>> good evening and welcome to the november 7th, 2018 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president frank funk -- frank fung will be the presiding officer tonight. commissioner anna lazarus is absent tonight. to my left is the deputy city attorney who will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. at the controls as a legal assistant. and the board's executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from city departments and cases before -- for cases before the board this evening.

we expect joseph duffy, the senior building inspector starting department of building inspection and deputy city attorney representing the department of public health. the managers with environmental health branch of the department of public health will also be here. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. turn off or silence all phones and other electronic devices so they don't disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. permit holders and respondents get seven minutes to present their case in three minutes for a rebuttal. people affiliated must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public who are not affiliated have up to three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone for rehearing request, the parties will get a total of three minutes with no rebuttal. to assist the board and accurate

preparation of minutes, your asp not required to submit a speaker card or business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules are scheduled. please speak to board staff during a break or after the meeting a call or visit the board office. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government t.v. , channel 78. we will broadcast at 4:00 pm as well. now we will swear in our -- or affirm all those who intend to testify. any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the centre and ordinance. if you intend to testify and would like to have the board give your testimony evidentiary wait, stand if you're able, raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn and/or affirmed. do you swear or affirm the testimony are about to give will

be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you. ok. we will now move on to item number 1 which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who would like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction but that is not alternate but just calendar. is there any member of the public who would like to comment we will move on to item number 2 commissioner comments and questions. >> on behalf of the board we would like to welcome our newest commissioner, rachel tanner. welcome and good luck. >> thank you. it is off. first morning. i will turn the next one on and off. it is great to be here. thank you for the warm welcome. i am excited to join you all and be part of the board of appeals. thank you. >> i want to reiterate welcoming commissioner tanner to our board and apologize i was not at her hearing. welcome. >> ok.

his or any public comment on item number 2? seeing then, will move on to item number 3, the adoption of the minutes. before you for discussion, possible adoption of the minutes of the october 24th, 2018 board meeting. >> any corrections or just -- additions? if not, we will entertain a motion to accept. >> motion. >> we have a motion to adopt the minutes from the october 24th, 2018 board meeting. on that motion -- excuse me. is there any public comment on that? seeing none, we will go onto the boat. wow -- [roll call]. >> that motion carries 4-0. item number 4 is a rehearing request at 2722 and 2724 folsom street. the appellant is requesting a

repeal of a hearing. the planning department disapproval decided october 10 th, 2018. at that time, the board voted 3- 1. to deny the appeal and uphold the denial of the apartment on the basis that the department did not err on the decision. the permit is for administrative purposes only. no work on the permit to. they are trying to document -- document illegal use. the subject building is a three-story building with two residential dwelling units. correcting previously issued c.f.c. showing the buildings of three -- a three unit building. i would like to ask commissioner tanner, did you have an opportunity to review the video and materials for the appeal that was heard? >> i did. >> prior to this, i would like to disclose i am a partner in a

project that hired the law firm of reuben and junius as council. there up appearance will not have any effect on my decision. >> thank you. we will now hear from the requester. >> thank you. good evening. welcome commissioner tanner. i am the city appellant. commissioners, as you know, is a case about the number of dwelling units in my client's home. any legal unit was erroneously counted on a old c.f.c. as a lawful unit and my client was directed by d.b.i. to apply for a permit to correct the c.f.c.'s error. we are requesting a rehearing tonight because we decided this case 3-1 on grounds that had already been decided in a formal preapplication decision. under ab 28 kathy's decisions are binding and they are only appealable to the building inspection commission and not support of appeals.

to exceed this jurisdiction is manifest and just. overhead, please. good evening, commissioners. >> overhead, please. >> good evening commissioners. the subject property is my home which i have lived in for 11 years. which i have owned for 11 years. i have been trying to follow the processes to make my home safe but the city keeps folk pulling the rug from underneath me. when i discovered my home had a unit count problem i was told to get an official unit counts. after applying for a unit to count, they refused. i was then told to apply for a preapplication determination. they determined my home has been and always is illegal to watch what unit building. and instructed me to get a permit to correct the record. i applied for the permit to correct the record and b.d.i. has denied it. i don't know why i am being put through this but homeowners in

city departments should both have to follow the rules. i respectfully ask the board to grant a rehearing his of the legal and binding preapplication decision under ab 28 can be honored. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners. a preapplication meeting was held with d.b.i. and fire to review the history and documentation of this property. after an exhaustive review by d.b.i. and fire, the determination -- they determined based on the lack of required upgrades the proper classification of the building is a two unit are three. a signed preapplication is considered as a final determination for code related conditions. furthermore, if d.b.i. and fire management disagreed with the findings, it could happen corrected and appealed. this was not the case.

