Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Good evening, and welcome to the March 11, 2026 meeting of the San Francisco Board of Appeals. President John Trusvino will be the presiding officer tonight, and he is joined by Commissioner Lopez and Vice President Rebecca Soroyan. Also present is Deputy City Attorney Jesse Marinardi, who will provide the board with any needed legal advice. At the controls is the board's legal assistant, Alec Longway, and I'm Julie Lamar, the board's executive director. Commissioner Abad Okubio will be absent tonight. We will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will be presenting before the board this evening. Up front, we have Joseph Ospital and Carrie McElroy, senior building inspectors with the Department of Building Inspection. Jimmy Chung, structural review manager also with DBI. Gregory Slocum, commercial permit manager, Department of Public Works, Bureau of Street Use and Mapping. Kyle Thomas, manager of port security, Port of San Francisco. and Caitlin Acevedo, Deputy Director of San Francisco Entertainment Commission. Later, we expect Deputy City Attorney Manu Pradhan to join us for Item 7. That's appeal number 26-006 at 311 3rd Street. Now, the board meeting guidelines are as follows. The board requests that you turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. No eating or drinking in the hearing room. Appellants, permit holders, and department respondents are each given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttal. People affiliated with these parties must include their comments within these seven or three minute periods. For cases that have been previously heard, The parties are given three minutes each with no rebuttal. Members of the public are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. Time may be limited to two minutes if the agenda is long or if there are a large number of speakers. Mr. Longway, our legal assistant, will give you a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Since we have a vacancy on the board, three votes are required to grant an appeal or to modify a permit or determination. If you have questions about requesting or rehearing the board rules or hearing schedules, please email board staff at boardofappeals at sfgov.org. Now, public access and participation are of paramount importance to the board. SFGov TV is broadcasting and streaming this hearing live, and we will have the ability to receive public comment for each item on today's agenda. SFGov TV is also providing closed captioning for this meeting. To watch the hearing on TV, go to SFGov TV, cable channel 78. Please note that it will be rebroadcast on Fridays at 4 p.m. on channel 26. A link to the live stream is found on the homepage of our website at sfgov.org forward slash BOA. Now, public comment can be provided in three ways, one in person, two via Zoom, three by telephone. To attend via Zoom, go to our website and under the calendar, click on the link next to today's date and click on the blue rectangular box which says Zoom link for hearing. If you want to attend by telephone, call 1-669-900-9128 and enter webinar ID 994-5622 today. And again, SFGovTV is broadcasting and streaming the phone number and access instructions across the bottom of the screen if you're watching the live stream or broadcast. To block your phone number when calling in, first dial star 67, then the phone number. Listen for the public comment portion for your item to be called, and dial star 9, which is the equivalent of raising your hand so that we know you want to speak. You will be brought into the hearing when it is your turn. You may have to dial 6 to unmute yourself. You will have two to three minutes, depending on the length of the agenda and the volume of speakers. Our legal assistant will provide you with a verbal warning 30 seconds before your time is up. Please note that there is a delay between the live proceedings and what is broadcast and livestreamed on TV and the internet. Therefore, it is very important that people calling in reduce or turn off the volume on their TVs or computers. Otherwise, there is interference with the meeting. If any of the participants or attendees on Zoom need a disability accommodation or technical assistance, you can make a request in the chat function to Alec Longway, the board's legal assistant, or send an email to boardofappeals.sofgov.org. Now, the chat function cannot be used to provide a public comment or opinions. Please note that we will take public comment first from those members of the public who are physically present in the hearing room. Now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. Please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to their rights under the Sunshine Ordinance. If you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your right hand and say, I do, after you've been sworn in or affirmed. Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Okay, thank you. If you are a participant and not speaking, please put your Zoom speaker on mute. So, commissioners, we have one announcement. Items 4A and 4B, these are appeal numbers 25-056 and 25-057 at 850 Corbett Street have been rescheduled to March 25th. 2026, since we do not have a quorum. Commissioner Abbott is absent, and Vice President Soroyan would have to recuse herself from hearing these. And for correction, 850 Corbett Avenue, not Street. So those items are being rescheduled. We are now moving on to item number one. This is general public comment. This is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction, but that is not on tonight's calendar. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item not on tonight's agenda? OK, I don't see anyone, so we'll move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. I just want to welcome everyone to the Board of Appeals meeting tonight. We have a number of items, some of which we have seen before and heard before, and we're working to resolve them. And we appreciate your cooperation in providing us material that will help us make a decision. And please be assured that we have read the materials that have been provided and will certainly do our best to provide decisions for you in the interest of justice and compliance with the law. Thank you all.

Thank you.

Colleagues?

OK. Is there any public comment on that item? I don't see any. So we're going to move on to item number three, the adoption of the minutes. Commissioners, before you for discussion and possible adoption are the minutes of the March 4, 2026 meeting. And prior to the hearing, President Trasvina reached out to me and indicated he wants a small change to item number four, appeal number 26-001 at 20 Burnside. On page three at the top of the page on line four strike the word quote the appellant end quote to clarify that it is the fence that is not eligible for a variance. So I would need a motion.

I move to adopt the March 4th 2026 minutes as revised.

Okay. Is there any public comment on that motion? I don't see any. So on that motion, Commissioner Lopez? Aye. Vice President Soroyan? Aye. So that motion carries 3-0. And we are now moving on. As I said before, items 4A and 4B have been rescheduled. So we're moving on to items 5A and 5B. 5A is appeal number 25-049, and 5B is 25-050. Both involve the subject property at 1077 Fell Street, the recommencement of permits, and there have been a number of continuations. At the last hearing, the matter was heard. I believe it was, let me just... check here. The matter was continued so that, let me see, the board, it was just last week, March 4th. It was continued so that we could get an opinion from the city attorney on whether inspections for the permits being recommenced are still valid. as well as an opinion on the impact of the new 2026 permit on the permits that are before the board for this appeal. And so since we will hear from Department of Building Inspection first, and we have Jimmy Chung, I believe, is here as well. Yes. So, and Mr. Ospital, so we were giving DBI three minutes, so do you want to give Jimmy Chung some extra time since he's joining us, or how would you, President Trusvino?

Why don't we give the department five minutes?

Okay, so you can figure out how you want to divide up your time. Thank you.

Good evening, Commissioner, President Tresvigna, commissioners, Joseph Hospital, Department of Building Inspection, senior building inspector, and plan review services. The supplemental or the project in front of the board again this evening is appeal 25-049 and 25-050, 1077 Fell Street. And this is a supplemental brief to the brief that was provided for the March 4th meeting. For clarification purposes, due to questions raised by the board, the above reference permit applications that are in front of the board this evening only change the expiration date by recommencement of the issued permits under appeal. No changes to the permits in question were applied for or approved per the requirements of the code sections listed and shown above. I also bought a document that was that is on the SFDBI website on how to renew an expired permit. And I'd like to put it on the overhead.

Overhead, please. Thank you.

And this document provides specific instructions on how an applicant who has an expired permit can renew or recommence their permit, which includes The information or the documents that they are required to provide when they recommence or renew a building permit is they need to provide an approved copy of the plans that represented the permit that was expired. copy of the approved building application. Once they bring those documents in and the Department of Building Inspection sees that there's no changes to the scope of work or anything else and it's just changing the expiration dates, then the project is bought up to date via payments and any back fees that are required and then it's recommenced from that date on. So that is the process, and that is the process that was filed when they renewed those permits. And as far as the inspection questions of the recommenced permits, I believe the board's question was how the recommencement or lack thereof would affect the expired permits and inspection for such... such in question. An expired permit cannot be acted upon by the contractor as far as construction and or requesting inspections. The inspections performed on those expired permits, if inspected when the permits were valid, would be valid when the permits are recommenced. No inspections can take place when a permit is expired or suspended. As far as the 2026 permit, I'm going to allow Jimmy Chung to speak on that permit or that permit application because he's got a lot more knowledge of it than I do.

Thank you, Joe. I'm Jimmy Chung, structural review manager at DBI. The building permit application before the board this evening is a permit application 2026-0112-3696. This permit application was filed to memorialize as-built conditions for work approved under previous permits and in response to the Board of Appeals recommendation on 10.8.25, that DBI review the calculations provided by the applicant's structural engineer when it comes time to revise a permit. At the time of permit application creation, review, and issuance, the building permit application referenced building permits that had a status of issued or reinstated in the permit tracking system, C attachment A. This permit application also includes additional scope of work that addresses several of Somya's engineer's concerns raised in a meeting with her and her engineer on February 11, 2026. The applicants were not compelled by DBI to have this permit reviewed, approved, and issued before the March 4th BOA meeting, the applicant chose to pay for the building permit, to obtain a building permit, knowing that the suspension status of permit application 2025, 11-14-9676, and permit application ending 9-677, was to be heard at the Board of Appeals later that evening. So in conclusion, permit application number 2026 0-1-1-2-3-6-9-6 was approved and issued by DBI appropriately.

Thank you.

Thank you. We have a question from President Trusvino.

Thank you, Mr. Chung and Mr. Raspital. The two permits that are before us tonight, what does either permit allow the permit holder to do? that the later permit doesn't allow?

I think the permits under suspension and under appeal today, I think, Joe, would you like to explain that better? I was here just to talk about the 2026 permit. Thank you.

The permits in question that are under appeal and in front of the board tonight are specifically to recommence the four expired permits that were issued. Can you repeat your question?

Does the more recent permit allow the same work to be done?

No, the 2026 permit is to document the as-built conditions as well as take into account some of the concerns that the appellant had of the overall project via a previous Board of Appeals meeting. So the recommencement of the expired permits allows the work that was specified under the expired permits to continue. That's all it does. There's no change of scope of work or anything. It just changes the expiration date.

And that work is not included in the 2026 permit?

I believe the results of that work are included in the as-builts that were provided, but I'll allow Mr. Chung to provide further information regarding that. And I'm not going to sit down in case.

So I guess the 2026 permit is just correcting some wall dimensions and maybe some hold down sizes and just documenting what beams are supposed to be what size at what location. So it's just the cleanup of as-built conditions, like what they found after they took off all the sheetrock.

Does it document work or does it authorize work?

It documents. It does both. It documents work as well as incorporate some of the goodwill concessions that the homeowner has conceded to, or not conceded to, but has agreed to do as goodwill.

So I'll ask the permit holder as well, but your last response got me to the heart of my purpose of my question. If the most recent permit authorizes and documents work that was already done and may need to be continued and does other things, what is the need to for us to address the underlying permits if the work as either been done or it's been authorized in the new permit uh... this permit was i guess in

In October, Somya brought up that there are some wrong dimensions on the plans. And I think the homeowner was required to file a revision permit. And so this permit is to confirm the sizes of the walls and the location of the walls And that's why it was required. When they went out and built it, the... Okay. I can answer. Thank you.

Sorry to cut Jimmy off, but... The scope of works on the expired permits are different. Even though the 2026 permit is more of a generalized permit when it says document as built conditions or however the wording on the permit is, but the scope of work on the expired permits is a specific scope of work. And I don't know that I have them. Yeah, I don't have the scope of work listed, but they're different. So in order to maintain continuity of the project so that there aren't any questions via a title search or anything else, in order to... in order to make sure that they get removed from a suspended status and go through to completion with the project, it brings a cleaner outcome for everybody concerned, especially if later on down the line they want to maybe sell their property or something like that. And in a title search, if a suspended permit comes up, then that's held against the title of the property in a lot of cases.

OK. As I said, I'll ask the permit holder specifically what things he needs the earlier permits for that the 2026 permit doesn't give him. But if you're saying that the purpose of the 2026 permit is to clean up issues of the earlier permits that were suspended, it sounds like.

I think cleanup is not the right word. I think it's to document the as-built conditions. make some of the changes, if not all of the changes, that was requested by the appellant. But those permits that are expired had their own specific scope of work. So in order to bring those permits to completion, they have to be renewed. Because they're all part of the same project. The 2026, documenting the scope of work, is documenting the as-built conditions that have come up to that point. But they don't... but it's not a specific scope of work to what was on the previous permits. The previous permits get you to the 2026 permit, which really isn't under scrutiny tonight other than to ask maybe why it was done. That's why Jimmy is here. But the permits, again, that were suspended were just recommencements without any change to the scope of work to maintain the scope of work and continue the continuity of the project till the end.

OK, both my colleagues want to ask other questions. I have just one more. And that is, does the 2026 permit authorize or permit any work to be done that was suspended by the two permits that were before us?

