department that of cases before the board this month. bob sanchez is here. representing the planning department and commission along with jim purvis with the planning department. just step out of the room is senior building inspector on behalf of the department. the board request that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the holy. appellants, permit holders and barb in response feature given 7 min. to present their case and 3 min. for rebuttal. people affiliated with a party must include the comments within the 7 or 3 min. period. numbers of the public not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 min. each to address the board and no rebuttal. be speaking to the end of the microphone. you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speed. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction forms on the podium for your convenience. if you questions about a rehearing the boards schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting. or call our business board office that were located at 1650 mission st. in room 304 between s. venice ave. this meeting is broadcast live on speed tv channel 78 and is rebroadcast on friday at 4 pm on channel 26. dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sfgov tv. please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify in any tonight's hearing wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary right please stand and say i do after you have been sworn or affirmed. the standout. raise your hand and to use while solemnly affair that the testimony you give with the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. pres. lazarus we have one has item. item number 5 appeal number 15-183 at 1583 list all at 1583 list all ave. that item will has been withdrawn and will not be heard. willing to general public comment is there anyone like to address the board on an item with the board subject matter jurisdiction but is not on the calendar this evening? any general public comment. seeing none,, will move on i guess to item number 3 which is commissioner comments and questions. commissioner? seeing none,, will move on to item number 4, which is the board's consideration of the minutes for january 13, 2016. >> any corrections or additions deletions to the minutes? if not deny the motion to approve the minutes? >> any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, may we have a motion by commissioner fung to adopt the minutes. on a motion lazarus aye, honda aye, wilson aye swig aye. that motion carries. and pres. lazarus will move to item number 2 if you wish. >> item number 2 is the election of officers and pursuant to article 2 section 1 of the board's rules, election of officers is countered after 15 january that is tonight's meeting. before we do move forward with this if you want to take a moment to thank pres. lazarus for her service these last 2 years. it's been a pleasure to work with you and i do appreciate your leadership and your service both to my support of my work. >>[applause] . >> starting with the opposite of the president, are there any board members would like to nominate a colleague were themselves for this office the clicks >> i would nominate vp gerald honda >> it will take a vote but not a 2nd. is there any other nominee? is there any public comment on the nomination of honda for the office of president? seeing none,, we will take a vote on that motion by commissioner fung. lazarus aye, honda aye, wilson aye swig aye. >> thank you and congratulations to pres. honda. >>[applause] . >> moving on to the office of vice president, other any nominations for this office? >> i would not like to nominate commissioner fung >> can i 2nd his? >> is there any nominations for that office? seeing none, is there any public comment. no public comment so we have a motion by honda to nominate commissioner fung as vice president. on a motion, commissioner fung aye, commissioner lazarus aye, commissioner wilson aye, commissioner swig aye. congratulations. thank you both for your willingness to serve in these capacities. >>[applause] >> now will skip down to business given that we have 21 cases to start off with. so, item 5 has been withdrawn to move on to item 6. item 6a shall be heard together with 650. these were followed by contest promotions llc versus the department building inspection with plenty department disapproval. the address for these 1st 31 appeals are 250 divisadero st. 917 and 2001. street. 2001. street. 172 golden street ave. 699 3rd st. 65 65 6th st. 3 9782. 2101 11 street. 2050 21st. 2847 and 2040 24th. 449 portola st. 716 909 30 columbus ave. 2200 909 30 columbus ave. 2200 lane st. 745-751 market st. 1270, 2097, 3200, 3729 and 4701 mission st. 1101 oak st. and 300 sanchez st. these are all protesting issuance on october 21 processing the denial on october 14, 2015 apartment. starting with the attorney for the appellant. >> i have a disclosure. we should disclose i part grouping angeles on a separate matter. his representation have appear before the court will not have any effect on my decision today. >> thank you. unless there's been a change i believe the parties have all agreed that they will have 20 min. to present arguments to the board and then 10 min. of rebuttal after public comment. so, if you can set the clock to 20 min.? >> congratulations resident honda and vice president fung. and with contest promotions in the appeal housekeeping matter 1st. yes, we're going to address all of these initially these 31. the next 4 are exactly the same and i don't want to scare you. i intend to simply incorporate my comments that were not going to separate hearings. despite the number of appeals before you the dispute is relatively straightforward. i'm going to walk through the factual history and actions vis-à-vis the city's actions contest promotions. i actually don't think there's much difference in the factual procedural history, although expect you will hear a pretty different class from the city as to what the meaning of each of the actions that took place. the city will try to convince you that its actions were about clarifying existing law and had nothing to do with contest promotions. they will say this is a routine enforcement action . that's simply not the case. the city will refer to proposition g in 2002. the ordinance that is relevant here was the substance of amendments to proposition g is an emergency interim ordinance and followed by a final ordinance that short-circuited the city's loss. if this amendment was a routine and nonsensitive as the city claims, why did he require an emergency ordinance introduced in 2014 on the same day the city approved the settlement agreement with contest promotions? don't be confused. this is not about proposition >>[call of the g. it's only that the city settled in a short contest promotions would continue to operate legal. the reality is this. after the city induced contest promotions to settle in its lawsuit in the same moment that it ratified the settlement agreement, the city introduce legislation targeted a contest promotions only, specifically designed to eradicate contest promotions business model and remedy, and render the settlement agreement worthless. we ask that you give the settlement agreement meeting and not allow the city to break its promises required the planning department and the building department issued permits that have been denied., now i'm going to hopefully, help make sense of what i just said. here is the story. contest promotions at city permits for in science when it started doing business here in san francisco over a decade ago. beginning in 2007, the planning department began issuing notices of violations claiming for the 1st time contest promotions signs which had been up for years, were not business signs. is this signs are allowed commercial advertisements i think you know that from other hearings. contest promotions try to work with the city to explain that it signs were legal but eventually had to sue the city in federal court in 2009. in 2011, contest promotions won an injunction in the federal court preventing the city from enforcing the notice is a violation. this was a major setback for the city. the federal court found the part of the city at issue is probably unconstitutional and that contest promotions was likely to ultimately win a judgment. the 2 parties, not surprisingly, then entered into settlement discussions and reached a verbal settlement put on the court record in 2013. that court record was then reduced to a writing after months and months of negotiations. that's the settlement agreement that's attached to our papers and i will refer to it regularly. in the settlement agreement, the city agreed contest promotions signs were legal under the code as long as they met the physical requirements such as size and location. those sorts of things that are also in the code. this opened the way for contest promotions to trade its existing permits for new permits . contest promotions agreed to follow the new rules made that were in the settlement agreement to process sign applications for its contests and raffles. one rule was for contest promotions to file actually file new permit applications for business signs. this was exciting to contest promotions by the city's way for the city to more easily track and monitor these new signs under the settlement agreement. which, they were not new signs actually but new permits for