Sanchez is here. Representing the Planning Department and commission along with jim purvis with the Planning Department. Just step out of the room is senior building inspector on behalf of the department. The board request that you turn off or silence all phones and other Electronic Devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. Please carry on conversations in the holy. Appellants, permit holders and barb in response feature given 7 min. To present their case and 3 min. For rebuttal. People affiliated with a party must include the comments within the 7 or 3 min. Period. Numbers of the public not affiliated with the parties have up to 3 min. Each to address the board and no rebuttal. Be speaking to the end of the microphone. You are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or Business Card to board staff when you come up to speed. Speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. The board welcomes your comments and suggestions. There are Customer Satisfaction forms on the podium for your convenience. If you questions about a rehearing the boards schedules, please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting. Or call our business board office that were located at 1650 mission st. In room 304 between s. Venice ave. This meeting is broadcast live on speed tv channel 78 and is rebroadcast on friday at 4 pm on channel 26. Dvds of this meeting are available for purchase from sfgov tv. Please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. If you intend to testify in any tonights hearing wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary right please stand and say i do after you have been sworn or affirmed. The standout. Raise your hand and to use while solemnly affair that the testimony you give with the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth . Thank you. Pres. Lazarus we have one has item. Item number 5 appeal number 15183 at 1583 list all at 1583 list all ave. That item will has been withdrawn and will not be heard. Willing to general Public Comment is there anyone like to address the board on an item with the board subject matter jurisdiction but is not on the calendar this evening . Any general Public Comment. Seeing none, will move on i guess to item number 3 which is commissioner comments and questions. Commissioner . Seeing none, will move on to item number 4, which is the boards consideration of the minutes for january 13, 2016. Any corrections or additions deletions to the minutes . If not deny the motion to approve the minutes . Any Public Comment on the minutes . Seeing none, may we have a motion by commissioner fung to adopt the minutes. On a motion lazarus aye, honda aye, wilson aye swig aye. That motion carries. And pres. Lazarus will move to item number 2 if you wish. Item number 2 is the election of officers and pursuant to article 2 section 1 of the boards rules, election of officers is countered after 15 january that is tonights meeting. Before we do move forward with this if you want to take a moment to thank pres. Lazarus for her service these last 2 years. Its been a pleasure to work with you and i do appreciate your leadership and your service both to my support of my work. [applause]. Starting with the opposite of the president , are there any Board Members would like to nominate a colleague were themselves for this office the clicks i would nominate vp gerald honda it will take a vote but not a 2nd. Is there any other nominee . Is there any Public Comment on the nomination of honda for the office of president . Seeing none, we will take a vote on that motion by commissioner fung. Lazarus aye, honda aye, wilson aye swig aye. Thank you and congratulations to pres. Honda. [applause]. Moving on to the office of Vice President , other any nominations for this office . I would not like to nominate commissioner fung can i 2nd his . Is there any nominations for that office . Seeing none, is there any Public Comment. No Public Comment so we have a motion by honda to nominate commissioner fung as Vice President. On a motion, commissioner fung aye, commissioner lazarus aye, commissioner wilson aye, commissioner swig aye. Congratulations. Thank you both for your willingness to serve in these capacities. [applause] now will skip down to business given that we have 21 cases to start off with. So, item 5 has been withdrawn to move on to item 6. Item 6a shall be heard together with 650. These were followed by Contest Promotions llc versus the Department Building inspection with plenty department disapproval. The address for these 1st 31 appeals are 250 divisadero st. 917 and 2001. Street. 2001. Street. 172 golden street ave. 699 3rd st. 65 65 6th st. 3 9782. 2101 11 street. 2050 21st. 2847 and 2040 24th. 449 portola st. 716 909 30 columbus ave. 2200 909 30 columbus ave. 2200 lane st. 745751 market st. 1270, 2097, 3200, 3729 and 4701 mission st. 1101 oak st. And 300 sanchez st. These are all protesting issuance on october 21 processing the denial on october 14, 2015 apartment. Starting with the attorney for the appellant. I have a disclosure. We should disclose i part grouping angeles on a separate matter. His representation have appear before the court will not have any effect on my decision today. Thank you. Unless theres been a change i believe the parties have all agreed that they will have 20 min. To present arguments to the board and then 10 min. Of rebuttal after Public Comment. So, if you can set the clock to 20 min. . Congratulations resident honda and Vice President fung. And with Contest Promotions in the appeal housekeeping matter 1st. Yes, were going to address all of these initially these 31. The next 4 are exactly the same and i dont want to scare you. I intend to simply incorporate my comments that were not going to separate hearings. Despite the number of appeals before you the dispute is relatively straightforward. Im going to walk through the factual history and actions visavis the citys actions Contest Promotions. I actually dont think theres much difference in the factual procedural history, although expect you will hear a pretty different class from the city as to what the meaning of each of the actions that took place. The city will try to convince you that its actions were about clarifying existing law and had nothing to do with Contest Promotions. They will say this is a routine enforcement action. Thats simply not the case. The city will refer to proposition g in 2002. The ordinance that is relevant here was the substance of amendments to proposition g is an emergency interim ordinance and followed by a final ordinance that shortcircuited the citys loss. If this amendment was a routine and nonsensitive as the city claims, why did he require an emergency ordinance introduced in 2014 on the same day the city approved the Settlement Agreement with Contest Promotions . Dont be confused. This is not about proposition [call of the g. Its only that the city settled in a short Contest Promotions would continue to operate legal. The reality is this. After the city induced Contest Promotions to settle in its lawsuit in the same moment that it ratified the Settlement Agreement, the city introduce legislation targeted a Contest Promotions only, specifically designed to eradicate Contest PromotionsBusiness Model and remedy, and render the Settlement Agreement worthless. We ask that you give the Settlement Agreement meeting and not allow the city to break its promises required the Planning Department and the Building Department issued