skip into the sunset together, hand in hand. but there seems to be no support for the screen. perhaps the neighbors have not heard the board. they might decide as a good neighb

i don't share the view with vice president garcia in regards to property rights. i believe that this was passed by a wide margin by the public, the people of san francisco. i think that there is an irony here and in many cases where you have these major corporations squeezing the small guy. this

i don't share the view with vice president garcia in regards to property rights. i believe that this was passed by a wide margin by the public, the people of san francisco. i think that there is