No. What the 2026 permit does, it authorizes some additional work that was requested by the appellant. And it does reference. a couple of permits. But in the scope of work of the 2026 permit, it did not alter or change any of the scope of work on those permits. It was basically saying that we're documenting the conditions and whatever they found on site under these permits and then authorizing some of the new work that the appellant was looking for. But it doesn't do anything to change the scope or add additional scope or even explain the scope, which is why those expired or the suspended permits were provided to reinstate the expired permits because they had these specific scopes of work.

I'm sorry. I said that was going to be my last question, but I have one more based on what you described. It sounds like what you're saying is that the 2026 permit is doing some of the work of the earlier permits, but those two permits were suspended by us or by the appeal. So I would like for you to dispel the notion and correct me that the matters that are before us under the two permits that are suspended work have now been authorized by the 2026 permit.

The 2026 permit, again, was there to document the work that was in place by the previous permits. There was additional work authorized by the 2026 permit, but that additional work did not include any of the work that was originally permitted under the permits that are trying to be recommenced by the suspended permits.

Thank you. Thank you. Vice President Soroyan.

Good evening. Okay. So I thought that the reason that we took a continuance was so that we could have some assistance with assessing whether or not the 2026 permit encompassed any of the work. That's the reason why. If there was no crossover at all, then we could have just decided the matter last week. So I'm kind of struggling to understand. I feel like we're going in circles. I'm going to read into the record what the two permits on appeal, what the scope is, because it's in the agenda. For 6513, work on lower unit kitchen and bathroom model in kind. replace ceiling cans in kind, maintain one-hour rated ceiling, upgrade one sub-panel, plumbing as needed, no changes to floor layout, no changes to wall layout, no structural work, and two, ending in 9711, revision to... 6513, layout change to existing bathroom and kitchen, replace two windows, like for like and not visible from street, lighting upgrade in kitchen and dining room. So what you're saying to me is that the 2026 permit touches none of that scope at all?

Those are architectural permits. If you read out the scope of work, those permits are strictly architectural. There's nothing structural in those permits. Also, the permits in front of the board tonight are the recommencements of those expired permits. But the permit, the 2026 permit that Mr. Chung evaluated, was All structural work. No architectural work was considered in the 2026 permit.

Who in DBI did a side-by-side comparison of all the permits that the permit holder has and compare them to what was in the 2026 permit to verify all that?

That would be Mr. Chung.

OK. So now I need to talk to Mr. Chung. OK. Thank you. Yes. So did you take all the permits and the scope of every permit that the permit holder has applied for, review it, and then compare it with the 2026 permit?

Yes, I did. I looked at every permit to see the plans and the calculations. And then I asked Somya for what her concerns were. She gave me a list. And then I brought that list to the homeowner. And we went through it. And I tried to work it out. Some of the, say, I think some of the walls maybe were narrower than shown or wider than shown. And that was one of the reasons why this as-built was required. Because it doesn't change the work. It just says that wall is eight feet versus six feet or vice versa. And so it's not really revising the work. It's just correcting the dimensions. Yes. So I did look at the plans, and we discussed what was valid on Sonia's end and what wasn't valid from her engineer. And so I brought it to the homeowner's side, and we discussed. We talked it out. We got them to concede to certain things as a goodwill. And they did that. And that's why that permit is not a dollar. It's $1,000 because they added blocking and straps where it wasn't required.

But, you know. OK. OK. So let me ask the question a different way. Let's say these two permits on appeal expired. Would all of the work... that's required to be done be encompassed in the 2026 permit? Or is the entire project dependent on each permit either being recommenced, renewed, and then the other permit on top of it?

Does that make sense? Yeah, the 2026 doesn't encompass all the work from the previous permits. It's just a cleanup permit that just documents as bill conditions.

So if the two permits on appeal were to just expire, then what would happen for those scopes of work?

Those scopes of work, it can be renewed. It's not an issue. A permit's always alive once you start work. A permit can never die just because it expires. You can always renew a permit where the work stopped for an amount of time. It's... Do you see what I'm...

I'm sorry. I'm not sure. Did I explain my question? Yeah, sure.

If you could explain your question.

Okay. So the two permits on appeal, if we were to let them expire and not be recommenced, how would that impact the project? I mean, is the work already done? So it doesn't really matter if the permits expire? Or is it that for any work, even if it was done, you need to have the extension of those permits in order to validate the work? I'm trying to...

In order for the project to get a certificate of final completion, those permits would have to be recommenced and finaled.

Okay. Thank you.

And I believe there might have been another question.

I don't see any.

Yeah, mine's been answered. Thank you.

Thank you, both of you. Thank you so much. Thank you. No further questions. You can be seated.

Thank you, commissioners.

We will now hear from the appellant. Welcome. You have three minutes.

Give me a second. Okay, thank you. Since last week, I have gone down to the DBI and reviewed the 3696 plans, but I have no copy and nor have I seen calculations. Mr. Chung said that we'd either have a three-party meeting or he would share applicant's response letter. He also asked applicant to share plans and calculations. None of this has happened. My premise for the short stay is that I would receive the plans and calculations. Remember, the site inspectors never see the calculations to verify the accuracy of the inputs. Plan checkers don't visit the site. I have until March 19th to appeal Permit 3696, and I do not know what to do. For today, it would make the most sense to assume that I have appealed this permit and is therefore suspended. The two permits in issue today have been modified by... Sorry?

Do you want the computer?

Overhead? Yes. Thank you. Sorry. Have been modified by 9586 and 3696. 3696 appears to me to be a complete replacement of the four plans in appeal, with differences from the previous plans, even differences that are not marked as new on the plans. The red there is changes based on my memory. The project is not simply a continuation of previously approved plans and has materially different site conditions than represented to DBI in 23 and 24. The record reflects plans and calculations have changed. Inspections on these plans at issue today would require further revisions. DBI's Philip Chan talked about DBI being a two-headed beast. These permit issuances seem a further example of that. If 3696 is not a replacement, then I'd need to know what is in scope there for appeal versus here. A simple recommencement under 4.4.2, as Mr. Ospital said last week, is if the permits are brought up to date and the scope has not changed. I don't believe DBI's proof that either criteria have been met. Permits that don't represent the site and project are not code compliant as required to be on their face. 3696 even lists 2393, which is renewed by 9677, which is the first permit on our voluntary seismic upgrade. Without the calculations, my engineer cannot accuse you of the design basis of the plans. I plead with Stephen to show me the calculations this week. There's a public benefit to this transparency.

Here are all the questions that I have and I think need to be answered.

I don't have time to read them, but I can speak to them if not needed. I believe these questions need to be answered to answer the commissioner's questions from last week about how I'm prejudiced by the permit issuance process. Thank you very much.

Okay, thank you. I don't see any questions at this time, so you can be seated, and we'll now hear from the permit holder. Welcome. You have three minutes.

Thank you. Good evening, board commissioners and board staff. The two recommencement permits under appeal are for previously approved work. And as DBI has clarified, they did not introduce any new work. DBI conducted the holistic review. No life safety concerns were found in any individual permit or collectively across the project. Following that review, DBI issued the as-built alignment permit to reflect DBI's evaluation of the concerns raised by the appellant and included Mr. Chung's suggestion to enhance the upstairs occupants' comfort. Believing that volunteering a goodwill effort would ease her life safety concerns and prevent future appeals, I complied. The department charged with administering the building code has now reviewed the project multiple times and issued all relevant permits. In my opinion, it's indisputable that DBI has determined the design is code compliant. The appellant is requesting more delays to my project and infers that if I do what she wants, that things will move smoothly. I disagree, and I'm willing to explain why I'm only communicating with the appellant through my legal counsel. I wish this dispute was as simple as, say, the height of a privacy wall, but it's not. We're in active litigation. I'm following the legal advice of my counsel. And so if it's helpful for you, I am willing to explain my legal posture. But I don't want to distract us from the issue before us, and I only have three minutes, which is that these appeal permits were issued correctly, as were all of my permits. Definitively, no permits or plans contained life safety issues, which is the allegation the appellant originally brought to the board. I want to end by saying I'm very grateful for DBI members that have spent many hours ensuring this is the case and communicating that to all parties clearly. I'm grateful for your encouragement to do the holistic review, as I believe we have finality on this issue. And the request for continuances and delays and appeals after everybody has answered the appellant's questions feels unreasonable and a misuse of city resources. if this appeal strategy continues, even if knowingly on meritless grounds, we'll need a recommencement permit on the appeal. Am I out of time?

Thirty seconds.

Okay. Then we would need a recommencement permit on the permit that we heard last year. This could continue. in perpetuity unless we figure out a way to end that and allow my project to continue. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you. We do have a question. President Chesina?

Thank you. My question is to give you an opportunity to address the question that I offered to DBI, which is the new permit. There's no overlap between that permit and the two permits that are before us tonight.

It's an as-built documentation permit. I don't think there's overlap. I mean, I would like DBI to answer the technical point of view. But from my point of view, no. It documents. the as-built conditions, the calculations update the wall heights. So for example, my wall height used to be eight feet tall. After demolition, they discovered, oh, there's three feet of space between here and the floor joists. So you wouldn't build a shear wall just eight feet and leave three feet hanging. You build it up to the floor joists. So that needed to be corrected and adjusted in the calculations. Those are the kinds of things that are in the permit. I can give more examples if that's clarifying for you, but it's to document the as-built conditions and also to add in some goodwill concessions that Jimmy suggested I make to help ease her concerns.

So this is where it gets, at least for me, confusing is the DBI talks about structural and architectural. And are you saying that the 2026 permit has some of both?

Are drag struts considered architectural?

No, it's really the structural component of it, that we were requested by DBI to obtain a new permit so that the structural plans aligned with the actual site conditions. Like Steven said, if after demo, we discovered that we had three more feet of wall space. So it doesn't change anything. When they originally do their structural calculations, after demo, we don't know what we're going to uncover. So that permit was just solely on the request of DBI. And again, all of our issues have always surrounded under the guise that the house was not safe, wasn't structurally sound or code compliant. But all of the reviews have proven that that is the case.

You're straying from answering my question. Is there anything in the two permits that are before us tonight that are the sole authority to do that work? that you need these two permits to do that are not in the 2026 permit?

The 2026 permit has a combination of architectural and structural drawings.

Can you just start by saying yes or no? Yes. So are there things in the two permits that are before us tonight that are only there and not anywhere else?

They are an update of what is a combination of both architectural and structural drawings for the project.

I'll try another way. What is the harm or cost to the permit holder if these two permits are denied?

We can't continue moving forward on the project. We can't continue moving forward on the project.

What would you be deprived of? The ability to do what?

To finish the project and have Stephen move into his home.

Can you be specific as to, is it building a wall? Is it doing the...

It's essentially everything. Perhaps Jimmy or Joe can expand upon this, but we have seven pages of structural and architectural plans that were submitted at the request of the building department so that the actual site conditions aligned properly with the structural and architectural plans. The architectural plans simply don't matter. If we want to change a sink-based cabinet from 30 inches to 24 inches, that's part of an architectural plan. Her concern has always been structural and safety, which we fully documented everything, updated all calculations, all plans to actually reflect the true site condition so that there are no discrepancies whatsoever.

And so the importance that you're saying, the importance is the structural? Of course, because it's a life safety issue. Where do those reside? 2026 or?

2026, which have been approved by the billing department through their holistic review, through their meeting with Samya, her team, our team, multiple meetings. We had three meetings with Mr. Chung.

OK, so I'm really trying to understand this. Now you're saying, well. It sounds like the 2026 permit is the critical, essential one for this structural work. And you previously said that the architectural was not that important. I assume those are in the two that are here tonight. Correct.

Since we started here, it's been structural.

Based on that statement, then what is the... importance and significance of the two permits that are before us that are not structural.

That are not structural.

You just described them as not structural because the 2026 does the structural.

The 2026 permit has both architectural plans in there and structural plans. Again, I feel like we are going round and round because this whole issue has been under a life safety issue and the concerns of the appellant for a life safety issue. We've sliced and diced it every which way that we can to prove through reviews and submissions everything that the city has asked us to do, we've complied with. So I don't understand the question of why I don't know why everybody is having such trouble understanding that this 2026 permit is at the request of the building department just to align the actual site conditions. Like, if we took a tape measure from one end of the room to the next end of the room, and when we initially drew the drawings, it said that it was 20 feet. But when we got into the building, we realized it's 22 feet. We made that correction to reflect the actual site conditions. Does that make sense?

