I would like to take a short break, okay . 2012 meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals we are returning to our calendar item four d was withdrawn item five was to january 30th and we are actually going to take the next item out of order item number seven appeal 1one 01 and before i begin there is an alternator in the room and i want to make sure that he is interpreting this matter. Okay you can sit down for the moment. Okay so this is number 1201 one and diagnosis doing business as the he r c owe o health club inc. , 630 bush street number 601 and this is in regards to a message establishment permit and my understanding is that the appellate is interesting in requesting a continuance of the this matter and with the president s subsequent to address the board about the continuance. Yeah and whos the interpreter . Okay and i do not hear any are you doing the Translation Services so that im not sure but im here to translate for her. Translating our is there a need or right now to c
In a very articulate manner and i appreciate the testimony on it but this is not the body that is going to address what the legislatures intent the and those are policy questions and they are not for this board to rule on. I make a motion to have this reheard. This married reheard. And on what date president . What would you suck sog . Like the prior case, this is at case where the permit holder is permit is suggestion spend and had this is being considered by the board and perhaps a an earlier date. January 16th. I think january 16th this is the ninth is a full calendar. Yes. Okay so the motion is to grant the rehearing request and rehear its matter on january 16th. On that motion, Vice President phoning. Aye. Commissioner retar do. Eye honorra and that motion is grand the boards decision is no longer in play and the matter will be reheard on january 16th. I would like to take a short break, okay . 2012 meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals we are returning to our calendar ite
Case, most of the stuff that was presented both orally and in writing was not new information. And did not in my opinion manifest justice. They issued a proper due process on the mailing however which, is an item that i think we need to clear up. I voted to uphold the departments originallishance of this and i think, and typically, im not inclient on a rehearing unless there is some showing of new information and i think that we have enough here to work with for purposes of a rehearing on the notice based on testimony that was presented under oath the other concern i have is the representation that there was no objection from starbucks yet, im hearing from testimony that an objection that came in was not considered and i do not i think that also goes to the need for a rehearing. That is where i would be leaning. Well im inclient to a rehearing as well but i guess i would like to say to a number of the people here is that we are going to hear this matter based on a current law and the c
2012 meeting of the San Francisco board of appeals we are returning to our calendar item four d was withdrawn item five was to january 30th and we are actually going to take the next item out of order item number seven appeal 1one 01 and before i begin there is an alternator in the room and i want to make sure that he is interpreting this matter. Okay you can sit down for the moment. Okay so this is number 1201 one and diagnosis doing business as the he r c owe o health club inc. , 630 bush street number 601 and this is in regards to a message establishment permit and my understanding is that the appellate is interesting in requesting a continuance of the this matter and with the president s subsequent to address the board about the continuance. Yeah and whos the interpreter . Okay and i do not hear any are you doing the Translation Services so that im not sure but im here to translate for her. Translating our is there a need or right now to convey what is has been stated already . Im
Request for a continuance on the basis of no time to prepare but in these circumstances its pretty clear to d ph that this is a tactical maneuver and its intended to defeat the citys jurisdiction to enforce its suspense of the massage parlor owner. In particular, on december third, prior counsel who had represented the owner consistently throughout the case, submitted. Tried to submit supplemental belief briefing raising an argument that the massage parlor was under the states statute and the preexempted on the basis that massage parlor had only certified state massage practitioners in its employment and that would take it outside of the city jurisdiction and now at the time of the offense there is no doubt, that that was not the case and but it appears that this the intervening time, the established ceo health club is trying dominate into compliance with the state scheme and get from under the penalties that the city has assessed against it for the entire week i have been contact cont