the signs would give them a new record. when i say them among the city. contest promotions also agreed to pay the city $375,000 to settle alleged finds that this was explained to contest promotions as way to ensure the settlement would be approved by the board of supervisors and was a powerful payment for contest promotions to make in exchange for peace. but the board of supervisors or lease some of its members, showed it had no intent other than 2 single contest promotions and render the settlement agreement meaningless and eradicate contest promotions business model. although contest promotions and the city negotiators signed the settlement agreement in january of 2014, the board of supervisors did not finally approved the settlement until july 15 although contest promotions and the city negotiators signed the settlement agreement in january of 2014, the board of supervisors did not finally approved the settlement until july 15, 2014 approximately 6 months later. on that same day, the day it was approved by the board of supervisors, 2 supervisors introduced emergency interim zoning controls, changing the definition of a business i'm so as to make contest promotions signs illegal. by the way, this is at the same moment in time the permit applications that were required under the settlement agreement were pending and being held by the planning department and building department. the sole purpose of this tactic was to undermine the settlement agreement. interim controls are valid for 18 months and are supposed to be reserved for emergency situations. there was no legitimate emergency here. during the 18 months that allowed for interim controls, in january of 2015, so a year later, the same we definition of a business i'm targeting contest promotions was imported into a ordinance that have been introduced in may of 2011 and had been sitting dormant for approximately 3.5 years. this material we definition did not return to the planning commission for review as it should have. meanwhile, shortly after the settlement am a contest promotions did what was required under the settlement and paid the city $150,000. in august and september contest promotions filed@permit applications. just as promised. the planning department refused to group them relying on the still warm we definition of the business i'm that had just been changed in the code. in october, 2015, the planning department directed ddi to formally disprove all the pending applications and now we are here. the city suggests this board does not have jurisdiction to consider the case. specifically the city claims to rule in contest promotions favor would be the equivalent of amending the code. we are not asking this bo legislate. were asking the board to force the city to stick by his word. this board has broad authority to overrule the planning and building department's denial of permit. you do it all the time. were not asking the board to take an exceptional or extraordinary legislative action. specific, were asking the board to find for planning department actions are against the public interest, which is exactly as it stated for your jurisdiction in the san francisco charter. turning to some other merits, as i mentioned before, they are straightforward. 1st, facing the prospect of losing that lawsuit the city invited contest promotions to settle at the table. next after more than one year of hard negotiations, the city baited contest promotions into an agreement what is a business i'm and communicated that to contest promotions in a manner that would protect contest promotions existing inventory, which is still up ending the completion of the ministry to proceedings that are before you now. lying on this assurance, contest promotions dismiss the lawsuit it was winning could agree to summit new applications in a clear permit history and agreed to a 6 figure payment to the city to smooth the approval process with the board of supervisors. finally, the city pulled the switch by outlining outline its own method of what was a business i'm on the same diet approved the settlement. the new definition of business i'm with design introduced and enacted for the sole and specific purpose of targeting contest promotions settlement agreement. it denied contest promotions the benefit negotiated in good faith with the city and performed good there is well settled law in california since the 1980s than enacting and amending the zoning ordinance in order to target and prevent existing or permitted use is simply not legal. in the case of orono versus costa mesa 126-330, i have a copy here if the attorney would like it, costa mesa approved the development of raymond. excuse me a development project. after approval, legislation resuming the was passed about presenting the project from being built just a few months later the city refused to issue permits for the development relying on the new legislation. the court explained that without any significant change in circumstances without considering appropriate planning criteria, rezoning the property for the sole purpose of temp defeating the project was in doubt arbitrary and discriminatory. here on the exact same day that the city set and agreed method of determining what a business sign is, and start the process of outlined-outline this method it there was no change in circumstance. the city's ban on general advertising had been in effect since 2002. is the reason the substantive amendment could not come any time in the 12 years intervening between 2002 and 2014. certainly was not an emergency. except if you wanted to put contest promotions out of business. the city also did not follow its own rules to make sure the planning issues were considered at the planning commission as is required. it short-circuited the legislative process not once but twice. 1st by introducing the interim ordinance as emergency-how took 12 years to become an emergency is unclear-then it failed to refer a subset of amendment back to the planning commission as was a required. this amendment was asked whether purpose than to kill contest operations and san francisco good it was arbitrary and discriminatory. as we noted the board of supervisors failed to follow its own procedures by not referring the final ordinance act of the planning commission for interview and recommendation. rather, in short, the city quietly put the new definition of business signs in a 350 page ordinance that been sitting around since 2011 and then allow the board of supervisors to push it through without it ever going back to the planning commission to review the changes that they had put in to defeat contest promotions. when a ordinance is proposed it would amend the planning code it must be referred to the planning commission or hearing. the amended legislation that makes material modifications the same rule applies. the board of supervisors is prohibited from passing the legislation until the planning commission has a hearing. i'm sure you're familiar with the issue. in fact a 350 page ordinance was introduced in 2011 containing a whole host of code amendments. it was never sent back after this change was made. the city claims this was not material modification. that's not correct. the final version of the legislation added a requirement that the sign, any sign, any business i'm direct attention to the primary business on the site. it added a substantive definition for that term. and, it removed language into places allowing signs which directed attention to a business on the site so long as that business was more than incidental at the site. those are material amendments. the amendment substantively change the definition of business signs in the city. the city's own actions demonstrate this is true despite what they claim. why propose a emergency ordinance to change a non-sub and of amendment to the planning code and on the same day the settlement is approved no less. in fact, the only reason why this matter is here before you today is the planning and building departments light on that new just one definition to deny the permit. in conclusion, after taking a beating in the court the city negotiated agreement with contest promotions allowing for contest promotions to continue its business to set up a process to track contest promotions sign inventory. all except-we relied on the agreement by paying hundreds of thousands of dollars to the city and finally the applications as required. at the same moment, the city both approved the settlement agreement and introduced emergency board ordinance to fundamentally subvert that settlement agreement for the sole purpose of eradicating contest promotions business in the city. as was the situation and are no versus costa mesa, this position was arbitrary, discriminatory, and illegal. compounding the illegal bait and switch certain city decision-makers circumvented the legislative process by failing to referred the material changes back to the planning commission. this board should exercise its discretion taxes done many times in the past 2 reverse an unfair and improper denial of contest promotions permit applications and direct the planning and building department to issue those permits. i got a few minutes left. this is the 2nd 2016 is the 40th year since up in pakistan in san francisco, and although i've not been here recently, members of my office up it up into the board of appeals hundreds of times over those of you. never have i once were