for a company that contracts with pg&e, actually. it basically supplies pg&e with trees specialists and arborists. i have been working for them for a little over five years now. within that company, a number of different positions. i have spent time working as an estimated harbor as -- and they would contact me so i could work as the go-between between what

they think they need in the city or the home owner or the property owner needs. that would make sure everyone is happy at the end. it is not as easy as it sounds. you have really helped grow that program. i also worked as a supervisor for my company. that was down in the south bay. it was really fun, but i was also shortly thereafter offered -- i taught at the program and make sure that they are doing a good job maintaining all of the clearance is the need to to make sure that we are not starting

things on fire. i go and basically report to pg&e and let them know how they are doing, how their vegetation management program is doing. that is my professional experience. i feel like the experience i have had within pg&e is so broad that i have a very good understanding of what their program entails. there is a lot of history that pg&e has in this city. there has been some conflict. it can only help things because we can see plans that are put forward and we can know if it is going to dovetail or butt heads. we can know if this is going to be a point of contention or not.

it is kind of a unique aspect to bring to this committee. i also have a certified while left protector, and other program that is offered for certified arborist. i think it is another aspect that can have light shed on the outreach of the forestry council. i also have taken courses, i don't know if you are familiar -- supervisor kim: i was going to ask you what that was. >> how to describe it? it is a way of assessing an

organization for the low hanging fruit of how you might optimizes system -- optimize the system. it is involve the maltese the process for you take in a project. you can apply it to almost any situation. but to assess what are some of the shortcomings, how might we approve this -- improve this and figure out a whole circle of steps. it is a much more involved process. it is about to identify areas that can use improvement and taking the steps to make that happen. several training programs focus on that. i can see that it could have a lot of application there.

supervisor kim: thank you so much for being here. are there any follow-up questions for my colleagues? seeing none, thank you again. >> great, thank you. i'm really excited about this, so -- [laughter] supervisor kim: we appreciate the enthusiasm. at this time i will now open up for public comment. is there any public comment on this item? please come up. >> good afternoon. my name is joe, and i'm a student at the college. i'm a first-year horticulture student. when i started last fall i wasn't sure what direction or what i'd encounter at city college, and malcolm is the type of person i had hoped for. he is inspirational. his base of knowledge in

horticulture is amazing. my head is usually bursting after four hours of lecture, so he's very thorough and very knowledgeable. you can see other students being very inspired by this in our class, students much younger than myself. we're going to have very long careers in horticulture, and you just see them being influenced by him. and for the last six weeks of class this semester, we have a team project where we're already going out in the field. we're volunteering as teams. my team has worked right on campus restoring natural plant life, so this is our experience right now. thank you. >> thank you so much for being here. you have some great students. all right.

any other public comment at this time? seeing none, public comment is now closed. [gavel pounds] colleagues, any suggestions or thoughts? we have three applicants for two seats. mr. hillen and ms. shirttor seat one and ms. suths land for seat three. it's my understanding that mr. hilland does not qualify for seat three, since his certification has lapsed. >> thanks, supervisor kim. i think, once again, we have a lot of great applicants here. for both seats. it seems to me that megan is the only one qualified for seat three, so i think that is, at least in my opinion, an easy one. the first one is obviously much tougher. two people who are currently assigned and one person who couldn't be here the last time. that means that in the future we'd love to find a way to get bonnie back on. but right now i find it

difficult, and mr. hilland is a strong candidate to continue to serve and so would support him continuing in seat one and then megan for seat three. supervisor kim: so we have a motion to move forward. mr. hilland for seat one and ms. suts land for seat three, with recommendation to the full board. i see no objection. i just really want to add, again, this is the tough part of being on rules committee is how qualified our applicants are and continue every week at the level of expertise and enthusiasm for the folks that come on for a variety of activities and task forces that have knowledge. i'm not an expert in that area. i want to work with miss sharp on potentially bringing you back in some other capacity. i think in terms of fulfilling the education seat, which is seat one, mr. hilland is clearly an instructor and

teaches many classes seems perfect. ms. sut they areland, it's great to have you, and we appointed another new member and it's good to have new membership on the committee as well. we really appreciate your enthusiasm coming to our commiment. i think we have no objections to this mocks with recommendation to the full board. thank you so much for coming to rules committee. madam clerk, can you please call item number four. >> item number four, considering appointing two members to the in-home supportive services public authority. there are two seats and two applicants. supervisor kim: thank you. i believe that both applicants are here today. i actually think that one applicant informed us she would not be able to be here today due to a prior conflict. and we have mr. boyd here. please come up.

