Found one naked man we got a statement from, we got two statements from clients. A ton of evidence and the woman who went with our people from the ngo suddenly within three or 4 days became a missing person. Never heard from that woman again, couldnt find her. I get another call for a numerous complaints from citizens in that area that this place is opened up again after the search warrant, i see it open much to my surprise and go in there with ed and put together another task force of people and we discovered the same thing, nancy lou was back open and the missing person was found back in the establishment. The woman with a 12yearold mind, the 20yearold. Sir, at this point there is no charges brought against her . I would say at this point in time no one has been charged, yes, sir. Thank you. Yes, sir. Question for inspector wash. How would you characterize your interactions with miss nancy lou, did she understand whats going on. Did you understand any signals from her that she grasp what is happening and willing to try to make it right . Over the last 5 years, yes, we communicated. I have worked with her. I bent over backwards to help her to get everything in compliance. I went back there more times than anyone would go back to get her in compliance. What did she say after repeated instances . She would say i dont have time. Is that what you really want. Okay, i would have to go back there numerous time so she would get the message. It was always the same thing. The showers are filthy, the massage tables are defective, there is People Living here, there is personal items, clothes. Then there would be newspapers, she collected a lot of newspapers. I said you have to get these out of here, they are harbors for vermin and fire hazard. I threatened to cite her and she would do it. Mr. Waush, the same question i ask the appellants, is there a historical history in the Department Related to at what point revocation comes into play . We cant get compliance anymore and they are constantly repeating the same violations over again and there is a Public Health let me rephrase that. How often do you revoke a license . Quite often, in the last year 1 2, quite often. What is quite often . In the last year weve revoked at least 10 permits. Any of those predominating from your point of view for unsanitary conditions . This is probably the worst one for unsanitary conditions. Usually the criteria that we come commonly use is illegal activity, improperly dressed, those are the common ones that we revoke establishment permits for. Okay. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, then well take rebuttal. You have 3 minutes. First of all, im not sure what im trying to face. 1 minute all i hear is about unsanitary conditions in the department and the next thing we have all these allegations which you are like the book in 1984, probable cause, numerous citizens, on going investigation. Nothing on paper, nothing that i can crossexamine, all of these violation, are we just talking about unsanitary conditions. Now you heard, im not sure if mr. Waush answered your question directly when you asked him if any establishments have been revoked just for unsanitary conditions and he said this is the worst, okay, it saundz sounds like the others were revoked for illegal activity. The whole list that i went through that the officers testified to which i cant crossexamine and i dont see any paperwork on these. Under the circumstances, i think suspension is proper. The question was posed so what will be the difference what sort of supervision can be imposed. She can get somebody to help her that is better able to supervising. All we heard this is not the nancy lou that he knew. Since i have known her shes been the same depressed person xia she is. I want to give her some real help and see her business going and be able to comply with whatever the department wishes her to do. I just asked that opportunity to give her a temporary suspension and during that period of time i will make every effort that i can to comply with whatever the department asks. If the board decides there is enough grounds for revocation, i would like to know what it is because weve gone back and forth first with unsanitary conditions and then with allegations of videos and Human Trafficking and victims and everything else. I would just like to know what the initial grounds are. Im prepared to submit it with that and once more i think the board that is discretion to revoke her, i think the board also has the discretion to give her a temporary suspension. Thats what im asking the board to do, to give her and i a chance to comply. Thank you. Thank you. Just quickly, to recap, the Police Departments case is separate, its not part of the Health Departments case. The fact of the matter is whether or not miss nancy lou is capable of managing the premises and if this is a game for her to continue to recycle through inspections and stay open and operate the way she wants to operate and then fall out of compliance and then again respond to inspector waushs to be in compliance with health code and whether she is not running this place those arent grounds to keep a massage establishment permit. Clearly there is People Living there. How they got there and where they go is not the Health Departments jurisdiction. People live there. Its filthy. Its unsafe. The massage tables, the shower, all of these are clear violations of the health code. Yes, at some point its enough. Its enough to finally revoke somebodys permit. If she can get a partner who can help her manage the business appropriately and in compliance with the code, then she can apply for another permit. Has there ever been a suggestion, are you finished . Sorry. Has there ever been a suggestion that its a supervision issue . Is this the first time . This is the first time i have heard that. When i received the file and went through timeline and talked to inspector waush about this, i saw the same pattern. Thats why we put it on a chart. I saw her get cited and she does everything she needs to do and i thought the Health Department was being too lenient. After 33 inspections. She either knows how to run this business or does not. Shes not the responsible person who should be on this permit. Im finished. I have a question from inspector waush. The photographs that weve seen are those current pictures or since 2007 . I havent been back there since march of this year. These pictures were taken about 2 years ago. Okay, so when you were there in march, were those conditions existing as the pictures you show us now . Yes. The tables still look the same . What happens is the tables get moved. She owns another massage establishment. When i go there that wasnt the question. When you went there what did the tables look like in comparison to the pictures that you have shown us today . Some of them were cracked. The conditions were over all, i do see a pattern here that is disgusting. I just want to determine whether those were the pictures over the last 6 years. Those are not from the last visit. The Current Conditions of the last time you visited how were they at that time . That one table that is really cracked was gone, but there are other tables that are cracked, the showers were dirty with mold, the lounge had was there still lots of newspapers, lots of material there where the water heater is . Yes, there was no soap or paper towels in the bathroom. The employee lounge where they have microwave and they cook a lot of food. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. You want to start, go ahead. I think this permit should be revoked. Separate and apart from whatever criminal investigation may or may not be going on. In my belief someone is innocent until proven guilty. That is irrelevant to me. What i see is a pattern of not complying with the requirements of maintaining an establishment thats in compliance with the department of Public Health standards. I think it is disgusting. The conditions are terrible and whats very persuasive to me is the timeline that the department provided. I think inspector waush has been very diligent in trying to work with her. Shes not complied or shes complied only enough to get through inspection and shes already had one suspension. What i find very troubling is the fact that she reopened without any authorization and also took down the suspension sign. To me thats egregious. The entire timeline convinces me that this is a textbook case for revocation. I would echo everything commissioner hurtado just said. The same here. I think that the suggestion of a suspension didnt work in the past, i dont think its going to work now. The multiple times that inspector waush has been out there, i think she understand what needs to be done and continues not to do it. I see a pattern that is more than likely is not going to change. No comment. So i would move to deny the appeal on the basis that the revocation was more than appropriate under the circumstances. We have a motion then from commissioner hurtado to deny the appeal and uphold this revocation on the basis that said revocation is more than appropriate under the circumstances. On that motion to uphold and revoke, to uphold the revocation, commissioner fung, aye, president haung, aye, vicepresident lazarus . Aye. Honda . Aye. The vote is 50. The revocation ups upheld on that basis. Next item. Item 6 appeal no. 13077 trinity properties, appellanttss vs. Dept. Of Public Works Bureau of urban forestry, respondent 1190 Mission Street. Appealing the denial on june 12, 2013, of a request to forgo planting ten 100 street trees adjacent to the subject property as required per board decision in appeal no. 12064. For hearing today. Next item. Sf 61234 we will start with the appellant. Is the appellant here . Please step forward. You have 7 minutes to present your case. Thank you. Samuel son on the project. We were back here before when we originally were working to remove the five trees which i can show you those five trees here. This is the project site. I hope it fits there. We had five 5 treason Mission Street that we are removing as part of the construction on this apartment building. There were none on 8th street when we were doing that. That was originally denied. At the time we came back and we had proposed 10 replacement trees with six of them being on Mission Street and 4 on 8th street. The board of appeals at that time accepted the removal of the trees. As weve gone through the construction process, weve come back learning that there are some issues on 8th street that did not allow for the trees to be planted. What we have now is we are actually planting 7 of the trees. There is 3 of the trees that we are requesting not to plant because we could not fit them on 8th street. The first tree and we can see the 7 that we have on Mission Street that we are planting and then you can see the original four that we had on 8th street that we are talking about removing. One we were able to remove over to Mission Street and over here at the corner one of the trees, well start with that one, we cant plant because that side was too close to the intersection. That one has been removed. Ideally we would have liked to move it up but there is a second issue. As part of this process there is a large pg e fault underneath the building which has access fault and pg e has told us they need access to those evaluates to be able to lift equipment out of there. This area is showing where we cant plant based on the pg e requirements. That wouldnt allow any trees in that area. As a part of that underground vault, next door there is a pg e substation. There is a lot of utilities that come right into this area. Part of what we have down here is pg e, which is future connections they want to have. This red area is showing where they have another one there where we have another tree. That tree, we had to remove as well because we could not fit it into there. As you go up the street, there is additional construction that happens as part of phase 3. As a part of that, this will be the entrance to the garage here. As you go through here there will be construction that happens at this point. This will be in a part of the garage entry right here. Part of what has happened here is we are expanding the sidewalk. So the original curb line was this line along here and that gets moved out as we move down the street at different phases. That last tree was in the way of the garage entry and also future construction. So ideally, our intent and what weed like to do is install the trees that we can. But as weve gone through on 8th street we find we cant install these trees based on the requirements from the city and pg e. As we go down further in this process, there is additional trees that well be in stalling is part of the next phase and trees well be removing too and well be working with the bureau of urban forestry on that. Thats basically limitations that we came to with those trees. This is the proposed plan. I will put that up here too so you can see what we have right now. We have on Mission Street, we have the 7 trees that we are installing now. We have that and on 8th street we have the pedestrian pole lights that we were able to install. Trinity properties is going to say a few things too. Good evening, im steve ron zoneey and i represent the properties. We are in total lining with the city. It is in our best interest and the citys best interest to promote the city and the trees. Unfortunately it came too late until the project where its physically