thank you. >> commissioners, i am happy to answer any questions. this is an issue that may have been missed in the last hearing. the binding nature of ab 28 and the preapplication decision which decided the subject matter of this appeal. thank you very much. >> thank you. we will now here from mr sanchez and the planning commission. >> hello. d.b.i. i would like to welcome commissioner tanner on behalf of ddf -- d.b.i. i am looking forward to working with you. on this case, i was not here for the original hearing. although i am very familiar with him.

mr patterson, this is the third law form now dealing with this case and probably over the last couple of years i have been involved with dealing with a number of dwelling units in this in the dwelling units. we do deal with a lot of d.b.i., , it seems more than ever we have a process called a unit clarification which has worked by a records people and then given to a senior building inspector who will look at the records, including the assessor his records, water department records, d.b.i. records, anything that could determine the legal number of dwelling units in a building. in this case, they came to d.b.i. with a package. we went out to the building as we normally do and it was determined that it couldn't be done as a unit type verification

because there were two cfcs on file for a three unit building. when it is working like that in the records -- there is no real clear-cut one, we cannot, it d.b.i. give an administrative permit to correct it. it would require a building permit with the departing department. we advised on that and that process was used at one point in the process and the planning department and planning commission turned it down. whether that was before or after the unit, it does not matter. and we then went to -- we try to get the two units in the building but there are two cfcs. again, just trying to get this resolved through a proper way, he probably wanted to exhaust his options, at this body, which

is the board of appeals and get the permit disapproved. d.b.i. and appealed that disapproval to the board of appeals. unbeknownst to me, and until i actually looked at this case, i noticed that there was a pre application meeting that took place and it has been referred to here tonight. the preapplication meetings and d.b.i. are very good process. they are one of the best deals that you can have. you can talk about your upcoming project and you can get code questions answered. whether you need sprinklers, what will be the requirements for fire ratings, et cetera. in this case i have never seen a preapplication meeting processed and use that term legal number of dwelling units. the preapplication process was abused here. i do recognize we do have ab 28 i have never, in my history of looking at preapplication meetings, seen a number of dwelling units decided at a pre

application meeting. i have spoken to the gentleman who had done that us after the meeting with the fire department and i spoke to him today he is semiretired so he is hard to get a hold of every day. at this current time. i am looking at -- i have spoken to the city attorney office and i'm in the plan just process of looking into the preapplication meeting to see -- i just don't think that we should be at a pre application meeting looking back on c.f.c.s 30 years ago to determine if they were legally issued or not. that is a question for the inspection division. through this process, he dealt with me. he dealt with the chief building inspector. he dealt with the deputy director as well. we all said, and we are standing

over our c.f.c.s. if everyone got a c.f.c.s started showing up at d.b.i., then we would not be able to stop it. particularly these days with the number of dwelling units. they are in the process for that the planning department deals with it. i do not -- i do know we have a lot of documentation. there are so many records that show this as a three unit building. as i said, we are dealing with the city attorney's office on this one to see what we will end up with. there are questions about work that was done in work that wasn't done. upgrading the building to a type two, that is on a lot of what d.b.i. did during these reports. i see that even on condo reports today. buildings, whole buildings in san francisco can be one hour construction. i am not too sure that is what we will do to the building to

upgrade that was there already. so there was a circle made on that report. my argument is that the building was one arm before you even got that with the three units that were there. when he came into d.b.i. in october of 2017, his first -- as a building owner, i'm requesting a preapplication meeting with the members of d.b.i. to verify the type of construction of my building. that somehow turned into how many units i have in my building and in quite a lengthy letter that was signed off by jeff ma, that turned into a letter in november, a response letter that ended up being completely different from the questions that were answered of the original october 2017. and indeed, the last item on the meeting, he actually, almost had

