it is unfortunate one of the appellants did not enter into this agreement. however, we ask the board to incorporate our agreement. president chiu: thank you. when not to proceed into the hearing? obviously, because we still have one appellant that did not come to an agreement, we will proceed with the full hearing at this time. the president -- the presentation will start with 10 minutes by the appellant. let me ask mr. barnet, as representative of the association, how you would like to use that time. >> thank you, mr. president. i would like to use this kind -- time to review some of the factual history of this endeavor to use the masonic temple in the manner prescribed, and to bring this organization up to speed on the history that we are dealing with, which i think would be beneficial in helping make a decision. i would like to introduce mr. james miller, a 32-year-old employee of the planning department who retired recently as planners three. with that, i would like to introduce james miller. >> good afternoon. in 1991, the nob hill special use district w

is there somebody here representing the appellant? there is not. >> where they notified? >> yes. >> i guess the motion would be to go with the department's decision? >> is their public comment? >> my understanding is the appellate failed to appear, that the order should be effective from the day it was issued. building code section 105a. >> if we uphold this today, does the appellant have the ability to appeal this again? >> i'm not sure. i think they have the ability to appeal the planning department decision, but i can look into it and let you know. >> according to my information, the building is being sold to a different party. >> if we need to reinforce, i would move to uphold the department's action pursuant to our code and whatever that's called, confirming the directors' action. uphold the permit. -- but pulled the order of abatement. >> i recognize the appellant is not here today. >> my understanding is that by failing to appear, the order of the building official shall be immediately affected. >> we don't even have to do a motion on this. >> out of an abundance of

>> i don't believe so. >> thank you. >> is the appellant present? >> good morning. this is quite new for me, so you may have to excuse me. from what i understand, there is this to be a posting on the house when somebody comes out. >> what is your name? >> i'm sorry. barron flemming. i was occupying the home in november of 2009. i was going in and out of that home until march the force. there wasn't no posting of any sort. i did not get an e-mail. i didn't get it at that address. my sister gets all the mail and that is at magnolia in oakland. my understanding is this to be certified mail. i believe that is what it says on the web site. there is this to be posting on the home and it is to be listed -- this to be from a certified mirror. i did not get that one or the third notification on the directors' meeting. -- certified mail. the only posting i got was the last posting telling me i was supposed to come here. i do have a p i saved it as a message to a friend of mine helping me do the work. it is dated november 1. >> which year? >> 2011. it is my understanding i was

we start with the appellant. the appellants attorney. >> good afternoon. president garcia: let's give them three minutes both, if they need it. would you repeat your name? >> my name is krista shaw. i am council for the appellant. we are asking that the matter be continued pending our ceqa appeal. we are also hoping to be able to come to an agreement with the neighboring property so that we do not have to waste any more of the city's resources in hearings. there is also litigation pending and with all of those items outstanding, it does not seem to make sense to tie up the boards time with a hearing on the permit at this time, especially given that the environmental review is in question. if you would like, we can move to the merits of the argument -- president garcia: right now, we are hearing on the continuous issue. how long is your window of opportunity bint to appeal? >> the cat x accompanied this building permit and it was dated early february. under the city attney's guidance, we are timely on the ceqa appeal because it is pending before your board.

the appellants questioned the number of operating hours. the commission clement's the -- limits live and non-live entertainment events, based on research performed by department staff. rather than recommending an arbitrary and addition, staff proposed a new limitation informed by historic operating patterns from 2002 through 2007. with separate return to the number of events that may be considered live -- wheat separately pounded number of events that may be considered -- we seperately counted the number of events that would be considered live entertainment. we approved a 20% above the average number of events during the considered time, but significantly below the maximum. we are below the historic high numbers during this time of review. this should be emphasized that the conditions of approval to establish a maximum number of annual event. based on historic event data, it could be reasonably expected the center will not host the maximum number every year. a hypothetical maximum of no more than the average number would reduce the events a