always on the same side. i don't enjoy good i'm not happy about it. coincidentally it'll happen again next week which will complete my lifetime quota of having to come and overturn city permits. but, i've got to tell you, i was around for most of this. i could've commented. i was the one at the board of supervisors. i was the one talking to the board of supervisors. i was one getting the assurances and this was a bait and switch. as i said, we will need another presentation for the remaining signs a part of the recusal. so all come up and incorporate what i've said already. thank you. >> i have some questions. mr. rubin, you talk about contest promotions being induced into a settlement. doesn't take 2 to tango? it also sounded like you had the upper home based on what the court said >> the most important thing to sign companies who have been under siege ever since lady bird johnson's clean highway act back in the 1960s, is to remain in business as best they can. they were winning the loss. winning the lawsuit was in the endgame. the endgame was keeping their inventory up and the city invited them to the table suggesting they would be able to keep that inventory up and they could settle the case. so, it was a prudent decision to make. you are right. they could've continued on the litigation spent a lot of money , and it would have happened already in that litigation was portending of the future they would have one. >> my 2nd question, it strikes me your premise is largely based on what you consider a legal action on the part of the city in terms of the emergency ordinance, etc. he cited a court case that supported that. why isn't the issue, then, with the city and not with the permitting agency, which it seems was issuing permits under the current law? why would you not have gone after the city at the time to say we don't believe a lie was properly enacted? is that question make sense? >> are you talking about sending back to the planning commission- >> several parts were flawed and if you believe that it seems to me at the time you would pursue the city in the court to say this was a valid ordinance >> there are court proceedings percentage we need to complete the administrative rosset. we need to complete the board of appeals hearing and follow the board of appeals but i don't know what that could be but in order to actually follow the lawsuit but they will do that if they need to. >> i understand that. is that the premise you're basing this appeal? >> i believe, it's always been in the 40 years i don't do litigation. i don't want to do litigation i believe everybody should try to avoid litigation if they can. so, we are here asking you to remedy the situation without the need for litigation. i believe that the courts, i believe this board has the power to do that. you could suck the city did not follow its own rules therefore, send back the material amendments to the planning commission, and therefore that the code sections are not valid and that these permits to be issued under the old code sections, before the amendment. 2, you could determine that contest promotions permit applications should be decided as the code was on the day that the board of supervisors approved the settlement agreement. that would get them there permits. 3, you could decide that portions of the settlement agreement that require we permitting on not required. as we stand here right now, contest promotions has signs up in the city with permits. >> i was going to wait but i might as well ask the question in somewhat the same vein. that is that, if you would like to address the fact that i think i may start that over again. your office and your fellow representatives that have been before this board have innumerable times made the argument that the law, at the time that we hear a case, is the prevailing basis. how would you address that in terms of what we are faced with where the prevailing law is the ordinance that was passed. >> 1, i would hope you would take a very clear eyed look at how that law became the law. and find it to be an abuse of the city's discretion. because it was directly pointed at contest promotions. i believe, there are cases-i know there are cases that allow you to come to that conclusion to make that decision. which would then put you in this tuition will you be considering these permit applications under the law before themi'm sure we have that-commissioner fung also ongoing commitments to codes were perfectly fine that didn't go back to the planning commission for review. sometime over the last 30 years, but this one isn't. this was a material change in the code, your code the city code requirement being reviewed in a public hearing at planning commission was not just the contest promotions the entire public has an opportunity to review it. and that did not happen. you could find that the codes that are being asked to use today-i'm sure with the city will tell you-are invalid. therefore, contest promotions permits could be approved under the codes as they were on the day that the settlement was approved. >> is there anything in the settlement agreement that prevents this whole thing? that prevents having that anticipates a possible change in the law and in some way you could be grandfathered in? >> no. he does say that-i'll find it for you and read it because i think the precise language is important. when we started to get wind-and it was me that was in communiqué with the board of supervisors. and i wasn't called to be told you're making changes. i wasn't told the legislative ordinance had been submitted for changing anything during the period of time we were lobbying to have this approved which kind of surprised me because i do this a lot and i know the supervisors, a lot of them quite well. my clients would ask me and i said no, they would not do that. the settlement agreement says there will be new permit applications. the rationale, which made sense, was to allow planning department to create a database, where they could track more easily are permit applications. in fact, there was a reporting requirement in the settlement agreement. they have to look at again but every year or two we are supposed to pay some money for that reporting and reviewing and all that kind of stuff. i know i cannot answer your question precisely. i sit down up up the settlement agreement and find the language. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the planning department now. >> good evening, commissioner of john purvis with the planning department. i'm here to talk about the background of the planning departments involvement with sign enforcement and the history with this company. i reviewed each of the permit applications that are subject to the appeal here for compliance with planning code requirements for business signs. none of them could be approved because as representative of plans they cannot be defined as business signs. i don't need the planning code definition for what a business sign is. the planning code makes important distinction between business signs, which are allowed general advertising signs which are not allowed. the code defines a business sign is one that directs attention to the primary business on the premises. appellant signs focus on branding advertising. therefore, they're not business signs the general advertising signs. since 2002, san francisco voters approved a ban on general advertising in the city. we gave every opportunity to the appellant to review -revise the plans. we issued six notices over the course of about 10 months before sending them back to department of building inspection for disapproval. as you know, most of the signs are under appeal do already exist. they been up for about 10-12 years. the appellant does business by mounting signs on building walls outside small businesses and filling them up with name brand advertising on pace to post. they touch upon it across the top with the name of the business along with an invitation to come into the business, enter contests and win prizes that are related to those ads. the appellant believes because contest prizes are related to the ads in signs and the contests are held inside the business, that makes those signs business sign. but do besides and the signs focus primarily on the brand-name advertisers. the appellant has been doing this type of advertising in san francisco since about 2002. then we came up with a contest id. once the planning department started cracking down on illegal general advertising signs. to better understand as i like to go over some background explain how we got to where we are now. on march 5, 2015 opposition g and san francisco with a percent of support riveted on the general advertising signs in the city. it was only two days after that the appellant on march 7, filed the first of several sign permit applications to install signs. in your attachment one you can see the first comment which is for business sign on the northeast corner of attorney street. at at 353, 359 attorney st. at the time that was a restaurant on the premises, but this photo on that sign that was installed is clearly not a restaurant sign could this was taken by staff in 27 did it shows a sign i do not harassment but advertising the gap. all the signs, all the son subject to appeal today have the same kind of history did it apply for a permit to put up a sign not identifying with advertisement, but just saying it's a sign or business sign