there was presence of light food within the area and that's why we disapproved the application >> which businesses objected? >> one was j.k. l corporation at 90 montgomery street. >> do you know what kind of business that is? >> no, i'm sorry. and one was from my property management copy on montgomery >> was there any discussion related to the details of why you think it's light food? >> not specifically just the fact that we took it for china

that it was a food in one form or another we felt this was light foods. >> are you aware of a case that was even at our last meeting regarding a coffee where that was determined that the coffee cart was not like the other light foods in the adjacent area? i'm not certain how you say that's light food? i don't know >> it seems inconsistent to me and . >> thank you and any public comment on this item? okay

seeing none we'll take rebuttal. >> i just wanted to address the objection letters. the property management they were i read those letters the generic objections of the food cart in the area it was not specific inform our cart of what we're doing. i got the letters when i applied for the permit when i applied to the other spots that's the generic objections to every person that applied >> so i'm clear you received an identical letter for the carts

you have permits for? >> i've been granted permit on 4 hundred montgomery which is the same buildings around it and i think every food application gets those letters all the property management companies sends out a letter where they object it's competition. >> so the arguments are generic but it's not the same objector. >> yes and i think earlier you stated the reason you didn't believe the congestion was a problem i'm paraphrasing is this area is not any different than any other financial area? that you yeah, because - so i can

understand if it's near the moscone center or the mall where there's more traffic but since i've gotten permit other food operations have gotten permits and even around my area there are 2 food trucks that got permits so i could not understand why this spot was two too congested but i didn't see it to be at this point we would add to the congestion. just gum a conditional permit if i can't see something that's impossible if there's complaints

in 6 months i'll remove the cart >> what is the width at the sidewalks of your other locates. >> market street s is thirty feet by it also has forefoot traffic it has - actually no, the market street near 298 there's a plaza in front of the that it feels boarder because theirs planets and things like that. the other one is 12 feet and the sidewalk is also 12 feet on new montgomery

>> any rebuttal? i think there's a question for you. please come forward >> is there such a thing as a come permit that you can issue for six months significant to review? >> yes. >> and what's the time limit and one with this

>> i believe although contrary to the president comment i would take the consistencies in a different way. >> i'm not sure i follow the coffee cart. >> yes. the coffee truck not caterpillar i would accept a conditional on this basis. >> i would as well if that's a motion i want to make. i move that we grant a 6 month conditional permit >> and do i want to state a basis? >> on a basis this does not seemed to me that be a light food and the 6 months permit

will allow for analysis of the 6 month impact. >> we have a motion from the vice president to grant the appeal and issue a 6 month permit conditional permit with the following finding. first that this indian does not appear to be a light food and the 6 month period will allow to look at the traffic and congestion. on that motion let's take a vote

the vote is four to zero denial overruled with those findings in the 6 month condition. >> we'll move on to item number 616 - 101 doing business at the a location that is requesting the lifting of suspension from selling tobacco to minors. >> i'm the owner of the market at 1251 in san francisco. i have an employee and one of my

employee sells cigarette to minor and he was supposed to not do that. i said to that one i always no, it was my employee to follow my rules which is to abide by the law not to sell any alcohol or liquor to minors and to be professional. but unfortunately, it happened on november last year. so i'm not arguing that i shunt shouldn't be penalized. but with this said that my final statement is that i have a problem of paying my employee and my landlord and whatever

money i owe. i have also some kind of money i have to pay for irs and i'm in financial depress right now. my argument is not to be penalized but a different penalty. my license was suspended and i'm in financial trouble. i think my penalty should be lessor. i gave you all the documents i have i'm not able to pay my vendors because of the financial

situation and i'm really in bad shape now. so i'm requesting that you who to give me another chance to work hard and to upgrade my store otherwise i cannot see how to continue working as business owner in the coming months i'm really in bad shape that's my argument. thank you >> thank you. >> good evening larry program manager for the public health tobacco program.