can we hear from the appellate? please state your name for the record. >> good morning, commissioners. i am a member of the little house committee and advocate for good government and an appellate come along with mr. butler. this deal concerns a new contract for a final inspection on a project. when in fact no work had ever begun on the original permit expired for nine years. the new permit was issued without complying with the mandatory conditions imposed by the building code. we're here to oppose the failure to issue a determination on the back of code violations presented to her, and to request of building inspection commission to reimburse the statement of the permit. the errors made by the executive and regular staff members in issuing the permit were brought to the attention through complaints made in july and august. there was no resolution of these complaints by the staffwith no r was again accosted on february 3 for her determination of the effects of the alleged code violations. she did not reply. to her cr

. >> was it done as much as the appellants photograph shows? >> i know that the work was not completed. >> when you do the posting, and specter, do you take photographs? >> we do not. >> that is a procedure that you don't have to? >> there is no requirement to take a picture at that time. >> take a picture at that time. anwe are required to place the document on the building. it does not stipulate where on the building. >> any other questions, commissioners? >> one last thing come up when you did their reinspection you posted it again that said you were there and nobody was there to show you around? >> there was no time during my interactions with this property did i ever step foot inside. >> thank you. >> any other questions for the staff? >> i am actually sympathetic to this homeowner. i believe that -- >> are you deliberating now? i want to make sure we close the questions. >> final rebuttal? >> if there are no more questions, we should have a rebuttal. >> i am sympathetic i also know about neighbors and anything can happen to those notices.

the comment from the applicant -- i mean, the appellant. as it relates to as fedex. they can be addressed in this -- as the relates to esthetics. they can be addressed in the future. planning will need to evaluate and make findings of this facility upon renewal. when they renew under article 25. planning might impose additional conditions. we do not know that at this point. moving forward, it is possible. as it relates to the confusion, it appears the letter dated august 25, 2010 refers to one antenna. at some point, between august to january, unchanged from one antenna to to antennas. -- a change from one antenna to two antennas. the second case was also appropriate. that is where the confusion lies. right now, the permits were issued under administrative code. upon renewal, up one falls under article 25, there'll be additional reviews from the plant -- from the planning department given that it is in a residential zone. unless they change equipment, the health department has reviewed and determined that it is correct and appropriate. it has satisfied the fcc regulat

commissioners come in your packet you received written requests from the appellate for a continuance, and the department does not object to this. you may want to consider a motion. >> i move continuance. >> second. first and second. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, all in favor to vote for the continuance? this item is continued. case no. 6756423, schmidt, a valley road california 952 action requested by appellant to hear an appeal #6756 previously addressed by the abatement appeals court on january 18, 2012. the department needs a minute to debate the case. >> who will be speaking on behalf of the park department? rosemary, i think we are ready for this. take out i am sorry i stepped out to help the gentleman. this is a brief hearing situation. we included the information before. this was the case just recently before you. you up held the hearing officer. we really do not have anything else to get into as far as the content, because what is before you is whether you will grant the rehearing. looking at the application, we did not see any new information. that is

the appellant property is located to the south. given the location of the south, they would not feature any direct sunlight into that like well. -- light well. the deck is set back from the property line and matches with the light well. when they step back a few feet from the railing, he will not have a direct line into the adjacent property. the appellant has created concerns about privacy, about the potential impact of the grille. i did not even know if there is a requirement to show the gril ol on there. if it were someone to bring a charcoal grill onto the roof, i do not know that would need to be shown on any plan. these are items for the board to consider in your decision making tonight. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> i do not have much to add either. the real hyper code would be 42 inches high. -- the rail height per code would be 42 inches high. i do not see a problem with the gas grill. i think it is far enough from the property line to make code. i am available for any questions.

