will be porcelain something you'll hear about side brown's board of supervisors unanimous signed by the mayor opted changes to the retail licensing around the density sorry the density of tobacco retailers many part of san francisco have many, many retailers that sell tobacco did tenderloin and chinatown so in partnership as well as community partners an ordinance was crafted that sets a cap or limit for future tobacco retailers in communities so no tobacco licenses are removed if the community or from grocery absorption it was vested to this small business commission there's a limit like alcohol licenses a limit not an

unlimited supply of tobacco licenses it is something to be aware in previous times those were given out fairly libly so awhile some had quite a few less you know areas in the richmond like 37 tobacco arrangements whoik while the tenderloin is one hundred and 80 there is some districts that have tobacco more tobacco transparency so this is the lead on this issue i wanted to make sure we give you more information and there maybe questions in future appeals that come before this board about the non-issuance of licenses because of the district is setting a cap for the licenses signed by the mayor and introduced by accident board i know it is new information if you have

questions i'll be happy to answer any questions. >> so how frequent are the decoys sent out. >> it is ongoing so there is currently two year plan with the sfpd but since 2004 since the tobacco licensed has been trod liquor. >> how many. >> they end up going to maybe on the best month it is 16 or 20 per month they end up the best month every year we get one hundred or one hundred and 50 store range. >> i notice lows appeals from stores over the year in selling tobacco to minors. >> yeah. that maybe the appeals process is different if the directors process to the suspension at the directors

level so the health director of the san francisco ethics commission is the one who hears those finding first so he issues a suspension if someone is found to sell to a minor and when those that retailer appeals that this is when we come to the board so in smoudz up and down totally unrelated depends on who choose to appeal. >> aside that the lovely of retailers the same that are getting into trouble. >> no as i mentioned the violation recite has dropped we were at 11 percentage last year is the attempted sale of e cigarettes but is it went down we've done a lot of education

with those kinds they still come and only a couple of retailers unfortunately, the retailers that are known we work with them i'm sure your familiar the youth you know those are young people that pretend to want this product but youth are president sects and alcohol they're very resource full and maybe it maybe worth it but to get all it is one business maybe. >> what's that. >> as were we when we were young. >> yes. young people we really expect did seem application we try to be tom as is fairly consistent i licenses to the

case and every case has a suspension the police officer witnesses the sale have to be to a youth an officer witnessed that we're trained to be somewhat consistent you know argument or questions raushldz for that why that considers they think the victim is keeping with the practice it was that one time unfortunately we don't have the resources to be watching two times a week. >> i'm sorry. >> do you know if there are suspension directly recommended to e cigarettes. >> yes. there's been several suspensions because we know that 19 sales rate of e cigarettes from september to preservation we've been working with sfpd to

ask for e cigarettes sales tyler or there has been several maybe appeals. >> right. >> that's part of reason to give you an update those are new laws it is actually old this is the e cigarettes beulah's have been on the books in the last 5 years it is the sting operations not for e cigarettes but all the tobacco retailers have been selling cigarettes for years and being techt to see if they sell e cigarettes and there's continued to see if in they're in coincidence. >> you spoke about the sate stated to and local what about the federal. >> that's a very good question it is very slowly a series of

progress the food and drug affirmation could a regulate e cigarettes additional they it has been a slow regulatory process so there's a possibility it is really a great question that speaks to why i know that mayor ed lee was concerned about this issue as well as supervisor mar and other leaders at the board that wants to tackle that for regulation and much talk about state legislation before the senate and the assembly right now that would regulate e cigarettes in an alleged way or perhaps tax. >> thank you. >> so it is selling south side lose our license. >> superintendant your license not permanent. >> can you describe the penalties please. the penalties for the sale of e cigarette are the same

essentially around 3 week suspension the owners that regulate the retailer licensing the officer has did opportunity to give up to a 90 day suspension on the first there's a period of a first and second suspension in most cases the resources there are almost a thousand over 9 hundred tobacco retailers in san francisco we're not visiting every other store but a random sample to visit as many supposing stores as possible to the chance of a retailer being inspected year after year is not probably and like the baseball series caught if you are caught once or twice the third time in trouble. >> cumulative the idea it has

been effective we believe with the sales rates dropped we think part of regular education on an annual a basis to do inspections retailers have stepped up and doing better we still have the remaining small portion that are not a reason rational but they're giving a margaret advantage and selling to the kids unfortunately. >> thank you. >> thank you very much commissioner we have appeals coming your woo on both issues recently the first appeal of the denial of a permit based on the employments or limits is in district came in this afternoon but we move on i want to ask if there's any public comment on this item seeing none, we'll move on to the the next item

