please speak to board staff before the board meeting or call the board office on mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78 and dvds are available for purchase at this point we'll conduct our swearing in process if you wish to have the board give our testimony weight pleases stand and returned please note that any member of the public my speech without this thank you. do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to

give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> thank you. the item one is general public comment this is for anyone that wants to speak on items not an tonight's agenda. seeing none, is converges questions or comments commissioner >> hello commissioners i'd like to point out you in our packet a letter from the commissioner president through the mayor's office regarding the attendance our obligation to strive for one hundred percent. >> thank you any other commissioner comments. any any public comment on that item? okay. seeing none item 3 commissioners is your consideration of the boards meeting minutes for august 20th, 2014, and there any delegations or corrections if not approval

of the minutes >> so moved. any any public comment on that item? mr. pacheco call the roll please. we have a motion from commissioner fung to adapt the august 20th, 2014, minutes. commissioner hurtado. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 4 to zero the minutes are adapted >> thank you item 4 is appeal cause vs. the department of building inspection the property is on alison street protesting the issuance to a disembarkation one permit for two-story addition set back approximately 16 and a half feet from the wall it was held on august 20th but the matter was continued to allow time for the dbi to get in

a site visit we'll start with the dbi and before we do. >> i have reviewed the video. >> thank you inspector duffey 3 minutes. >> i went to the property last friday following the hearing and issued a notice of violation i've got several copies here it's okay to share those? yes, please do. >> you should have them there. thank you. so i'll go ahead and read the notice of the violation then i'll speak.

so i notice that work had start before the grand correct was played and structural was installed on the second floor existing frame has been altered and the second floor sheet block was removed in the rear yard two retaining walls and replacement of concrete the existing floor plan is incorrect the existing kitchen is not in the location shown on the plan and only two bedrooms currently in the dwelling i told them to stop all work. submit our plans to show you the work plan and your permit is currently suspended and the concrete was cleared so it maybe removed or to prove a wall code

is okay. and stop all the work and a notice of violation maybe issued in the future. in simple terms they started some of the work before the permit was issued. we see that sometimes and on the floor plans for the second level the kitchen had been is actually not it's not a bedroom that's where the kitchen is the kitchen is shown where it's a dining area so this is basically where we're at we have issues of doing starting the work and some of the concrete that was poured the work in the rear yard isn't permitted and get the plans reflected to get the plans reflected properly to show the proper floor lay out. the project is what they want to

do dbi doesn't have an issue with the building code but issues they got ahead of themselves. the work in the rear yard was interesting they had poured retaining walls and one was running particularly to the neighbors and i was asking this all happened approximately they coordinated with the work so the permit holder kwoptd with that work by the appellant didn't like the work with the permit so it was an interesting situation but it needs to be dwelling dealt with and dbi is happy to take care of it on the violation it is the same as people doing work before the permit is issued i issued a 9 times penalty on $20,000 of work that's a

financial penalty and it will be to be taken care of >> what's your recommendation we hold off on the plan. >> it is not okay to put a kitchen where there's not a kitchen that needs to be addressed and the work that was started and the concrete poured some of the concrete may need to be removed and we need new plans to show the floor plan if we want to do that as part of a condition permit or whatever the process. the planning didn't have an issue with the work but definitely we need to get the

plans properly drawn >> so i have a couple of questions when i was watching the video the architect representing the project sponsor they be haven't moved over the kitchen net e yet only - >> they showed the kitchen as an existing bedroom that's not an existing bedroom it's a kitchen it's a two bedroom house that's a typical two bedroom so it - >> just had the new construction as per what they wanted to do. >> right the existing floor plan needs to be corrected it's not the end of the world but it is not right and needs to be fixed. >> thank you. okay. we can hear from the permit holder now.