start with the appellants, they will have seven minutes. >> good evening, president garcia and the court of appeals. i was hoping to talk with my heart and appeal to your humility. i am the mother, i have lived in said the it is for a long time. i lived a mile north where i lived in a building that was zoned for commercial and residential use. my landlord was contacted by sprint and they paid money to my landlord to put a wireless antenna on top of their roofs. from my understanding, this was the standard of how companies got their antennas and satellite and distributed within the city, paying landlords for space. when i got pregnant, i realized it was no longer a healthy environment to be pregnant in. i am very familiar with that technology and why did not think it would be safe for a developing fetus. here i am again dealing with cellphone stuff. i feel like i am being chased around san francisco by these companies and i feel really vulnerable standing here before you because i feel like what happens today will dictate what happens with me and my family. it is that serious for us. my d

we will start with the appellant. >> i am representing the appellant in this case. first off, we think the board for continuing this matter at the last minute. we were in negotiations to settle this matter globally with the permit holder but never got a response. here we are, one week later, again going to the merits of this appeal. for the board members who were not here in january, the board granted a jurisdiction request in the mid-january based on improper notice to our client. this permit was originally called back in march of 2011. the permit holder waited eight months to have the permit finally issued and it was at that point that our client failed to get notice of the act will permit. we came to the board and now we are here for the mayor to be appealed. i and the appellant is believed -- i believe and the appellant believe it is a simple issue before us. it is invalid. the permit holder has admitted this in a prior testimony because, basically, the roof portion of this permit is going to be revoked and remove from the permit. the permit holder attempted to

i agree with the appellant, it does not look appealing compared to the ones on the web site. why does it have to look like this? >> because it is a utility pole attachment. when you attach to a utility pole, you use a certain type of configuration to meet the coverage objective. they are very low powered as well, but a different frequency. it covers in a different way. when you attach to street lights, which is the allowance and francisco, you have to fabricate the antenna in a different way. when we see transformers -- >> she showed us this equipment attached to label. >> of the picture was a street light that was fabricated securely with an antenna to be part of one unit as a new pole into the public right-of-way rather than attaching to an existing pool. -- pole. it's not allowed in san francisco. anything else? president garcia: thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. in our brief, we stated that there were some sort of argument stating as it relates to the notification of these facilities, it was applied prior to the adoption. it would require me to process the spermi

we will start to work with the appellant or the representative. you have seven minutes. >> this will be different from the last case in that -- >> please state your name. >> jim inge dhillon is a senior who has been living in this unit for the past 19 years. unlike the last case, there is no determination yet by the dbi that this is an amigo unit. there is a presumption that it is illegal but the inspector has yet to complete her research. this case has been open for four months. ms. dhillon has been searching. the problem is her income is limited, so so security. she is hearty paying more for her -- already paying more for her rent. if the owner is unable to legalize it, or it is too expensive, she needs time to move. she needs time to find something. it is one thing to put yourself on waitlists, apply for senior housing. as you know, is difficult to get in because there are some people who need the housing. she suggested she could have the kindness to submit some craif -- craigslist things. she has no car and the ideas she is going to move into

commissioner hillis: can we ask the appellant? if we modify the permit, to remove the water here from the roof, and eliminate any alterations to the skylight, the roof deck, would you agree there is no changes to the roof area? >> without seeing the plans -- commissioner hillis: this is the original permit so you have seen the plans for the original. >> correct. i have not seen the revision plans at all. commissioner hillis: we are talking about the original. if you remove the roof deck, alterations to the skylight, and the roof deck -- >> meaning keep it in its unit, where it exists? commissioner hillis: are there any other modifications being done. >> the only other thing i am not aware of is any work in the garage area. i do not know how that comes into play with any of these existing items. that is common area, how that falls into play. i have not seen the new plans. commissioner hillis: what is before us is the old permit. >> ok. as long as, without modification, is that going to be appealable? commissioner hillis: no. this wo

