probation and said don't do it again and if you are okay in one year, we won't impose this penalty on you. >> and you didn't bring any examples of that? >> yes, there was an example, i believe it's called the palm tree. is that correct? thank you for your kindness and cooperation. they had four citations,. they were opened past midnight. they had one woman there who was arrested or cited for prostitution. there was also allegations of skimpy attire, the attire was not appropriate. it was a little higher magnitude in this case, and that resulted in a net of 30 days suspension. >> recently within the last couple of years? >> i believe it was recent.

i heard it was last year. but i also looked in dph records and looks more like it was 2006. they don't suspend that often. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> in addressing the severity of the penalty, in fact, under the law, under both the ordinance and the regulations, the only penaltis that require a showing of prior violations in order to increase are the administrative fines. from the very first infraction the department of public health has the discretion to revoke a massage permit. the fact it hasn't in this case

despite repeated violations, discovered both by the public health inspectors and in operations with the police is a gift. it is a gift from the department of public health that that permit will still exist after this hearing, if the decision here is upheld. i really don't think there is any ground to reduce the penalty. i think if anything, the penalty is still quite gracious. you have a repeat violator in front of you. she is unpreentent and keeps doing it. the attempts to nit pick with the hearings and was everything that we did absolutely perfect? no, but that is not the standard. she certainly had a fair hearing. she certainly had an opportunity to present her case to dph and if she didn't, she

certainly had that unt opportunity and more before you. i don't think there is any grounds to overturn the hearing officer's decision and i hope you agree. >> thank you >> are you aware of any other suspensions? how often do these type of establishments have violations and is there a normal standard of suspension or track record? >> i'm not prepared to talk about all of dph's massage cases. i am prepared to talk about this one. i can have ed walsh talk about that one. he is the inspector. >> okay. >> would you like him to? >> if he is able to answer that question. >> are you? >> yes. >> good evening commissioners. i'm ed walsh, i'm the senior environmental health inspector of the massage program for about 8.5 years. i have 28

years' experience as being a city employee with the city and county of san francisco, as a health inspector. regarding penalties for violations, we have a number of violations that we look for, and we fine people or suspend permits. most common violations are practitioners without proper attire, practitioners that don't have licenses and for violations of employeing unlicensed practitioners. those violations usually incur a fine of maybe $1,000 at the first offense and goes all the way up to $5,000 for the third repeat offense. in the two-year period, we keep track of those violations and when we find them, we bring them to the hearing, and

appropriately request those penalties. in the case of illegal activities such as prostitution, the fines are a little more stringent and it gives us the opportunity to suspend or revoke permits, if there is prosecution. i'm here to answer questions >> my question is how often are suspensions given for these? >> probably in the last year or so, this is the first one we have suspended this year. we have closed a lot of facilities for operating without permits. but as far as suspensions, or revocations, this year, this would be the first one. >> for 2012? >> for 2012, i believe there was probably one also. >> and how long was that suspension for? >> i think mr. horcher was referring to the palm tree. i think that was for

prostitution and that was originally it was a 30-day suspension. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. counselor, i had a question for you. you do not or maybe you do. do you dispute the case history against this establishment in terms of what had been -- which cases have been thrown out and which ones have been carried forth? he indicated the three in his brief, the previous years. >> in terms of the police reports? >> yes. >> actually, i don't take a position on that, because i did not run those down. and the reason was that his argument in that case was that you had to prosecute a case all the way to conviction for it to count. and that is actually not the

legal standard. and so i didn't -- i didn't spend my resources tracking down the ultimate disposition of those cases. it is enough for the hearing officer to find that those prior violations occurred regardless of whether or not they eventually led to a conviction. and the hearing officer could properly make that finding based on the sworn police report in front of him. there is case law clearly on point that says that is an appropriate basis and substantial evidence for administrative fact-finding, both the sworn declaration of the police officer and the police officer relating the testimony of other people who had been in the vice team who also participated. so can i say for sure what happened in those cases? no, i can't, but there is no indication that the

factual predicate was wrong. it was proper. >> statement sorry, one last question. was there a fine that was levied towards the ceo? >> yes, there is a $2500 fine being levieed >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners barring any further questions, the matter is submitted. >> might i make clear to the commissioners what is before you tonight is the permit itself. but the board has not given you jurisdiction over the fee part of this. so it's really the suspension of the permit that you get to decide on. >> thank you. >> and also, just for clarification, we have no jurisdiction to reduce the penalty? >> right.

>> that is correct. up or down? >> i'm sorry, clarification. >> there is no reduction. we have no authority up or down? >> you can modify it. >> yes. you can modify the suspension, but not the fee, the fine, the money. >> thank you. earlier i misunderstood. thanks. >> i mean, are we having conversation? >> yes, please >> looking and going over the file, evidently, this is not the first or the second, or the third. but the reason why i asked for previous background regarding suspensions is that is somewhat of a standard that has been set to follow along with what has been given in the past. i don't know regarding, i guess, the three palms or six

palms, how many times they had been caught for violations. so i'm not sure if we go from 30 to 90, if that is appropriate, or if it is appropriate, that is my feeling. and so i'm not sure. i will leave it to the rest of the commissioners for me to hear some more dialogue. >> i think my issue is sort of recidivism issue. so 90-day suspension is not a year. it's into not a revocation. it's somewhere in between. i find persuasive the briefing of the city attorney on the notice issue, as well as uncompelling the briefing on the jurisdiction issue on the part of the appellant. as far as the penalty itself,

my generinclination is to uphold as it is. >> i would agree with that. i feel there have been multiple efforts to try to stall on this, to somehow set up a case where there wasn't going to be jurisdiction. i believe the deputy city attorney forewarned us about that at the last hearing. i think we were generous in allowing this case to be delayed for change of counsel and proper briefing. but i continue to be persuaded by the facts and what i have read, that this is a series of violations and this is an appropriate suspension. >> okay.it's interesting in terms of history, because this board back in the '80s, every meeting there would be a

suspension or a revocation case related to a massage establishment? >> when was this. in the '80s and mimes more sometimes more than one. i don't know if the numbers has gone down or they are obeying the law more. >> you did your job in the '80s. >> the question here, i don't think there has been a lot of dispute over the incidents. there is probably some dispute over the exact happenstance over the more serious incident and therefore, i accept that there has been a number of issues here that warrant some level of penalty. the contrary side to that is the fact that there were some due process issues. one in terms of the 20 days.

