>> good evening and welcome to the july 17, 2013 board of appeals, the officer is president chris hwang and she joined by the vice president ann lazarus and commissioners fung and honda and hurtado. >> to my left is the city attorney jesner and will provide the board with any needed legal advice. and goldstein the board's executive director, we are joined by the representatives from the city departments that have cases before the board, scott sanchez sitting in the front row and he is the city zoning administrator and also here representing the planning department and commission. sitting next to him is joseph duffy and he is representing the department of building inspection and also joined by short and forester and representing the public works and john, the manager of the department of public works bureau of street use and mapping. there will be people here as well from the department of public health. at this time, if you would please go over the board's meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all of the phones and pagers so that they will not disturb the proceedings and please carry on the conversations in the hallway. the board's rules are as follows, you each have seven minutes to present the cases and 3 minutes for rebuttals people affiliated e parties mustfishrebuttal in the three minute periods, members who are not affiliated have up to three minutes and no rebuttal. >> to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, the members of the public who are asked to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a card when you come up to the podium. and speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions and there are customer satisfaction forms on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, or schedules, speak to the board staff during the break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning, the office is located at 1650 mission street room 304. and this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgotv tv and cable channel 78 and dvds are available for purchase from sfgov tv thank you for your attention and at this point in time we will conduct the swearing in process. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand, raise your right-hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance in the administrative code. thank you. >> do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth. >> thank you. commissioners we have two housekeeping items this evening, the first has to do with item 4 a which is a rehearing request and appeal 13-033. that matter has been withdrawn and will not be heard. and the second has to do with item number 12, appeal 13-050, which is protesting a building permit at 720 carolin street, the parties have jointly requested a continuance to july 31, 2013 and ordered to have more time to finalize a settlement agreement and we need a motion to move that item. >> we are going to move to grant the continuance request. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on that motion? >> seeing none, if you could call the roll please? >> on that motion from the president to reschedule item 12, 13-050, to july 31, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you, vote is 5-0 and that item is reschedule to july 31st. >> thank you. >> so we will start then with item 1, which is public comment, is any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item that is not on tonight's calendar. >> hi. i want to thank you for reinstating my permit for the third time of being targeted by the san francisco police department. and it was so of a kind of validation for me to see that somebody else sees what has happened to me. and i was sort of hoping that there would have been a rehearing that i would have had a chance to see the issues brought forward in a letter by tom decany and he cames that mart tetro an artist had personally signed a letter which was a basis for a rehearing. he did not sign a letter, i spoke with him twice, the last time a couple of hours ago. and he knew nothing of me, of tom decany the director of cultural appears and nothing of the san francisco arts commission. and it was not whose signature on the letter. so i am kind of wondering where this new director of cultural affairs head is because that is a big mistake there. and i'm just trying to move forward here. but, i am trying to stay away from a lot of pitfalls, that place is very disorganized. but i did listen to you. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, is there any other public comment under item number one? >> hi, commissioners. my name is diane and i am a resident of the city and county of san francisco. and i'm new to this city process, and it is quite daunting and labrynth like and so with the san francisco arts commissioner specifically the street artist program and i did do a little on-line research on what is up there and how to be a street artist and you know, it is great program and it started over 40 years ago. and i'm just wondering just because of sfgov, tv which, thank you for putting it out there, because i work full time and i am a single mom from most of my tenure here. and so, understanding how things in the city hall and various commissions and it is very lightning and a necessary process for me in this point of time. and i was just a bit like it and i appreciate all of your hard work. and paying attention to now it seems like there was a lot of complacentcy over the last many, many years that is catching up to san francisco now. and specifically with the street artist program, and i find it amazing that after 40 years that you know there is not been a little bit more done for the artists themselves. and it brings in over about a quarter of a million dollars a year and they have got no health insurance and they have to get up at 6:00 a.m. and go and fight for a spot. and it is... i can imagine the emotional turmoil and stress that is associated with that process. and i love to help give some input but not sure who to give it to on possibly improving the program. reducing the stress on the people that are involved or who the program is supposed to serve. and i mean, it just is a crying shame that these people contribute to the keep the program running and they are actually being sued and having to endure to defend themselves against this three now for somebody that i spoke with and lord knows how many for others. it is just who is watching that program or how does a person get relief? mr. tes lost 120 days of business in dealing with stuff. that is all that i have to say. >> thank you. >> thank you. and any other public comment on item number one? >> no. okay. and we will move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions? >> commissioners? >> i announce at the last meeting but i will be absent at the next meeting july 31st. >> thank you. >> any public comment under item number two? >> seeing none we will move on to item three which is adoption of the minutes, commissioners for your considerations are the minutes of the board's meeting july 10, 2013. >> i want to move to approve the minutes. >> and is there any public comment on the minutes? >> seeing none, if you could call the roll, please? >> from that motion from the president, to adopt the july 10, 2013 minutes. commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 5-0, those minutes are adopted. >> and thank you. so item 4 a has been pulled off the calendars and we will move on to item number five which is appeal 13-052,gerald & dale sullivan, appellant(s) vs. dept. of public works bureau of urban forestry, respondent.eugenia street frontage of property at 201 bonview street. protesting the issuance on april 19, 2013 of an order to approve removal of one smaller tree, and deny removal of one larger tree. order no. 181206. public hearing