we will begin with the appellant's up -- attorney. >> eunice chang appearing on behalf of junel solbach. this board is to hear appeals if the health and safety of the public will be impacted by the granting of a permit. in this case, we are dealing with a repeat offender, a land owner who has a pattern of disobedience to the decisions of the department of building inspection. the 45th avenue apartment which is the subject to this appeal -- in 2009, the landlord filed a permit to demolish this illegal permit, but he never did. instead, he rented out to an unsuspecting tenant, my client, junel solbach. he has a property on 47th avenue where he went to the same process. it was an illegal unit. in 1996, there was an order from the department of building inspection and a restriction on the deed that said you cannot rent out the illegal units. you have to remove it. in 1996, he filed a permit that said, "yes, i am going to remove it." in 2012, the same building -- the illegal unit has not been removed. he is renting it out. he is profiting from all these illegal units. the san francisco board

this could go to superior court, but that is a costly position for the appellant. it is not the best argument for this body to take a matter on, but also in the past, w to superior court, they may have resulted in mta later ratifying a staff action. thank you. >> the citation you gave us to the san francisco charter. >> that is listed in respondent brief. san francisco charter section 4.1060. >> thank you. >> a couple of things -- go back over the point raised having to do with the fact that there is an avenue for someone to basically operates a color scheme under someone else's color scheme which the economic impact -- >> commissioner garcia, i do not know if i can give you a full economic breakdown. maybe i can paint a picture for you. there are some economic issues. a 1% -- a one-percent owner- operator has to pay a company to fly their colors. it is not their own company. they also have to pay for dispatch, but that would be true even if they were their own company. they're not able to take in additional medallions into their company. once you -- the more medall

i want to get a sense of where the appellant falls. >> in my 12 years, this is my first time appearing here, so i pride myself in getting something turned around. that i am here speaking for myself, the success rate would be very high, short of this case today. >> year history here go back to 2010, but there is history in this case before that? gosh yes. >> let me interrupt you. if you want to go sit in the back with your friend at translate all of this so that he understands, that is more than acceptable. give him one second to get settled. >> the problems, you know, the serious problems and high risk problems are documented as far back as 2007 when inspectors before me road the same violations and the same issues we are seeing over and over again. they are corrected, otherwise they wouldn't be doing -- hoping that we have a partner that has not gotten at the conference, showman there are steps that the permit can be revoked. we have to assume that someone gets it, and after that, a lot of it is in their court and next time. to answer your question specifically, 2007 is when i started

that case went up to the appellant court and the appellate court affirmed that decision. that decision is final. the city filed a lawsuit trying to stop the operation of the property as the hotel. raise issues under the planning code, under the hotel ordinance. the city abandoned that lawsuit and chose not to proceed. here we are. in the last 15 months, the superior court has dismissed that lawsuit. we left with the certificate of use and the operation of the property over the last 10 years as a tourist hotel. there are significant other legal questions that we raised in our brief. at the end of the day, it comes down to a question of fundamental fairness and trying to avoid the manifest injustice. in this particular case, allowing the kinds of inconsistencies that we see incident -- we see in this city decision making to happen. it had the effect of shutting down his business after 35 years. allowing that to happen would send a poor message to our citizens. i ask that you correct that injustice. >> you represented him in the hearing that took place before this board? >>

. >> how much was the appellant paying the workers on an hourly? >> it was a salary of $200 a week for full-time work. >> any other public comment? we will start the rebuttal. mr. marenco, you have three more minutes. >> i would love a professional interpreter to say the right whatever the person said. at this point, we have complied with the paperwork that the person requested me. to close a business is not good for this situation. but the decision is yours. it is not mine. i just tried to comply with all the paperwork. i close to the doors -- closed the doors and i tried to do the paperwork the best that i can. the person that sent me a fine for a labor standard for 100 or something, i would not be able to provide. i called to my agent and he sent it back to me. i have it on my website. i can show you here but i am not able to print it. if you would like to take a look. >> you can put it on your overhead. >> the person is coming. ok. this is the first page. the personnel who is coming to give me a citation is coming sometime in april. that is the