It makes sense. It doesn't answer my question. I will try one last time, and then maybe later on, if there is further opportunities to talk to DBI, I'll let them answer it. Can you complete the sentence, I need the 2026 permit for blank, I need the two permits tonight for something else? What are those two things?

I'll try my best. I need the 2026 permit because After three hours of inspections at the end of last year, they discovered some dimensions were off. DBI requested that I get the 2026 permit. So I need it because DBI requested it. The 2023 and 2024 permits being recommenced That's the crux of the work. I need that to put up drywall, to install kitchen, bathroom, get plumbing, electrical inspections. That's the work. I need that recommenced to get the certificate so I can move back into my home.

Thank you. Thank you for that answer. Thanks.

Any more questions? Thank you. No more questions. You can be seated. OK. Is there any public comment on this item? I don't see any. So commissioners, these matters are submitted to appeals.

Thank you all for your answers and your presentations and the work that's been done over the past additional work since the last time we met. One of the reasons we had the continuance was to give the appellant time to review the new plans and permits. That became totally dependent upon DBI being able to provide that. It sounds like the permit holder did not provide it for the reasons that he gave. And it appears that the 2026 permit does not affect the two permits that are before us. So I will obviously defer and want to hear from my colleagues. But that was the major purpose for the continuance. And if the answer is they're divorced from each other, they're separate, then that's the answer. That also suggests to me that we could be back here because that permit has a life of its own. We could be back here on an appeal on that permit. So the one before us, the two before us, The questions have been whether there's life and safety issues. The department has said it's code compliant. And then the other issue is the issue of whether they needed an inspection or whether the recommencement of null and void permits, whether the null and void permits still allowed the inspections earlier to survive the null and voidness status. And in that regard, I'm not really convinced of the answer, but given the Department's view that the underlying permits there there is code compliance then I Pending pending my colleagues discussion on this I would I would uphold Oh uphold the permit deny the appeal vice president Soroyan Yes, thank you president Trusvena we've had many discussions about these appeals and these permits and

I think that I am at the point where I feel well informed enough, like you, to uphold the permits and deny the appeal based on DBI's representations that all of them are necessary with the full expectation that we may be back here regarding the 2026 permit. I think we can divide the issues at this point.

No, that sounded like a motion to me, so I'm ready to move forward.

Yes, I can make a motion. OK. Do you want me to repeat what you said?

Yes, why don't you go ahead. OK, so we have a motion from Vice President Sorin to deny the appeals and uphold the permits on the basis that they were properly issued as represented by DBI. ON THAT MOTION, COMMISSIONER LOPEZ? AYE. SO THAT MOTION CARRIES THREE TO ZERO AND THE APPEALS ARE DENIED. THANK YOU. WE ARE NOW MOVING ON TO ITEM NUMBER SIX. THIS IS APPEAL NUMBER 25-040. IT'S A REVOCATION OF A STREET VENDOR PERMIT. SAVE YOUR VERSUS SAN FRANCISCO PUBLIC WORKS BUREAU OF STREET USE AND MAPPING. APPEALING THE ISSUANCE ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2025 TO SAVIOR MICKLEFF OF A PUBLIC WORKS ORDER REVOCATION OF STREET VENDOR PERMIT NUMBER 25 VDR 00012 BECAUSE OF A HISTORY OF NONCOMPLIANCE AND VIOLATION OF CITY RULES AND REGULATIONS BEGINNING ON OCTOBER 7TH. THIS IS ORDER NUMBER 212110. THIS WAS ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED FOR NOVEMBER 5TH. 2025. IT HAD TO BE CONTINUED DUE TO THE LATE HOUR. IT WAS THEREAFTER RESCHEDULED SEVERAL TIMES AND ULTIMATELY IT WAS HEARD ON JANUARY 28, 2026. AND AT THAT HEARING UPON A MOTION BY PRESIDENT TRUZVINA THE BOARD VOTED THREE TO ONE. COMMISSIONER ABBOTT DISSENTED TO CONTINUE THIS MATTER TO MARCH 11TH SO THAT PUBLIC WORKS COULD PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. ONE, A CHART ENUMERATING THE VIOLATIONS. DATES, TYPES OF VIOLATIONS AND FACTS SUPPORTING THE VIOLATIONS. and the amounts of the penalties. The chart should specify if the fines were paid and when they were paid. A legal analysis as to whether multiple charges issued at once are considered a single violation or multiple violations for the purposes of the ordinance. And also, the legal authority for officers to depart from the fine schedule that is in the ordinance. So given that you asked that chart, we will hear first from Public Works. Welcome. You have three minutes.

Good evening. Overhead, please.

There you go.

Good evening, President, members of the board. My name is Gregory Slocum. I'm the commercial permit manager with Public Works. I don't really have formal remarks this evening. Just some background. When we presented our brief on the 28th, we demonstrated the basis of enforcement and revocation. The Board of Appeals requested three items and a supplemental brief, as Ms. Lamar referenced. We've provided those items, I believe, February 19th or 20th. Exhibit one was a chart. of the citations and what's been paid. I apologize because this is a compressed document. There's a lot of text and it doesn't show up on the overhead. The only reason I'm referencing it or the only point of emphasis I would make is that the rows that are shaded blue would constitute the basis of the four violations. And I just mention it because there are many rows and many different violations therein. Exhibits 2 and 3 are contained within the body of the supplemental brief. And in conclusion, I would state that Public Works is resolute that this permit was properly revoked, that a failure to uphold this revocation would be a disservice to law-abiding vendors and to the detriment of the public at large. If there are any questions on the materials that have been submitted, I'll do my best to respond. That's all I have for this evening. And also with us tonight, as mentioned previously, Mr. Kyle Thomas, who's director of port security. If there are any specific questions, that's all.

OK, thank you. We have a question from Vice President Soroyan and then President Chesvena.

Good evening. Thank you for being here tonight. I have a question, which is, can you provide us with an update on the current status of the vendor's situation? Go back to the dates. Is he operating right now? Is it currently just on hold or paused pending the appeal? What is the status?

The revocation is suspended upon appeal. As to whether or not they're actively vending, I would defer to the appellant themselves. To the best of my knowledge, their interest in vending, as previously discussed, is around baseball season. We're getting ready for that. So I'm unaware that they're currently vending. That's all.

OK. Thank you for the material. We asked for a chart, and we asked for the legal analysis of not following the statutory ordinance fee structure. And we asked a third question. You gave us about 180 pages. And one of the concerns we had was notice to the appellant and do your vendors understand what's going on? After now a 482-page record and being given 180 pages when we asked for like Two things. I'm still at a complete loss as to the structure of your enforcement process. And I'm wondering, one, whether there is an enforcement manual and, two, whether there's an enforcement protocol that's been written down.

There are protocols, and there definitely are standard operating procedures. As previously stated, I don't work for the enforcement division, so my immediate familiarity is going to be less than, say, how you issue the permit or how you proctor a renewal. But there are guiding documents that speak to what you've raised.

And do you know whether a deputy city attorney has reviewed this enforcement structure?

I know that the deputy city attorney has reviewed many elements of it. Again, because I don't proctor that, I cannot tell you definitively. But one example I could give you is that the citations that are issued for offenses in the field were written under the purview of the deputy city attorney or in concert with the deputy city attorney. So that would constitute one example of oversight or guidance that they provided for us in enforcement.

I'm sorry, you're saying the, can you repeat it? The notice of violations are issued?

All of the text when we're writing you a ticket, all of that information we've developed in conjunction with the city attorney is what I'm saying. The form language that we use, what's conveying, the offense, and so on.

Okay.

Do you? Overhead, please. So this is included in the brief, but this is a document that I'm referring to when I said that it was developed with the deputy city attorney just for some visual aid.

Great. Do you have both pages of the notice of violation?

I'm sorry, it's a single page document to the best of my knowledge. When you say both pages, what is this?

OK, so what you presented then is the notice of violation.

That's correct.

And you just put it up on the screen. That's correct. Can you put it up again?

Yes.

I'm reading in, again, the issue that was of concern to me and I think has been expressed throughout this is what notice does the vendor have? A vendor or vendors collectively? So as I understand it, the notice of violation, which you put up on the screen, needs to follow Section 5.9-11B, notice of violation. Does that sound familiar?

I'd like to pull up the code. I don't have it memorized. I'd need to pull it up. I'm sorry, you said 5.9b?

5.9-11b, as in boy. Notice of violation. Got it. Do you have it? Yeah. So in my copy, the second sentence starts out with, the notice of violation shall include. Gotcha. OK. It's got eight items. Can you point to me where in the notice violation the eight items are? The number one, information identifying the offender. That's right above the redacted mark, right?

Yeah, one thing I would point out, our inspectors cannot compel identification. So one of the challenges that they face, I know a point of emphasis of our inquiry last time was the ladder of fees. One challenge they have is that if they have a violator that's identified themselves differently, it's hard to track where they are at in that. What that actually means is it's... beneficial to the violator, which is to say they're more likely to be assessed a lower fine due to the uncertainty if we don't have a clear trail because they provided multiple names. One thing you might notice on the first page of Kyle's packet, which the information that we provided today, the 180 pages you referenced, is all material that we previously submitted. The reason that we've Included it is because the violations that are referenced in the table references 180 pages of the brief and the name of being thorough and because there was an underlying curiosity as to Due process we included that information but When

You just face it towards yourself as if you're reading it. Thank you.

One thing you may notice, On this side under note, there are various spellings of surnames. So there are often times for record keeping when we're trying to track where someone is in that violation table. It can be challenging if they provided us false information or if we have different information that they can't compel someone to provide ID, if they're taking notes based on memory. So there are some challenges with reconciling the information that we're provided with what the way you've asked it to be presented or some of the questions that you've asked. And that's a logistical or a system limitation. It's not something that we could necessarily address through a policy or protocol as it relates to inspection because we can't compel ID and because we may have software limitations as it relates to compiling information and tracking it therein.

But you would agree that it's on the It's the obligation of the entity giving the ticket to demonstrate that they're giving it to the right person.

I kind of understand that question. I don't think they would spontaneously issue a ticket to someone that was absent of violation. I mean, that's why they take photo documentation of the violation and they attach that to this file so that it also, if we had to do research or if we were trying to identify or track violations, it would assist. I'm kind of confused by the question.

Well, you're giving me examples. You've stated, well, it's difficult to identify people. But you're looking for different ways to do it. So you take pictures, et cetera. Those are ways. But ultimately, the responsibility, in order to get a fourth fine, It's the responsibility of the city to demonstrate that that person had the first three.

Yes. In this instance, as Kyle mentioned, we've had over 10 kind of formal engagements. They received four notices of violation. But anecdotally, there have been hundreds. This is the same person doing the same thing at the same site.

In my view, those don't count because you've told us, here are the four. You selected four. We got them. They're on the sheet. This is specifically what we asked for, the four violations. But I want to get back to where we started, which is the eight elements in the notice of violation. So if you can put that back up on your screen that you had earlier, then we can continue to go through it. Number one, it's done. The offender is identified. Number two, details of the violation. That's in the largest square on the page or the where it says, unpermitted vending, refusal to seize vending, failure to provide proof of ownership. And then the fourth one, right? That's the details of the violation?

Yeah, and actually, I made a mistaken assertion. There is actually a backside to the notice of violation that contains form language that was included in your brief as well.

OK, great. So we'll get to that if we need it. But for the second element of the notice of violation, details of the violation are there in that box. And the way the vendor knows which of those four they're being charged with, you circle them. Is that right?

Yes. I've seen some additional notes on other notices. It would be dependent on the individual inspector, but they have to circle what they're citing for at the very least.

So number three, the name or identifying number of the enforcement official. That is?

That is the top left box. The bottom left has inspector.

OK, great.

And then that's a badge number.

OK. Number four, a general description of administrative fines and payment methods and options, including ability to pay determination.

Correct. The fines are enumerated on the front side where you see that 100. Right. And then the additional elements, such as appeals, remedy, where you're paying, administrative review. Someone can appeal a violation unto itself. And again, reiteratively, none of the violations that constitute the four were appealed. And the appellant hasn't debated the veracity of any of those violations either.

Well, I'm just trying to find out where these things are on the notice of violation. So we're up to number four. We've got the general description, payment methods and options. Where are those?

So number five, the general description. So hold on a second. Four. Is that on the second page or the first page? On the first page. There is what could be constituted a general description of the fines, right? They're enumerated here.

Right. And where is the payment method and options?