and that what would be put up is an advertisement. a series of advertisements. this is typically what the sign would say. the permit would say is a new business signs. then, this is what would get installed. no business names on the signs. no mention of contest or prizes. this is just a sampling. i have more. they are all like that. in 2007, because of the proliferation of illegal advertising in the city and the problems with tracking number was legislation in place that allowed in inventory enforcement program set up in the planning department. the #'s were surveyed in the field like this, and staff recognize them to be general advertising signs. at the time the code to find a business sign as a sign that directs attention to a business commodity service industry or other activity which is sold offered were conducted other than incidentally on the premises upon which signs is located or affixed. does go on, where number of commodities with brand names or symbols are sold on the premises up to one third the area of the business sign or 25 ft.2, whichever is less. they be devoted to advertise. one or more of those commodities by brand name or symbol as an accessory to the business sign. the brand names advertised on the #'s were not available on the premise. not at all. not even incidentally.) name ads fill the entire sign area not just wondered. by 2008, the planning department issued notice of violation and once we started issuing notice of violation on the signs, placards began appearing about each sign reading, [inaudible]. details of the bid his an example of the kind of password we start seeing on the signs. otherwise these advertisements were the same. planning staff went to these businesses and every time we asked about the prizes, store merchants were confused. what are you talking about? only when we refer to them to the sign out front for the contest, how do we win them? then they would show us, yes, some posters over. if you want a poster just take one. so there were no contest. even if there was, was at best incidental to the business. in some cases, it wasn't even an on-site business at all. in some cases the business with several doors down from where the sign was posted. nevertheless, appellant requested that the-planning code section 62.3. appellant asserted signs meet the definition of a business sign because one, the signs direct attention to contests conducted inside the stores and two, the restriction on planning advertising applies only to products that are sold on the premises. he was arguing that the signs were advertising prices that were given away on the premise. they were not so. if they were sold they were sold elsewhere. the mr. law judge heard their arguments and upheld the nov and the approved penalties. they don't then filed a lawsuit against the city. the city agreed to save further enforcement action pending litigation. by this time it's about 20 to get the apartment had removed hundreds of general advertising signs in the city. contest promotions wasn't the only company that was questioning or disputing the definition of a business sign. for example, when the king street. the owner of this building in the photo with the advertisement obtained permits for the left side of that building but instead use the permits to advertise the. it turned out the owner had in fact leased a small storefront in the ground floor for the as a marketing office. the merchandise advertising the sign was installed on the premises, the owner argue because the gap had a presence in the building however incidental, they should be able to advertise. well, printed, consider this illegal general advertising, issued a denial and as the penalties accrued the owner sought reconsideration after a lengthy hearing process the vacated the premises and the department agreed to forgo penalties if you're just remove the sign. you would then have a right to a legal sign with a new permit that fully complied with the planning code. in 2010 the owners of the in 2010 the owners of the-this is another example-the owners of i'm sorry the owners of the embarcadero center wanted to advertise some other tenants including chase bank it each had a premise-a presence on summer on the presence on the embarcadero centered but the embarcadero center is about four block area . any individual business would have have to be incidental to the entire embarcadero center just the office would be incidental to the one ed king street building. the owners of attorney did not pursue this matter further. so, with these kinds of situations, it's possible that proposition g and its enforcement was putting pressure on advertisers to find creative ways to stretch the definition of what a business sign is and always has been. this definition did use words such as premises and incidental , which were commonly understood , but not specifically defined in the planning food and meeting to misinterpretation at the definition of a business i would need to be more precise. on july 15, 2014, resolution was introduced to the board of supervisors to clarify the definition of a business sign to interim zoning controls. with this change of business sign without direct attention to the primary business. commodities, service industry or other activity which is sold off the conducted upon the premises upon which the sign is located. it defines the primary business as they use which occupies the greatest area on the premises upon which the sign is located upon which it is affixed. so this definition is a lot more precise. it's not a redefinition but the clarification. the primary business is defined objectively by the size-by the size on the premises and the promises it defined by the location of the sign. all montgomery businesses and all main print advertising would be limited to the one otto. this is consistent with long-standing practice. provides language clarifies what a business sign has generally been understood to be at its most basic, all it does is replace other than incidentally, incidentally,with primary. on july 16, 2014 litigationwitty comment was resolved with the settlement agreement visited by this time some asides have been in place in fine revenue for 10-12 years. under the agreement eats iraq to comply with all applicable provisions of the planning code in effect on the date of issuance. on august 8, 2014 don't begin reform of fine permit applications as the agreement record. nova science complied with planning code section 602.3 as it was updated. the plan showed each-let me see. i have an example. this is an example of one of the 35 plans that was submitted. plan showed each primary business name will be splayed across the top. this is the layout of the sign. it shows the changeable adhesive copy. that would represent the attic area, advertising area. this is the detail what the sign would be. it shows the name of the business across the top. then, congress contest details across the bottom. in the middle is changeable adhesive copy and obviously that's just advertising that they've always done. so, this is basically-and here is to confirm that, included a photo of what the site would look like with the plan and i don't know if you can see that but it's in your packets as attachment eight. the photo clearly shows the same kind of re-paste poster ads they been putting on the sign all along. so, to comply the planning code as business signs, the signs would only have to be slightly modified. so the primary business along with any generic information about the business including contest, comprises two thirds of the sign and a brand-name advertising would be limited to the one third portion. also limited considered sold on the premise. this is the applicant-the signs were never revised. after several warnings, applicant applications were sent back to for disapproval. appellant claims that denying the permit subverts the settlement agreement as well as opponents rights to its existing son. the settlement agreement, which both parties signed requires the appellant apply for new permits for their existing signs and requires the planning department to approve them only if they satisfy all agreements of the planning code. period. planning code is always subject to revision or to sponsor new issues and this is an issue that an ongoing notch as it doesn't contest promotions with other entities that were disputing this very issue, business signed versus advertising. the settlement agreement basically obligates the planning department to deny the permits. the claimant is a new definition for business i'm resigned to the sole purpose for the settlement division this is just a commonsense clarification to ensure the business i'm permits are not used by property owners and advertisers to circumvent proposition g and the will of the voters. to avoid confusion expense but other signed companies regarding the difference between a business sign and a general advertising sign. the appellants propose i'm failed to comply with both versions of what a business on his. neither the earlier version or this version. they say denying the permits will extinguish contest promotions business operations. but all they need to do is revise the layout. that's all were asking. that's all we've ever asked to revise the layout of the signs to focus on the primary business on premise rather than general advertising. they can attract customers with just a brand-name advertising beyond the