vice president garcia: true. president goh: that is why i suggested may be entertaining commissioner fung's motion. vice president garcia: then i'd agree with you. commissioner fung: i would like to move to revoke the permit. secretary pacheco: so we have a motion from commissioner fung to revoke the permit. director goldstein: on the basis that it does not adequately address the noise affecting the neighbors? ok. secretary pacheco: to revoke its permit on the basis that the neighbors' noise concerns are not adequately addressed. on that motion to revoke, president goh, vice president garcia, commissioner peterson, commissioner hwang. thank you. the vote is 3-2 to revoke the permit. the city charter requires four votes to overturn any department item, so without motion, this would be upheld as is with no new conditions. vice president garcia: the motion would be what was discussed earlier, with the exception of a first condition, which i do not have in front of me, from the planning department, and requiring, and

vice president garcia: that is what i think i said. ok, i think i understand it a little bit better. director goldstein: we can take some departmental comment? >> good evening, and thank you, president goh, member is of the board. scott sanchez, planning department. there is a poster that goes up on the subject property 20 days before the hearing, and it is also associated with something that goes to all owners 10 days prior to the hearing. the section 311 neighborhood notification is a emailed notice and posted notice for 30 days that goes to all owners and occupants -- the section 311 nÉe from -- neighbor notification is a mailed notice. there is something the project sponsor provides to us, and if i am not mistaken, this is the same company that may not provide a notice for this, but it would be in a similar fashion. it would be conducted in a similar fashion, and they get their information from the assessor's office. over the course of history of this project, four notices, as we have just gone through. there have been three or four

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

on that motion, president goh, vice president garcia: , commissioner peterson is absent -- vice president garcia, commissioner peterson is absent, commissioner hwang. this item is continued. director goldstein: we will call our last item, the subject property at 1633-1649 haight street. august 17, 2011, the board voted to deny the appeal and upheld the denial of the permit with a finding that the billboard does not comply with the planning conception planning code section -- does not comply with planning code section 604-h, the billboard to be replaced exactly in kind, exterior work only, not associated with any commercial space. >> thank you. good evening, commissioners, president goh. i asked for a re-hearing, and i will explain. at the end of the hearing, as we were arguing, presidents -- president goh asked whether or not this item was really about 604-h, and whether it is the owner of the sign, company, or the owner of the property who does the voluntary removal, that is very important, because if the owner of the sign structure voluntary removes it, that does not destroy the propert

vice president garcia: mr. sanchez, if you can put that picture up again that shows me -- the deck and the solid wall, so maybe i can more fully understand some of the issues. >> so on the overhead, we have a photograph of the rear of the building that shows what has been constructed, and so this solid parent but -- parent but -- the solid structure, in order for it to be solid, it would require a variance, and if it was open, it would be approval under the planning code without a variance, -- it would be approvable under the planning code without a variance. let's say there is a 17-yard -- a 17-but -- a 17-foot rear yard, it could be solid. vice president garcia: the building structure underneath it is complying? >> it would be a legal noncompliance structure if it is located there. -- a legal, noncomplying structure. to do so would require a 10-day courtesy notice under our requirements. vice president garcia: or they could move back 3 feet and avoid off future -- my >> there would be no notification required

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: 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: 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: i asked a question. when you spoke initially, did you make a case for a continuance or a case for why you did not want the suspension to be upheld? ok, can we vote on that? and then we get to hear her case? i do not know if she was given a specific opportunity -- sufficient opportunity. commissioner hwang: i met with her in the office yesterday, and she was not clear if she wanted to come and argue her case. i asked her to let me know in advance what she wanted to do, and i also spoke with the president about taking this case out of order in order to facilitate the department of public health representatives and members of the public so they could leave the meeting quickly instead of sitting through the other items, so the time she came up to the podium, it really was not clear which of those two things she wanted to do, and then when she spoke, it seemed to me that she was arguing her case and not asking for a continuance. vice president garcia: i do not want to be argumentative. as you know, manner dir

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: the findings that say it was a noncompliant structure? >> when the disapproval order was issued, his basis for it was section 604-h, and the factual basis is we did not have a letter uprising us about -- uprising -- telling us about it. another section of the building code or another section or in violation of a change in voting, so in one sense, what happened here, we got blindsided here. i am looking in my brief about whether this could be pushed on us and basically extinguished my clients -- extinguish my client's rights. this is like alleging a petty theft, and you get into court, and they give you a robbery. that is what has happened. you made that ruling, a complete lack of a process for us. we had not been appraised of it. we could not answer it, because i am just looking at a 604 violation. vice president garcia: it could be that my memory is wrong, but i strongly to support -- disapprove of 604-h. there was a letter i think to this board that i would feel certain you would have a copy of. >> no, no, we were responding to this boa