jeff not stating he can have a single-family dwelling in the building. as i said, meat reading through this brief and not being at the last hearing, and getting into this more and whether you want to open up the appeal again, that is your decision. it is a complicated one. i am -- as i said, he has been at d.b.i. several times with us. that is the update that i have for you tonight. i am available for any questions >> mr duffy, i was actually a little surprised to see that particular subject matter as part of a preapplication. by the preapplication was issued is there anything in your rules and regulations that deal with the subject matter that can be presented and discussed at a pre application? >> probably not but there will be soon. dwelling units today with the

legal dwelling units, but we are going through in the city at the minute with legalizing units, you can't take a legal unit out. it is not advisable for d.b.i. and a preapplication meeting to be determined. even i spoke to mr mott today and he realizes that. if we did that in a pre application, what does it do the planning department and where does it go to? it is not the proper form in my opinion. ab 28, i could take you ten pre application letter sent d.b.i. as a guarantee none of them talk about how many dwelling unit should i have in my building? is a c.f.c.s valid? is it not valid? it is not what a preapplication meeting is for. if you want to read ab 28 like that, that is the one we have for the guidelines. it is mainly used -- i'm sure he has many years of experience, it is usually regarding a project

that you are coming in your edition -- addition, high-rise, because it cuts off a lot of stuff during the project. there is not really a project here. it is not a preapplication for a project. i just don't think it is there. but that is part of what i have to do in this case. because this was used. it is probably looking at what we are doing with d.b.i. in regards to preapplication and have a question possibly before someone comes in and asked them if they have gone through a process. is this to legalize a unit? it is -- is it something that questions at d.b.i. records? this is what it was all totally about. we have records in pbi. if there something wrong with the records, they refer you to the building inspection division many times i have fixed a c.f.c. that was issued incorrectly. we do allow for that.

in this case, we did not see that. he went with the pre-op meeting. anyway. we are not done with it at d.b.i. i think we have to look at it again and see where we are at. we can do that internally. i can work with him. i have no problem with that. i think he just tried to exhaust his option at the board with the disapproval and appealing the disapproval. >> any further questions? >> mr sanchez? >> good evening, members of the board. welcome, commissioner tanner. i hope you enjoy your time on the board as much as i enjoy coming to the board to do these presentations. i will be brief on the matter. we outlined all the issues we had but to reiterate, this is

not the first time that this project has been before the department. the applicant initially brought a permit in 2016 to remove one of the three legal dwelling units and we believe these dwelling units are based upon the permit history and they sought the permit and conditional use authorization was required. they reduce the legal number of units from 3-2. during the course of that process it was found that there were illegal units on the property. it just wasn't one of the three units. there were two additional units on the property. there was a total of five. under the planning code, the requirements are much more stringent for removal of illegal units. it is now illegal to remove an illegal unit. there is an exemption process if there is no path to legalization which was found to be the case for the two units in this case. they were able to remove those units without the conditional

use authorization. but what is before you now is a rehearing request and the appellant has raised information that they did argue and provide to you in the last hearing. it is unclear to me how this request meets the board's strict standards for a rehearing request. but it also is unclear to me what the ultimate goal or aim of the applicant is in this case. certainly if the board did find that this was an illegal third unit, they would be required under section 317 to remove that unit. but the first direction of the city agencies is to legalize the units. so we would ask that they go forward and legalize the third unit and not remove it further under the planning code when there is a discrepancy about or lack of clarity in the permit records about whether or not a unit his legal. we are to assume that the unit is legal. in this case, it is not a

question or a lack of clarity. the records indicate these are three illegal units. we would go with that and interpreted very clearly s3 illegal units. i am available for any questions the board may have. thank you. >> from your point of view, everything that we are doing tonight, we heard last time. so according to our rules, which are you must have new information that was not presented previously. this would not meet that test. >> in my opinion, they are presenting it in a different way but it is certainly they couldn't have presented as a last hearing, in my opinion. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners.

