the goal must be to reduce san francisco to the average, that is when you include the entire state, and every community, at this point we are at 12.8 percent. and so an overview, and so just you know that you have a visual of tobacco outlets there are 1100 at most any given point, and this indicates that these blue dots indicate all of the retailers. just to give you a idea of where our kids are sold tobacco. >> here are the red cross and now those are places where we have documented in the last three years that the retailers sold to a minor and they sold to 15 or 16 years of age. all of these red dots that you

see, these are instances in which a retailer for various reasons but ended up selling to a minor in sort of put that sales profit before the health of our community. so, very briefly, an overview of why tobacco sales are a crime. this is in some ways may be sort of obvious, but the reason that there is a concern of sales to people under of 18 that is when the young people become addicted and become connected to tobacco. and as you see, i won't speak for the commissioners and i am not certain of your age but i am well over 26 years old and anyone who reaches the grand old age of 26 is tremendously unlikely to ever become a smoker. 96 percent of smokers start before the age of 26. and in fact, 64 percent of smokers start before the age of 18. as you can imagine this is a sweet spot for young people to access tobacco and begin utilizing it. one other kind of sad point in tobacco use is that young people often think that they

are invisible and they can quit when they want and it is just a cool thing that i am doing for the moment but in fact, three out of 14 age smokers continue to smoke into adulthood. so they think that they can shake t but it is at that period when they become addicted and end up becoming life-long users. and for these reasons and many more, in 2003, the san francisco board of supervisors passed an ordinance, requiring a tobacco retail permit for every tobacco retailer for the privilege of selling tobacco products in our city. at this point, they stated san francisco has a substantial interest to promote in compliance with the youth sales law in protecting our children from illegally obtaining tobacco. so just the background of why this law exists. there is a lot of laws that exist, and one that i would really like to highlight is you see the old time law book here is the reason that a retailer if a clerk sells to a minor they get a ticket and it is

issued a ticket and a fine that is associated with it and it is for code 308 and a violation of a law that you cannot provide tobacco to a person under 18 years of age. and this is a new law? no. you see this book, it is actually from 1906. so the code, 308 you cannot provide tobacco to a minor, and it has been on the books i think from maybe the 1880s or something, but it was in the 1906 version for your interest. there are a lot of laws that have taken effect since then that reinforce the idea that it is illegal to sell to minors. so, these slides, i cannot necessarily read, but, many members of our comment can, the reason that we put these on is that we understand that many people who work in retail establishments and perhaps even own them may not be familiar with the 108-plus law in the state of california. and so we do education, from the department of public health

in four languages. we sent out in arabic chinese and spanish and english and i will talk about education next. retailers know this law and well informed that it is illegal to sell to minors, virtually know this law that i encounter. the san francisco department of public health provides a mailing every single year for the last seven years to all 1100 retailers, with all of these items in your packet you will see a copy of it in these four different languages. in fact we just sent ours out this year, at the first week of march. so just so you know, all retailers right now have just received the informational packet talking about sales to minors, and in addition when they applied to the state and the board of equalization to the tobacco sort of handling license and they received the education and there is an agency that some of it comes from which is an enforcement agency that does inspections locally as well. there is a lot of opportunities to be educated about this and

we at the department of public health try to do a great deal of prevention to be sure that everyone knows about the law. why is the city actively enforces? there is reasons related to health and addiction, and the stores that break the law and sell to youth are making the profit at the advantage of the law abiding stores and the advantage of of our young people in the community and they are creating an unfair business environment, the ten or 15 or 20 percent of the retailers who do choose to break the law and sell to minors, they are receiving all of the business of minors and young people who are seeking tobacco know exactly which stores to go to, so surveys of san francisco unified school district students showed that 58 percent of 11th graders said that it is very easy to access tobacco, that it is easy to access tobacco, i will not include the very word. so there is a responsibility, as a said the tobacco sales are a privilege that are offered to