On the back page, you'll see that there's information regarding the timeframe to remedy various violations. That's for remedy. And then additionally, if you look at, you may request an administrative review, there's an element there. And then...

OK, payment methods and options. That's what I'm asking for at the moment.

The last line tells you where you may mail your check to. And then additionally, there's also our office's information. If anything was unclear here, you're given contact information to follow up. So if you weren't sure something applied, there's both a physical address and a phone number there.

Right, but that's not on the notice of violation.

It is. This is a backside of the notice of violation.

The fact that you can call a number doesn't mean it's on the notice of violation. The phone number is on the notice of violation, but the information... You can't, OK, so.

We crammed as much information as we could here with the typeface. This is not just for street vending. We're going to be using this for multiple enforcement operations. It says, for additional information regarding this notice of violation, you may contact Public Works Bureau Street Use and Mapping. It has our office number. And then additionally, it has our mailing address. And that is our physical address.

Number five a general description of the appeals process That is on the back It starts with you may request administrative review of this notice of violation if you wish to contest it Okay, then number six information about the requirements of 5.9 and any applicable rules and regulations that interpret and implement this article I

So there are references to our codes that are on that table above. And then additionally, the description, if you look on the first side, the second column, the first row, it specifies what element of Public Works Article 5.9 was violated. So here it says 5.9.3.

And then seven, information about who to contact. You've already described that. And eight, information about workforce development opportunities and job placement programs.

That reference is less clear to me. I would want to talk to the deputy city attorney and ask where it would be embedded or they were responsible for preparing. That's the one that's less apparent than the others.

Well, I didn't see it anywhere. But I just wanted to get a better understanding. Now, in terms of the fines. We've talked about the ladder of fines, 100, 200, 500, and 1,000 for other than failure to possess a valid license or permit. So the four violations are what? I'm sorry. The four violations that you have highlighted on the chart.

Correct.

Do those fall in C1 or do they fall in C2? C2.

I'm sorry, when you're referencing C1 and C2, I have no idea what that is.

I'm referring to, well, we just dealt with 5.9-11b, as in boy, notice of violation. Right below that is administrative citation.

So the citation on August 15th,

Right, that's the first one.

Was related to 5.93, a noncompliant display or occupancy. And that means that the area that they were vending in exceeded 10 by 10 feet.

Right. So that is a what? That's other than failure to possess a valid license or permit?

Failure to display a permit.

Pardon me?

I believe that's failure to display a permit.

But it says exceeding 10 by 10.

It also says while vending in accordance with this Article 5.9. So it may be that in accordance means following the rules and regulations, and that the 10 by 10 was what they cited specifically as being out of accordance. Again, I'm doing my best, not being the issuing officer, to speak to the matter at hand. Yeah, these are all exceeding scope. If you look at the next subsequent violation on March 8, the occupancy was for 28 linear feet.

So if they're exceeding scope, then aren't they something other than a failure to possess a valid license?

No, it's also 5.93 says that you must obtain the permit. And then item B says that while you vend, you must be in accordance with the terms and conditions, essentially, with Article 5 . C is less germane to this. But it has to demonstrate with proof of ownership, meaning you're not selling stolen property.

I don't see anything here about proof of. It just is taking up an area too large. In fact, all four of them seem to be Exceeding permissible use, exceeding permissible use, exceeding permissible use. Right? Yes. So isn't exceeding permissible use something other than failure to possess a valid license?

I don't agree with your understanding. What I'm zeroing in on is in accordance with. They have to prominently display their permit, their permit so that when we go through, we know who's permitted to vent and who's not. There are terms and conditions within that permit. One of those terms and conditions is that you're not to exceed space beyond 10 by 10 feet. So they're not operating in accordance. It's OK if you don't disagree, but I don't know that I can make any other explanation.

I'm not trying to get you to agree with me. I'm trying to just find out what has gone on here because it is a struggle to find out what's going on. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. I don't see any further questions. So we'll now hear from the appellant, Mr. Mikulov. Welcome. Welcome. You have three minutes to address the board.

How are you doing? My name is . What I understood last time was the 12-month period How many violations I got within this 12-month period, I thought you were supposed to ask DPW. I remember this time last year, which is this weekend, FanFest. Last year, I went to the FanFest. He came at me and said, hey, you don't have a permit. And I showed him my permit. I go, I got it last week. I was going to get it a couple months ago, but they said you put a hold on it. So I presented him the permit. He put all kinds of yellow tape around my booth. I'm going like, there's the permit. This is all about my permit? I got the permit. And then he was going like, what's all that stuff over there? I go, I'm still unloading my car. That's why my car's still here. It's not on the street where I usually park it. So he goes, oh, we're going to give you a ticket for it. outside the 10 by 10. OK. I get the ticket. So that was a $250 ticket. First game of the season. It wasn't even a game, pre-season. It's like the Fan Fest, like they're having this weekend. So I'm already at $250. And I thought your question to them were, where do you start the year at the beginning of the season, which it should be for me, because that's the only time I work, at the beginning of the season till the end. So I'm already at $250,000. I got one more violation in the middle of the year for $500,000. I paid it. That's what I did all last year. I got the $250,000 for doing what I was supposed to do. And they are telling me they put yellow tape, crime tape, around my own thing. And everybody shut me, says, we're taking everything. I go, why? He goes, you don't have a permit. I go, there's my permit. That should have been the end of the question. He apologized to me and said, oh, I got the wrong information. I went there two days ago. As of two days ago, you didn't have a permit. I go, I got this permit a couple of weeks ago. I went there a couple of months ago, and they told me that I might be on some list that you have. And I guess I wasn't on the list, so they gave me my permit. And he apologized to me. He said, we came here because we thought you didn't have a permit. And he threatened to take everything I had. And I'm going like, dude, I got the permit. And then he started me, beginning of the year, with a 250. And I got another 500, which I paid also. Those are the only two tickets I got last year.

30 seconds.

Last season. OK. And then. I asked the mother. You have 30 seconds. Go ahead. Okay. Well, we got this other guy who has 12 tickets, 10 tickets. That's my first day I got here. Appeal number 25-039, Mr. Mayles, Adiego, Adiargo. He had 10 tickets in the year. And then you guys gave him, let him win his appeal. And then you guys said, well, if he got 10 tickets and you got four, we're going to let you win. And then here I am.

OK.

Thank you. That's fine.

Thank you. Any questions? I don't see any. Thank you, sir. So is there any public comment on this item? I don't see any. So Commissioner, is this matter submitted?

Thank you for presentations tonight and the previous meetings and the materials that have been presented. I've done a lot of talking and questioning. I want to entertain thoughts of my colleagues, but first, I have real troubles with the representation, not the efforts by the people who have come before us representing the department, but the department's protocol and presentation of the entire strategy for fines. We started out on this appeal discussing concerns about notice, about due process. And notice we have not really asked the vendor about what He did or didn't do. We take it at face value what's here in the record. What I'm concerned about is that the record is insufficient to uphold the suspension. And beyond what I've already said, I'm not going to repeat it, as I look at 5.9-11C 1, which is the path to get to ABCD, the director may revoke or suspend a vendor's permit. Upon a fourth violation within 12 months, I see a fine for 100, then a fine for 200, then a fine for 500. And on the fourth violation, there is the suspension authority. What I see what the department has given us is a citation for $500, a citation for $500, a citation for $100, and a citation for $1,000. That there is no authority to give a $1,000 fine in that see one ladder of fines. So given what the department has provided us, I conclude that the four fines that are required to lead to the revocation have not been shown. And I would uphold the appeal. Colleagues?

President Trisvinia, I just wanted to get on the record the chart. I heard what you said, and I understand. For the first violation, it says citation 500, but the appellant was not sent an invoice. So I don't think there was ever, although the citation said 500, there wasn't a corresponding administrative action to collect the money. The second citation, 500, and that was paid. The third violation for $100, Again, the appellant was not sent an invoice. And then the fourth violation, citation for $1,000 on July 17, 2025, Public Works sent appellant an invoice requesting payment of $500 rather than $1,000. And so my question for you is how does the payment or lack thereof impact your view of the maybe lack of paper trail supporting the revocation of his vending license.

Thank you, Vice President Soroyan. What you have described is a further example of a departure from the ordinance's requirement of A $100 fine for a first violation, a $200 fine for a second violation, a $500 fine for a third violation, those are not present here. And therefore, for the fourth violation, that would trigger the ability to suspend is not warranted.

So to summarize, despite the lack of enforcement of the citations, your position based on the way the regulations read is that there is a procedure and a way to increase the fines in successive order that was not followed to then support the suspension.

That's correct.

OK, thank you. I feel that there have been violations here. And I do think that I understand exactly why the appellant's vending license was revoked after multiple violations. But I agree with you that I don't think it stacks up.

Yeah, I think about it the same way. I think after reviewing this record, and I thank the department for all this information that we asked for, I mean, there's clearly a pattern, unless there's a conspiracy to attack the appellant, there's a pattern of noncompliance that makes me very sympathetic to the department. And there's just a web of... violations of various codes not just the public works code but the vehicle code, business and professional code. I think for those reasons when we have this kind of complicated metrics or matrix of Of non-compliance. I do think that it's important to follow five nine eleven Five nine five nine eleven see one to to the letter To to communicate clearly to the folks subject to enforcement that this is a kind of red light red alarm kind of event here. This is step one and having all elements of that violation being followed. I think importantly that ladder of of citation amounts. I do think that's just positive from from my perspective and And yeah, I think that's not to say that other citations couldn't be or warnings couldn't be issued. But I do think that when we're talking about the due process principles of being mindful of taking liberty and property away from a San Francisco resident, I do think that 5911 should be followed to the letter.

Vice President Saroyan.

I have a question perhaps for the city attorney or Ms. Lamar. How much discretion do we have to, if we were to grant the appeal and change it from a revocation to a suspension, how much authority do we have to, or what authority do we have? Sorry, in light of the multiple violations, which I do not take lightly.

I can offer an opinion. But if you're looking at the code, go ahead. I mean, just as a preliminary matter, nobody was on notice about the penalty being a suspension. So they didn't prepare for that. I feel like they should have noticed if they thought they were facing a suspension they might have presented differently but. JUST MY PRELIMINARY THOUGHTS.

SIMILAR TO PERMIT APPEALS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO GRANT AN APPEAL AND MODIFY THE DETERMINATION. SO AGAIN, ALONG THOSE SAME LINES, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE SCOPE OF OUR ABILITY TO WASTE.

OBVIOUSLY, A SUSPENSION IS BETTER THAN A REVOCATION. IT'S LESS IMPACTFUL. SO I COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND. IT SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD RESOLUTION.

VICE PRESIDENT, IF I COULD RESPOND AS WELL. The defects that I see here undermine the entire structure of getting to the fourth violation. It's not clear to me, or it's clear to me that there is nothing on the record saying that the first three were properly issued. So even the authority to suspend hasn't The city has not done the preliminary steps to get there. So whether we have the authority to, substitute revocation for suspension or vice versa, I don't think the prerequisites are there. And this is something where while the city may be trying hard, I think the city needs to try harder bringing in the city attorney or others who administer programs to say here's how we operate

structure.

This is not, I don't think we, and I don't think the appellant should feel that if we grant the appeal, it's not condoning what has gone on. It's saying the city's responsibility to enforce, to administer and enforce a process must be faithful to what's in the ordinance. And the people who are working on it need to get that kind of support in order to have a program that does that. But for now what we have seen, at least on this case, doesn't support either revocation or suspension.

Do we have some wisdom from the deputy city attorney on this? If it's still an issue, it's still a live issue, I would suggest we just take a recess and give me five minutes to take a look at it. I tend to agree with, well, it is a lesser of a penalty. But it's not a permit. It's a penalty. And so typically somebody needs to be on notice as to what all the potential ranges of penalties are, even though I know in this case it would be sort of lesser degree. But if it's still a live issue, we could perhaps take a recess.

I think I would like the question answered, but it does not have to be this evening. How's that? I think it's something that we are seeing these vending permits come before us more frequently, and I would like to know the extent of our authority. If we were to find that there was a consistent basis with the ordinance and that the department had followed all the proper procedures but we wanted to lessen the penalty, I would like to know for future. Thank you.

Thank you, Vice President Soroyan. I will move to grant the appeal based upon the lack of evidence that the procedure to enable the director to revoke or suspend the verinder's permit has not been established.

Did you want to add a little more specificity in terms of that DPW did not follow the graduated fine structure as required by section 5.9-11C1 and therefore has not established the four violations that allow for the permit to be revoked? Well, I would say the- They didn't follow the, or would you prefer just to say they didn't follow the procedures?

