taken, and i am sure that he will make good on his commitments taken tonight. president goh: well, i am torn. i agree with what has been said to some extent, and i am also concerned when an alleged senior is told "we are going to give you a note one way or another, and if need be, we will eillis act, and the notices are a little bit troubling, too, finding out after the 15-day

period -- 15-day period to appeal. on the other hand, we do need to show that it was some act of the city that caused the delay in filing, so i am not sure that i see that or that i see it well enough. commissioner hwang: there are some statements on the record were a do not see any support for those statements. it is difficult here to try to make a finding of fact when all the facts are not before you,

but -- i do not know. i do not know where i am going to fall at this point. this is a difficult one, but as -- because as president goh said, it does trouble me when tenants are evicted. an inconvenience is not a small thing, and while the city has some laws to help ameliorate it, it is sometimes not enough, so that is where the conflict lies, but this is a jurisdiction request. commissioner fung: commissioners, i am going to move to deny the jurisdiction request. director fung: on the motion to deny both of the jurisdiction requests, president gohm commissioner petersonm

commissioner hwangm ijm -- ok, and vice president garcia is absent, and the boat is 2-2, and the request will be denied as a matter of what. so, president goh, should i call the next item? ok. president goh: this one, one second. commissioners, do you want a break? we have two more. let's go ahead. director goldstein: ok, we are going to go to item number six, for the division of taxis and

accessible services. this is about an appeal of a taxi medallion. jurisdiction was granted. the public hearing was held in december 2010, and it is for further consideration today. the matter was continued to allow time for the mta to about the weight. we will hear from the parties, starting with the appellant. >> three minutes, starting now. with great reluctance but with the firm belief is in the best interest of the appellants, i and went to request an appearance -- a continuance to have the full board hear this.

director goldstein: as you understand, when there is a missing commissioner, and the vote would make a difference -- >> my understanding in that in order to overturn the decision, and for your votes are needed. director goldstein: if you have three votes, " where the missing commissioner would have a difference, it would be continued. >> i'd like to ask a continuance. i would not like -- i do not want to do it, but i would feel bad if i did not. commissioner fung: we should allow the city to respond. president goh: i am sorry. what did you say? commissioner fung: we should

allow the city to respond. >> we have no objection to a continuance. president goh: ok, it looks like the next possible date of the full board, when you will be here at 1:00 a.m. would be may 25. is that acceptable? directors goldstein: you have seven items on the calendar for that night. >> yes, that is acceptable. president goh: directors goldstein just reminded me that we already have seven items on that calendar, so we will be quite late, because the next day to where we have a full board is not until july 20. >> so we would be item number

what on the 25th? >> it -- president goh: on may 25, you would be eighth, i think. director goldstein: typically, continued cases would be earlier, but someone will be at 1:00 a.m.. >> we would like to have the earliest possible date, but i feel very strongly that it is in the client's best interest to let everyone here, everyone discuss it, and everyone vote on it at the same time. commissioner fung: commissioners, given the recent history where some of the meetings of gone extremely long, i think it is unfair, not only to commissioners who are tired, but to the public and to the appellants with respect to how much energy and how much attention we can apply to their cases, so i would suggest that

we do not block this. nobody is prejudiced by this. for the final records for 2011, i would suggest that we take it out to july 20. president goh: >> the other option is to just hear it tonight, and then brought -- vice president garcia would watch the video. those could be the two choices, and the appellate might -- i am sorry, director goldstein, do you have a comment? commissioner hwang: the other item would be to re-order this and put it an -- at the end. president goh: typically, we do

not like the department to stay, but you're indicating that it would be ok with you. mr. jarvis is indicating that that would be fine with him. there are three alternatives on the table now, and we are getting what counsel. it seems that there are three alternatives on the table now. commissioner fung: i am used to the late hours, but there have been some recent meetings where i have recognized that the energy was lacking. president goh: yes, they are brutal. >> yes, they are brutal. president goh: i would just assume here in july 20 it. we can hear it now or july 20.

absolutely, please. >> just a moment. president goh: yes, please.