vice president garcia: not to be argumentative with you by any means, madam but president, but i think one of the criteria that was brought up was that the complainant's window was open. president goh: she said it was open, right. vice president garcia: go ahead. commissioner fung: i am prepared to make a motion. vice president garcia: i was going to make a motion. if another person would agree, then the permit would be upheld, and i want to place conditions beyond what was placed on it. one would be to a for all conditions placed on this permit by the planning department, and i also want to suggest that option a be put in place, and i am going to move that this permit be upheld. president goh: vice president garcia, another way to do it would be to allow commissioner fung to make his motion. vice president garcia: i really do not care. the one vote that moots his, and then we have to go upon the process of placing conditions on the permit. if this fails, there is no need for anything else either. director

vice president garcia: you put in for a change of address to jackson? >> right.e president garcia: why did you not list the other address rather than the address on jackson? >> because that is another >> because that is another property of ours that we receive

vice president garcia: the first person was mr. wilkinson, an apparently dbi had other feelings.there anything this board can do to look into the to see if we can determine what should have been done and see that it gets done? director goldstein: we can do that. anything else, commissioners? ok. is there any public comment on the commissioner's comments? ok, seeing none, then we will move on to item number three, which is the adoption of minutes. commissioners, for your consideration this evening, you have the september 14, 2011, minutes. president goh: comments, commissioners? i will move their adoption. director goldstein: any public comment on the minutes? ok, seeing none, then, mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll on that then, please? secretary pacheco: on the motion from president goh, to accept the september 14 minutes, commissioner fung, commissioner hwang, vice president garcia, and those minutes are adopted. director goldstein: will call item 4a, gebresilassie vs. mta, and at that time, the board voted 5-0 to grant the appeal, overall the denial, and issue the taxi m

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 on

vice president garcia: as proposed, is the railing solid or open? >> each rail is supposed to be 4 feet. commissioner fung: 4 inch. >> metal tubes, copper tubes. vice president garcia:ut it is not going to be solid. >> it will have 4 inch gaps. commissioner fung: he is talking about a picket. president goh: did i hear you say there are no plans? do you have drawings? >> there is drawings. i am sure the apollo whatever the code is. president goh:-- they follow the whatever the code is. president goh: do you have drawings with you? >> no. president goh: thank you. >> is there any department or a bottle? -- rebuttal? president goh: i have questions for both. mr. sider, would we expect to see drawings in a situation like this with a second story deck? >> i think there are two issues here. the first is the plants that were reviewed and approved when the permit itself was approved. there certainly were plans included. our staff would not have issued an approval without plans. the second issue and the more critical one tonight is the presence of those plans

: i wonder if we want to give the city attorney -- vice president garcia: and would he feel the need to do that if there was no motion to continue? >> if there is no motion to continue, i would not make a motion opposing it. >> ok. commissioner goh: ok. it was my understanding that, vice president garcia, you ask a question of the appellant, to make a motion for a continuance, and then commissioner hwang clear 5 what "continuance -- commissioner hwang talked about what a "continuance" means in this context. vice president garcia: to clarify my confession -- to clarify, whether this has more to do with delaying the suspension than try to have additional time and to hire an attorney, so i feel a motion to continue is unnecessary. commissioner goh: in that case, we can call public comment on the substance. director goldstein: are there any members of the public who wish to make comment on this, and if so, please step forward? commissioner goh: i see other people approaching. are there other people who want to speak in public comment on this item? go ahead. >> my name is kathleen maxmara

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. >>

president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. the vote is 4-0. jurisdiction is denied. president goh: we will call item 5b. the board received a letter from the appellant requesting rehearing of appeal #11-067. it was decided on july 27, 2011. at that time, the board voted to deny the appeal and a pulled a permit on the basis that it complies. the permit holder is love a family trust. the project is remodeling one bathroom, lighting to comply with cec150k. we will hear from ms. greaux. >> three minutes? mr. epstein claims he elected not to be sworn in. he also chose to not taken notes. he is an attorney at all times. please refer to an attorney's oath. if i get to it, i will put it on the machine. he knows very well of the health and hazardous matter. there was not proper notice. it required safety measures. i believe he has and continues to act in and above the lost child. he pretended to be ignorant of any ordinances or code when questioned by the board last summer here. now, he has claimed that because he was not sworn in, he did not have to tell the truth. i'm a litt

. >> my thoughts are similar to vice-president garcia. having said this, this is a significant project. you can drive anywhere near that street and not realize a big project is going on. there are several processes involved with this project. i think the appellants were on notice several times about the extent of this project, the would-be inclined to deny jurisdiction. commissioner fung: i also do not see any due process issues related to the jurisdiction request. >> i don't disagree with what has been said. commissioner fung: move to deny the jurisdiction request. >> call the roll, please. >> on that motion from commissioner fung to deny both jurisdiction requests. on that motion to deny both. president goh: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. presidentcommissioner peterson:. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the vote is 5-0. commissioner garcpresident goh:l the next item, item 6a, b, c, and item 7 will not be heard this evening. item 5 is appeal for golden gate valley neighborhood association. with planning department approval, subject properties

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.