They did not establish that. the director had authority under 5.9-11 C1D to revoke or suspend the vendor's permit. Okay.

Okay, so on that motion, Commissioner Lopez?

Aye.

Vice President Sorian? Aye. That motion carries 3-2-0. Thank you. And... We'll take a 10-minute recess. Thank you, everyone, for your patience.

SFGov TV San Francisco Government Television Thank you.

OK, WELCOME BACK TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS MEETING FOR MARCH 11, 2026. WE ARE NOW ON ITEM NUMBER 7. THIS IS APPEAL NUMBER 26-006, STAN VERSUS ENTERTAINMENT COMMISSION SUBJECT PROPERTY 311 3rd STREET APPEALING THE ISSUANCE ON FEBRUARY 4, 2026 TO 311 3rd STREET LLC OF A PLACE OF ENTERTAINMENT PERMIT. Indoor entertainment allowed Friday through Saturday and up to four other times per month until 2 AM. This is permit number EC1906, POE. And before we start, we do have a disclosure from the deputy city attorney.

Thank you, Ms. Lamar. Commissioners, I will be leaving and you will be receiving the services of Deputy City Attorney Manu Pradhan. I'm leaving because the appellant in this matter is one of the primary contacts of a city attorney client that I deal with on a regular basis.

OK, thank you, and welcome Deputy Surya Pradhan, who is joining us via Zoom. And so we will start with the case. And the appellant, Mr. Feinsod, you have seven minutes to present. Thank you, and welcome, and thank you for your patience.

Thank you very much. I really appreciate the existence of this Board of Appeals, and you're hearing our appeal today. It's appeal number 26006. My name is Stan Feinsod. I'm a resident of 300 3rd Street, Museum Park, and I'm representing the Museum Park community. And we're talking about the Golden Eye Social Club, POE, which is at 311 3rd Street across the street. Just a quick overview, we're talking about The procedures that were used to grant this POE, which did not consider the concerns of the neighbors, and the neighbors' concerns were very extreme. It's a quiet residential block. We're worried about sound propagation coming out of this GoldenEye restaurant. There are no sound mitigation measures were required or requested. We're worried about late night noisy crowds exiting the restaurant. And just to point out that without the POE, the liquor license number 47 prohibits any audible sound outside the venue. In terms of protection for the residents of Museum Park, that's perfect. Prohibit any sound leaving the venue. But that is superseded by the POE. The commission's brief emphasized that there must be safeguards to prevent emissions of noise that would interfere with the enjoyment of the neighboring property. This is the essence of our appeal. No safeguards were considered or discussed by the Entertainment Commission. Gold and I talked about the location. It's a quiet neighborhood. It's a corner between 3rd and Folsom. March 4th, we had a sound test. We determined that if the sound went up to the PoE required maximum, you could hear it outside the windows, and you could certainly feel the bass through the windows. We have not conducted a full test. That would include across the street and upstairs. The neighborhood is quiet. Here's 3rd and Folsom. You are looking at it. That's the building that we're talking about. That's Museum Park, 233 residential apartments. This is where people live. This is where they sleep. This is where they go at night. Across the street is Golden Eye Social. It's on the first floor of a two-story structure in front of Soma Apartments, which is a 433. unit rental. Here is the face of Museum Park, which is facing the Golden Eye. You can see the Golden Eye on the right side of the picture. And those are the people who are most affected by sound coming out of Golden Eye. Third Street is a very busy street. During the day, it's very busy. During the night, it's pretty quiet. Across the street on the other side is the back end of Moscone Convention Center, which really isn't a noise producer. And on the other side is Spin, which is a ping pong club. And it does not also create any problems at night. The POE permits live music Friday and Saturday nights plus four other nights per month. That's 144 nights per year. That's a lot of nights. Entertainment is not constrained by the POE. Music can go until 2 AM. No sound mitigation was considered or discussed. We're appealing this. We would like the POE to be reversed, denied, because of the improper procedures. We want to maintain the prohibition of that sounds should not be audible outside the venue. We understand that that prohibition is superseded by the POE, but the POE could be modified to maintain that prohibition. Or we can apply safeguards, and we'll talk about that. Neighborhood comments at the hearing included 60 signatures on a petition, eight in-person comments, 40 written objections, and the There was no consideration of that body of work by the commission at the end of the testimony. Not one word. The physical circumstances are a shallow space, single pane windows. This was not built to be an entertainment venue. It's a restaurant. It has been for 30 years. There has never been any live music in this space ever, except for Halloween, and I'll talk about that in a second. Sound propagates through the windows. The commission took readings at 2 p.m. on a weekday. Very different propagation of sound versus evening, late night. They applied their eight decibel rule, which permitted up to 94 decibels of sound inside so that they would not go beyond eight decibels above the ambient. But the ambient that they chose was a very high ambient at 2 PM. We want to make sure that residents are not disturbed. It's very simple. People live there. They sleep there. We have no air conditioning in the building. And on warm nights, all the windows are open. This is the no audible sound outside the venue is the maximum protection we can ask for. The commission did not follow its own rules, which require balancing benefits with the needs of residents. So we believe that should have resulted in specific conditions for the POE consistent with this specific location. We don't think they met their legal obligation. The commission should have required pre-approval sound testing. This would have required conditions to mitigate the harm to residents. They did not consider the numerous written and verbal opposing comments. And by giving them a POE, they became a nighttime entertainment location, which is pretty much a nightclub. We want to tell you about Halloween. They had a party. It was loud. There were a lot of complaints. There was live music.

30 seconds.

And that was the evidence that there is going to be a problem with live music on this site. We'd like to continue the prohibition against sound outside the venue. We think the POE should be denied since the process was flawed. Conditions can be imposed. Sound mitigation installation should take place. Reduced hours on the weekdays. Patron dispersal management should be adequate. Thank you. That's the prohibition of audible sound outside the venue. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We do have a question from President Tresevino.

Thank you, Mr. Feinstein. I think I have a few questions. One is, Is it your, on the issue of sound coming from the activity or the property, are you seeking no sound to come out or are you seeking sound that doesn't reach your community?

Well, that's kind of an interesting choice. Our concern is sound reaching the homes across the street. If sounds do not reach across the street and do not come into our homes, that would be fine. It would be, as I said, the protection that the Liquor License 47 gives leaves it to the owner to make decisions about how to mitigate sound from leaving his venue. The issue is upstairs.

Right. And currently, leaving aside whether it's your obligation or not, do you have any evidence, testing, testimony that the sound reaches Your windows.

We had an agreement with the owner to do a sound test. And we have three volunteers and a third, ninth, and 12th floors who are willing to be part of the test. The owner purchased two testing machines. And we have also a test on our phones. And we have not conducted that test. So the evidence, the only evidence we have is that on March 4th, we stood at the windows outside and heard the music and felt the music through the single pane. And I should say that there's curtains. These windows, it's a lot of windows, and in every window there are curtains, but they're not closed. If they were closed, maybe that would mitigate the whole thing.

Windows of the premises or windows of your community's building?

No, of the premises. Okay.

And two other questions. One is, so you've described that the permit holder acquired equipment to do testing. As I read the permit holder's brief, there was a mutual agreement not to do further testing because the very limited state of noise emanating from the property while you're standing on the sidewalk. Is that a misunderstanding?

I don't know if it's a misunderstanding or misreading, but I was there, I can tell you. We stood on the sidewalk. We heard the music from the inside at 94 decibels, I think. We felt it because the bass Frequencies were pretty harsh. And there was a lot of traffic. It was around 1.30 in the afternoon. And we decided it would make no sense to go across the street at this time of day because the street noise was too high. And it would not make any sense to go there. But we had committed to do a test at 10 p.m. with the three...

homeowners my last question has to do not with noise, but with the people associated with the evening entertainment and and as I understand it you're concerned or your your your community is concerned that either their noise or their Department will be a problem to the neighbors. I Is that right?

At the end of the evening, people leave the venue. And often, that's a crowd. They're talking. They're making a lot of noise. And in order to deal with that, the owner has talked about security on site at that time to help mitigate that sound. But on Halloween, there was a lot of sound and a lot of noise as a huge crowd left the venue.

Thank you. Commissioner Lopez.

Thank you for your presentation. It was interesting to me that the, from the record, the commission didn't receive any complaints from the folks in Soma Square. And I know this space well. I have a good friend who used to live at Soma Square. We had a ton of meals and evenings out at this address when it was OSHA. And I know that the Soma Square units are essentially right above it. And so it was interesting to me that at least the record showed that that was the case, that there weren't as many or maybe any complaints from Soma Square. So what can you tell us about that? Is that a fair characterization?

I'm trying to figure out how I can get that picture back. Is there a way to get that picture back? I can't get off this slide. The answer has to do with the physicality of the location.

That's this picture. So you have

Yes, talk into my phone.

This two-story structure on the street at the sidewalk, and then behind it and above is Soma Square, 433 rental units. Well, we're talking about sound propagating from the restaurant through the windows across the street. the sound isn't going to propagate backwards. And that's the answer. Soma Square really doesn't have an interest in this. There was not one complaint. No one came to the commission hearing. And as you saw in the GoldenEye brief, they say nice things about the restaurant. It's a nice restaurant. No one cares about closing this restaurant. It's a great addition to our community. We like it very much. We just don't want to be disturbed in our sleeping across the street.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. No further questions. You can be seated. We'll now hear from the permit holder.

Okay. Is there a way to pull up the presentation that I... Sure. Yeah, I'm sorry.

I think if you... You've got to kill mine.

Alec can help you.

I'm not sure. I can plug it in my computer, too, if it's helpful. Is it one of these?

Here it is. Yeah, it's perfect.

Thank you so much, Alec. I appreciate this. I have three minutes.

You have seven minutes and three minutes for rebuttal later, so seven minutes for now.

Do you want to show your presentation now?

Oh, I can, yeah. OK. I can. There are some highlights in here. So good evening, members of the Board of Appeals. My name is King Suwu. I am the operator of GoldenEye Social. Just a little bit of background about GoldenEye Social. We are San Francisco's first augmented reality dart bar. Dare I say, maybe the first one in all of Northern California. I think that this is important in the presentation because in order to to offer this type of entertainment along with great food and beverage, which we can definitely talk about. But it requires the installation of extremely expensive projectors and computer systems throughout our entire venue. And that is how our venue is designed. From the very northmost side to the very southmost side and every available slot in between, we have fairly expensive equipment installed in there to kind of create this environment that we wanted to debut to San Francisco. Since we opened in May of 2025, I think that we have done a fairly respectable job of being this food, beverage, and entertainment venue to San Francisco. This is exemplified in our OpenTable Yelp and Google reviews, which I've shown on the screen. A little bit about the neighborhood that we operate in. Stan characterizes 3rd and Folsom Street as a quiet neighborhood. I think that... I slightly disagree, but at the same time, I don't disagree because I don't want to appeal to a reduced sound for the neighbors. But we live in a neighborhood that is kitty-corner to the Moscone Center, albeit it is the back of the Moscone Center. Third Street, which you see in front of us, is five or six lanes wide, depending on how you count the bike lane. The intersection that we're, this is the other direction of Third Street going towards downtown. It is a major thoroughfare. through San Francisco. Our cross street at Folsom Street is also five or six lanes, depending on how you count the bike lane. And what you see to the upper left is Museum Park, everything that Stana said. is correct. They are definitely across from us. This is the other direction of Folsom Street. Again, exemplifying how broad this boulevard is. Our venue, Sound mentioned that sort of like there was no thought put towards sound mitigation. I respectfully disagree. Our venue, which is shown in front of you, and I can probably zoom in a little bit if it's helpful, but the blue line that you see sort of where the the words are on the screen, the teleprompters, is a window line that faces Museum Park. However, the gold lines that you see all throughout the venue to the north, south, east, and west, if you'd like to call it that way, are all sound mitigation They touch nearly every surface of the venue. And this probably leads to why that there has been no complaints from the neighbors upstairs. We are in a concrete and steel reinforced structure. So scientifically wise, I mean, sound travels very well through extremely hard surfaces. What you see and highlighted in the pink are these expensive dart lanes that I've discussed. And they are throughout the entire venue. We have no interest in damaging them. We have no interest in being disrespectful neighbors to Museum Park. We've designed the place with everything in mind. And what you see in green are not only the speakers that exist within the venue. The arrows are pointing towards the direction that the speakers are pointing, which is, with the exception of one, all away from Museum Park. Now, we've talked about in this presentation, upstairs, In our complex, not only are there 426 residences, we have received a letter of recommendation from the general manager of this residence. It is a property managed by Equity Residential. They are a $23 billion REIT. The general manager not only has written us, gotten permission from his higher-ups to write us a letter of recommendation supporting a POE, but there, his boss and the boss above it met with me on site to discuss our POE license application. and have agreed to be the recipients of phone calls to validate the fact that I have operated well as an operator and they have their trust in me to be able to conduct entertainment in a way that is respectful to their residents as well. They're primarily concerned about their residents, as you can imagine. I mentioned before that I'm the operator of this venue. I happen to operate four other venues in San Francisco. This is why I'm known to the Entertainment Commission. Some of these venues have entertainment licenses. Others don't, but don't get me wrong. Every single one of these venues is open Friday and Saturday until 2 a.m., And whether it's entertainment or whether there's crowds that come out of these venues, we definitely are busy places in the city, predominantly in the Marina District, where there is a lot of mixed use and residential on top of each other. I have also included in my appeal document, or my respondent document, letters of recommendations from every single one of my landlords from the three Marina businesses that I operate, as well as the one SOMA business that I operate, which is next to an SRO and across the street from a condominium complex, letters that say that they have not received complaints from neighbors and that I have always been extremely communicative with them and addresses issues as they come up. And I think, as Dan will suggest, and maybe you may have seen me as I entered in the room earlier today, we have had great communication as well. And I think that above and beyond the decision that you guys make, I think whether the code allows me to have entertainment, which I believe that it does, I think that the hallmark of any kind of business operator in the city of San Francisco when there's businesses on top of residents and lots of shareholders all around is that the operator has great communication with the stakeholders in that neighborhood. And I believe that in my application that I've demonstrated a sort of a strong commitment towards becoming a valuable member of that community and offering a business that complements the character of the neighborhood, also sort of the demands of our customer base and just kind of finding that happy medium. And I believe that I continue to do this withstand not only in the initial withdrawal of a lot of the conditions of a broader entertainment license, but also in the three meetings that I've had post-granting the entertainment license to the test work that I continue to promise to do with him, to the mitigation measures that I don't need, I'm not obligated to do, but I've already committed to him that I'm going to do it. And obviously, he would rather the POV be denied and have that be the starting point for me, but I would offer that I would be a responsible owner of a POE and continue to work towards resolving his concerns. Thank you very much. Thank you.