held june 19, 2013. for further consideration today. >> it is for today to allow hurtado to participate in the vote. >> i did view the video of the june 19th hearing and i am prepared to participate in a vote code. >> okay, the matter has been heard and we will just turn to deliberation then. >> do you have any questions? >> i don't have any questions. i believe at that last hearing we had a discussion on what occurred, the tree that was denied was originally approved by the staff, at the buf and when you look at the nature of it, it has reached its life, i think that it is time for renewal or i would support holding the appeal and to over turn the department's decision on the removal of that tree. >> i thought that after hearing reiterate what was said there in the last meeting. tree looks one sided. and a large part of the tree had fallen down ten years ago and it looked like it was diseased and the city and county has not replaced the city and sidewalk curb that is there and not only is it one sided, it is the side that is one sided is leaning towards the property i mean the property. and so i believe that initially, it was ear marked to be taken out and then under the neighborhood actually protested it. but i do believe that that tree is not a healthy tree. >> i will just reiterate my comments which as the reason why i thought that it was continued because i was in the same direction of my fellow commissioners and the reason that i felt that it was... while the department had it originally determined that the tree could have been removed, after hearing the concerns and the issues raised, by the neighbors, and taking another look in reconsidering its earlier decision, recommended against removal and did not allow the permit and for the reasons that the department articulated, i would be inclined to up hold the department and deny the appeal. >> okay. i would disagree with hwang. i am worried about the sidewalks at night and if someone were to trip and fall. the tree is leaning in the property and it has had numerous branches fall and i am concerned that it will cause further property damage and for those reasons, including the initial decision to remove it, i would vote to up hold the appeal and return the decision regarding the removal of the larger tree. >> and i would so move. and we have a motion from the commissioner hurtado to grant this appeal. because the order is a split order granting the removing and it is to modify the order, is that okay with you? >> yes. >> and then it is to modify this order to grant removal of the larger tree. >> yes. >> okay. >> on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president hwang? >> no. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> and commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 4-1, and the appeal is granted and the order is modified to grant removal of this larger tree thank you. >> thank you, with the president's content we are going to take item ten out of order. this is appeal, 13-055hui wong, appellant(s) vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent.400 avalon avenue. appealing the imposition of penalty on april 25, 2013, for construction work done without a permit. >> my understanding is that there is an agreement among the parties and would like to present their request to you join jointly. >> good evening commissioners, abi and i have read the brief yesterday, and i really thought that (inaudible) is a loss from the dbi point of view and that the violation was issued and if in this year the permit was obtained this year and i believe that the illegal unit was done by the previous owner and she just bought the property in february and traded it down to the department to discuss it with the staff and for some reason or another she end up getting a complaint on the housing inspection and she immediately obtained a permit and typically that could been an peal to the deputy director and probably would have taken care of the penalty within the department and unfortunately it is here and i am happy to drop the penalty and the amount which is the lowest that we can go. >> thank you. >> i am very happy to here that. so if there is two times and i am happy to just take it. >> okay. >> okay. i am just going to move... sorry. >> i was going to call for public comment. >> if there is any? >> and there is none. go ahead. >> that will clear this room fast. >> move to grant the appeal and reduce the amount to two times based on the comment of the inspector. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> if you could call the roll please? >> on that motion, from the president, to grant the appeal and reduce the penalty to two times the regular fee, on the basis of the inspector duffy's testimony? >> commissioner fung? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 5-0 and the penalty is reduced to two times on that basis. >> thank you. so we will turn to item number 6. xh is appeal number 1 3-051nga tu lam, appellant(s) vs. dept. of public health, respondent.appealing the sixty (60) day suspension on april 15, 2013, of massage practitioner permit. director's case no. msg-13-19. >> and we can start with the apell lant. >> my name is christopher hall and appealing with the appellant. and this is as you so rightly pointed out it is an appeal pertaining to a $500 fine, within 60 days of suspension and then, it is our position that the appellant's position first of all that dr. aragon the director who issued the decision which is dated april the 15th, 2013, that is attached to the notice of appeal as the exhibit a. and i want to point out that that decision that he rendered is a date there which is paragraph three. and it mentions that, he violated 647 via the penal code in 2013 and his decision is inconsistent and that date, july the 12th, it is inconsistent with the notice of citation that was issued to miss lamb. way back on july the 27th. she was not working on july the 12th, 2012, so if you look closely at that decision, it is erroneous and inconsistent with the facts that were set in the city attorney's brief, her brief mentions july 27th, in addition to that i would like to point out. >> i am sorry to interrupt you, you were referencing exhibit a to the brief? >> it is attached to the notice of appeal. >> okay, thank you. >> okay. >> and there is a date there on the third paragraph that mentions july the 12th, 2012, but the fact that are set forth in the city attorney's brief on her paper is mentioned july the 27th. and aside from that, there is allegations that miss lamb engaged in a violation of 647 b of the penal code which is soliciting an act of prostitution for money or in gaging in an act of prostitution, and i submit and there were no no known opposition and facts and we went through the hearing in this case that suggested that miss lamb, in had reached money or solicited money for the act of prostitution nor was she found engaging in the act of prostitution in a room. in fact she was never with a client and she was never with a customer on that date. if you look at the notice of citation, that was issued by ed walsh, with the dph regulator when he came in there, the time on that was at 6:10 in the evening. and we brought this up at the hearing. initial hearing on this case, that for hours, or from ten a.m. to 5:30 p.m., after she got off work, a friend of her came by the establishment and they were going to go out to dinner. and they ended up in the room with him and yes she was making love to him. and there is absolutely no facts of support that violation of the penal code and she was not questioned by dph officer walsh and she was not questioned

Related Keywords

San Francisco , California , United States , Christopher Hall , Joseph Duffy , Chris Hwang , Gerald Dale Sullivan , Scott Sanchez , Ann Lazarus ,