>> i concur. i see no new information or manifest in just. i make a motion to deny the rehearing request on that there is no manifest injustice. >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the request for a rehearing. on that motion, president fung? >> that motion carries. the rehearing request is denied. we will now move on to item number 5. this is an appeal number 18-103.

subject property is 317 dorado terrace. appearing -- appealing the issuance of a public works orator. approval of a request to remove three street trees without replacement adjacent to the subject property. this is order number 188150. on october 17th, 2018, the board voted 4-0 to continue the matter to november 7th 2018 to the permit holder had the opportunity to discuss the potential outcomes including replacement of the trees with the bureau of urban forestry. commissioner tanner? did you have an opportunity to review the video materials for the appeal that was heard on october 17th 2018. >> yes, i did. >> thank you. we already had the appeal on this matter. each of the parties will get three minutes. would you like to hear from the department head first? >> let's do that. >> okay. >> good evening, commissioners.

i'm with the san francisco public works, bureau of urban forestry. thank you. just a quick recap, we had public works issue fine -- issue a fine for excessive pruning to bark eucalyptus trees that are adjacent to 317 dorado terrace. there is a small right-of-way area directly next to the building. where these trees were planted. publics will -- public worship -- public works issue the finest several years ago and it took a while. the owner submitted to us at the admin hearing and we waved the find quite a bit on a condition that they apply to remove the trees. at the time, we recommended no replacement because of the narrow planting area. it is right up against the base of the property. when we did post the removal notices on the trees, we received an appeal from the appellant. since this time, since our last hearing, i have met with the appellant do walk at the site

and not just look at that site, but look at other possible planning sights. we identified a site that can be planted and there's a couple of places where we can't plant. we also looked at what possible replacement trees or shrubs may be for this location. during this time, i have spoken with the property owner multiple times about -- what i was trying to do is come back to you with this with a bow on it. bringing both sides back and saying we have settled on suitable replacement species. i feel we are not quite there yet. and just a couple of things to reiterate, one of the issues that folks had the last hearing was the ability of public works to say that a property owner remove the trees and replace them. we have, on a regular basis made

property owners who we have issued fines to say, the condition of these trees are so poor that we want you to remove them and replace them. we had done not on a regular basis to be consistent. and original estimate of the site was not to replant trees there. it is right up against the building. we typically would not recommend that. and an ideal world, the property owner would go ahead and plant something out there that could be suitable and benefit to the site. we have not settled on what some of the species are. some of them would be a hollywood juniper which is an evergreen tree that gets planted up against houses on a regular basis or a couple of other species. we are still not quite there and seeing eye to eye on that. we will perhaps get closer to that looking for guidance from you. i think we won't hear from other parties and perhaps after that i could follow up.

thank you. >> thank you. is ms. miss chan here? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is lydia and i am the agent for danny and stella chan who are the previous owners. that is correct. we recently had been discussing with chris about the future plantation and here are three reasons i would object to it. so i understand that the trees were not suitable for the location to begin with. it would have been removed again if stella had the knowledge about the code, and had been doing it in the proper way. instead they proved -- printed and made it unhealthy. instead of asking the city to remove it. they were told it was owner's his responsibility to maintain the tree at the time. if they had done it correctly,

the trees would have been removed safely and no replacement would have been needed since it was not suitable [please stand by]

to the property. >> the trees are in contact with the wall. recommendation owners to trim the trees away from the wall to prevent excessive moisture build up on the right wall. the excessive moisture suconducive to fungus and damages. we don't want to take responsibility for the new owners. last point they don't want to

prove anything they are not responsible for. if they are a new plantation they cannot maintain it. the previous owner tried the best to maintain. when the cleaning sign was hit. they requested a new one. metal fence damaged. they requested the city to fix it. they pulled weeds and maintained a better attraction on that side. >> thank you, ma'am. >> who is the owner? >> sorry, i didn't hear. >> who owns the property. >> mr. ing. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the appellant, mr. lanzi. >> overhead, please. >> thank you, commissioners. this is what the trees looked

like after they were illegally topped. as we discussed at the last meeting. this was not an unintentional act. there is no way someone could do this to the tree. there is no way that is the out come anyone who cares about trees would result in. the other thing, i totally agree this is not an ideal place for a tree to be planted. over 67% of the trees have been removed there. aren't ideal places to plant. when the development was built it was built to specifications of 1978 which allowed the trees. they are no longer suitable. we can't say the neighborhood should not have trees left because of the rules that now exist. as i asked the commission last time, i repeat the request that the condition be added to the permit, that replacement trees of suitable nature be planted at

the same location. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i had a question for the department, mr. buck. >> me, too, after you. >> chris, using the previous owners. the liability should change to the new ownership. why is the previous owners having to deal with this right now? >> i am not familiar with the current ownership status. when weshired the fine, it was prior to prop e where the city started maintaining the trees july 1, 2017, last summer. our code in that proposition said property owners were responsible for conditions prior to that date so. >> i understand. the question is since the

property has transferred to a new owner, i would imagine that any fines would also transfer. you couldn't go back to the previous owner. no reason why the department is dealing with the previous owner of the property. >> i wasn't familiar with that until the last week or so. generally my thought is if the previous owner doesn't disclose the outstanding issues associated with the property, one is the new owner would have a cause of action against the previous owner for not disclosing. my since is that they are trying to guide this through to conclusion. >> perhaps. >> your question along the same lines to the city attorney. who has responsibility now? with this directive? >> who has the liability on this?

>> it would be the new property owner. if the new property owner wasn't fully disclosed in the transaction, then it would go back. >> that is between the new owner and old owner. >> the city shouldn't deal with the previous owner. all negotiations as we hear the concern was the amount of time this took and the appellant brought forth a very compelling statement of timelines this has taken a long period of time to happen. now as we get to later stage, now we find out the city is dealing with someone that has no control or say over the property. we can't instruct the previous owner to do something to the property. that is concerning as far as i look at it. >> when i pulled up the property information what is available to

the map viewing software. it has lydia chan's name. i do check those from time to time. >> at one point, i would imagine that the previous owner would say i don't own this, why are you calling me? now it is hard for us to enforce something on someone that is not here. that doesn't own the property. >> i understand. we have plenty of folks we never hear from. we send registered mail letter after letter. short of yanking someone out of the home which we will not do. this is someone clearly involved with the current property trying to move forward. >> even if you negotiate they don't have the ability to negotiate. they are not the owner of property. if they agreed to plant or not plant. it has nothing to do with them.

if i want to work on your car and i say paint chris' car red, you are not going to be happy with that. that is how i look at it. >> i think we asked the question of council and give them a chance to speak. are we dealing with the right people? is this valid in any way, shape or form. thal appellant is appealing against not the right person. >> it is not clear to me whether the woman here today does not represent the current owner. do you represent the current owner of the building? >> speak into the microphone, please. >> i represent dan they and stella who were fined for this. like you mentioned. at the time when they were fined they were still the owners so

this paid the bills, they followed what was requested to remove the tree. at the time we posted the sign, they were still the owners. >> do you have any authority to enter agreement on behalf of the current property owner? >> i do in a sense. but i am not part of the case, i should say that. i agree if there is any future planting, you should take it up with the new owners. >> can you clarify for me. this is like concentration. we are playing a game here. let's get to yes, no, black and white answers. the person who was fined is no longer the owner, true?

>> true. >> when did ownership change. >> in may 2017. >> so mr. buck, the way to find the person to whom you should be chats is probably doing a title report and then verifying through the assessor's office, i would guess. i would find any discussion tonight, i think, we are dealing with air until we, in fact, find the rightful owner, and, therefore, the rightful owner of the space occupied by the trees so we can move forward. is that a fair assessment? >> that would be the safer course, yes. which would lead to another continuance. >> not necessarily.

chris, you have the authority to reissue notices from buf related to the specific property. what has been appealed is your previous authorization for removal of two trees which has already been done. >> the trees have not yet been removed. >> they have not? >> no. one thing we can do is issue the permit. if, in fact, the current owner is not who submitted the removal application, that is a potential challenge for us. we wouldn't want a permit to somebody not legally able to take that action. that is new information as of tonight. when properties change hands, we aren't always able to go after the new owner. i would have to check in with

how we would handle that. would we direct the new current owner to remove the trees or does public works have to -- are we advised we can't do that we need to pursue removal of the trees on our own? those are questions i would want to ask my own team. >> you want a continuance? >> yes, probably want a verification on that. >> it looks like we may go in that direction and you will have more time, i believe one you have the discussions that we had last week was the affirmation it is going to be hard to find a tree to go in such a small space, and that your suggestion was the planting of appropriate vegetation, which may be a bush type item present elsewhere in the neighborhood.

can you ponder that and make some discussion on that when you return as an option for us to go? >> yes, we will definitely pursue that booth with, you know appellant and respondent. i would like to get, you know, what is challenging for public works, this is not our bread and butter tree planting site. removal of the trees with replacement trees public works can enforce in the future. talking with lydia about the guidelines around planting trees in narrow spaces. where are the guidelines, show me the restrictions. that is where the 90-degree parking issue came up. to some degree my wish is for the current property owner to plant something appropriate for that space. that doesn't necessarily commit

public works to a really long lengthy issue for us to be out there policing for a long time. that would be the ideal. if we continue to verify ownership and what public works can do, whether we believe we could issue the permit or whether we need someone to start that over or does public works need to remove the trees to avoid the el issues? those are what we will consider. it is getting the parties together to see what we can agree to. if current ownership is willing to say, yes, we will get something back there. i would love that to do voluntarily. >> it seems like the young woman behind you is very familiar with the situation and could guide you to the person to speak with. if not you will find out with

the title search or going through the assessor's office to get there anyway. the answer may be sitting right behind you to make that path a little smoother and be able to have a conversation appropriately. >> we will work on that process. >> i have another question for ms. chen. the property was sold over a year ago. you have been working with mr. buck and your parents since then. why did this come up the property changed hands they should peak with someone else? >> i mentioned a couple times i was not at the hearing the last time to clarify with you guys. >> how much time do they need, chris? >> we should just require a couple weeks of additional time to check in with assessor and

recorder's office and city attorney's office related to property ownership and our application. i check understand the last week ownership, the assessor and rye corder we work -- recorder we work off the mapping database. there are times when it has taken awhile to update. >> our schedule doesn't look good until january. >> that's correct. i would prefer january 23rd. >> that is fine. >> i hate to see the trees there that long. >> it is okay. i was just going to say that understanding development and this is not the first tree case before us in that terrace and

because of the sidewalks it no longer is applicable to install new trees to. the previous owners, i would negotiate with the current owners to get out there so that when you come before the body again we are able to make a decision. >> january 9th, it won't take too long. >> does the schedule affect ms ms. chanand mr. lanzi? >> the testimony is over, ma'am. >> will we need to new property owners to request a permit? the permit owner is for somebody who no longer has authority over the property? >> it will defend if they

consent to being part of this proceeding or not. >> do we have a motion? >> motion to continue to januar. >> a motion to continue to january 9th. (roll call). >> that motion carries. we will see you on january 9th. we are moving on to item number 6. this is appeel number 18-120. yahya aldabyani doing business as 7-eleven health versus department of public health. appealing the 7 day suspension of the retail tobacco products to persons ages 18, 19 our 20 observed and recorded on the notice of violation dated may 25

and the june 21 environmental health notice of initial determination. case smk18-01. permit t-64960. we will hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes, sir. >> good evening. when i hire new employee, i make sure. first of all, i really appreciate what the department of public health is doing because i am concerned, too. i don't want to sell tobacco products to anyone actually, but i have to have it for the business. i don't want my kids addicted because of easy access. that is why i make sure before

an employee goes behind the counter to serve the public that they get extensive training on how dangerous is the toe back could products and -- tobacco products and how the smokers get addicted before they get to the age of 18. how many people die he praually because of smoking? >> the training covered a lot. what their responsibilities are, and it is not only because of law but because i am concerned, too. i trained them before they start working. i retrain them every six months, and i am almost paranoid.