item 57 the jurisdictions request the subject property the board received a letter from the dr requester for the permit which was issued an january 13, 2015 by department of building inspection the period of appeal end and the permit holders is here to remove a logically kitchen and bathroom and comply with a notice of violation we'll start with the requester. >> you have 3 minutes. >> hi good afternoon. i'm tommy i'm with the housing rights committee i'm going to be speaking for ms. listen who is primarily a chinese speaker i'm not a lawyer a tenants right

council the reason for this request the tenant never received a notice from the city in fact, the city didn't require a notification and thus, the tenant didn't exercise her due process the city cased her to be late in january nodding 5 years ago ms. lynn was accredited and dbi for which she's lived for seven years the dbi instructed her to remove the illegal kitchen 5 years later mr. choi received to doogs don't worry about at the time he applied for anyone obviously had 15 days to appeal since she was not innovative in the case by the

city or mr. choi she received the notification a month later which she was served with a demolition that requires a copy of the permit audio tape it at this point the appeal time was passed this is unfair the dbi has not taken a position on the matter deborah the tenant is here and will be addressing this issue during the course public comment i testified before the litigation committee about this lack of notification i recommended they notify the tenants last year supervisor david chiu passed legislation diversely the ability to legalize illegal unit so this landlord can approach dbi didn't need to demolish that is interesting in box 24 the

dissolution permit that asks did this constitute a illegal occupancy i'll august this constitutes a change of ms. lynns occupancy this is 7 minutes already to wow. oh i did not realize the mayors directive actually directs them to examine the permit they're to send it to planning for a discretionary review and that should have happened in this case excepts the landlord checked no in terms of the occupancy question we're asking you grant ms. lynn her jurisdiction request thank you >> thank you. we hear from the permit holder now.

>> good evening, commissioners before i precede i'm audry. >> speak into the mike. >> i represent the owner slash the permit holders and before i start let me give you a copy of the proof of service the petition for this jurisdiction request is on the tenant well, this is a simple matter there's a notice of violation issued so the landlord going and get a permit now they're saying the tenants are claiming no timely noiftsd first of all no requirement to notify the tenant, and, secondly, we served a 60 day notice to vacate that was back in february so the 40

days after they received the notice as well as the job card and the permit and then they foiled another this board of appeals so they start and the first day they received the 60 days nose they got 15 a daze notice and didn't foil the appeal for 40 days the matter is quite simple the request should be denied and there's a proper for them to appeal this permit if not at that board i respectfully request you deny this request and i believe this is a waste of time for my client thank you very much. >> i have a question counselor

if you're client was issued the notice of violation 5 years ago why 5 years to act. >> to the best of my knowledge the client didn't speak english she has a mentally disabled daughter they don't are a steady income they have problems understanding other documents coming in if i call my client the daughter hangs up i think that is one of the reasons for the delay a delay process in the building permit as well until this year and they finally decided to demolish the upstairs unit. >> sorry so generally when your issued a notice of violation they there's two written things to the property as well as angle inspector goes to the property i

believe twice. >> that's correct. >> all those times they respond to any of that from the department. >> there was a permit issued back in i need to look at the records but permits have been issued and didn't start or they can't start there's a tenant living at the premises they did not want to do to start the demolition process. >> okay. thank you. >> great it's fine. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i mean, i'll you been brief it is an rh2 district based on the record it appears that are two legal units this is a third unit that is unpermitted awhile it's to the

subject to the mayors directive for a mandatory discretionary review they can see the charge it is unclear if this is investigated but beyond that the planning department and the planning code not require the dr for this but the building inspection may have no more information. >> i have a question mr. larkin's ever since now assemblyman chow are there plans for our department to add or change some of the cases to be consulted. >> the legislation from supervisor chiu allowed for the legalization of unit it didn't require that it is something that is available to people and

that certainly will be something they can look at here it's a joint process you have to meet the building code requirements as part of legalization process large parts of code were exempted from the process you didn't have to have density exposure, etc. so the building inspection has a bit of a problem in some cases not ceiling clearance or existing requirement but the legislation from supervisor chiu was involuntaryy a path forward. >> so because the legislation we've seen more cases like this of this displacement. >> yeah. just i don't draw but other reasons for an increase in the more of a market issue

historically the board of appeals has teen e seen most the removal of illegal permits have been dealt with by the board of appeals and any uptick it could be more off the market rather than the legislation. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> could you address for me and clarify for me, the issue of lack of notice i understand the residence is illegal i understand for a at least 5 years that individual is living there in a notice of violation and then when ash trail the building owner can get the permit then without notice to the tenant that's been there for