long-standing one third. they say the ordinance violets of the poet's rights to due process. well, administrative agency, this court of appeals lacks the authority-this woman told by the city attorney's office, lacks the authority to declare a statute invalid or views to enforce it. the court of appeals is not a lawmaking body has no power to disregard or mandy ordinance is which define its authority. again, the memo 2602.3 merely clarify laws any distinctions between business signs and general advertising signs. the legislation, therefore did maturely modify statutory definition of what a business sign. to the contrary just a minor clarification to ensure a business signs are indeed business signs. that's all i have. i can answer the questions if you have them. >> two questions mr. berger. when you make the statement that it did not conform, that statement is reflecting it did not conform to be interim controls. is that correct? >> i would say they don't conform to the previous or the interim. which are now permanent. >> during the course of your correspondence with them that it did not conform, was anytime made by the permit applicant to submit revised documentation or additional argument at that point? >> no. they did make some revisions what was told the signs, for example was too big or there were too many. they made did make some obligations for some other sons. we are talking about the ones under appeal.? >> yes >> yes they made a few revisions in regard to that but none that would satisfy the definition of a business sign. >> how many of those were those applications was modified? >> probably 10 or 12. i don't know offhand. >> out of the 30? >> yes. but not all the more modified to the satisfaction of the planning department. to be consistent with the planning code with respect to other issues such as size, location. there are nine with respect to other issues such as size, location. there are 9-9 of these 35 that even if we disregard the definition of a business sign their nine that can't be approved anyway. because of those locational size issues. >> i just need some help with timing here. he said it was just a clarification of language. not kind of minor. is that with you- >> yes >> when was the square petitioner? >> it was done through interim controls >> when? >> when? july 15, 2014. that's when it was introduced to the board of supervisors >> user proposition littered golf was passed- >> march 5 22. >> why did it take to so long to clarify, 12 year >> >> first of all, okay, we can have a program for enforcement until 2007. we have a legislation in place to inventory the signs. so it didn't start until 2007 the couple ordinance to pass allowing us to set up an inventory and to enforce against illegal signs. that got undergoing in 2007, 2008. so is more recent than that. some of these issues, every situation was unique. there were other issues similar to this like i said with a chase signs. other signs on the embarcadero center and 188 king st. we were able to solve them little by little over time. but, this interim controls, which i'm saying isn't really-well it solves all of those problems if they were to ever come up again. >> but they had signs up all this time, right? >> contest promotions >> yes >> yes. >> so they're doing business and then someone gets around to join them but their signs on proper >> telling them what >> not conform. >> no, no, no. we have always-these have been targeted as violations since the beginning. the enforcement has been on stage. i'm sorry. i should've said that when they litigated, part of that agreement i think it was the judge that for one reason or another, we agreed to stay the enforcement. so they're still open violations, were not acting on those. they're sort of on hold until it could be settled. that's when the settlement agreement came into being and get to this point >> the settlement agreement was negotiated at the time, right >> it took a while >> i'm sure i wasn't part of that but i do believe- >> you know whether during the settlement of those visions it was discussion about the degradation. >> i can't speak to what was talked about. ultimately, without approved is what got approved, witches they have to comply with what is in place at the time the permit is issued. >> the time in the permit is issued. interesting. thank you. >> to the issue that this is a planning department ordinance, usually discussion on this serious issue like this is what the planning commission for some level of discussion information, whatever, to the appellants point, that this was not. can you comment on that >>. i'm going to let the city attorney's office. >> thank you. >> for president honda and other members of the board of appeals, deputies and the attorney thomas-. i worked on the litigation in the settlement agreement. to the point that commissioners, swig are asking about the amendment that happen. it was first as an interim control in 2014 and then permanent in 2015. the key timeframe is that in 2011 supervisors speech you and another supervisor sponsored amendments to the planning code over a number of different sections. they went to the commission. it went to the planning commission clause may have a hearing in 2012 and pass that-past the moment in front of them out of their commission back to the board of supervisor. picking back to the board of supervisors, as it into for reasons which i'm not aware of only took a portion of what had gone to the commission to the full board for approval. so, in-what year-in 2012, the board adopted a chunk of the legislation that had been reviewed and approved by the planning commission. the other part stayed in committee. in 2015, that legislation went back in front of the board of supervisors and included a definition and included section 602.3. the portion adopted by the board in 2015 was not substantially different than the session that the planning commission approved in 2012. so, that's the distinction. that is what is at issue. the appellants are saying that with the board adopted in 2015 should've gone back to the planning commission because it was substantially different than what they approved in 2012. and the department's position is that is not the case. that was a technical change. it was a clarification of what the commission had previously approved in the 20 12th. >> so what you are saying, there was not enough material change to have an additional public hearing? >> there was no material change so there was no need for it to go back to the commission. >> does that satisfy commissioner swig because >> yes, thank you very much. >> if no other questions for planning, i assume ddi-any public comment on items 6a-six 6e? >> hi. i'm wendy-i live about for residential houses between myself and 300 sanchez st. which is one of the locations. i found out about this meeting at 430 today. i'm not prepared. but the resident in my neighborhood, like myself many are long-term did i been there for over 20 years. we've had been protesting the so-called sign, which is really a billboard in a residential area since it appeared. we been told it's not legal. in many different ways but there's no way to enforce. so, i want to say i'm grateful that if there was clarification of what already existed, that made make it possible for this to be removed. i would like to maybe -i like to show your picture i staff right before i came. if it's okay? >> overhead, please. >> you can leave it there. we can bring it close. >> this is up picture in view of sanchez at school. sanchez school serves a lot of children on the same block as everett scott. there's two schools in the block that is directly across the street from 300 sanchez st. i'm only-it doesn't show well enough but i'm trying to show this because the is one thing but what's on this board regularly is a whole different thing than the. >> explain it over we might be able to slide it over maybe >> which way should i slide it? >> there you go >> this is 50 shades of black. this is the review of the crotch of an african-american woman holding a whip. my child walks by this every day. it's not the gap. this is if i view othe six-year-olds as they go disappeared it says feel the love, valentine's day. here is the top of that same sign that says good will. it is the same figure in the heart shape in front of his heart, his eyes show [inaudible] antiviolence image similar to those that show sexes, right racist and violent images on this board billboard rented. at the top it says coming. there's a promotion for come into the center studio which is a very small business on the corner that provides pilates. i spoke with the owner who said sunday, this week, i contacted him to complain for the numerous times, and he told me that he's called and asked this company to remove his name from the top of the sign that he does not agree with many many tempted his business is not wanting to be advertised or be associated with the images on this. thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> mimes greg stevens. as an outsider looking in, it seems to me that it's the will of the people and sort of like having all this advertising of we the city and appears to me that contest promotions is the one that did the true bait and switch coming up with a way to create 11 years of profits that they should not have had. in a way, they party got their money from the past of getting away with something that they should have done that they will hold around. looking at it it seems obvious that it's the way of doing advertisement and getting ready. i think that contest promotions is acting like a bully and a pushing their way through abusing the judicial system and i don't think-i knew they did think about getting rid of the ugly newsstands and all these things all these advertising's really kind of make the city not what it's supposed to be. i think the people, when we voted for that initiative, we wanted those things to go way. they're just finding ways to subvert the law and come up with reasoning that is not about. that's oh i see it as an outsider. i don't believe that they should approve anything from contest promotes good they've made enough money in the past. they should be glad they got to keep that money from the past. that's how i see it. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> overhead, please. good evening, commissioned by ms. john nelson. i'm here to talk about signs in the open market neighborhood. i am showing here the picture of 172 golden gate. the location is at 2 converging st. so it can be seen by both streets, going down. >> mr. nolte, could you adjust the picture? we cannot see it >> maybe you can zoom back out again? >> i been doing with the signs for over 10 years. this is the second commission in which i've spoken in front of. the voters passed san francisco approved proposition k with 70.4% approval. bob san francisco must protect the character and dignity of the city appearance property open space, thoroughfares, skylines, and architectural features for both residents and visitors. this is in proposition g. for 12 years the company made national promotions and advertising plays advertising signs on properties façades. in february, 2009, the uptown historical district was formed and the sign is inside at this district. i respectfully request the board of appeals denied the appeal of the above- of these permits, and disapprove each of the sites permits. thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> my name is larry home and on the provider of the center studio to studio 300 center st. and i wish to express my experience as being the primary business owner where one of the signs stands. sign creates a great deal of confusion. as i'm appearing as the owner of the sun. i'm not. i've get nothing from them. i do have communication with contest promotions and whenever i have indicated to concerned neighbors to contact contest promotions about their concerns, they come back to me and say they will not respond. i feel these signs are a disturbance. it's an attractive nuisance. every day there's graffiti on these signs, which adds to the problem with these signs. it just very unsightly to all the passerby including, as wendy said, the school across the street where children are going back and forth. i have not allowed the promotions to be run in my studio. so, when people have come in isa people don't carry this promotion within the contest within my studio. i need that to get off my chest. >> thank you, sir. >> sir, is yours the only commercial space in that building? >> yes >> you do not own the building >> i do not. >> the lease of the signers with the building owner? >> i do not know who carries the lease with the site. i've tried to ask >> what is the property of address >> 300 center street >> thank you. >> any other public comment? seeing none, will take rebuttal started with mr. rubin. >>10 min. of rebuttal. >> i want to need time. i want to address a couple of things that occurred after i sat down and questions the commission asked. one, if this was in fact this change to the planning code that redefines business signs was routine, it could've been down any time from 2002 forward instead, he was introduced on the same day, exactly the same day, as the settlement agreement was approved at the board of supervisors. on that day, supervisor wiener introduce legislation to undermine the settlement agreement he also approved on the same day. not only that, but was not even introduced in a routine way. was introduced as emergency interim legislation. had it been introduced in routine way, it would have taken the routine process and a year later or so it would've been back of the board of supervisors in the normal course to amend the planning code. had that been the case, and had it been done in a routine way, our permits would have been approved. work, the planning department and the building permit would've had to hold them for a year or more waiting for this change in the code. so, i'm just saying, it's not credible to tell you that. that's not what happened. supervisor wiener was also the single supervisor-and he is a friend or least he was-maybe after he sees as he won't be-but with a single supervisor taken most interest in this agreement, he called me 10 times at night when i was at dinner with my family about that sign on center street and i told him we would take it down. he was the one that was more interested in the settlement than anyone else and he's the one that introduced the interim legislation on emergency basis on the same day he voted, along with the rest of the supervisors, to approve the settlement. supervisor wilson, you asked-excuse me. i elevated you. or demoted speech of or demoted speech of >> no, there was no discussion. my name i just looked at that settlement agreement. i look through it in response to questions that i signed it. so at no time during the negotiations of that settlement agreement did anyone say to me was any thought, even a dream of changing the definition of a business sign. zero. of course, if they had we would not have entered into the settlement agreement. and paid three and earned $50,000. and spent a lot of money. what you saw in terms of permit applications were not easy to put together. they spent a lot of money all that in compliance with our obligations under the settlement agreement. commissioner swig and whoever asked about the materiality of the change, since 2011, there has been a cleanup efforts undertaken by the planning department and there are a lot of anomalies and aberrations and problems in the planning code. it's a very long code. there were 350 pages of changes that were being suggested. some of them passed earlier. others have languished for 2-3 years but what wasn't in any of them was a material change to the definition of a business side. that was imported and stuck in that legislation at the last minute so when it went to the board of supervisors it would be passed in the change would become not interim and emergency anymore but permanence. that's how it happened that were not suggesting that any of the other stuff-i don't know what was in the rest of it-was material were not material or whether it needed to go to the planning commission, but that piece that they put in at the last minute and then put it through the system, was material. that needed to go back to the planning commission. i know people are not fond of signs in san francisco. i understand the revelatory process. my firm is mostly interaction with the city. that's what we do. we follow the rules. i think the city needs to follow the rules as well. and new sign applications, down the road, with this change, maybe they won't be approved, that's not the way to do was contest promotions after reaching a settlement. >> quick question. what about the argument the settlement agreement requires you to get a permit under the definition that exists? in other words, is that a >> it's in your package, 10 b is on page 6. there's a lot of stuff here. it'll see a lot of requirements for us to pay some money for monitoring our signs down the road. we assumed we would have an inventory of signs based on the settlement agreement but what it says precisely, permitting of existing inventory within 270 days of the operative date meaning the day the settlement agreement was signed, contest promotions ultimate all documents in any of the permits of the city necessary to erect a business sign in compliance with city laws. they all applicable application fees and thereafter diligently seek approval of the permit. normal stock it does nothing in there that would suggest on the same day that the board of supervisors ashley proves the settlement they are going to change the city's laws on an emergency basis. that's what happened. >> it says in compliance with city law >> does say in compliance with city law. thank you. >> i have a few questions. >> getting back to 300 sanchez, the only commercial business came up and testified that he's not a part of the company. would you apply for the contest? on a particular obligation >> i don't know the details of each onef the sons. i just remember when he spoke, i remembered that was assigned that supervisors sanchez and i have been talking for a long period of time and, frankly, he was reluctant to approve the settlement because of that sign. i was responding >> that's not the question. >> i don't know >> the other question is, some else in the public that the slide earlier dagon in with apartment had gone in and asked where do i sign up and where do i win these prizes. the operator the store had no idea. what type of prizes of a offering? >> there on the sons. i don't know the details. the contest itself, is a legitimate contest. the businesses themselves have signed up to be a part of that contest. and they are actually, most of them interested in being