>> good afternoon. i'm speaking on behavior of my father the project sponsor so on january 28th we passed the hearing with the approval from the city and the board right before the job got starred the appeal we started the renovation work on the second floor we passed the hearing on january and have the approval from the city and the board therefore we have contacts alison street

through e-mail we want to fix the fence they have lots of trees and the trees have been falling leaves and they reach over to our side 3 feet, however, we want to have a friendly relationship we told them we will take care of the material fees. on march 14 we have made an agreement to fix the fences and they have agreed to pay for the shop you can see the e-mail right here all the conversation prior to the job get started we talked to each other and entered the house they know exactly what we are going to do have the faces placed where the location

and how many inches etc. the job was started on march 20th century the folks were monitoring the jobs and in the procedure of doing this job we've considered to build the concrete work otherwise 23 alison soils will fall into our bedroom we want to save the money and time two fittings and install the structural hazards. by doing this job we've spent over $10,000 but we've only asked them for 15 hundred they've never filed a complaint while we were working on the fences it was supposed to be their responsibility we were trying to be nice and kind therefore we're willing to fix or remove what we've done and

agreed to pay for the penalties, however, we share the footsteps they should share the responsibilities of paying the penalties with us too. you see i have all the e-mail conversation and you guys can have a copy if you guys want one. >> no need. >> thank you. okay >> okay. we can hear if the appellants now. >> good afternoon again, i'm nick i'm speaking for my mother. and just to address a quick the point of the permit holder. the whole fence issue is not

germane to this discussion. when we were proechld by the awakening family to do the fence we looked at it ulcer up to see if it required a permit it didn't. we were happy to put up half the expenses that's all i need to say it had nothing to go do with the complaint our genesis for our complaint was the interior noise to the structure and as mr. duffy has summarized we've got improvement right basically, all the contentions i was spifk to the board have been verified by mr. duffy. all i ask at least from our point of view it's counterintuitive for the permit

holder to receive a monetary penalty then be allowed to build his full structure it would be more equatable as a third floor restriction that was basically our number one concern. and so we will ask for a monetary penalty and/also some sort of restriction on the building permit from the third floor. thank you that's all i have to say >> i have a couple of questions in watching the video you stated stated our case you had conversation with our next door neighbors during the time of the construction when you heard all the noise. >> personally, i did not but i think my mother occasionally when there was noise she'd basically yell and bank on the

wall and tell them to stop. >> okay. >> i want to emphasize this has nothing to do with the fence. >> when the actual actions were take place did someone knock on the door. >> i think my mother did but we again knew what was going on. if my mom communicated to him he would stop but start again >> okay. thank you. uh-huh. >> thank you. thank you >> is any public comment on that item? seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> what approach do we want to take? well >> do you want to start. okay first is there's two

aspects to this. i think we can first respond to the original appeal which was, you know, whether the size and scope of the alteration and edition was appropriate. i find that the scope is appropriate. i don't have an issue with the scope. whether the drawings are correct in terms of the location of the kitchen is really a technical issue with the permit issuance department. i don't know whether this was done because of evaluation but that's not a critical issue.

the question of the n o v the question whether it was started without a permit is for the building department. if we're in concurrence with the positions i recommend we hold on this decision until the new permit is issued and bundle the two together. >> i concur with my fellow commissioner, i building this has gone through planning there was a discretionary review and the planning was upheld i'm not fond of the work that was done before the permit was executed but the department of building inspection department has issued an n o v with penalties involved

i agree we need a hold over. >> commissioners i don't know if the department will issue a new permit when there's a permit under suspension but you can have them come back to you. >> what's our suggestion. >> i think one option to put continue the case and wait until dbi and planning are satisfied with the submittals and issue a broiling special permit with those conditions or make a decision on the appeal i think not option correct me if i am wrong mr. duffy act on the appeal and let the dbi process continue with the enforcement process. >> would you like to - go ahead. >> we can do it either way but

probably the violation is going to remain in place if the work we can't do anything on the project until the violation is addressed. so i'll say uphold the permit and we'll deal with the notice of violation. i can review the plans like at the end of the day the work that's been done the work in the rear yard the retaining walls there you go to have to go to expense get x-raying and removing it there is quite a bit of work but by up holding the permit it shouldn't have to come back to you guys we can deal about it with the violation in place >> with regards to the footings that are in place can they take them anti or use gp r.