again, both of these seats are re-appointments and they both sit on this committee currently. thank you so much for your service in this committee thus far. >> is that it? >> if you'd like to share a little bit about yourself, your interests on this committee and your qualifications, you can be very brief. >> ok, i'll just briefly impress you. i worked for many years with ed roberts, who is probably the greatest figure in disability history. he was just given a day, all california children and public education and state employees as of this year and from now on will be educated as to his life work. he basically put in-home care and independent living on the map. he was paralyzed from the neck down for 45 years, got a ph.d. at u.c.

after having to sue him in 1962 because they wouldn't allow disabled people to attend higher education. when he died his obituary in los angeles said he was the caesar chavez of disability. washington, d.c. called him the martin luther king of disability. they said he was the national mahatma gandhi on disability. as of next year everyone in california and possibly across the country, as george miller introduced the bill, a national day. supervisor kim: thank you, mr. boyd. at this time we'll open it up for public comment. two minutes. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i'm patrick from the san francisco public authority. i thought since mike said so much about ed, i'd say a little

bit about mike. mike, as you know, has been on our board for many years. he's been involved in disability politics for about 40 years. he's a home-care worker himself. he was a specialist assistant to ed roberts and traveled all over the world with him teaching disability politics. he's also been a union steward. he represents -- continues to represent the public authority at many conferences, and i wanted to add he also has the full support of -- of staff liaison and also his fellow board members. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you so much for being here. we really appreciate the work that ihsf does for our city. any other public comment at this time? seeing none, public comments is now closed. colleagues, we have two applicant for two seats and we have a motion. >> sure. i'd say mr. boyd, thank you for your service. i think the motion to move mr.

boyd forward with recommendation for seat one and continue seat 13 to the call of the chair. without hearing from someone in person, it's a little bit challenging. supervisor kim: we'll hear from the department, yes, please. >> yeah, i just wanted to add, i think alice wanted to extends to all of you a statement. maybe i could read that. supervisor kim: we actually have the statement, so -- >> well, alice has been on our board for many years. she served and is currently serving her third term as board president. she's a staff research associate at ucsf working on person care assistance and issues. unfortunately, she apologized for not being able to be here today, but she's been a great asset to our board and continues to be, so i'd also like to add, of course, that she has the full support of staff and her fellow board members. thank you. supervisor kim: thank you. is there any issue, if we do continue this item, in terms of meetings or quorum?

i know that she chairs the task committee, for us to continue it to a time where she can be here in front of us? >> i don't know of any. she has a regular job, so i don't know if that was the conflict or what, but -- supervisor kim: ok, thank you. i'm happy to move forward, mr. boyd, for seat one. i'm happy to continue seat 13. and i'm also happy to move forward with the recommendation as well. >> i'd suggest we move her forward. there are no other applicants. if there were other applicants, maybe, but her history would be good, so i suggest we move both names forward with recommendations. supervisor kim: ok. so without objection, we will move forward. both mr. boyd for seat one and

ms. wong for seat 13 with recommendation to the full board without objection. madam clerk, can you please call item number five. >> ordinance amending coordination in the code enforcement efforts of city departments and to establish code enforcement activities. supervisor kim: thank you. we have heard from the sponsor of this legislation that it's his intent to file this ordinance. before that, we do need to hear public comment on the motion to file. any public comment at this time on this item? seeing none, public comments is now closed. may we have a motion to file this item? thank you. can we do this without objection? so we will move this item forward -- i'm sorry. we will file this ordinance. madam clerk, do you have any further announcements? >> no, madam chair. supervisor kim: seeing none, this meeting is now adjourned.

thank you colleagues and members of the public. [meeting adjourned at 5:40 p.m..] >> good evening. welcome to the april 6, 2011 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is president goh.

michael garcia will be absent this evening. the deputy city attorney will provide any needed legal advice on the first appeal on tonight's calendar, after which kathryn barnes will be on hand to assist the board. to my right is the legal process court. i am the board's executive director. we are joined by representatives from some of the city departments who will have cases before the board this evening. scott chances is here, the city zoning administrator -- scott sanchez is here, the city zoning and minister, also representing the planning department. the senior building inspector is representing the department of building inspection. we have the environmental health section of the department of public health. jarvis murray is representing muni. i am going to go over meeting

guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. the board requests to turn off all phones, beepers, and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and department respondents have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board, and no rebuttal. please speak into the end of the microphone. to assist in accurate proportion of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card. they are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are forms on the podium for your convenience. the board rules for -- if you are interested in more

information, please contact the staff after the meeting or at our office. this meeting is broadcast on sfgtv and rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00. dvd's are available for purchase. i will swear or affirm in all those who intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings. please stand, raise your right hand, and say "i do" after you have been affirmed. do you swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. moving on to our agenda, the first item is public comment. is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda? seeing none, moving to item 2 below, commissioner comments and

questions -- to item two, commissioner comments and questions. commissioner hwang: on the next hearing, and the need to leave early -- i mean need to leave early, 6:45. >> is that april 20? we will move to item three. before you, discussion and possible adoption of the meetings from the march 23 meeting. president goh: i do not see any comments. i will move their adoption. >> public comment on the minutes? seeing none, i will call the roll on that. a motion by president goh to adopt the minutes.

