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 because you have our 25 day suspension, in fact, 39 cases have been reviewed and out of 37 cases they've served suspensions i've reviewed those to see if any business owners had to sell the business even a year after the suspensions there were no one all of them remained owners after the suspension.

the department buildings that a 25 day suspension will defer the businesses from becoming a repeat offender we hope you'll uphold the 25 days suspension >> has this owner had a previous violation. >> no, this is a first time violator. >> so they have a minimum thirty days. >> yes. >> then 36 percent have up to thirty days what's the remaining percentage. >> it varied. >> what's the largest - >> i think i have that report. we have 34 percent had a 10 day

permit revocation meaning they have to reapply. >> thank you. >> yes. >> then the balance i assume went all over the place. >> yes. they went all over the place. then the thirty percent up to thirty days what was the range? >> the range i'm sorry. yeah. i believe you said 31 percent >> 36 percent it was arranged on the thirty percent. >> so they have no option to reduce and another 15 percent that was up to thirty days this was a total of 36 yeah.

>> then the balance was all over the place. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on that item? seeing none, then sir, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal if you have anything to say to the board. >> i represent what the lady has said my issue is that it has a flavor of a bandage solution instead of going after the big guys they're the source of the smoking i'm not. i don't want to sell to minors and my intent not to sell to minors all of a sudden i'm being punished. i think j r reynolds should be

punished >> have you had any conversation with the employees. >> he's he jet lagged and new on the job he understands. >> he understands the major problems. >> yeah. they all understand we not intend to do this we have a high-end speciality store a tobacco section is 20 brands of american spirit and a few other we're not like in the neighborhood pushing cigarettes on minors it's not our intent at all. >> you were concerned about our reputation and integrity if so the suspension goes throw in would be shape or another and someone asks why is there a problem that somebody sold to a minor and that's not the proper policy and that could stand.

>> that's what we're going to end up doug doing but you know the human mind is prejudice. >> in what way. >> we sold to minor first one they see the sign oh, negative those guys are selling to microscopes you know what i mean we'll explain ourselves. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> ms. young anything further. >> the department really would like to let the department know that the burden of training the employees he sits with the business managers it is stated in the california department of health website and the california department of health directions businesses she should train the employees to ask for

ids for anyone that looks under the age of 27 we'd like the board to uphold the 25 day permit we'll be consistent with other jurisdiction. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i don't think we have a choice here unless someone thinks differently. >> offering for one this is not an issue of justice for the store owner he did something that was unlawful. there is no dispute about that >> i think that normally the one that tries to find the lower nexus for this kind of penalties i'm not so inclined this time. >> okay. i'll move to deny the appeal.

if you care to state a base it seemed reasonable under the circumstances. mr. pacheco >> we have a motion from the vice president to uphold this 25 day suspension on the basis it's reasonable under the circumstances. on that motion >> commissioner fung. commissioner president lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 4 to zero the 25 die suspension is upheld >> thank you. the next item is item 6 appeal shawn at the scene properties vs. the department of building inspection for the properties on stephen son street denying the alteration permit for a new street address in question 1

10th street we can hear if the appellants agent you have 7 minutes >> good afternoon, commissioners my name is pat. i'm a licensed civil engineer representing the shoring at the scene company. this is basically a civil engineering policy how you address to the city in my private life my brother and i are the leading authorities on the streets in san francisco we're recreating the history in san francisco if you see maps on san francisco that's our recreation before 1906 when everything burdened or burned we've loaned the documents to the bureau and the mapping has original research on when streets were created and why

they were created who did streets are named after since we have the primary documents prior to 06. part of the problems in san francisco this is one of my funnier maps all the paper streets that were created that don't exist but they were named. this is part of the city that after the 1906 san francisco earthquake they had to fix all the addresses in the city because there were numerous one street one avenues south - >> can you wait a second we've having is it correct difficulties with our overhead. >> it might stop the flurt it's when they display it. >> that's better. >> so no way that is any hobby

the streets and history of the city this is a how often this is the renaming of the city after the 1906 san francisco earthquake this is one of the things they did to address the city. because of the experience i was asked to get into involved with the street address the architect went to the city and asked to get 1 10th street for this building. it's currently 875 stevens but it's about to go away so it has to a have an address on tenth street at the time the architect was told he could have 1-tenth street so the project shore at the scene everyone and the tenants have branded their building 1-tenth street it is difficult to change think of all the paperwork you'll have to do

to change our home address so the architect relied shore at the scene relied on renumbering the building when the architect came back to the city after april 2014 to actually get the address there are certainty times to get the address center permit issued a new policy it's an informational only policy that basically says for the first time that at the corners of city blocks our supposed to use 1298 or 99 the center bureau said at this point now you're asking today, we will not grant you won tenth street i have to have 11 street based on our location. at this point, i said i got involved and asked to appeal

this decision central permit refused to issue one under the misunderstanding that the permit number was not vested me to have the address of 1-tenth street. i had to ask the deputy director to address the appeal. i bring this up i i know the the manager at her level does not want this address to be granted. i don't like i find it difficult to quote other people but i've had extensive decisions with the deputy director they don't have an issue with the issuance of this permit address number but bruce r. watkins cultural heritage center because that's a branded new policy they don't want to groovent to the first

person. this is a new location it won't have an impact only anyone the others who could rely on this address is the furniture mart in that section is a solid wall no one could need an address from o1 to 9th street or to number 9 tenth street their reserving an address person to a building owner who don't want to use the address of one. the building has spent a great deal of money using. there's no reason to reserve this for 1355 market. the other reason i was told for emergency personnel. when i went to the person that

is concerned the fire department the look on their face is we can find this address. we have a situation it's an informational policy only informational you're asking a project sponsor to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to rebrand it for every tenant in the building for a situation that doesn't matter and no one being hurt. and i'll give an example i can walk around the corner this is a brand new address it's at the end of the block i don't know if you can see the address 18301 its at the end of the block. in certain cases it doesn't matter so the request is to look at the informational policy use your common sense you decide if

someone should spend the amount of money being asked the mail is being delivered the post office is recognizing that. the building department is saying they're okay the deputy director who is not here. i know the manager central permit didn't want to do this this is a motivator of fairness not to spend this much money when it it doesn't matter. if you have questions, mr. shore at the scene is present >> you'd like a number of points related to the fire department do you have documentation. >> well, i've asked mr. mr. duffy to have a conversation i told them i talked to ed but i'll let him speak if he's able to reach the deputy director.