We do have some questions, first from Vice President Soroyan, then President Trasvinia.

Good evening. Thank you for your presentation. What exactly is augmented reality DART?

Oh.

Can you explain that to me so I understand?

I wish I could. I think I might have an image here that I could show to you. It is really interesting, actually. You can sort of see this image right here. This image reflects two dart lanes in our, not sure what the orientation is, but in the far corner of one of our venues. It is traditional darts in the sense that it's a real dartboard and real steel-tipped darts that you're playing with. But the dartboard is white, and then the screen around it, the rectangular shape that you see, around it with our logo on either side is also a white screen. And what happens is that most people just know to throw darts towards the center, and that's the highest score. The game is much more complicated than that. This pairs a monitoring system behind the darts that speaks to a computer system that's connected to the internet that then tracks your score for you while displaying really vibrant visuals that say what your score is and also sort of projects not only the color onto the dartboard, but kind of highlights, hey, you need to hit this pie in order to knock your opponent off the wall, et cetera, et cetera.

So it's a video game of darts, sort of.

It's kind of a video game of darts.

Like a virtual reality dart.

It's virtual reality.

OK.

I mean, you're throwing real darts, so it's not virtual. Oh, you're throwing real darts. You're throwing real darts, real darts. We have waivers and everything like that. OK. Yeah.

So then... Why did you have all the soundproofing put in before you opened? From what I read, you opened in May of 2025. So what is it about this game that would cause the need for the soundproofing?

Yeah, if you want to look, so a lot of these panels that you see here with all the vertical lines around the dartboards, These are all acoustic dampening panels. They're also very stylish and something that you can get quite affordably on Amazon. And so when we sort of, I mean, it was partially purposeful, partially a happy accident, but we really liked the modern look of these panels. And then the added benefit was definitely a plus. And so we therefore incorporated the design, those panels into our design of the venue.

OK. Built into the restaurant. You already have some sound absorption.

I would say it's more sound absorption than any of the other menus that I have, to be honest. As you can see, the entire area above the window line here is sound dampening panels.

And is that because the game gets rowdy, or is that because you thought...

It was a design. I mean, rowdy, it's like cheering. You can almost imagine bowling. You know, you get a strike or you hit a bullseye, your five-member party cheers for you, and other two members are just, oh, darn, I'll get you next time.

All right. So then we get to the request for the Entertainment Commission.

Mm-hmm.

And is this, I mean, I'm just sort of curious, is there like a live DJ? Do you have live entertainment? I mean, you haven't done it yet. So what is planned?

So here's the intention, yes. So I think that this venue is kitty-cornered to the Moscone Center.

Yes.

And so what we've learned in the past, 10 months of operating is that we get a lot of corporate clients. This is kind of our bread and butter business, so to speak. And these big clients, for example, Super Bowl, or the Super Bowl city that was across the street from us, these clients will come on in and they'll say, hey, I'd like to bring in a band. I'd like to bring in a DJ. I'd like to bring in, it doesn't matter what it is, whether it's a single person on a guitar, whether it's a DJ, which is sort of a staple at most holiday parties, as you can imagine. All of those entertainers, you need an entertainment license to be able to accommodate that. And so as a part of our business, not only for our Tuesday through Thursday crux of our Moscone Center crowd or happy hour crowd, so to speak, we'd like to offer that option to them when they plan their events with us. But also, I mean, and this is to Stan's point as well, too, on Fridays and Saturdays, we are surprisingly slow there. There's just not enough traffic downtown on the weekends. And so we'd like the entertainment license to offer us the flexibility to bring in a vinyl DJ or something like that to add a little bit more pull to the venue for someone that wants to celebrate a birthday or something like that. OK.

Thank you so much. Of course. I understand a little better now. Thank you.

Thank you for your presentation. We've talked a lot about the noise dampening. What have you either, and I appreciate the evident good relationship you have with the appellant, what have you assured the community or what might you envision to address the concern about late night patrons leaving and the noise that they may cause?

Right. Well, I'll say this, and perhaps Caitlin will be able to speak a little bit more on this. I think that in terms of being granted an entertainment license, it comes with a list of items that you must comply by to guarantee that you can coexist with neighbors. The Entertainments Commission, I can't say that their primary responsibility is this, but I think that their mandate is to find a way to have entertainment alongside residential. And so as part of that, there is decibel meters that the city has determined to be reasonable both inside the venue as well as outside the venue to ensure sort of this harmonious relationship between entertainment holders and residents or businesses nearby. And so we must comply by those things, which include a security plan, which includes sound measurement and test work, all of which has been provided. And furthermore, I have assured Stan and the members of the community that are here that I'm willing to go above and beyond what the Entertainment Commission has allowed me to by doing further test work inside their units to ensure that sound doesn't propagate into their units. Now, I think Stan would prefer that I abide by what the liquor license says that says no sound outside my venue. But as you can imagine, me saying goodbye to someone with the door open would have sound go past the venue. Now, obviously, he's not concerned about that. But I think that what I want is a degree more flexibility granted by the POE and then the promise as an upstanding business owner in San Francisco with letters of recommendation from all my landlords that I could get them to where they want to be 98% of the time. I'm experienced in security measures, or my team and I are experienced in security measures. We know how to plan events. And to be quite frank, I think that they are fearful of what might be versus what I'm actually possibly going to do. I think they envision sort of a rave scenario, whatever it is. But as I demonstrated with my, I tried to illustrate with my expensive equipment everywhere kind of a statement is that I can't, I can't have unruly customers inside. So while I do want to plan entertainment, it will be decidedly different than what you get at 1015 Folsom or whether you get at Temple Nightclub. It will be a refined sort of a thing that I think that the neighbors will enjoy. And one of the reasons why the apartment complex that I'm in, owned by Equity Residential, is willing to back me in my attempt to get this license. Thank you.

OK, thank you. No further questions. You can be seated, and we will now hear from the Entertainment Commission. And welcome. You have seven minutes.

All right, good evening, President Trasvinia and honorable members of the board. My name is Caitlin Azevedo, and I'm the deputy director of the San Francisco Entertainment Commission. I'm here tonight to respectfully request that you deny appeal number 26-006 and uphold the commission's decision to grant the place of entertainment or POE permit to Kingston Wu of Golden Eye Social, located at 311 3rd Street. This appeal was filed by a residential neighbor of Golden Eye Social who raises several concerns about the POE permit. These include the claim that the restaurant and bar will effectively operate as a nightclub, that the entertainment permit conflicts with the establishment's liquor license, and that the business is incompatible with nearby residential buildings, and that the premise lacks the ability to contain sound. However, as outlined in our appeal response and with the facts that I will share with you tonight, the commission acted well within its statutory authority and followed all procedural and legal requirements to ensure permit integrity. For these reasons, the commission respectfully asks that the board deny the appeal and uphold the permit. The EC was established in 2002 and consists of seven members representing neighborhoods, the entertainment industry, urban planning, law enforcement, and public health. We are responsible for regulating entertainment venues and events, issuing permits, and enforcing compliance through education and our enforcement escalation protocol. We have five full-time staff and two part-time staff, and we oversee over 800 active permits citywide. The central issue in this appeal is the legal standard that governs POE permits. Under Police Code Article 15.1, Section 1060.5 , the Entertainment Commission shall grant or conditionally grant a permit unless it finds one of four specific grounds for denial. Those grounds are limited and objective. They include situations where the business does not comply with health zoning, fire, or safety laws, not safely accommodating anticipated pedestrian or vehicle traffic, lacking safeguards to prevent impacts such as excessive noise, or failing to provide an adequate security plan. Live entertainment is considered expressive activity protected under the First Amendment, and the commission cannot deny permits based solely on generalized neighborhood opposition or speculative concerns about potential problems. Instead, they must evaluate applications based on the specific findings outlined in police code. In this case, the commission reviewed the application materials, including the proposed operations and the security plan, along with the outreach conducted to neighbors, and they heard testimony at the public hearing. Based on these records, the commission determined that none of the statutory grounds for denial were supported. It also is important to understand the zoning context of this location. GoldenEye Social is in the C3O zoning district, which is one of the most permissive in all of San Francisco. In this district, nighttime entertainment is principally permitted under the planning code, and there are no operating hour restrictions. As part of the application process, the planning department reviewed the application and proposed use and confirmed that it is principally permitted at this location. While the appellant suggests that the area is primarily residential in character, the surrounding neighborhood reflects the mixed-use nature of SOMA. Within approximately 1,000 feet of the residential building, there are currently seven active place of entertainment permits. This reflects the fact that the entertainment venues and residential uses regularly coexist in dense areas of the city. And furthermore, SOMA itself houses nearly 20% of all POE permits citywide. The Commission carefully considered the procedural history of the application and the outreach that occurred prior to the hearing. GoldenEye Social initially applied for a POE permit seeking indoor entertainment daily until 2 a.m. and outdoor amplified sound until 10 p.m. As required by the Commission's process, the applicant posted a public notice at the premises for 30 days and mailed written notices to the neighbors, both residential and commercial, located within 150 feet of the business. In response to the initial outreach, the commission received numerous letters of opposition from the museum park residents. Rather than proceeding immediately to a hearing, the applicant voluntarily postponed their December hearing to a date to conduct additional outreach. During that time, they substantially reduced the scope of the permit request. Outdoor amplified sound was eliminated entirely, and the request for indoor entertainment was limited to Fridays and Saturdays until 2 a.m., and the option to host entertainment up to four additional nights per month. The applicant also funded and distributed an additional outreach letter to Museum Park residents and hosted a second community meeting. These efforts demonstrate that both the applicant and commission staff took neighbor concerns seriously and worked to address the problems prior to the hearing. Turning to the appellant's brief, the record does not support the assertion that the venue will operate as a nightclub. The sound limits and operational conditions approved by the commission are consistent with restaurant-style businesses and below levels typically associated with nightclub operations. The appeal also suggests that the entertainment permit conflicts with their liquor license. However, ABC license conditions in San Francisco expressly defer to the EC for local regulations of entertainment-related sound. As a result, any violation of the commission's condition sound limits would also constitute a violation of their ABC liquor license. The two regulatory systems work together rather than conflict. The Commission regulates commercial entertainment noise under Police Code Article 29. The provision prohibits sound from exceeding 8 decibels above ambient sound levels outside at the property plane. To enforce this, Commission staff conduct ambient sound measurements using professional sound meters and set venue-specific internal sound limits designed to ensure that exterior sound levels remain below or within the allowable thresholds. The sound limit established for GoldenEye Social is 84 DBA, 94 DBC, which is comparable to those used for other restaurants and remains well within the limits established under police code. Finally, it's important to note that the issuance of the place of entertainment permit does not mean the city relinquishes oversight. The commission imposed several conditions on the permit, and if issues arise during operation, the commission retains significant enforcement authority with tools including issuing notices of violation, citations with a monetary fine, modifications to permit conditions, and suspensions or revocation of a permit. In closing, the commission carefully reviewed the full record and applied the legal standards required by police code. Planning confirmed that the use is permitted in the zoning district, the applicant reduced the scope of the permit in response to neighbor concerns, and the commission imposed conditions and sound limits designed to protect residential neighbors. Most importantly, none of the four statutory grounds for denial were present. For these reasons, the Entertainment Commission respectfully requests that the board deny the appeal and uphold the grant of the place of entertainment permit. Thank you. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you. We have a question from Commissioner Lopez.