commissioner fung: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> that motion carries a 4-0. we'll go to the next item, item four, appeal 10-131, ike's place versus the zoning administrator for the subject property on 16th street. appealing in of this a violation and penalty, regarding allegation of illegal commercial activities. jurisdiction was granted on november 17. please note this matter was on the march 23, 2011 calendar and was continued to allow the appellant and opportunity to review the subject property owner's brief. we will start with the

appellant's attorney, mr. fukuda. you will have seven minutes. >> i will be brief. the first item i want to mention is that the actual appellant is a california corporation. ike's place is the business name. i simply ask the commission to recognize the true appellant in this matter. i would start by saying that bike -- that ike has suffered expensive lessons and learned a great deal in this matter with regard to his property. briefly, historically, he and his mother bought this 400

square foot store from a seller in 2007 and paid $3,000 for that store. they installed approximately 100 dozen dollars of equipment in the store. ike's mother took out mortgages on her house to finance the purchase of the business and operate the business. ike has improved the business for over two years. he went from no employees to -- he had 50 employees. in terms of the application, the city did not request a conditional use application for two per se -- for two years after he occupied the premises. the planning department advised him to apply for a conditional

use permit last spring for specialty food-service, which he did. ike spent $5,000 for that application and hired an expediter to move the application forward. ike was a sub-tenant. his sub-landloard of the conditional use application with the planning department. however, he became sick. he suffered a serious cancer problem. due to the cancer problem and his financial problems, mr. chao made a faulty judgment in the eviction matter, which gave ike no remedy in the law. in terms of the conditional use application, the city process the application. unfortunately, the landlords attorney, in my opinion, changed

her opinion and wrote a letter to the planning department which in essence blocked ike from continuing with this application. further, the landlord blocked ike from making corrective actions on building code and health department violations. ike was intending to make corrections and repairs on those measures, but the landlord's attorney prevented him from making any corrective action in the building. as a result of having to move, he moved to a temporary location last september. he has been there until now. he now has a new location. because of the fact he has had to have that temporary location, that cost him quite a bit of money. he is about to move to his permanent location. as a result, the disruption cost is approximately $100,000.

moreover, because of this double move and not having the full scope of time in a given week to operate -- he cannot operate on sundays, for example. he has lost over a hundred thousand dollars of sales. because of that, he has been forced to lay off several staff, because of the double move and the loss of a certain amount of business. as a result of the temporary location, ike spent time looking for a new location. he found one. in december, the planning commission unanimously approved the new location. he hopes to move to that new location, hopefully next week. that is with your help. so i would suggest to you that

in the eviction matter -- the superior court took, in my opinion, a health the medium in regard to this issue -- a healthy medium in regard to this issue. the landlord sought $30,000 of attorneys' fees from ike, and the judge felt ike had suffered enough. as a matter of law, that is the end result. my request would be that the commission recognized what the superior court did as an accommodation to ike because of the fact he has spent a substantial amount of money prosecuting the conditional use permit and was not able to complete it, through no fault of his own. in essence, the landlord blocked his application for a conditional use. he made the application promptly

after kate conner asked ike to proceed with it. and he found a temporary location. but it is very difficult to move a business instantaneously, so it took a month or so to find the new location. but he moved promptly. as a small business owner, i think he did the best -- he made the best efforts he could, in terms of solving the issue with regard to the conditional use application. my request to the commission is very simple -- that you not penalize ike for this issue of the delay. i would ask the commission to recognize that he did make his best a efforts to comply with the law, and to make that filing for the conditional use. my recommendation would be that

any penalty i do not agree to, by virtue of the fact i stated. if there would be any penalty, it should be imposed on the landlord, who in essence blocked a remedy. thank you the opportunity of making a presentation. >> thank you. we can hear from the property owner or his agent or attorney. >> good evening. i represent dennis drobitch, the property owner where ike's place was located. we have no objection to the request that the fine be reduced