people and retailers and the city of san francisco according to this ordinance. responsibilities come with that opportunity including the responsibility to conduct business in a legal and non-harmful way. the burden of legal sales relies on the store owner who must train all employees and is responsible for all activity that will occur at the business whether it is related to sexual harassment or the sale of drugs, and that is just a copy of 308. so if you will bear with me i would like to go through the activity and i am a health educator by training. this is a copy of a driver's license and i think that you received some information about these new driver licenses and they were issued in 2010. the first thing if you imagine, you are a retailer who looking at a license and like to see id and you and i have licenses

that go horizontally, if you are under 21, you have a license that is vertical. if they have to turn it sideways, that is a red flag that they are under 21. there are concerns about calculation and how difficult it is to figure out an age. it is a simple because there is a blue strip that says this person will not turn 18 until the year blank, and this card it says 2011. so, all you need to know is what year it presently is in order to identify whether this person is a minor or not. in the case of the decoy operations that the police department use they use 15 and 16-year-old children and so presently in this year, these licenses will always stay in the blue bar, 2015, 2016 or 17. and so any person who is asking for identification should clearly know that date is in the future and that this person is not yet 18. no calculation is required. briefly, the police department

protocol for this, to make sure that you have a background on why these cases make their way to you. age or 15 or 16. they must provide their valid id card if it is interested. so if the clerk says that i need to see your id, they give their actual identification card it is not pretending, it says their average age and that will be 18 in, 2015, and they have to tell the truth if they are asked if they are 18. and they will state, no i am 16. and a police inspector witnesses every transaction in the store. so there is always an inspector physically watching the transaction occur and that is why it is often not contested that the transaction occurred. just for your information, the san francisco police department visits 450 randomly selected stores every 18 months and that is just logistics and funding. and so as far as suspensions

assume thating they sell to a minor t goes through the process to the health department and the health director has the legal authority, according to the ordinance, the permit ordinance to suspend the tobacco sales permit and the authority as you know is to suspend for up to 90 days for the first violation which is a pretty rare occurrence as you see from the su pensions that come your way. just a little bit of overview, since 2005, there have been 500 police citations, in the inspections the police department has done in the last 8 years, 481 stores have sold to a minor and have received a pc308 ticket for that violation and then there have been 356 suspensions of licenses for various periods of time as well as appeals that have made their way to the board to this board, a portion of those, that is only about 21 percent, that end up at the appeal level from those that are suspended. they choose to appeal the decision, but kind of keeping in mind that all of the

suspended businesses sold to a minor and so that the same crime occurred in every intense choosing to appeal for various reasons. so just an overview for you also, looking at kind of some metrics of appeals and just the last three years. it is good to have a consistent system of dealing with it as a deterrent factor, i have witnessed a few of these meetings but in a lot of cases there is a protest about a variance or a zoning concern that in the cases that tobacco retailers come to you with a suspension of the tobacco license, a crime is already been committed it has been completed and there usually is

contestation of that. retailer does not say that it did not happen because there was an inspector observing it. so the licensing is effective as you saw, and really that was not of the board of supervisors in establishing the law. when the tobacco license is suspended it may be a discomfort and have to tell the regular customers that we can't tell at the moment, that is not just seizing the regular income, that it might loose the permit and lose the issues of making money. >> in the final conclusion, the application of the law ensures our progress for no illegal sales, we are sthaogt for a bench smart of less than 8.7 percent and we would certainly

love to see 0 as it is a law. if you have any questions. >> excellent presentation, mr. smith. >> i have a question just and not intended to go into it. >> sure. >> if you know the answer. how are you measuring the reduction of the sales? if you are shooting for an 8.7 percent, how is the department determining how they are getting this information. >> we do the random samples. but the department of health works with the police department and we create a random sample of approximately 450 stores to be visited every, it is about every 18 months and so we come up with kind of an annual, 18 month, and that is based on the random sample. which includes all supervisoral

districts and all substation districts but it is randomized in such a way that it will go to 450 stores selected randomly. >> okay. >> it is consistent with how the state does a very similar, you know, inspection across california. is the san francisco enforcement, are the enforcement protocols similar? or taylored off of what the state does? >> they are virtually identical. the state also uses 15 and 16-year-olds and both insurance insure that young people have a valid id, for example. a lot of particularly in san francisco a lot of them don't drive and would not have a place to park a car or have the means to operate a car. so in many cases they would not have a valid california id and so the police department assures that they have one. >> i have nothing further. >> is it your opinion that