and i was also not overly impressed by the nature of the hearing process that i read in the transcript. it was not very well-done and i didn't think it was just an issue of language, but what i read into statements. how people were directed. how they were allowed -- and i didn't find it very appropriate to a city agency in terms of how we deal with our citizens, no matter how guilty they may be. so i would probably, based on that, as a counter, and i don't disagree that they have found significant incidents that warrant penalty, but i would reduce the penalty, just because of the due process issues. >> what is your proposal? >> i would reduce it to 30

days. >> you want to bargain 60? >> split it at 45? >> i could get behind 60. >> split it or 60? >> 60. >> i'm comfortable with 60. >> i'm comfortable with 90, but i'm go to 60. >> i accept. i would move to uphold the appeal and reduce the penalty to 60 days suspension. do you need findings? >> would that be on the basis? >> on the basis that the notice was faulty. >> okay. >> i can't get behind that basis actually that the notice was faulty. >> what would you? >> i would say that there were questions raised regarding

process at the hearing level, but not notice. >> all right, due to questions related to process. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner fung. to grant this appeal and reduce the suspension from 90 days to 60 days on the basis of questions related to the process at the departmental hearing. >> yes. thank you. >> on that motion to reduce president hwang? >> aye. >> and commissioner hurtado is absent. vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0 and the suspension is reduced to 60 days. >> there is no further business. >> thank you, this meeting is

adjourned. >> what's up san franciscans? we are very much in the the giving of the year. perfect time to learn something new and have a little fun. here are some events that can be shared to start the year right. on tuesday jerry 22 - an evening of live art making. come watch these talented folks draw and paint and maybe create art of around. maybe you are more of a scientist. cal academy's night light.

tri hands-on activities real scientist, compare hearts and brains of animals against humans. tickets are 12 bucks. don't miss month-long event. at this saturday, join the american civil war association commemoration of the 150th anniversary of the civil war. colorful uniforms and soldiers. that's the week buzz. visit us at sftv.org

. >> good afternoon, everyone, the monday, january 14, 2013 meeting of the land use committee. our clerk is mr. derek evans. >> please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices. all documents included as part of the file

should be submitted to the clerk. items acted upon today will be acted upon in the january 29, 2013 board of supervisors meeting unless otherwise stated. >> we only have two items on this agenda. >> item 1 is an ordinance amending the san francisco business code to permit permit expirations and extensions and to modify various fees. >> we have from the department of building inspection pamela levitt >> good afternoon, pamela levin, deputy director administrative services, department of building inspection. the legislation before you is designed it achieve the following objectives. the first is to continue to encourage the growth in the economy by extending the life for review and approval for permit applications for large projects from 360 to 720 days, clarifying the time limitations for permit processing so that it begins when the permit is provided to dbi for review and the clock stops when it is returned to planning for a design change that is required by the building department. extending the period of time for dbi to notify a project sponsor before a permit is

canceled, and extending the time for completing all the work authorized by a building permit. the second objective was to correct a publication error for the fees associated with 3r reports. this error occurred during the last code cycle when it was published. and the final is to reduce fees for copying plans to the levels consistent with the sunshine task force's recommendations. this

legislation was unanimously approved by the building inspection commission in march of 2012. i'll be glad to answer any questions. >> i see no questions -- supervisor cohen. >> hi, good afternoon, pam. i have a quick question about the proposal for increasing the time period for the permit, extensions from 365 days to 2 -- excuse me to 720 days. i just wanted to know the reasons for this. >> pamela levin. every month we have a meeting with the code -- citizen advisory committee of the building inspection department and one of the things that routinely came up is that people would have to come back and extend their permit even though they had, you know, it was stuck in one of the departments for a review and so in order to try to make it more advantageous for people to have permits to go through the process, to not keep coming back and having to pay again and again, we decided that we would extend it. >> okay. and another quick question about a timeline. the

timeline when the ipic will be completing their infrastructure project, do you know what the timeline is, the proposed timeline? >> yes, what happens is that you have, depending upon your valuation of your permit, you have, like, for smaller permits you have a year and then you can extend it for another year, but if you have anything over $100,000 to essentially just below 2.5 million, you have 180 days to do the work but then you would only have another year. and so what we're trying to do is be cognizant of the fact that it does take a long time to get large projects on

the ground, it takes a long time to go through the process, make sure that you are meeting all the regulations of the city so we wanted to give enough time for people to be able to complete their projects. >> great, thank you very much. >> thank you. seeing no other questions let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak? seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues, can we move this forward for a positive recommendation without objection? thank you. mr. evans, could you please call item 2. >> item no. 2 is a hearing on the interagency plan

implementation committee's annual progress report and the controller's development impact fee report. >> thank you. i have called this annual hearing for today and presenting for the planning department is adam ferret we need the other mic on. it should be on. >> good afternoon, supervisors, adam barrett from the planning department. this is annual report and presentation about the report of the interagency plan implementation committee.