5 years which is not 5 months or 5 days not provide any, no, sir, whatsoever until a 60 day revocation process where's the legality and that's a great question so in terms of. >> sorry wacky question. >> is it a puny ditto our friend it is something we need to look at so under the planning code 311 we look at the code for expansion of building and for illegal unit but nothing in the planning code for that case for an illegal unit under the mayors

directive we'll require a hearing at the planning commission that will be renoticed but given the number of unit in this building exclusive directive didn't apply i'll agree if you make a place our home for a number ever years it seems fair to get a no say it is being taken away to inform you have your appeal right seems 0 fair and you don't get noticed after the 15 day notice appeal has inspired and think that is a better process to have implemented by the building inspection and this could trigger a hearing but inspector

duffey will address that but it transitions many appeals so why that didn't employ to illegal units the city needs to look at that and we'll address that. >> hearing the vublthd vulnerable ability to get familiar with what this body does he utilized cases and just to get into the context of alive and it seems like a lot of illegal unit and people living in a lot of these o those illegal unit their vulnerable to be kicked out in an arrest warrant tray fashion await notice again they're

living neutron an illegal unit which is probably legal they're being offered the ability to live there illegal by a building opener but they're the ones that g are vulnerable when the owner decides to get- so they bottom legal the lack of notice is a concern. >> i agree with you commissioner, i agree our department entirely supports a change that provides for a notice for the removal of an illegal unit this board is experiences in dealing with those issues and can sort that out. >> i'm sorry we have a process and we need to hear from the building inspection. >> inspector duffey. >> good evening commissioners

joe duffy dbi just open the actual permit it's the permit was removed an illegal kitchen and bathroom and bedroom the storage floors 202 e 40331 the permit was foiled on the october 2014 that was issued on the 13th of january 2015 that was reviewed by the code enforcement building inspection division and building plan check owe the bureau the permit was one thousand dollars the notice of violation was issued on the 20th of january 2010 and complaint was filed with the

illegal construction it indicated a structure contained two illegal dwelling units and one on the ground floor without a required permit to legalize the unpermitted between i'm sure you're aware of that was back in 2010 there was a building permit taken out in nodding to which was pretty much the same scope of work that permit inspired without the work done we issued another notice of violation they renewed that permit so thankful got a lot of permits to remove the illegal unit. the question of notification from dbi is something that i hear and we do have notification requirement in the san francisco building code to notify the

board without the building code and if there's some other process i can get this added but certainly not a requirement of san francisco building code so dbi explicit innovative tenants or monthly of the scope of work so commissioner had that question it's not in the code maybe there's some changes required i'm not disagree maybe in the next cycle commissioner walker is here as well maybe the building inspection it was properly issued by dbi and no notifications required at that time noticing not in the code as of yet we do it for structural and new construction and we see a lot of the things here because of as mr. sanchez

said i'll be happy to answer any questions if anyone has any that's all i have to say >> so we'll take public comment now step forward. >> i'm a 17 year-old that is attending galileo high school currently, the last year of my high school and i come from a low income family as we know that san francisco represent has skyrocketed over the past years it is hard to find housing in addition, i have to attend college matt haney there is tuition because of this revocation i haven't had the time to apply. >> are you the family member i'm sorry you're not allowed to

speak under the public comment you have time under the dr requester. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> deborah a tenant and tenant representative on the building inspection we've been dealing with that the market has increased the review of those types of things the issue is jurisdiction all and available there is improper notice and this is categoryic this is your copy; right? the zoning controls of illegal removal not 0 mandatory discretionary review but whenever there's a removal the cooking facilities in a residential unit or the change of use as defined and regulated by the planning code or as relating regulated by the

building code any dwelling unit to a non-residential use a dwelling unit is defined different than a residential it is not about it being legal or not just a living space that people live in more than 32 days my testimony here is that you have the right to accept jurisdiction and send it back for proper notification to the tenants so they can actually be heard on this case we're seeing an increase in those kind of complicated issues i have heard a case where we had a notice of violation on the illegal demolition of a local unit because they did the unit and - we have a 1049 market street we have made the statement you can't remove dwelling units over 3 unit there are