Thank you for your presentation. My question is about enforcement. You alluded to that, to noise limits. How does the commission go about letting folks in the position of the appellant or some of his neighbors about avenues to seek enforcement if one day in the future there are noise issues?

311. So we have inspectors who work in the field on nights, primarily on weekends, well, on weekends, primarily nights, until 2, 3 o'clock in the morning. And so they are reviewing our enforcement 311Q in real time and responding to complaints. So that's the best avenue to have a complaint responded to in real time. Additionally, if there is an issue that's persisting, I remain always available. I oversee our enforcement staff within the department. And we can conduct inspections outside of our regular hours. were always available.

And is that something, for example, that would be included in the public notice that was processed? Or are we more kind of relying on folks understanding that 311 is available?

It's a part, I mean, well, I found that most San Franciscans are aware of 311 existing. We do bring it up during questions when it's asked of us. It was discussed during our commission hearing after public testimony was taken and the commission responded. There's avenues, or it was explained that there are avenues such as 311 for neighbors to use should there be issues in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you. We have a question from Vice President Soroyan.

Oh, sorry.

President Triskin, you're first.

He's going to let me go first. Good evening, Ms. Acevedo. I actually have a question. So you nicely laid out for us in your brief on page four the conditions under which the Entertainment Commission can grant or conditionally grant. And I want to draw your attention to number three, I'm there. So I think the appellant is squarely within a question regarding number three. The premises or the proposed operation of the business lacks adequate safeguards to prevent emissions of noise that would substantially interfere with the public health, safety, and welfare or the peaceful enjoyment of neighboring property. I mean, that really is the gist of, I think, his whole argument. Maybe you can be a little bit more specific with us, with what you have, or what the Entertainment Commission has done to satisfy that particular condition and how it was discussed. Unfortunately, I don't know if you submitted the minutes from the Entertainment Commission or hearing. I don't know. But how was that? I'm curious as to how that was discussed. In particular, I think what I did gather from the appellant's brief was that there was the impression that the commission did not properly take note of the opposition permit as well as public comment. So how would you respond to that?

Certainly. So I'll respond to the second half first and then go back to page four, number three. So the record does show at the hearing that the three commissioners did respond to the public comment that was spoken during the hearing. So it started off with my vice president acknowledging all of the concerns from the neighbors. It moved on to Commissioner Davis, who is the industry representative, and then President Blyman, who then spoke to it. It was roughly about six minutes worth of discussion and acknowledgement of the public comment that was received during the hearing. It was eight people who spoke out. And what was reiterated, or what was spoken to and then reiterated, is that... When a business comes under our purview, they fall under our enforcement umbrella. And so there are tools in which our commission can ensure compliance with permit conditions. We have an enforcement escalation protocol. It was spoken to how we respond to 311 complaints, how we can take enforcement action, such as issuing notices of violation, citation, bringing a permit back before the commission. And also, it was addressed that the business will be held to what the they proposed in their application, which is to not be a nightclub. And so that's squarely listed on their application, and that's not what the commission approved. So hopefully that addresses your question as to how it was responded to at the hearing, because the public comment was certainly addressed. Going back to police code and how number three on page four of my brief speaks to potential noise issues. This goes back to all of the sound testing that we've done. And we have done not just one ambient sound reading at 1.30 PM on a Wednesday, but also at the appellant's request, we did go back and do ambient sound testing at 8 PM on a Saturday when it was suggested that it might be more quiet at that time. Either way, the sound limit that we set for GoldenEye Social, 84 DBA, 94 DBC, is within the 8 decibel threshold as outlined in Police Code Article 29, Section 2909B. So we have determined that the business can withhold sound well enough to not cause a disturbance on the outside that would violate Police Code or the city's sound ordinance.

So I'm not a noise expert. So I don't know. What does that mean? Can you compare your 8.5 decibels to something that I would understand? Well, it's... I'm at a rock concert.

I'm a DJ. I mean, we're probably talking right now in the high 60s, low 70 decibels. Right now, me speaking is probably going to register in that way. We are not talking a rock concert at all. That would be over 100 decibels easily. So their approved sound limit is... what you would hear in a restaurant, if there was maybe a band playing while you're also experiencing diners around you. Does that help? It's hard to compare it to without actually experiencing the sound personally.

OK. So let me ask you a different question. A nightclub. So this is GoldenEye is 8.5 decibels. Give me a comparable for what's approved sound at a venue that really is a nightclub. What might that be?

Sure. Also, what I will mention as outlined in the brief is that Spin, the location that is kitty corner to Museum Park that the appellant specifically calls out to be not a disturbance, has the same decibel limit, the same DBC limit as GoldenEye.

OK.

So that's that. To answer your question about an approved sound limit for a nightclub, Halcyon on 11th Street has a 120 DBC limit.

OK. All right. Thank you.

Thank you.

President Tresevino? I have one, maybe two questions. OK. One is on the issue of noise emanating or sound emanating from the premises. The obligation of the permanent holder is not zero. It is eight above?

Ambient.

Ambient. OK.

Well, not to exceed 8 above ambient. Pardon me? Not to exceed 8 above ambient. That's right.

Right. And is that an absolute number, or will it change?

That is an absolute number, and it is worth mentioning that the first sound limit that was set using the first ambient measurement, which was done on a Wednesday at 1.30 p.m., the ambient was a bit higher, and it resulted in the 8494 dBC limit that was set. That is only about 3 to 4 decibels above ambient, so that gives us roughly 5 decibels. four to five decibel of headway in order to meet that eight decibel threshold. So the sound limit using the initial ambient sound reading was not set at the top of the eight decibel differential. Does that make sense?

It does. OK. But also, there's going to be different sounds at different times inside the premises. There is, yes. And different sounds or different levels of decibels outside.

Exactly, which is why we retested ambient at a different day of the week and a different time of day. And with those ambient findings, it was only roughly about 3.2 decibels quieter on a Saturday at 8 p.m., which still allows us to use the 8494 sound limit and comply with police code.

Well, I think the appellant's more worried about Saturday or Sunday at 1 a.m., when either the establishment has closed, and people are leaving, or it's about to close. And the surrounding noise may be less than 8 PM or less than during the day. So how does the appellant know what's too loud? Does he get one number, one decibel level, and that's it all the time? Or it's going to change depending on the circumstances?

It's one sound limit. 84-94. It doesn't change throughout the night. The permit holder is not required to adjust their sound limit throughout the night. They have one limit that they have to comply with. The doors and windows have to be closed any time there's entertainment furnished. And it's set in accordance with the police code.

Okay. Well, I can say why the neighbors would be worried that An otherwise quiet evening would be interrupted by an allowable death spell level because you gave them one number. But if that's what's done, then that answers my question. The other question I have relates to the appellant's brief describing the questions or relationship between some of your commissioners and the permit holder. And as he, well, you've read the brief. What I take from it is that there was some relationship between the commissioners and the appellant or that they have some level of familiarity and positive familiarity that might have clouded their judgment. And I want to give you the opportunity to either say it didn't happen or it was happened, but your interpretation is different.

Sure, certainly. So as I mentioned to Vice President Soroyan, the commissioners that did speak, all three of them, President Blyman, Vice President Wong, and Commissioner Davis, first and foremost spoke to the neighbors' concerns, and they addressed those. Both Vice President Wong and President Blyman spoke to the fact that Mr. Wu has held and currently holds permits with our office. And in that way, they are familiar with him in being a good operator. It was as simple as that. Mr. Wu does not have a history of enforcement issues, complaints, problems over the course of many years that he has held permits with our office, either from businesses that have closed or are still currently open. And the statements that they made were as simple as that, that they have seen him be a good operator. and that he is a professional business owner.

Great. Thank you for completing the record on that. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. No further questions. We will now move on to public comment. Is there anyone in the room who would like to provide public comment on this item? OK. When you're done speaking, if you could fill out a speaker card after you're done, just so we have your name correct for the minutes. So please go ahead. You have three minutes.

PETER HARTMANN 3 minutes? OK. Good evening. Thank you for having me. My name is Peter Hartman. I'm a resident homeowner at Museum Park. I've been there for 35 years. And I'm here to support our appeal because there's a great concern in the building that live music right across the street from our building has the potential for coming across and entering into our living units. And if you can imagine, on a regular basis, at least twice a week till 2 o'clock in the morning and maybe up to another two nights during the week as well, you can imagine what it might be like sitting in your home listening to music. constantly, all night long. It really has the ability, the potential for severely affecting our quality of life. I said the potential. So we filed the appeal, and if the appeal is upheld, the permit is denied, that takes care of the problem. We don't have to worry about it anymore. If you do not deny the permit and the permit goes ahead, then that's where I've got a suggestion in how this might be handled. Well, there's some suggestions in our brief for conditions that might be put on the permit. and I've got, there was an allusion to the ABC license, and I've got it right here, and their operating restrictions say, there are condition, but no noise shall be audible beyond the area under control of the licensee. There is another restaurant in our building, Right there, where their ABC license says operating restrictions. Entertainment provided shall not be audible at any nearby residences. Now, in my conversation with the ABC staff, they deferred. They said, okay, we have this condition in there. But we defer to San Francisco, to the Entertainment Commission, and that's what happened there. What I would suggest you could do would be to put this wording as a condition on there, not because of the ABC, but just take their wording saying that he's going to control the... the sound so it doesn't come out of the building and affect us. It's a win-win all the way around. We don't have to listen to the music at all, even think about it, and he can do whatever he wants as long as it doesn't get out of the building. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Next speaker, please. Did you fill out a speaker card, Mr. Hartman? If you wouldn't mind grabbing one. It's right here. Thanks.

Hi, my name is Mary Lau. I'm a 15-year resident of the museum park.

Can you speak into the microphone, please?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you so much. We just want to make sure everyone hears you.

OK, can you hear me? I hope so, because I speak very loud. Thank you. OK, 15 years living there, I've never had any problem till last year. 1 o'clock, 1230, wake me up. And it's people out on the street on Folsom coming from the Golden Eye. And I don't understand it. And when I saw the thing about extending the hours, We're all resident of the area. And in Museum Park, we're mostly owners, or there are some rentals there. the residents of the apartment building, they're 100% rentals. So I'm not surprised that they are not complaining because all they have to do is move out of there. So I am mostly concerned about the noise coming from the customer leaving the intoxicated people or groups of people talking outside. the GoldenEye, OK? So yeah, I noticed there are a lot of discussion about the noise coming out. And I don't know if I said this. I live on the 12th floor, and I can hear it. I've never had any problem in 15 years till last year. OK, thank you.

Thank you. And if you could please fill out the speaker card to the right. Thank you. Next speaker, please.

