Evening is board president darryl honda. Hes joined tonight by our Vice President frank fung, commissioner ann lazarus and bobbie wilson. Rick swig will be absent. Brad rusty is a deputy City Attorney. Hell provide the board with any legal advice tonight. Gary cantera is the board legal assistant. Im cynthia goldsteen. Were also joined by represent from the city department. At the table in front is corey tee the assistant zoning administrator. Hes also representing the Planning Department and plans commission. Sitting next to him is chris buck urban forester, urban forestry and well also be joined by senior building inspector joseph duffy. We have deputy City Attorney ann pierson on behalf of the department of Public Health. The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other devices so they will not disturb the proceedings, and that you carry on conversations in the hallway. Appellants permit holders and Department Respondents are each given search minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People must include their comments within these seven or three minute periods. Others have up to three minutes each to address the board. Please speak into the microphone. So assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card to board staff when you come up to speak, and we have speaker cards on the podium for your use. The board welcomes your comments and suggestions and we have Customer Satisfaction forms on the podium for your convenience. If you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the boards rules or hearing schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting or you can call or visit the board office. Were located at 1650 Mission Street in room 304. This meeting is broadcast live on sfgov tv cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on friday at 4 p. M. On channel 26. We have dvds of this meeting available for purchase from sfgov. Tv. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of tonights proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand if youre able, raise your right hand and say i do after youve been sworn in or affirmed. So please stand now. Do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth . I do. Okay. Thank you very much. So, the first item on tonights calendar is general Public Comment. This is for anyone who would like to address the board on something within the board subject matter jurisdiction, but thats not on tonights agenda. Welcome. Hello. I came here to say one thing, but ill probably end up saying something else. I think a lot of us hope that when you interview for the next executive director, you look for somebody as qualified, but somebody who has some compassion for those people who cannot afford a lawyer, who are basically being stepped all over by departments, who maybe are not good public speakers, who cant prepare the paperwork correctly. I hope you would find someone who has that kind of ability. For myself, this entire year of trying to get information out of the Arts Commission is, i just cant do it anymore. I have Health Issues and other things. I cant every day be trying to understand what ann tricky is trying to say or defense against vague allegations which make so sense and have no merit. I just cant do this anymore. Just withdraw my appeal. Thank you. Any other public, general Public Comments . Okay. Seeing none, well move to item two economy is commissioner comments and questions. Commissioners . No. Thank you, commishers in. Item three is your consideration of the january 10th, 2018 minutes. Unless we have any changes, deletions or changes may i have a motion to accept those minutes . So moved. Okay. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes. On that motion, Vice President fung . Honda. Aye. Commissioner wilson. Aye. That motion passes with a vote of 40. Before we take item four, i know president honda i know we talked about item 6. I dont know if both sides are available. President honda were willing to take this out of order . Is it just on the settlement . Okay. Thank you. Let me call the item which is number 17161. Todd esker. The property is 21 rosemon place. Protesting the issuance on september 08, 2017 to rosemont place llc of an alteration permit revision to bpa. This has not been heard. It was continued at the partys request on several occasions to allow time for settlement. President honda prior to you starting i wish to disclose i am a partner that has hired counsel in a project. Reubens appearance will not have any effect on my decision. Good evening. Ryan patterson on behafr of the appella appellant. First want to say thank you very much for giving us time to settle this case. Its the third in two weeks, so thats good. Appreciate the help and to staff as well. Id like to briefly read into the record the items that we are amending in the plans, both so that its on the record and also for you to have a list of whats being changed in the plans. Should just take a moment. For the roof. Wood planter box 42 inches in height above the roof deck finish surface with copper pipe water supply. The planter box will be at the eastern edge of the roof extending continuously from the Northeast Corner of the roof to the southeast corner of the roof. Installation or use of hot tub is prohibited. For the third floor deck, the door providing access to the third floor deck will be tempered glass. Extending the obscured tempered glass screen around the northeastern corner of the solid guide rail. Height on the eastern side to be the same length, 15 inches. The installation or use of a hot tub is prohibited. Third floor unit. Privacy film misty model number mfy2555. Uni angle range translucent installed with translucent range to the left. Screen views into the bedrooms of 231 and 233 clinton park will be installed by page glass maintained on the interior of both the center set of windows which replace the juliet balcony on the east wall of the plan as shown on sheet a2. 2 in accordance with the manufacturer specifications. If the privacy film needs to be replaced and that model is unavailable an equivalent or better product will be used. A front door to the third floor unit, unit number three, as shown on plan 1 sheet a2. 2 delta number 3 may 15 revision will be added to the center of the landing at the top of the third floor such that the only access to the roof deck is from the third floor unit behind its front door. On the second floor deck the installation or use of a hot tub is prohibited. Upon the north Property Line of the second floor will be an obscure tempered glass screen six feet in height above the second floor deck running the lengthed of the roof to the Northeast Corner. On the basement lightwell, the sides of the basement lightwell will be composed of wood. For the rear yard, the installation or use of a hot tub is prohibited. Installation of a heater is prohibit prohibited. The owner will finish constructing the fence between the rosemont property within 14 days of the execution of our agreement. And there will be a deed restriction recorded on the title as well pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Thank you very much. Happy to answer any questions and well heed remaining time. We also have copies of the revised plans, excuse me, to present to you as well. President honda dated . They are dated and initialed by counsel. They are dated thank you. This is delta 4, december 14, 2017, appeal revision and i think thats the latest on any of these plan sheets. December 13, 2017. Thank you. President honda thank you, mr. Patterson. Commissioner, do you want the plans to be given to you . President honda i think theyre going to ask us to incorporate the conditions. Our request is that they be issued as a special conditions permit. Thank you. President honda thank you. Do you have any i just have concerns whether the departments have had an opportunity to review them. We take Public Comment right now while were waiting on the departments. Any Public Comment on this item . We can give them more time. We can call the next case and bring this back after theyve had more leisurely opportunity to look at the plans. President honda yes. I think that would work. So we are going to let them take some time to look at those plans. In the mean time were going to call item number 4 which is 17167. Abdulbasit alhubuishy doing business as uptown market versus department of Public Health. This is 684 larkin street, appealing the revocation on september 28, 2017 of a permit to operate a food facility. We will start with the appellant. You have seven minutes to present your case. Good evening commissioners. Thank you for taking the time to review this matter. Theres a lot of details and facts and history behind this. But im representing the appellant uptown market and abdulbasit alhubuishy. Instead of going over the history of this within the seven minutes, i am going to break it down to four core issues that have led up to this appeal. The first being the failure to provide by client with any records which created the basis for the audits relied upon by city officials in alleging unpaid wages. If i can direct your attention to exhibits a and b of the declaration. This is all that was provided to my client in alleging unpaid wages. So is this an audit done on the citys own accord. And when he requested the, any further evidence on the basis that they were relied upon, he was denied. He repeatedly did so. And to this day, we have no idea what the where these calculations come from and, in fact, we have two, at least three individuals who we have written statements from that state they were fully and tpaeurlt compensated. And those were not accepted by mr. Pastrich as part of his determination. And then the next main concern that we have is the improper revocation and preemptive revocation of my clients permit to operate at the property. And id like to direct the courts attention to the notice of hearing which is exhibit e and our notice to appeal. As you can see, its dated july 26, 2017. And has a hearing date to determine the issue of revocation of that permit on august 16. On the same day, july 26, 2017, my clients business was closed, locked up, license suspended and the following day, in an attempt to figure out how he could reopen his business and why the store was closed pending the notice of hearing, he was given a Settlement Agreement that gave him 30 days to pay back the alleged unpaid wages of 99,000. And, of course, my client, reluctantly signed it, as this was the only this is exhibit d of the declaration. And this was the only way that the officials agreed to reopen the business. To this day, he has not conceded that he actually did, in fact, not pay these employees. The entire time hes tried to figure out if any of the wages were unpaid, then to who and how much. And he simply cant be held liable for 100,000 in alleged wages based on the officials own records. That we have still to this day has not been able to verify. Like i said, weve got three individuals who have signed written statements, no matter how informal they are. They were written on paper and signed. Some of them in english, some in arabic. But these are verified legally binding statements, signed and dated by these individuals who are alleged not to have been paid. And so in sum, the course of actions taken to bind my client to this Settlement Agreement, you know, it does amount to economic duress and counsel for the city claims that it doesnt fall within the term of economic duress because it wasnt a wrongful act. However, the assertion of a claim known to be false is one of the indicators