>> a point of information, was one of the alternatives for commissioner garcia to watch the meeting and vote? president goh: if you were to go forward, we would continue to allow him to vote, in which case he needs to watch the video, and

then -- >> then i understood. four votes. we would have five people present. president goh: i understand. >> may i talk to mr. g >> we are resuming be april 6, 2011, meeting of the board of appeals. >> in the interest of having every one year, healthy and happy, we will go for july, even though we do not like the length of time. we think it is the most optimal solution.

that is july 21? director goldstein: 20th. president goh: is there a motion, commissioners? commissioner fung: a motion to continue it until july 20. president goh: no further briefing? commissioner fung: i think they should be allowed a short one. if something has changed, i think that is ok, a maximum of three pages. director goldstein: do you want simultaneous briefing? commissioner fung: that would be

fine. director goldstein: unlimited exhibits. the thursday prior to the hearing. mr. murray, do you understand? ok. three pages. and i called for public comment already, so i will call the roll. this is on commissioner fung's motion to continue this until july 20, 2011. president goh, commissioner peterson, commissioner hwang. the motion carries, and this matter is continued. >> thank you. director goldstein: ok, we will move on to our last item, item number seven, appeal no. 10-134.

avef abdelhlim, the appeal of a suspension of the tobacco products hills establishment permit, about selling tobacco to minors. we will start with the appellant. or the appellant's representative. >> by a.m. also going to request a continuance to a date when all five members of the board are here. unfortunately, i have to ask for that very crowded made calendar. my client has informed may that the family is going to be going back to jordan for the month of july and will not be back until september, so i would ask for the continuance so the full board can hear and consider all

the evidence surrounding this appeal. president goh: in order to grant a continuance, first, one of the commissioners has to make a motion. first, let's hear from the department. >> i am a representative of the health department. on behalf of the department, i will object to the may continuance. this is the second time. i think we were supposed to have this case -- we reluctantly granted a continuance. i do not know of the absence of the vice president will make a big difference. president goh: ok, thank you. commissioners, if we were going to have a continuance, we would have to about a motion for a continuance, and i would be disinclined for the reasons stated by the department.

commissioner hwang: in this case, they are objecting to, particularly given that this is a second request. >> he wanted to retain counsel, so he went to the office and asked for a representative. there was nothing prior to tonight. president goh: ok, commissioners? is anyone inclined to move for a continuance? like i said, i am declined, but if there is a motion, i will hear it. i do not see a motion from anyone. we will hear it. >> this matter was a complaint of a store selling cigarettes to a minor.

the hearing occurred on -- i am not sure of the date of the hearing. there were approximately 11 other cases that were heard on the same day, and the same penalty was imposed for each and every incident of a store that had sold cigarettes to a minor, and that was the standard cookie cutter approach of a 25-day suspension. this market has been in business for 37 years. there has never been in violation or an accusation of the permit or the restrictions on the sale of cigarettes to a minor in 37 years. what their record reflected at the hearing is that an employee of the store who had just returned to work, a part-time employe you, he had just returned to work. his mother had died. he was rather distressed.

the individual came into the store. showed again vacation. " the employee you look at the headend vacation, misread it, and did on this one circumstance sell cigarettes to a minor. i would like to have the opportunity to look at their identification of the minor to see whether or not that individual does, in fact, look older or younger than 18 years of age. this is an individual who, as i have said, has run the business for 37 years without incident. he, in his statement to the board, indicated that the point that the store

does sell cigarettes attract people into the store so that the purchase everything that is for sale there. so a 25 basis pension would have a serious financial impact. we are asking the board of appeals to consider the totality of the circumstances, the fact that this has been a business that has operated for 37 years and has paid taxes, that has employed people, that generates revenue for san francisco, and that would be negatively impacted by such a long suspension of sales of the cigarettes. i would like the opportunity to at least look at the id of the minor to see whether or not that person does look older not. it is true, however, that the employee did review the identification, miss read it, and sold the sale. the employee is not here today,