Welcome. You have three minutes. OK. Thank you. Thank you so much for listening to us. My name is Vicki Hart. And we are original owners at Museum Park. We've had the unit now 36 years. And now that I'm a widow, four years and three months Friday. I've stayed there because I'm the first one, 36 concerts in three years. I love venues. I love being in the city. I can't cook. I'm out every night. I'm going to Absinthe tonight to meet some friends after this. And so I'm the first one that is ready for a party or whatever. But our big concern is the noise. It's the long goodbye. We also have city lights on Harrison. And they park at Mabini and in the back sometimes. And at 2 a.m., It's . And that's the problem. It's the loud noise going afterwards. And that really needs to have some condition on that. Because we had that happen on Halloween. That was the problem for there. And this is a really special community. I have nine widows. We're the whomps of Museum Park, women of Museum Park. We get together. We help each other. It's like Mary, Anita, they're sisters. We have just a wonderful community. We have children. We have dogs. I carry my cat in a backpack. We have a wonderful community. And we had, as you know, it was Max's diner before and then OSHA. It was wonderful, but we all lived at Max's pretty much, eating there. So this is a different use. Kingston's been great. If they just have food and the darts, great. But the late night noise is really bad. I also have gone in a couple times to say, I'm sorry that we're having so much issues. He's never there at the things. I know his place at Thriller on 4th is next to the Hotel Utah. The place he's talking about is down the street to Palms. So they're quite a ways. They're not directly across from Thriller, his other unit. And the other one across the street, they're just back behind us. So there's no way that noise comes to them. And also, they are rentals and transient, whereas we are pretty much owner-user. We have some younger people, which are wonderful. And we have diversity. So this is a really nice community. Also, the lanes on Third Street, there's parking on two sides. They're open in the daytime. We have a bus lane and then two driving lanes, two cars, just so that's clear on that. That was a little bit confusing. And I love it. I'm in the city because I want entertainment. And also the commissioners, they did make such a, you know, so proud of Kingston and his things that they were swayed, I think, a little bit that way. Just so, you know, on the record. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Is there any other public comment in the room? OK, any public comment online? I don't see any, so we're going to move on to rebuttal. Mr. Feinsad, you have three minutes.

The issue is the sound in the apartments. Peter's idea is language that would say sound should not go into our homes. That's the issue. That's a good idea to constrain the POE. The issue of safeguards, you brought up item number three. That is precisely, what did they do about item three? They read it and then went on. They read one, two, three, and four and said, OK, we're good. There was no discussion about our comments at the commission hearing. It's on the record. There's a video. You can watch it. I have my notes about it. The first comment was a commissioner said, oh, the decibel limits are enforceable by inspectors. He didn't talk about our comments. Kingston is a seasoned operator, a great guy. He said, it's amplified music. It's OK for the permit. The second commissioner said, he will be held to the permit rules, not one word about the comments. And the third commissioner talked about, how we work, how we enforce. You can watch the video. With all due respect, Caitlin, that was not true. No one spoke one word about the comments that they had heard, the 50 written everythings. I just want to just remind you that safeguards are important. You can do a POE. We would be happy to have a PoE across the street as long as the sound of live music doesn't enter our homes and disturb our sleep so that we can have quiet enjoyment of our premises. It's not about SOMA. It's about this particular street and across the street. It's not about the whole big SOMA with hundreds of entertainment permits. That's ridiculous. What this is about is a 233-unit apartment house across the street from Golden Eye. And there can be safeguards. You can impose safeguards on this POE. And we will accept them. as long as they do not let sound enter our homes. Thank you.

OK. Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holder. You have three minutes.

Thank you. I didn't know I had another chance to speak. I will say this. I'm not a lawmaker in the city of San Francisco. But I had imagined that in establishing what the permitted sound limits are for places of entertainment, the Entertainment Commission is tasked with a difficult task of saying, hey, listen, we need to establish a uniform standard across the entire city. And that is to take the ambient noise measurement And that is to set a reasonable limit above that. And I think that that's what they did in my case. The ambient noise measurement in this room, as Caitlin described, is 50 decimal meters. When we were meeting with Stan and the sound inspector on a completely optional sound test that I did just last week, The only three of us were in the room, and it was 55 decibels or so. So to say that there's no sound in their unit when there's already 55 decibels of sound in a fairly quiet room is a very restrictive sort of measurement. And I think that the eight decibels above... the ambient noise measurement is a standard that I think that I could live with. But as I've demonstrated during my presentation and as Stan alluded to, that I'm willing to go above and beyond this by doing further test work inside their unit. I think it's just nearly impossible standard to say that no sound will be transmitted into their unit. I think that's just a hard standard to set, especially when they have said that they have not actually heard sound from our unit. It's from customers outside on the street. past closing time or past their bedtime. I think that with just the number of events that happen at the Moscone Center throughout the course of the year, there will be people on the street that may or may not be attributable to my own venue and to be held to that standard of no sound in their units. at all is something that, unfortunately, I wouldn't be able to do. But I am willing to go above and beyond what the license allows me to do to make sure that these guys are happy. I have sound limiters, electronic limiters on the sound system. I promised to them I'm happy to put it in writing. Closing the curtains, which Stan again talked about, happy to do that as well. Putting sound dampening curtains around doors, because doors have to open at some point in the night to let people in and out. I've already committed to him that I would do that as well. And then if all else fails, which I don't think it will because we did some initial test work, but if all else fails, I have said, listen, I will replace interior curtains with acoustic panels, which are even more vibrant. Other than that, I'm looking into building walls, I think I've demonstrated consistently, both here and at my other venues, to go above and beyond what a POE requires me to do. And I make that promise to you guys here today that I will do that. I think it's just an impossible standard to say that no sound will ever permeate into your unit every year. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. We have a question for you, sir, from Vice President Soroyan.

So what I was going to ask you, I think you answered the question. But it seems to me that one of the reasons that perhaps you're successful is because you do try to be a good neighbor and blend into the environment of where your businesses are so they can be successful and you can have some friends around you. In terms of some of the additional measures that you just outlined for us, which I think was acoustic curtains,

Closing the curtains. We're going to start with closing the curtains first. Electronically limiting the bass that comes out of the sound system, second. I've talked to Stan about we have three entrances on the front of our venue. Two of them are directly across from their residence. sort of off to the side, probably not in front of them, I would say, just visually. We could use that as the entrance and exit. I think these are things that, as experienced operators, we will look into. But because we haven't actually had the pleasure of exercising our entertainment permit yet, we haven't implemented these measures. Additional measures. But these are measures that we have discussed and thought about and happy to implement.

And you're willing to commit to?

Yes, I think all the residents have my phone number, although I'm not at the venue every day of the week. They've already circulated my number and my email, and they have Caitlin's as well, too. And, you know, I mean, I don't want to be recipients of these late-night calls as well as they don't want to be kept up. And, you know, I'm going to do my darndest to make sure that that doesn't happen short of... spending $200,000 and creating, you know, I'm going to start with the cost effective measures first and then move on to the more expensive ones to a limit. But I think that that limit should be easily reached because the sound test work has already demonstrated that the sound is barely audible. I think what they're concerned about is just people laughing. The long goodbyes, I think, is what the issue might be. And I think that's more of a security measure than anything else. So a crowd disbursement measure. The night is over. You've had your fun. Now please get to your cars and don't mill around outside. It takes time to push people away. It can't be done instantaneously. But we are next to a parking structure.

So again, I think that's a great question that you've imposed or helped me ask, is how would you mitigate the long goodbye? I noticed that you're supposed to have one security guard, but I don't know if one security guard would be sufficient to do that. Right. I think it's one per 100 guests. Is it one per 100?

I think it's the minimum requirement to have. I will say, and this might seem alarming to you guys, but I think that I operate a country western bar in the Marina District. I know it well. Yes, and we have 15 security guards there, and we don't have 1,500 people inside the venue, which is what the 1 to 100 would dictate. So we have far more security guards than we have people. But we've leveled up to that level of security because it is what the neighborhood needs to make sure the crowds get dispersed in a timely fashion. What's unique at our venue is that we have validated parking. Because we are inside a parking structure connected to the units up above us, we can offer that validated parking. And therefore, we offer them a quick, out versus in the marina, cars are scattered everywhere. So they tend to pass by residences as they leave. But again, we've had very little issue to no issue there. And I think with the validated parking, we should have a similar lack of issue here, if I were to draw parallels. Validated parking behind us, parking lot next to us, And the type of entertainment really comes back to this. We're not doing mechanical bull-driven country line dancing sort of entertainment. I think while nothing's been planned so far, we're thinking like a vinyl DJ. We're thinking like jazz and cocktails or something like that. I don't want anyone to raise their hands because of that expensive equipment overhead. I want them to sip cocktails, have a nice beat. And this is predominantly after 10 o'clock on Fridays and Saturdays. But it remains to be seen what we've planned. But that's kind of what I have in mind.

OK.

Thank you so much.

Yeah.

Thank you. No further questions. We will now hear from the Entertainment Commission.

Ready? Good? OK. You start. OK. So first, I just want to acknowledge that the commission did acknowledge the residents' concerns. And they did so by explaining the role of our commission and why having a permit from our office is often a benefit to the neighbors, because they come under our oversight. So I just want to call that out. As I previously explained, the commission took into consideration the full record of the POE permit application and the neighbor concerns. Specifically, there is a security condition imposed on the permit, which states they must have one guard on site Friday and Saturdays from 8 p.m. until closing and any time there is entertainment. Further, the commission imposed more restrictive conditions on the permit by only allowing entertainment Friday and Saturday and four times per month. As a reminder, POE permits in their full scope allow daily entertainment 6 a.m. to 2 a.m. This is a mixed-use area in one of the most liberal zoning districts in San Francisco. Having a POE permit would require the business owner to adhere to their security plan, our good neighbor policy, and fall under our enforcement purview. If the appeal is upheld, the owner could still play... pre-recorded music, and continue operating until 2 a.m., which is what their liquor license allows them to do without entertainment. However, any complaints relative to sound or noise inside or outside would fall under SFPD purview and not ours. And we know that they often have bigger fish to fry than responding to sound complaints. So with that, we respectfully ask the board deny the appeal and uphold the approval of the POE permit.

OK, thank you. No questions. You can be seated. Commissioners, this matter is submitted.

Thank you all for your presentations, the written materials, members of the public who've shared their views and feelings about this. I think we have before us an evaluation of what the Entertainment Commission did. And we've had a really full airing of the various issues. I don't find a flaw with the Entertainment Commission's deliberations or consideration. And I also see among all the people represented from the public as well as from the Commission, a real genuine interest in addressing issues. The fact that the Commission talked about the various enforcement processes, the complaint process, the response to the inspectors, I, sitting here, that doesn't seem to me to be a pushing off or a disregard of the community's concerns. It says here's a way to address them. What I have heard tonight and what I've read in the materials suggests to me that to the extent there may be a problem, and I'm sympathetic to the absolute number of decibels being the standard. because it's different at different times of the day. But at the same time, the suggestion that no sound should be going into the neighboring units I think is too high of a responsibility for the establishment. and I would leave it to the enforcement process, to the multiple pairs of ears who will be hearing it and being able to express their concerns to the commission, both about the noise coming from out of the area establishment, and also what is being described as the long goodbyes. There are a variety of enforcement mechanisms to address that, but one of the most important ones is the willingness of the proprietor to receive those complaints, seriously consider them, and take appropriate action. And I think given that, I would uphold the permit. Colleagues?

I'm inclined to agree with President Trusvigna. However, I really would like to see those additional measures implemented. I think the curtains, acoustic curtains, making sure the windows and doors are closed, maybe some additional sound absorption. I think that would go a long way to mitigate any complaints because I think that you have an enforcement procedure. You will know very quickly if there's a violation of your Entertainment Commission permit. I think those are my thoughts.

Vice President, Commissioner Lopez.

Yeah, thank you. We're all in agreement. I think it's a good permit. I think by all indications, it's a good operator. I think the appeal is somewhat preemptive in nature. And that's the reason I asked about enforcement is that I think that's the avenue to take if issues come up. And by the way, for the benefit of the appellants and the members of the public who spoke, including the WOMPs, I love that term. Thank you for sharing that. We do have permits that come up for suspension or cancellation due to enforcement issues. And so those are not empty kind of conditions. And I think with that in mind, it sounds like we have an experienced operator. I trust that the operator, the permit holder, has every incentive to not just have gained the permit but to actually be able to use it and continue to use it. And so for that reason I think all those additional measures are, they sound very reasonable to me and I trust that the operator will do that and any other kind of creative solutions that would address anything that would get in the way of continuing to be able to operate with the POE. So with that, I will move to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued.

OK, thank you. On that motion, President Shezvinia?

Yes.

Vice President Sorayan? Aye. OK, that motion carries 3 to 0, and the appeal is denied. And since this is an Entertainment Commission permit, there's no right to request a rehearing, and the decision will be sent out tomorrow. Thank you.

And there being no further business before us tonight, we will adjourn.

Thank you.