one of his employees solid cigarettes to a 16-year-old minor the employee didn't ask for identification from the minor. based on this report the owner got a 25 day suspension and the office upheld the suspension. the owners have been permitted here in san francisco and this is they're first offense. tyler we noted 7 schools within 2 thousand feet of this store. i believe the owners have regrets and they are correct in their financial hardship. dp h is assigned the task of

trying to prevent minors from getting liquor and cigarettes. the store is free to sell their other goods >> what age elementary or middle school or holidays are in the vicinity? >> i'm not good familiar i only have the names here. >> me, too. >> their listed there. >> okay. >> newcomer they're all listed here h-2 of the - >> thank you. >> okay. any public comment on this item? seeing no public comment do you

have anything else you want to state? any rebuttal? >> i want to mention that 20 thousand feet apart from my store and most of them are like elementary schools they're not the one that was exposed to this one kind of cigarettes and so forth. and this one is not rooted in this one it's a high school. there is a problem that they come to my store to buy cigarettes but they are young

like 20 years old >> i see on the list newcomer high school and another high school i believe is in san francisco. >> their far away. >> how long is 2 thousand feet? 10 houses? 2 hundred houses? >> yeah. >> thank you that you any rebuttal? okay commissioners matters submitted. >> unfortunately, we just have that long demonstration on tobacco on selling to minors in our last meeting. there needs to be a penalty not like 25 days.

i'm sympathetic to the appellant although he should know that it's unstated as we've indicated in the past in those cases that if we do show some leniency on there if they come back a second time then the department is free to go up to 90 days. i would reduce this to 10 days and ask for support of my colleagues >> i think that the presentation we receive was highly educational to me with respect to the age group that's the most vulnerable to cigarettes and addiction and so i wouldn't be inclined to reduce

it to 10 days or, in fact, if at all. >> i think we heard a similar case a new employee who i believed asked for the id and i was inclined to give some leniency there but the board upheld it was 25 days and i guess now i don't see this as being that different. >> that anyone checked for the id. i'm kind of - i don't want to set precedence. i think we should uphold i mean, he's - i'm leaning towards some lenience but still having

penalty >> i move to uphold the 25 day suspension on the basis of the departments analysis. >> can you call the roll on that, please. >> before you do that - do we need to continue this for commissioner titles vote? >> you would normally do that if there was a 3 to 1 - >> that's my question. >>right. >> i think we heard - >> why don't you continue with your motion. >> okay. >> we have a motion from the president to upheld the 25 day you suspension on the

departments analysis. on that motion (calling names) >> thank you. the vote is 2 to 2 the motion does fail, however, since 4 votes are required unless there's another motion the suspension would be upheld by default. so the suspension is upheld by default 25 days. thank you >> we'll be calling item 7 a and 7 b together. 7 b is appeal number 3 dash 77

and the bill has to do with the property and disapproval of 13 dash 13006. both - one is appealing the denial of a permit to alter a building with new gate and a curb cut. and there's a rear yard variance and off street parking pad located on the open rear yard and i think we're about to hear why i'm not supposed to read all of that >> the appellants expressed

their certain and with the boards agreement we would like to schedule this item to allow them to prepare an additional plan we could consider if that's the boards pleasure. >> and is there someone here from the appellant to speak to that as well? >> good evening i'm the appellant project owner and we seek a continuance to a date that's to the commissions preference. >> do you have a sense of how much time you need? >> we need a couple of weeks to do our plans and they need to be submitted. >> madam chair the earliest

would be may 22. >> how is the scheduling of next week's hearing going to play out? >> , right? i would expect that the next couple of meetings would be heavy. people have wait to be heard >> how about may first? and a how about may 22? >> i'm saying have an additional meeting on may 1st? >> no. >> have another meeting on may 1st? maybe we can decide that another time by i like may 22. >> may 22 and is that for both items?

t the other items as well. any public comment on this? okay seeing none move to continue to may 22nd for the party to resubmit and reanalyze the requests. - for the variance >> would you expect the matters to be heard or be withdrawn? >> i believe the board would have to have the - >> would an additional briefing be neat. >> an additional revised plan perhaps and is that okay with the board?

>> we have a motion then from the president to reschedule both appeals v-13 dash 007 to may 22, 2013, additional briefing is loud and this is for sub military for any revised plans. (calling roll) >> the vote is 4 to zero those matters are rescheduled to may 22nd. thank you. >> then move on to appeal item 8 mick oil wrirth the subject property is known as 260 to 260

destreet and regarding allegations that the property is being used in violation of the planning code. we'll start with the appellant >> thank you so much. i was >> state your name please and my name is nicole. >> i did look on line for reasonable appropriate delays so i did bring hospital reports i've been on disability and been brutally attacked twice i've been on disability. i managed to pull everything

together. these are all factual legal documents so show this case is erroneous >> you were on bed rest and a couple of months later there was an attack. >> i believe there was a brief from your landlord. >> so your requesting to do a submission and have a hearing another day and a okay. yeah. these are the factors you guys need to review them first; right? >> i'd like to rw