every first violation should receive a 90-day suspension. >> i have no specific opinion. >> is it a greater deterrent? >> the best practices show that suspensions of license is the best deturant. some communities look at assessment of fines and that sort of thing, but in most cases those are not a deterrent, they are considered a cost of doing business and they do not result in the lowering. they do not result in retraining the staff or the owner saying that this is never going to happen again, let get on board and institute whatever processes we need to insure that this is not, that we are not repeat sales people >> but at the same time, many of them are you know, in our experience, we do find that through sales from year to year. >> okay, but in your mind is there any difference between a 45-day suspension verses a 90-day suspension? >> i don't have information, to

answer that, necessarily. 25 to 30 day has been effective. and that is kind of the standard that it seems that san francisco is being utilizing. >> okay. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> questions? >> yes, perhaps a last comment. the number of articles that have been coming out on the regular basis that the over all tobacco conception within the general population has also decreased. is there a correlation between that decrease and the decrease mentioned in your program? >> i believe so. yes, i think that every level, all communities in california are working to fight youth access to tobacco and in a variety of ways. and so effective programs like that which the san francisco police department is enforcing and that the environmental health department which administers the tobacco retail licenses, that this sort of moving forward with these and taking these as a serious issue

just as the board takes it as a serious issue, really does seem to be effective and that is why you saw the decrease that you saw from 2003 on ward and that the folks made a stand in san francisco and stated that sales of minors of tobacco is not acceptable. >> sorry, i have one more question, if you are done commissioner. >> so given that the statute seems to be based on knowledge that the person that sales must have knowledge or know under reasonable circumstances that they are selling to a minor. a part from the mailing that you send out that is in several languages, what other efforts has the department made to address any potential language barriers when you are doing public education around this issue? >> there are a variety of... i mentioned there is a slide that mentions efforts at the state level as well. i don't have 100 percent evidence about it but i would state that it is very unlikely that someone who sells tobacco

does not know that it is illegal to sell to an 18-year-old. because 18-year-olds know it and the general public is aware of that and this is not a new rule. i don't have a survey to back it up. but i don't believe that is particularly the barrier, the knowledge about it. sometimes it may be a matter of training, but again, the retailer is the one who takes out the permit and takes on then the responsibility of selling in a proper way as the ordinance states in a way that is not harmful to the community in particularly to the kids, that is the reason that we are most concerned. >> okay, thank you. >> that was very helpful. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> okay, so we have already announced that item number 5 was withdrawn and will not be heard and we will move to item 6 which is appeal 12-126.

second street mer khents verses department of public works bureau of street use mapping at 150 california street and 84, second street protesting the issuance on september 28th, 2012 to expresso subito llc, the sale of espresso drinks, this is merit number 1 1 mff0167 and the hearing was held and closed on january 16, 2013 and the matter for fur thir consideration and it was moved for hurtado to participate in the final vote. >> i wanted to find out from you whether you would like to move right into deliberation or whether you have other questions that you want? >> i don't have any questions, i am ready to move into deliberations. i want to put on the record that i was present at the original november 14, 2012, hearing whereas the permit was upheld by operation of law. i was also present at the december 12, 2012 hearing where

we granted the rehearing request. i was absent on january 16th, but i have watched the rather long video of those proceedings as well as read the hundreds of pages that were submitted on both sides. >> okay. >> i am ready to make my vote. >> okay. so if someone wants to make a motion, then a motion can be made. i don't think that there was a motion made last time it was just a straw vote. >> correct. >> >> everybody is looking at me.

>> i'm looking at commissioner hurtado. >> okay. >> you feel like you need to speak, or... >> well, yes. why don't i go ahead and do that. >> so i suppose that i should start by saying that i stand by my original vote on this issue of november of 2012, nothing that i have heard and in fact the passage of time has actually convinced me more that that was the correct vote in my opinion. the notice issue, i believes that been cured by subsequent hearing, subsequent briefings, subsequent public comment and everyone that i believe has had an adequate community to weigh in on this permit. i believe that the dpw exercises its discretion in interpreting the statute in a

way that is reasonable and the concerns that i have heard from the public in terms of excuse me, what the statute may or may not say, i think should be adequately addressed with the board of supervisors and it is our job to try to interpret the statute as it is written. excuse me. and i believe that we have attempted to do that in a fair way and in a consistent way. so i would vote to up hold the permit on that basis. and so moved. >> okay, is there any other commissioner comments? >> should we call the roll? >> we have a motion from commissioner hurtado to up hold the permit. >> do you care to stay a basis for your position?

>> on the basis that the notice given was adequate, that there is no like food within the radius required by law. and that the dpw exercises its discretion without any abuse of discretion. >> okay. so on that motion, to up hold the permit on the basises that are stated. commissioner fung? >> no. >> and president hwang? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> no. >> commissioner honda. >> no. >> thank you. >> the vote is 2-3 to up hold the permit, the motion fails however the charter requires four out of five to over turn or modify any departmental action and so unless there is

another motion, this permit would be upheld by default. >> okay. no motion, so the permit is upheld by permit. thank you. >> thank you. >> i will ask you to leave the room quietly as we call the next item we appreciate that, that is item number 7, appeal number 1 3-001, geraldine rosen verses the department of building inspection with the plan department approval. the property at 1041 shrader street protesting the insurance you ans on december 20, 2012 to laura and dave brown of a permit to alter a building and add crickets to the rear of the house for the proper roof drainage this is application, no 2:singer 012/12/20/6664. and we will hear from the appellant's attorney. >> mr. patterson, you have seven minutes.

>> maybe if you want to hold up one minute. >> actually, commissioner fung returns. >> yeah.

>> sorry. >> that is okay. >> okay. we are ready, thank you. >> good evening, president hwang and commissioners, (inaudible) appellant. and i report that (inaudible) the appellant and they were able to resolve their services regarding the property (inaudible) and therefore, we are withdrawing our appeal. >> okay. >> he will provide you with a form that we will ask you to fill out and i don't know if the permit holder is here and wants to speak or are you just here to represent and be done with it? >> i think that i am the last one remaining tonight. >> okay. >> thank you. >> all right. since we called the item i think that we should call for public comment, in case there is anyone who wants to speak on it here. >> okay.

>> all right. then we will move on. >> all right. >> we are calling item number 8, appeal, number 12-159 steven williams verses the department of building inspection, the property is at 125 crown terrace, protesting the issuance on november 28, 2012 to crown ter ans llc of the permit to alter a building, horizontal and vertical addition, this is application no, 2011/10/60/6315 s. and it is on for the hearing today and we will begin with the appellant, mr. williams. >> i am steve williams and i

represent the (inaudible) and the plans are still incorrect. you know, they said that they have had (inaudible) and the window locations (inaudible) there. >> objectively incorrect. and if you look at the building is three stories above grade. and at crown court and it is actually two stories above grade and here is a photograph that i took off of the internet this afternoon. here is the building and it is two stories and so, in numerous respects the plans are still incorrect and that the exist f shows three floors. and so this is confirmed that, incorrect and there is a design issue with this building as well. all of the buildings up there have openings decks and etc. on one side. this building breaks that pattern and breaks that concern. we went and laid out all of the

things that occurred along with this permit. all of the fixes are after the fact. >> so if you have the question about the environmental review after the permit was issued. >> it is not the way that it is supposed to work. it has been afile for a while and managed to straighten the items out as they went along. what this really is about for us, is this is an illegal demolition, and the destruction of the affordable housing in the city is one of the primary policies in the plan and something that this board should be concerned about. the manner in which the section, 317 is applied and

interpreted, by the planning department, is simply incorrect. you have a letter from former president of the board of supervisors ann peskin who is one of the chief sponsors of this legislation as well as former supervisor jake mgoldric is here and he was the chief sponsor and the author of this legislation and they are both saying that the interpretation given to this section by the department is incorrect. and the department tries to explain it, we attached as to our brief that this was attempted to be explained to commissioners sagaya at the planning commission and that section of the back and forth is attached as exhibit 20. if you look at the newspaper article that we attached