of a wrongful act and we allege that the wages owed are known not to be true and accurate based on the failure of the officials to provide us with the appropriate documentation of how they reached these calculations. And id like to take the last two minutes for the commissioners to hear from the appellant himself. Thank you. President honda good evening and welcome, sir. Good evening, sirs and your honors. Thank you very much for this opportunity to tell you whats going on. As a matter of fact, i am harassed for almost two years. I have to pay or to close the business that has been run for 21 years. The amount first was almost half a Million Dollar, which is 450,000 and something to be paid. For people claimed to work for me for all that period and when we come to the calculations, there are few individuals that already begun and i had nothing to do with them and they were paid that money to the last penny. And i, each one of them, they just work for almost two weeks, three weeks maximum, one month helping me. Half a Million Dollar was extraordinarily unbelievable. When they called me to the city, i was i couldnt believe what they are telling me. The whole business is a convenience, small store on larkin street. The whole building at that time maybe is not really equivalent to the price. Then graduating, they have made it like a discount and came to 99,000. During this period, my employees, the people who are working the store, were harassed frequently. These guys, they go to my store and they harass my employees, trying to coerce them to come and witness against me that i dont pay them. Most of them, they said, we are paid well, we are happy, we president honda im sorry, sir. Your time is up. Youll have time in rebuttal. We have a question, sir. The issue of the accounting of nonpaid wages, was that brought up in your hearing . Go ahead. The director did not give us the opportunity to address that. She said it was beyond the scope of the hearing. Did you formally ask . I did. For these Accounting Records . Yeah, i did. To the department . Yes, i did. Thank you. We can hear from the department now. Good evening commissioners. Ann pierson from the citys Attorneys Office appearing on behalf of the department of Public Health. As youve heard, this case concerns revocation of up town market food facility permit based on appellants failure to comply with the minimum age ordinance. Its been a couple years since the board has heard this type of case, but the board has previously upheld a food revocation based on a violation of the minimum Wage Ordinance. And the board has done that then and i hope will do that again tonight because the law is very, very clear. The California Retail food code is the state law that regulates all food facilities, and it provides that a food facility, a permittee in its operation of a business must comply with all applicable statutes, laws and ordinances. The code further provides a food facility permit may be revoked for violation of code. Therefore, where a food facility violates the code by violating the minimum Wage Ordinance its permit is up for revocation. You will hear someone who received a complaint from an employee who alleged he had not been paid the minimum wage. Youre gonna hear about all of these investigations into this complaint which involved an audit of the records, of all of the records that were produced by the appellant and interviewed with all of the employees. And olse based on this rigorous investigation, determined that six employees had been under paid, paid less than the minimum wage in an amount that totalled over 90,000, which is a very significant sum to low wage workers. They did what can be described as its job. It advised the appellant of the violation. It gave him multiple opportunities to challenge its determinations in administrative hearings which the appellant did not appeal, did not request hearings. It met with him several times, i think as many as seven times to reach a settlement of the violation. And finally, since no payments were paid, as a last resort, olse referred the matter to the department of Public Health for permit revocation which is specifically authorized by the minimum Wage Ordinance. And that point the appellant must have seen the writing on the wall and entered into a settlement to pay the back wages, but he didnt pay them. So dph moved forward with the permit revocation. Appellant now argues the permit revocation should be returned because he entered into the settlement under duress, but that argument is simply without merit. Economic duress is a specific term used in law. Courts have legaled that it is only applicable when theres some type of wrongful act on behalf of the party to whom the charge is made. These bad acts can be lies, can be false claims. And there were no such bad acts here. Olse did nothing more than its job. It is not duress to not have enough money to pay. It is not duress to see that these city agencies are about to enforce the laws that theyre charged with enforcing. The other reason this argument is misplaced is because were not here because of the settlement. Were here because of the unpaid wages. Even had he never signed a settlement, we would be here today. Because the issue is the underlying violation of the unpaid wages which amount to a violation of the California Retail food code, which is grounds for revocation of the permit. So let me now turn things over to mr. Pastrich, who can tell you more about his investigation. Thank you very much. I think she covered the basics of this case very thoroughly. This case began in march 24, 2015, nearly three years ago. Over the course of the investigation, we conducted four site visits to speak with workers and to review records on site. Most of the records that we found were literally kept written