but the narrative is that it was this employee the works part time that did make the sale in this case. president goh: can you explain why it is relevant to see the idea of the minor if the employee did look at the idea and it showed the decoy as being under age? >> it is my understanding that the employee's first language is spanish. he may have misread the identification. clearly, the identification showed that the person was underage. nonetheless, it has been a factor in some of these cases. i believe the last time i was here at one of the hearings, an issue of the identity of the face specter of the id for some of the decoys does not represent what the decoys look back. given this particular individual's emotional state, there may have been some confusion between the face he

looked at and the dates on the identification for the board to consider. president goh: i think i understand. thank you. commissioner fung: one of the points being made by appellant or by you was that there is no record of the tickets. >> i think what the column means by that is he received a citation and the citation indicated that it was a misdemeanor and he was cited to appear at 850 brian street on the date at the bottom of the citation. he did appear on that day. the clerk told him -- i was not his attorney at that point. the clerk in room 101 at 850 bryant st. said there was no record of this having ever been filed as a criminal complaint. not that the citation itself does not exist.

the other point i did want to make was that the citation -- the date on the citation, i believe, is december 18. let me just check the sedation -- the citation date -- the narrative was the 19th. the citation is december 18. the narrative supplied by the department was september 19. the last time i was here, there was a discrepancy between the citation and the date contained in the police report. the board did take that into consideration and fashion a remedy to reduce the time of the suspension. commissioner hwang: i have one question. there was a sub middle -- submittal on the part of your client. it is two pages.

i was perplexed by 0.7 and 8 and wanted you to address them. -- i was perplexed by points seven and eight and wanted you to address them. >> you wanted me to address? commissioner hwang: paragraphs 7 and 8. i am just curious about those. there is an accusation pointed at the decoy. >> i did not procure this document. i guess it is illegal for a minor to purchase cigarettes, but that is really not what we are here to determine today. commissioner hwang: so you did not help prepare this document?

>> i was not retained until after this document was submitted. i think sometimes people in their own defense -- commissioner hwang: got it. thank you. >> dr. ojo? >> commissioner, good evening. the department of public health found out the appellant was doing business and violated the san francisco health code and the california penal code when he sold cigarettes to a 16-year- old minor decoy on december 19. i do not have any reason to doubt the police officers.

they are well-trained officers. i do not have any reason to doubt they were using somebody that does not look his or her age. if this were the case, the clerk did look at the id, whether or not he is able to read the id is not the issue at this point. on december 8, 2010, in accordance with the health code, the department suspended the permit to operate for 25 days. in the appellate's argument, it states the suspension or loss of income is his employee's responsibility. he is not taking responsibility for what his agent in this case did at the store.

the agent was working on behalf of this -- on behalf of the owner, and does not have the fall responsibility of the permit requirement for that store. in the counsel's argument, he said the suspension was too severe. the appellant has failed to provide documentation as to the percentage of his store's record -- stores' revenue that is based on tobacco sales. affidavits submitted by our client and the police department does say they misstated the incident as being september 18. they did fly -- did file an incidental supplemental report saying it took place on september 19.

we personally fell the appellant's agent was acting on the appellant's behalf and it was the appellant's opportune sheet -- responsibility to ensure his agents are well trained in the law of selling cigarettes to minors. the suspension, i think, is very reasonable. the department asks that the board denied the appeal. president goh: i need to see a written law from the health department where it says -- can you talk about how shopkeeper's know about the prohibition and the penalty for selling cigarettes to minors?

>> at the point of issuance of permits to operate, usually the applicant, in this case the appellant, received that information. during our routine inspection, my inspectors also mentioned it to the operators the need to display the products properly and the need for them not to sell to minors. the tobacco-free projects also mail out reminders every year to all the establishments. president goh: do these materials indicate that for a first offense it is up to 90 days? commissioner hwang: