opportunity to find it exciting that's what we're here to do to serve the city we love and wanting really great learning experience. >> extremely rewarding and the great relationships with the people

the deputy city attorney hoover provide legal advice. at the controls of the board legal assistant and i'm julie laneymar the executive director. we will also be joined by representatives from the city departments that will present before the board this evening. we have corey teague the z areporting planning. and kevin birmingham with the department of building inspection. we expect the deputy city attorney with public health and michelle, principle environmental healing inspector with department of public health. board request us turn off all electronics so they will not disturb the proceedings no eating or drinking in the hearing room. rules of presentation, appellates permit hold and department respondents begin 7 minutes to present and throw for

rebuttal. people affiliated must include comment the periods. members of the public are not affiliated have up to throw minutes to address the board and no rebuttal. mr. long way will wurn 30 seconds before your time is up. since the board has a vacancy 3 votes are required to grant an appeal or modify. if you have questions about a rehearing the rules or schedules e mail staff. >> now public access and participation are of paramount importance. sfgovtv is broadcast and streaming live and we'll have the 8 to receive public comment for each item on the agenda. and providing closed captioning for the meeting to watch on tv go to cable channel 78. tell be rebroadcast on friday the for you p.m. on channel 26. a happening link to the live stream is on the home page of

our website. now public comments westbound provide in the person, two, zoom. go to our website and click on the boa hearing for today's dates and click the zoom link. you can join or provide comment biphone. call 669-900-6833 and enter 84993415189. sfgovtv is broadcasting and streaming the number and instructions across the bottom of the stroll if you are watching the live stream our broadcast. to block your phone number dry star 67 then the number. lin for the public comment portion for your item to be called and dial star 9 equal of raising your hand you will brought in the hear when it is your turn. you will have throw minutes and

our legal assistant will provide a verbal warning. note that there is a delay with live proceedings and what is live on tv and the internet it is important that people call nothing reduce or turn off volumes otherwise well is interference. if any of the participates on zoom need a disability accommendation or technical assistance make a request to alec the board assistant or e mail board of appeals. now the chat function cannot be used to provide public comment. we take comment first from those who are physically present in the hearing room of now we will swear in or affirm those who intends to testify. note anyone may speak without an oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance if you intend to testify tonight and wish to have the board give your testimony

evidenceary weight raise your right hand and say, i do. >> do you swear the testimony you will give will be the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. if you are not speak put your speaker on mute. so, commissioners we have one housekeeping item. 6 appeal 24-062, 4421, 21st street has been with drawn and will not be heard. not housekeeping an announcement we are move to item one. general public commentful an opportunity for anyone withhold like to peek in the board's jurisdiction that is not on tonight's calendar is there anyone want to speak. zoom? one hand is raised. john, go ahead. good evening. i'm john an update of the ucl and law san francisco [inaudible] community benefit

plan appeal number 20-81 naulty versus public works. they gave the addresses of last hearing was [inaudible] [inaudible] we plant [inaudible]

planted at the location but trees are needed to protect the [inaudible] i mentioned. and so we're missing -- [inaudible] in the report. other tree says were pleasant instead neighborhood and not planted at locations upon given at the last meeting and --

second this will be the third second dead line they have given for trees to be planted for this appeal. i want to move to the third we are missing trees. i'm ready to report. thank you very much. to listen to this report. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner swig. >> thank you for that public comment. i would request the executive director to send inn inkwoir tow the department for a formal update on a requirement, which was driven as a result of previous hear to plant these street tree in a timely fashion and nan tain adherence to a deadline >> okay >> mr. naulty are you there. could you be able to send me an e mail out lining your concerns that will be helpful we covered a lot >> sure i will type it up. i can send it to you.