a part of it because it draws people >> i and or stand but from the public is tonight there's only one commercial establishment on the ground floor but yet it says that you enter within. there's no other commercial establishments. try to figure out where would you get this information? >> i will have to ask and get back to because i don't have an answer. >> thank you. >> we can take rebuttal from planning. >> yes, okay. first of all, i would like to say as i said before, the signs that exist on the streets now for contest promotions, they're not legally installed anyway. they have permits not legitimate permits. the permits were for business signs. he saw what was installed is actually nothing but general advertising signs. copy. was only later they added a placard announcing a contest and came up with a contest idea. meanwhile, the copy changing. business signs don't normally, religion but they never change copy and lesser designed to change copy have authorization to change copy like a theater marquee announcing movies. those change record. an ordinary wall sign for business isn't authorized to change copy unless that's part of its approval. so those funds were not legal. i would also like to point out language. i the language in the settlement agreement the on the overhead. what it says is, under number three, compliance with applicable codes, breed sign erected by contest promotions within the city, contest promotions shall comply with all applicable provisions of the city's charter ordinance administrative bulletins, and other big regulations in effect at the time the permit for the sign is issued. that was signed by both parties and planning department can't approve applications that fail to meet the planning code provisions for business signs. objective, fundamental standards. so, the planning department requests the board of appeals denied the appeal and a bold the disapproval's. thank you. >> mr. purvis, if you want to continue this- >> yes i think mr.-has additional >> i decide one quick point. deputy city attorney thomas. it's a small point but but every was commissioner lazarus mentioned it in terms or the dynamic was at the time the parties were entering into a settlement agreement. as i understood the appellant's papers and presentation, today was a characterization that city had been enjoined that the federal court had in fact issued a injunction. that is not the case. contest promotions did seek a temporary restraining order. they did seek a primary injunction. it was hotly and heavily opposed. there was a hearing in front of a federal judge and ultimately the judge did not enjoin this city, but what the judge did was to water the parties, both the city and contest promotions, to abide by the state agreement that had been entered into by the parties prior to litigation. the effect of that was, was that penalties would not accrue on the already issued notices of violation. i brought a copy of the order from the court if you want to see it but i can put it on the overhead. it's actually contained in the settlement agreement on page 2. this is on the overhead. there is a description of the order that says whereas, on november 12, 2010, the court issued an order and adjust said requiring the parties to continue to abide by the state agreement until the lawsuit is resolved. that is the water that came out of their requests, their motion for a tro and injunction. was not an injunctive it was just an order for the parties to continue to agree, or to comply with the state agreement that the parties had previously entered into. that's just a response about what the dynamic was at the time that the parties did ultimately agree on summary agreement. >> any idea what the charge for the contest posters? >> i'm sorry, chart? >> yes, what is the fee they charge >> charge to whom? i'm sorry >> the gap is one of the has a poster of their product. on one of the sons. what do they charge? >> that's probably a question best directed to the appellant. were not privy to the day-to-day operations of contest promotions. or there or other sign companies. >> thank you. >> let me ask a question relating to-it's a timing question. in 2002, was the time that the proposition g was passed, correct? >> yes, march 5, 2002 >> okay. 2007 seems to be the time, that would be five years, that it took for the city to implement a procedure to hold sign presenters, or whatever you want to refer that to them as, told him accountable for potentially a mrs. d. >> welcome it was legislation that helped enable that process by requiring inventories be submitted by the sign companies. we could have enforced them all along and had been against illegal signs but without an inventory it became with the inventory it became a lot quicker >> i see. so, proposition g made it clear what the law was going to be. but then like many laws-i'm not being facetious were sarcastic in any way-it's just a matter of fact, there often laws that are passed at the ballot box, and by the board of supervisors, were city government agency suddenly say, how are we going to enforce this. so, basically, for five years it was an experience or shall we call it where you were trying to enforce this proposition g but was cumbersome and i guess deemed impossible. all make an assumption. you can clarify this. then, somebody in city government came up with the idea were not going to be able to do this until we get a inventory of everything and then we can hold folks accountable. >> i think scott sanchez can address that. >> scott sanchez planning to him. that's absolutely correct. there was the learning curve after proposition g. using existing enforcement tools which turned out not to be terribly effective and supervisor peskin initial be legislation for the sign imagery as well as both a separate set of rules for general advertising them. packing effective in 2006-27 and john purvis got the program up and running and started the citywide signed survey at that point. imagery program has two parts. one, all the sign, is providing all their signs to the city as well as the city independently doing a signed survey of all signed throughout the city, which found that many, about half were actually illegal measures of those are now down because of john purvis's enforcement effort. >> mr. purvis, thank you. so, mr. purvis, as a result of that work, it became clear that the appellants, many of the appellant signs in fact were a legal and to-and they try to mitigate that situation by putting up the strips that's a contest inside. but that's still really, in the eyes of the city, did not comply to proposition g and subsequent legislation by supervisor peskin which went to the litigation and then we heard from their. everybody's interpretation of that. so, the board of supervisors, from my reading, and i like clarification from you or the city attorney, the board of supervisors are elected to protect the public's interests. and the board of supervisors are there to create laws in that interest in a cold things like the propositions the golf with the public has really spoken. so, in the case of clarifying language which seem to be in place from proposition g this is their job for protecting public interest. >> yes, absolutely. >> and the intent of what the public had voted for? betook yes, proposition or golf. >> thanks. >> commissioners if there's no further questions the matters are submitted. >> the standard is whether the department aired or abuse their discretion and whether we see any other type of- >> i would just like to [inaudible did the noble review. you are reviewing this a new under the laws. my advice would be under the laws that existed. >> he said that exist today? betook yes >> >> let me strike that and restated. we stated. i will state that the prevailing law at this point is the ordinance that was enacted both on interim and on the permanent basis. i am not prepared deal with all of the other issues, the over arching ones, as raised by the permit applicant that may have impacted the particular action. therefore, it's my intent to vote to hold the denial to allow the permit applicant to exhaust its administrative remedy. >> i would support the direction of commissioner fung, especially with the evidence that there are signs out there that absolutely, the sanchez sign, even though it was called to everyone's attention is still up. they're still collecting rent on it and therefore it they are breaching the law. so, i would find with that example is similar direction. >> i also agree that there's no further comments, would you like me, your motion commissioner fung >> move to deny the appeal of old apartment on the permit denials. >> that they conform to the prevailing law. >> on a motion, vice president fung lazarus aye swig aye wilson aye honda aye. that motion is upheld. we will move on then to item 7a and 7b. >> ashley dr. i have to recuse myself because i seem to have a conflict of interest. >> think you commissioner swig. appeal number seven think you commissioner swig. appeal number 7a item 7a 15 170 and 7b appeal number 15 171 whether filed by contest promotions versus department of building inspections. the first is that 2011. the street. the second at 5353-59 kearny st. postevent protesting the denial of and erected the sun. vote again the parties have stipulated prior cases of item numbers 6a and six 6a and 6a will apply to agenda items number 7a and 7b. the cases identified as agenda item number 7a and 7b and the board of appeals shall consider such cases a new without being influenced by discussions were deliberations the prior cases identified as agenda items numbers 6a through 6ee. that statement made, we can start with the appellants. i don't know if there's more you would like to say mr. rubin but you have time to say it if you wish? >> i have-for contest promotions have i have nothing to add and incorporate all the comments that i made already under appeal number 15-183. is that right? or no, >> you might want to refer to the item numbers instead of the appeal numbers. >> excuse me. that i've made under item 5 undercounted >> item 6 >> excuse me. i hereby incorporate all of the comments that i made under earlier on items 6a through 6e rocco have nothing to add >> printed by mr. purvis >> john purvis plenitude, staff and i too would like to incorporate the comments made from 6a 6a through 6ee appeal numbers case 7a and 7b. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on items 7a and 7b? seeing none,, assume there's no rebuttal from the parties? so, commissioners these matters are submitted. >> moved to deny the appeal and uphold the permit denial on the basis that the denial was appropriately done under the prevailing law. >> thank you vp. on that motion, lazarus aye honda aye wilson aye. with commissioner swig recuse that motion does carry with a vote 04-0. >> i the financial conflict from eight so i will be recused >> >> commissioner swig will return by call 8a. appeal number 15 15146 and 50 156 properties located at 326 eddie st. and 360-street. contest promotions versus building inspections with planning department disapproval protesting the denial of a permit to erect a sign. and briefly all signed the parties have stipulated agreements made in the prior cases agenda item number 6a through six 6a through 6ee will apply to agenda item number 8a and 8b. the cases is identified as agenda item number 8a and 8b should we heard de novo and the board of appeals shall consider the evidence for such cases a new. without being influenced by discussions were deliberations for the prior cases identified as agenda items numbers 6a-6ee. again, we'll start with the appellants. >> jim rubin again. hon. members of the board, i hereby incorporate in appeal in appeal number 8a and 8b all that i said and presented to you in items 6a-6ee i don't have anything more to add. thank you. >> mr. purvis. >> john purvis penney department. i too would like to incorporate everything i said under item 6a-six graco e onto the record for item 8a and 8b. nothing else to add. >> tang. any public comment on item 8a and 8b? >> good evening commissioners. i have a couple more things to add since you're doing physically with these two projects. this first picture is the historical district that was formed in 2009 after the opposition was passed. it's discussed about historical districts being inflicted by the signs. second, it shows that i took of signs at 360 hi. hi street. that was done in 2005 and again the problem is this is next to a half a block away from a playgroundagain, this picture was taken in 2006 four 326 eddy st. and the barbershop good that is on the façade, the side of the building, and where it's a parking lot.that's been that way for years. the second thing i want to add the record, i want to incorporate for my comments i want to incorporate for my comments for 6a-66ee. and i want to add these two signs in the north of market, where they are located or newer . so they're adding to the cluttering of the area. to go into these businesses for prizes they may be giving out. as was explained that are not even part of the business in the commercial space. so thank you for your time. >> thank you. any other public comment? >> i think this has sidetracked a lot of people [inaudible]. if i could right now [inaudible]. >> in your public comment? any rebuttal? commissioners, these matters are submitted. >> moved to deny the appeal and uphold the departments permit denial on the basis that the acted appropriately with the prevailing ordinance that is in place. >> on emotion than to deny both of these appeals, lazarus aye, wilson aye swig aye. the motion carried. vice president there is no further business before the board. >> this meeting is adjourned. >>[gavel] . (clapping.) the airport it where i know to mind visions of traffic romance and excitement and gourmet can you limousine we're at san francisco inspirational airport to discover the award-winning concession that conspiracies us around the world. sfo serves are more 40 million travelers a year and a lot of the them are hungry there's many restaurant and nearly all are restaurant and cafe that's right even the airport is a diane designation. so tell me a little bit the food program at sfo and what makes this so special >> well, we have a we have food and beverage program at sfo we trivia important the sustainable organic produce and our objective to be a nonterminal and bring in the best food of san francisco for our passengers. >> i like this it's is (inaudible) i thank my parents for bringing me here. >> this the definitely better than the la airport one thousand times better than. >> i have a double knees burger with bacon. >> i realize i'm on a diet but i'm hoping this will be good. >> it total is san francisco experience because there's so many people and nationalities in this town to come to the airport especially everyone what have what they wanted. >> are repioneering or is this a model. >> we're definitely pioneers and in airport commemoration at least nationally if not intvrl we have many folks asking our our process and how we select our great operators. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the food option in san francisco airport are phenomenal that's if it a lot of the airports >> yeah. >> you don't have the choice. >> some airports are all about food this is not many and this particular airport are amazing especially at the tirnl indicating and corey is my favorite i come one or two hours before my flight this is the life. >> we definitely try to use as many local grirnts as we can we use the goat cheese and we also use local vendors we use greenly produce they summarize the local soured products and the last one had 97 percent open that. >> wow. >> have you taken up anything unique or odd here. >> i've picked up a few things in napa valley i love checking chocolates there's a lot of types of chocolate and caramel corn. >> now this is a given right there. >> i'm curious about the customer externals and how people are richmond to this collection of cities you've put together not only of san francisco food in san francisco but food across the bay area. >> this type of market with the local savors the high-end products is great. >> i know people can't believe they're in an airport i really joy people picking up things for their friends and family and wait i don't have to be shopping now we want people take the opportunity at our location. >> how long has this been operating in san francisco and the late 18 hours it is one of the best places to get it coffee. >> we have intrrnl consumers that know of this original outlet here and come here for the coffee. >> so let's talk sandwiches. >> uh-huh. >> can you tell me how you came about naming our sandwiches from the katrero hills or 27 years i thought okay neighborhood and how do you keep it fresh you can answer that mia anyway you want. >> our broadened is we're going not irving preserves or packaged goods we take the time to incubate our jogger art if scratch people appreciate our work here. >> so you feel like out of captured the airport atmosphere. >> this is its own the city the airline crews and the bag handlers and the frequent travels travelers and we've established relationships it feels good. >> when i get lunch or come to eat the food i feel like i'm not city. i was kind of under the assumption you want to be done with our gifts you are down one time not true >> we have a lot of regulars we didn't think we'd find that here at the airport. >> people come in at least one a week for that the food and service and the atmosphere. >> the food is great in san francisco it's a coffee and i took an e calorie home every couple of weeks. >> i'm impressed i might come here on my own without a trip, you know, we have kids we could get a babysitter and have diner at the airport. >> this is a little bit of things for everybody there's plenty of restaurant to grab something and go otherwise in you want to sit you can enjoy the experience of local food. >> tell me about the future food. >> we're hoping to bring newer concepts out in san francisco and what our passengers want. >> i look forward to see what your cooking up (laughter) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> today we've shown you the only restaurant in san francisco from the comfortableing old stand but you don't have to be hungry sfo has changed what it is like to eat another an airport check out our oblige at tumbler dating.com >> mta and parking commission ms. bloomer commissioner singh commissioner borden director heinecke director ramos director rubke mr. chairman director we have quorum item 3 electronic devices. any person responsible for disruption may be asked to leave the room. set cell phones on vibrate, the vibration could cause an interruption in the proceedings. please note that cells cause