impossible to put them in for city and pg e requirement and underground utilities. This building 1190 mission is the second phase of 2000 apartments and we are under way on the third phase which will result in us changing the sidewalk for the entire distances of 8 street. We will be removing the parking late to support with dpw and well be doing a very extensive planting program, not only Street Industries but also some green ways from what you see on the golden gate avenue. We hope well come up with a solution for this portion of 8th street in front of 1190. Our only thoughts are that we have to be able to do it above the surface in planters probably trees or shrubs, we dont know at this point in time. Unfortunately with the opening of the 1190 Mission Street on july first 1st and in order to get all of our requirements up, we were not able to respond to what we want to do in that area and make sure that whatever we came up with coincided with what we are going to do there. We are in agreement with the citys goals and hopeful that the city will give us the time as part of our planning process for phase 3 and 4 which will be on Market Street and i think you will be very proud of what you see developed there. Quick question, you are saying that for certain plants 7 trees and the other 3 trees you are going to find another solution maybe an above ground box solution. Absolutely. We have an interest to wanting to do that. Can you remind me when you were here last . June, when were you here last . I didnt participate . When was it before this board last . I think it was over a year ago for a removal of some large trees. When you removed this tree, what are we talking about . The whole project including design for trees and the entire thing . The entire thing is a 5acre development for 2,000 apartments. In terms of the planning, figuring out where . The project proceeded in phases. The design has just been done with each phase. Say that again, the first part . Its project has been done in phases. Its being done in four phases because of financing purposes. Okay. We have completed the second phase. We have not developed detailed drawings for the entire project. We have detailed drawings for phase one and two. If this project came to the board with a tree issue and you wanted us to do something and we worked with you, we ordered a certain position as to what trees were going to come out and what were going to go back in. At that point in time why was there not an investigation as to what was feasible. Did you not do any feasibility investigation in advance of making a proposal to this board . We knew that more than likely the bureau of urban forestry requirements would eliminate some of those trees because of distances from corners and street lights. Those were not presented when it came up the first time. We were not aware of the pg e requirement that we could not put a tree in front of a vault. Should we have, perhaps, but it did not occur to us. You would know other pg e requirements. You are building a massive structure. Why wouldnt you understand that when you come to this board about trees. It seems to me its been treated with great incision insignificance. We are investing a billion dollars in 2,000 apartment, substantial retail area, huge park area. We want to present the best image for our project also. We have no difficulty with the provision of street trees as required by the city and the bureau of urban forestry. But if we technically cannot put them in either because of the bureau of urban forestry rules or pg e rules, there is nothing we can do about that. If i can physically put those trees in, i would go back and put those in today. Right, my point is that you didnt make the determination of the advance many of proposal that you cant do it. I think thats an in correction assumption. Okay. As far as you had a july 1st deadline and for that reason you dont have a proposal in design as to what you would do in alternative inform plant the trees . We dont have the remainder of 8th street designed, whatever we do on this corner, we would like that to finish with the whole design scheme. What steps have you taken to move that forward . We have submitted our site plan. We hope to get the permit out shortly. We are moving fully ahead on all of our cd construction documents. We have employed our Landscape Architect and they are designing all the landscape projects for our department. Can you speak for that part because thats what we are all here for, the landscape piece. We are looking at doing a planted 4foot strip along this and putting trees in there as well. There is other issues. We have the work of the utilities there too. We are in development of that. Once we have some buy off on that design, the idea would be that carry that down to make it continuous. Thats in concept phase . We are developing our plans. We are in our Schematic Design level for our plans for the street. Your intending to have three wells on the balance of 8th street . The intent of what we are hoping to do is we have a continuous planter strip. So 4foot wide continuous planter strip for the length that we can in front of that new building. I believe there is a passengerer drop off zone and where they widen the sidewalk well have an additional 4 feet which i think is around seven trees. Is it kind of unusual to show your original layout of 10 trees, but not incorporating any as built nature of that sidewalk . When we did that, the plan we presented back in 2011, we went through a construction drawing at that point. We didnt know requirements for the pg e involved actually the electrical engineer on that was surprised that they had that strict of a requirement too. So we developed it with what our intent was at that point and as we got further into developing or drawings, thats where we became aware that we couldnt put these other ones in. Im not sure i understand that timeline since when you folks came before us last time, the reason why you wanted to remove the existing trees was because it affected your construction. The construction, it was already topped out. You were worried about bringing in the precast panels. Yeah, there is a time, weve been on a different timeline from the construction of the building. So weve kind of been following, we are a little bit behind on the schedule. They were able to develop some of their construction on it ahead of us. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Well hear from the department now. Miss short . Good evening commissioners, carla Short Department of public works. Essentially we are here because the requirement that was imposed by this board on july 11, 2012, there was an agreement reached that the five trees will be granted for removal with the conditions that 10