>> in your comments i thought you said when the project architect went and made the noticeable inquire he was told orally it was okay. >> yes. >> you say in your written letter you thought the architect was approvalable there's an inference of a written document but sounds like a oral statement i'll confused. >> i wasn't there so i'm being very careful how i phrase the conversation between the managers mr. fong and the architect. my understanding from the architect he was told he could have 1-tenth street >> that's not what you put in - >> i wasn't there i don't know if it was a misunderstanding by

the informational documents went into effect after the date of that conversation so prior to april of this year 1-tenth street would have been allowed for this building. so since i wasn't there i am being careful but if i look at the time of the informational document this is dated - april 11th long after this conversation this address would have been allowed but not before. i wasn't there and there are some language challenges. >> okay. thank you mr. duffy.

>> good evening, commissioners. on this item the person that i spoke to at dbi was weigh fong the manager of the central permit bureau responsible for the address i spoke to her today a couple of times. her position is that on the departments position this building can't be referred to as 1 tenth street not on the corner of the street and i asked her if there were other addresses that got this address and she said, "no. the policy i can't answer that question she didn't have reported of the 2013 maybe a

conversation but i see the information sheet clearly says you have to have an appointment and go to the manager maybe this led to that but certainly she was no in agreement calling this 1-tenth street but 11 was the proper address. i went into the website and they market the building as 1-tenth street maybe they got ahead of themselves by thinking they might gotten it if you go down to the building inspection you can ask people and i'll get a few different answers and you'll get the one i want and leave. that happens in life i think that the monitor of central permit bureau and the manager

before weigh fong has been responsible is carolyn when i started working there she used to go out i know she would look at the street and see what the numbers are and take it from mr. there but mr. screening i didn't disapproved the permit and sent it to this board for you to make a discussion >> mr. duffy what's the harm in allowing it to be number one. >> that's a good question i looked at that as well i saw that the only - there is some e-mail correspondence when you don't have i have between the architect and the dbi staff for the technical services division and the only thing i can do the

department of technology involved and they brought up the point of the emergency the firgz and the mail delivery that's been disastrous in the past and today, our conversation in the it is not necessary improvement happened between the corner and which is now steven so that street and you know that building has under gotten 3515 matt has flown construction but there's a store front there are windows on this side if someone wants to do a tenant improvement in 10 years time what number are we going to give them number 2 there's no number we can't as ray fong said it's kind of a

dilemma. i even thought let me ask you this. what about if we let them have 11 if there's anything happened between the corner and give them number one but she says that's a disaster because of the address it would have to be changed and the yellow pages and that's like army to caesar chavez >> there you go. that's a dilemma i didn't speak to mr. screening i didn't it's hard to get ahold of him he's the deputy director i know that the gentleman mentioned that i went to the monitor of the central permit bureau who does the permit address signing

>> thank you mr. duffy. >> are you finished. >> i'm finished. >> okay. what's the dissents between the corner of tenth and market to the corner of this 875 stevenson. >> here we go. >> this is the building that the street of mapping was in; right? >> yes. that's right. (laughter) >> i know sorry. >> thanks rick. >> i i know it's beautiful i was there today, i couldn't believe how it's changed. it's one hundred and 60 feet. so that's what the map shows >> any other questions.

>> thank you. any public comment on that item? seeing none, sir, you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> so first of all, if there's a concern if my conversation with the deputy director regarding the importance of persevering 1 tenth street i'd like to have a continuance. you'll see this is a disapproval by him not ray fong the letter came from the deputy director on the denial not ray fong so the person i've been dealing with is exclusively the deputy director. in terms of not ever having the address i had to have the deputy director tell the staff they

have to appraise this map. this is the address map that's available to the city and this is what they use. you'll notice that 801 right there on their map was granted. and that's the end of the block so it is done on a regular basis up to april in terms of the probability of this address ever being needed for the western facade the old furniture mart it's nil the preservation is this facade is historic i can't change the state and federal that's no change it's such a big issue even doing work on the stevenson alley is preservation so there's not an opportunity for restoration but if there's a

concern that the deputy director should speak for himself i'd like to ask the board to continue it. this is a case where someone has been asked to spend a great deal of of money for no harm it's a solid store front so i ask the board to use discretion but if you're concerned i'm not speaking correctly then please continue it until i get the deputy director who is the person who denied the permit >> go ahead after you. >> you said there's a representative. >> pardon me. >> representative of a building. >> yes. >> i have a question. >> before you do that i have a simple question. those buildings are they separate parcels >> they're separate parcels but opposed by itself shore at the scene company.

>> yes. separate and you have a question. >> yeah, the person that's itself same owner of tenth and market are they willing to give up that address perpetuity. >> you can't take it back. >> that's the problem this building is in the middle of the block what happens if something gets built. >> they're basically stating they'll never ask fore 1 tenth street ever again for this address. i'm sure they're willing to and go to. >> my name is jeanie i'm the development manager and vice president of shore at the scene company i've been there 16 years. i was the key part in developing