we start with the appellant. you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> to clarify the six-month period, that is before tupelo ever opened its doors. since we have opened our doors, we have not had a single incident, a single fight. we had had absolutely no problems. [unintelligible] >> thank you, commissioners. we have heard a lot of stuff. i was -- the most amazing thing was the actual police officers coming up. and talking about how much broadway has turned into a war zone. let's kill grant avenue, too. broadway went downhill when they started doing the 8:00 towaway. and turned it into an armed camp. the only people who would go down with the people that were used to armed camps. let's look at broadway. this particular venue is five blocks up. that is a crazy argument. i want to go back to looking at the total circumstances surrounding the 2005 permit. if that was issued, you have a continuation. in my brief, i talk about property rights and -- this is a first amendment protected activity. you have the fact that so

the appellate is indicated a continuance. with your consent, we could give each party couple of minutes to discuss their position on the continuance issue. president garcia: let's do, please. >> i tried to put my paperwork together. i have another case before this one. i did not get this one done yet. i have almost everything down but it is not done yet. president garcia: thank you for that. we will hear from dhp. >> commissioners, i disagree with the request because -- my name is karen. a health inspector, department of public health. the reason why i disagree with the request because this is why we're here today. this is a repeated pattern of not preparing papers. that is why his permit was revoked. he applied for this appeal on february 29. he has had over a month and half to prepare his papers. i feel that should be adequate. this is why i am requesting we do not continue this. president garcia: go ahead. >> is the establishment close? -- closed? >> it is complicated but according to the health department it is still open.

is the palin here for -- -- is the appellant here for eezy freezy? >> ms. lewis wanted me to ask the president if you could say one minute in response to the last comments. >> i don't think so. >> we're calling appeal number 12-024 doing business as eezy freezy, appealing a 20 day suspension of to bochco product sales stemmed from an imposed on that jury 15th, 2012. the reason is for selling tobacco products to minors. >> my name is rajai alkhalidi. i was not at the market when this happened. that does not mean much. i want to show you how desperate the financial situation is for that business at the moment. what i provided were bills from pg&e. i do not know if it was a sunny day or a sunday. the last piece shows until about 5:42 in the evening, what we took in was about 586. from these numbers, there is a sales tax that we have to pay. the numbers here show that this is not report the expenses over $2,000. this is over 3000 during the summertime. i made copies for about four invoices. those invoices, if we watched the time it would take and all of that, to

, we just need the appellant. >> commissioners, patrick is correct. he issue is whether or not work had started. i will show you the job card that was issued with the permit. the permit was 934215. our exhibit 1 page one. on page two, you see the department of building inspection inspection record, and that is the card that the district inspector would sign in the field that they had executed inspection, and it would make notes on the back of the card if they had other comments. there are no notes. there were no inspections. this is the actual card that the districting spector carries in her portfolio. it helps to keep track of where she is during the day, which jobs she needs to go to. she might even put them in order so that she does not waste gas driving around the city. on the back of the card, you see the initial of carla johnson, the district inspector, the permit application number, and the box checked "expired." it is clear from these four pieces of paper that no work had been performed on the earlier permits. there might be photographs brought

, we just need the appellant. >> commissioners, patrick is correct. he issue is whether or not work had started. i will show you the job card that was issued with the permit. the permit was 934215. our exhibit 1 page one. on page two, you see the department of building inspection inspection record, and that is the card that the district inspector would sign in the field that they had executed

as shown in some of the photos presented by the appellants, those homes on the northern side are clearly visible from belgrave ave. as a slope of, so another thing to keep in mind is the streets are introduced not as comparative benchmarks, but simply to give an orientation to the reader as to where the geography is, and ceqa does have a lengthy section in our environmental documents. it attempts to tell the story of where it is located and what surrounds it. it has been within a block for two of the project site. >> i want to mention there were certain things mentioned in the testimony with respect to youthe environmental document. they did mention this spring, and people are mentioning birds and animals and other creatures running around. it was considered in biological resources. if there were issues of soils commo, it was included in this document. but is not to say even if it was upheld, the project itself -- it will be coming to us in some form, and i think commissioner miguel pointed out is up the time the planning commission will take what you consider a closer look up the avenue