permits that have been denied. , now im going to hopefully, help make sense of what i just said. Here is the story. Contest promotions at city permits for in science when it started doing business here in San Francisco over a decade ago. Beginning in 2007, the Planning Department began issuing notices of violations claiming for the 1st time Contest Promotions signs which had been up for years, were not business signs. Is this signs are allowed commercial advertisements i think you know that from other hearings. Contest promotions try to work with the city to explain that it signs were legal but eventually had to sue the city in federal court in 2009. In 2011, Contest Promotions won an injunction in the federal court preventing the city from enforcing the notice is a violation. This was a major setback for the city. The federal court found the part of the city at issue is probably unconstitutional and that Contest Promotions was likely to ultimately win a judgment. The 2 parties, not surprisingly, then entered into settlement discussions and reached a verbal settlement put on the court record in 2013. That court record was then reduced to a writing after months and months of negotiations. Thats the Settlement Agreement thats attached to our papers and i will refer to it regularly. In the Settlement Agreement, the city agreed Contest Promotions signs were legal under the code as long as they met the physical requirements such as size and location. Those sorts of things that are also in the code. This opened the way for Contest Promotions to trade its existing permits for new permits. Contest promotions agreed to follow the new rules made that were in the Settlement Agreement to process sign applications for its contests and raffles. One rule was for Contest Promotions to file actually file new permit applications for business signs. This was exciting to Contest Promotions by the citys way for the city to more easily track and monitor these new signs under the Settlement Agreement. Which, they were not new signs actually but new permits for the signs would give them a new record. When i say them among the city. Contest promotions also agreed to pay the city 375,000 to settle alleged finds that this was explained to Contest Promotions as way to ensure the settlement would be approved by the board of supervisors and was a powerful payment for Contest Promotions to make in exchange for peace. But the board of supervisors or lease some of its members, showed it had no intent other than 2 single Contest Promotions and render the Settlement Agreement meaningless and eradicate Contest PromotionsBusiness Model. Although Contest Promotions and the city negotiators signed the Settlement Agreement in january of 2014, the board of supervisors did not finally approved the settlement until july 15 although Contest Promotions and the city negotiators signed the Settlement Agreement in january of 2014, the board of supervisors did not finally approved the settlement until july 15, 2014 approximately 6 months later. On that same day, the day it was approved by the board of supervisors, 2 supervisors introduced emergency interim zoning controls, changing the definition of a business im so as to make Contest Promotions signs illegal. By the way, this is at the same moment in time the permit applications that were required under the Settlement Agreement were pending and being held by the Planning Department and Building Department. The sole purpose of this tactic was to undermine the Settlement Agreement. Interim controls are valid for 18 months and are supposed to be reserved for emergency situations. There was no legitimate emergency here. During the 18 months that allowed for interim controls, in january of 2015, so a year later, the same we definition of a business im targeting Contest Promotions was imported into a ordinance that have been introduced in may of 2011 and had been sitting dormant for approximately 3. 5 years. This material we definition did not return to the Planning Commission for review as it should have. Meanwhile, shortly after the settlement am a Contest Promotions did what was required under the settlement and paid the city 150,000. In august and september Contest Promotions filed permit applications. Just as promised. The Planning Department refused to group them relying on the still warm we definition of the business im that had just been changed in the code. In october, 2015, the Planning Department directed ddi to formally disprove all the pending applications and now we are here. The city suggests this board does not have jurisdiction to consider the case. Specifically the city claims to rule in Contest Promotions favor would be the equivalent of amending the code. We are not asking this board to legislate. Were asking the board to force the city to stick by his word. This board has Broad Authority to overrule the planning and Building Departments denial of permit. You do it all the time. Were not asking the board to take an exceptional or extraordinary legislative action. Specific, were asking the board to find for Planning Department actions are against the public interest, which is exactly as it stated for your jurisdiction in the San Francisco charter. Turning to some other merits, as i mentioned before, they are straightforward. 1st, facing the prospect of losing that lawsuit the city invited Contest Promotions to settle at the table. Next after more than one year of hard negotiations, the city baited Contest Promotions into an agreement what is a business im and communicated that to Contest Promotions in a manner that would protect Contest Promotions existing inventory, which is still up ending the completion of the ministry to proceedings that are before you now. Lying on this assurance, Contest Promotions dismiss the lawsuit it was winning could agree to summit new applications in a clear permit history and agreed to a 6 figure payment to the city to smooth the approval process with the board of supervisors. Finally, the city pulled the switch by outlining outline its own method of what was a business im on the same diet approved the settlement. The new definition of business im with design introduced and enacted for the sole and specific purpose of targeting Contest PromotionsSettlement Agreement. It denied Contest Promotions the benefit negotiated in good faith with the city and performed good there is well settled law in california since the 1980s than enacting and amending the Zoning Ordinance in order to target and prevent existing or permitted use is simply not legal. In the case of orono versus costa mesa 126330, i have a copy here if the attorney would like it, costa mesa approved the development of raymond. Excuse me a development project. After approval, legislation resuming the was passed about presenting the project from being built just a few months later the city refused to issue permits for the development relying on the new legislation. The court explained that without any significant change in circumstances without considering appropriate planning criteria, rezoning the property for the sole purpose of temp defeating the project was in doubt arbitrary and discriminatory. Here on the exact same day that the city set and agreed method of determining what a business sign is, and start the process of outlinedoutline this method it there was no change in circumstance. The citys ban on general advertising had been in effect since 2002. Is the reason the substantive amendment could not come any