>> they may have to take them out. >> it's up to them. sometimes, it's cheaper to take them out believe it or not >> a radar might be a better solution. >> might be that's up to their engineer but we've got to uphold the permit they can't work until the violation is dealt with. >> let's do that that way to get it off calendar. >> it's substantial time and money. >> i need to explain to the permit holder they can't work that's sometimes, people once the suspension is lifted but the stop order is if place. >> motion? >> move to uphold.

>> okay. so you're moving to deny the appeal and with the going understanding that dbi will uphold the notice of violation. >> yes. >> okay. so we have a motion from commissioner fung to uphold this permit. deny the appeal with a finding that the deploying should process this outstanding n o v. on that motion commissioner hurtado. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this permit is upheld with

that finding >> item 5 appeal ralph doing business as as 26 and gerrero market versus department of health for a permit a 25 day suspension for selling tobacco to minors we'll start with the appellant. sir, you have 7 minutes to present our case. >> hello, i'm the owner on 26th and gerrero. my story with this case it's not about losing business it's about my integrity and the integrity of my store. my parents have been running businesses since 1967 and myself

since 1985 we provided ourselves in following the rule of law. and my intent is never to secondly, marshes i know that disadvantages it could cause. and my employee was jet lag it was no excuse on our part. i feel the ruling is too harsh i mean it's - you know, my sgibt in the neighborhood is important i prefer to pay a fine if that's

possible with an infraction >> can i explain why you prefer that and because i have i pride myself in honest and my integrity t is important what did you guys do and look at it us like we're criminals kind of thing did something really, really wrong we did but i don't like to have that, you know. >> so what would you suggest would be a fair penalty. >> it's your call i'll pay a thousand. >> let's be clear we can't change it to the fine a monetary fine that's not in the legislation okay. >> then we're at a dead end then. >> why not if you don't mind me asking. >> we didn't write the

legislation and you see where i'm coming from. >> we understand unfortunately, we're not having the authority to alter fines period. >> i believe you don't have signs in our store about policies of not selling to minors and no, we do right by the cigarettes and a sticker we ask please id the customer. >> you do. >> yep. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. that's it. >> you'll have another. >> okay. >> good afternoon commissioners i'm jean young the senior health inspector environmental health

branch since my last appearances we hope this board that the decision to suspend the tobacco permit is fair consistent with other jurisdictions and will not force the business owners to close i want to provide brief laws in san francisco. according to the u.s. surgeon general smoking is the second presentable prevention of death many californians die every year and according to the risk factor about 65 percent of california smokers starting smoking before the age of 18 in order to structure the safety the law was passed the kids enforcement act

to eliminate thelogically purchase by minors. at the city level as early as 1990 the city of san francisco countered co- tobacco rules reducing the youth access and passing to the tobacco retailer with strong enforcement policies. i'm sure you're aware of in 2003 we adapted the permit ordinance it was easy to buy cigarette to we prohibited the sale of tobacco to minors. san francisco provided the departments to have the authority to suspend a tobacco permit up to 90 days for the first time violators but the

penalties since 2003 in san francisco the rate of adult smoking remains unchanged about 13 percent higher than most of the counties in san francisco and during the 2011 and 2012 the san francisco students recorded that 57 percent of ninth graders says it easy to obtain cigarettes the bonds with other surveys the state that youth and a that buys cigarettes from convenience stores are located in their neighborhood as a city we need to continue the penalty policies to serving to the a minor so they don't become repeat offenders.

tonight the city is asking the board to uphold the 90 days suspension for the permit on 26 and gerrero we held a hearing and found that according to the san francisco police department a cashier asked a 126-year-old id before selling her a pack of cigarettes so that's from the police department based on this information the hoff suspended the permit for 25 days. the appellant doesn't dispute the cigarette were sold and the cashier failed to ask for the id but the department didn't agree that's because sales to minors are avoidable it's posted on the

website it's simply no reason to sell cigarettes to minors. also selling sects to minors is a crime and allows the businesses to draw youths in to buy other goods. we've reviewed our policy against one hundred other jurisdictions in california and the first time violators they suspend permits for thirty days without the possibly of reducing the penalty and for the permits to be suspended so our 25 day suspension is consistent with other california jurisdictions. the other thing we've learned there's no evidence to sport that any businesses have closed