every month i send someone to check. they never pay it. now, if i have someone to mop the floor and they are not happy about it, they are able to destroy my business. to shut it down. why? because they are not happy about it, about what i told them to do. i do not know. if they use some circumstance, but i do train the people. i understand how dangerous the toe back could is, and i never neglected my responsibilities. that is all i would like you to

know. thank you. >> thank you, sir. we will hear from the department of public health. >> good evening, commissioners. >> we have a new team from the department of health. >> i am deputy city attorney valerie lopez appearing on behalf of the department of public health. mr. yahya aldabyani seek to appeal the seven day suspension as a result of selling to be could to a person under the age of 21. it is a violation of not only state law because it is a misdemeanor. it violates article 19h. this authorizes is director to discipline. to date mr. yahya aldabyani has not disputed the fact his

establishment engaged in the presented to about could sale. in march of 2018 he was cited for selling to -- tobacco to an underaged customer. they sited the employee. you will hear testimony from the department's inspector who inspected mr. yawn's establishment as a result of the complaint they sold to a person underage. current law authorizes the department's director to suspend a permit up to 90 days for first time violation. the department has recognized that such suspension may cause financial hardship. as a result promulgated rules and regulations automatically bringing down a 90 day suspension for first time

violator to 25 days. there are additional measures to allow them to further reduce the 25 day suspension to practically zero days if they engage in mitigation measures. you will hear from mr. prado who will talk about the measures mr. mr. yahya aldabyani agreed to bring the suspension to seven days. now. mr. yahya aldabyani is seeking to avoid a suspension. allowing him to avoid a suspension brings unfair business advantages to other establishments that currently follow the laws. the department seeks to have the director's order of september 5,

2018 upheld because it ask affirming the seven day suspension. with that the department calls officer mackie. >> good ev evening. i have been employed for san francisco police department for four and-a-half years. since 2017 i am with the abc unit with migh minor de coy. prior to the operation our decoys produce a valid california id. they are to tell their real age. on march 7, 2018, for this incident i participate

understand the decoy operation at 4850 geary boulevard in the city. i was operating as close cover officer where the close cover officer it is my duty to protect the decoy and witness the interaction to see if there is any violation of to about could being sold to the minor. he was 20 days old. prior to that i was verifying the average by checking the california id and providing the marked city funds for the operation we are going to use. when he entered the 7-eleven store he engaged the cashier. she had a conversation. i noticed the clerk reach behind the register, a green box hande

to the decoy. there was more conversation. i saw the decoy provide the marked city funds and change was returned back. he walked out. i intercepted. he tells me what went on. i take the change from him, the newport cigarettes. i go back in and introduce myself as a police officer to the clerk and let him know he was in violation of selling tobacco. after which point i explain why he is sited and the clerk understood and agreed to sign the citation. at that point he was cited for being in violation. that is where we are at now. >> thank you. you have a minute and 20 seconds left. >> the department calls the

inspector prado. >> good evening, commissioners. i am with the retail and smoking program with the environmental health branch. when i was preparing on may 25th. a week before i e-mailed mr. yahya aldabyani the compliance agreement and the guidelines for reduction in the days for the suspension. then i followed up with a phone call and asked if he had questions, if he received the e-mail. i wanted to make sure he was prepared for the inspection. i wanted to focus that on my inspection, i went and did the

inspection, and the entire family was there present. i was surprised that they were there. they were interested and motivated, and in implementing the strategies. the owner decided not to implement all three strategies. it was just two of the three that he implemented. he could have reduced his suspension to zero days. >> your time is up. i have questions. >> sure. >> in the past we have had quite a few tobacco suspension was 25 to 60 recommendation days of suspension. what are the

guidelines to reduce from 25 to 7 and 7 to 0? >> with those with the permit? >> with original suspension was 25 days, now it is 7 because you gave him guidelines. >> he implemented two three strategy to reduce from 25 to seven days. >> any prior violations at this location? >> no. not for sales top under damage. >> i don't think you answered fully the question. what were the strategies that would have? >> four strategies available? >> what are the strategy to take this from seven to zero? what did he refuse? >> if he put an opaque cover so you can see the tobacco, that

would give him the days off to make it to zero days. he decided to do two out of the three so he had seven days. he could have gotten from 25 day to zero. we know 90 days is a hardship for the operators so we have implemented the rules and regulations. taking into account the community stakeholders, regulated community. we listened to the board of appeals the suspensions of 90, 180 days and a year is too much. we implemented the pilot project so it would be fair, equitable transparent and clear. >> is it a closed issue or is that strategy up for acceptance by the appellant at this