>> thank you. >> thank you. vice president trasvina? >> thank you, i was going to make the same suggestion you made and appreciate that. it will be helpful to get the presentation in writing. thank you. >> thank you. >> is there further yes or no public comment? anyone on zoom in we'll move on to item two, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioners? commissioner swig. i like to congratulate our new mayor daniel lurie wish him every success he can have on behalf of our city and god bless him and keep him health and he safe during his term. and for those of you who were atis inauguration his speeches substantial and -- very hopeful for our city.

i hope he achieves all his goals. likewise, congratulations to the new board of supervisors and the election of their new president. thank you very much. vice president trasvina. >> thank you. president lopez and i want to wish everyone a happy new year and note, that today we have somebody new in the city hall on the one side of second floor with a new mayor and i majority of the supervisors on the other side the second floor are or will be newcomers. one thing that struck me from the mayor's statement this afternoon was about stressing accountability and access. and i than with the leadership of president lopez that is when we are about as well. over the past couple years as i have been on this board i seen

real efforts to make this process more open and accessible to people. the people who come before us should not need to have high priced lawyers to make their case. they come before us because they want to do something in their home or have a business matter or -- in the past they driven a taxi. or they are neighbors of someone and not expected to be experts at the various laws and regulations and policy. so, i hope that in the coming year that we are able to help educate the public as to what is available to them and what their responsibilities are. so this we can have the decisions made in a proper way the past couple years people complained that the process has taken too long on housing and permits and the since put on the responsibility of this board and others the reason why things are

expensive and not timely. and i think this is a good way of being able to address whatever level of legitimacy people give to those occurrence employmented express appreciation for colleagues and our excellent staff and look forward to hearing from the public this year. commissioner emeppler. amen to the prior commissioners comments. thank you, guys. >> i will echo the congratulations and warm wishes to the new administration in room 200 and on the board of supervisors. you know their success and their objectives is the success of our city. we wish them nothing but the best. and i will say, to echo some of the comments of vice president trasvina that -- this body our mission despite the new

leadership on the second floor, our mission does in the change. and our focus access -- accountability and sounds out come for the public that come before us that will not change regardless of changes whether or not in the local level or state wide level. you know, we will deal with the impact of policy changes and -- role making interceptions but will do so. you know seek the best out come and decisions possible without fear or favor within this body. and always again that -- focus on providing an open public forum for various sides of issues and disputes to be heard. and focus on that best public

outcome on the law and facts before us. >> okay. thank you. is there public comment on this item. >> anybody on zoom. we will move on to item throw the adoption of the minutes. commissioners before you for adoption are minutes of december 11, 2024 meeting. >> vice president trasvina. >> move to department minutes of december 11, 24 meeting. is there any public comment on the motion to adopt the minutes? >> i don't see any. on vice president trasvina's motion to adopt president lopez. >> aye >> commissioner eppler >> aye >> commissioner swig. >> aye >> that carries the minutes are adopted. now move to item 4. appeal tony's market and liquor versus department of public health. 2751, 24th street appealing issuance on november 25 to

tony's market and liquor of a director's hearing order issued by department of public haechlth 20 day suspins of tobacco sales near second violation of san finish health code. sale or distribution of electronic significant rats lacks fda premarket order of approval. this is permitt 94745. we'll hear from the appellate first. he is here on zoom? go ahead. you need to unmute yourself. welcome, you have 7 minutes. >> yea. [inaudible] good evening your honors [inaudible]. i have been running the business the last 10 years and never did

anything wrong. i [inaudible] trying to let you know [inaudible]. unfortunately, couple of the sitting on my shelves for awhile. i we did not pay attention to remove. so, they told me no cigarette or [inaudible] we remove all the cigarette you know from my shelf. and later on inspection from the health department came to my shop and check and said this too, [inaudible] sitting in the back. on my shelf you can't sell this. i told her i apologize i don't know this i will take this off from my shelf and never happen in the future. and after that, ma'am, you know like she came back a couple days later and check and everything is okay.

did in the finds anything. and later on she gone for 5-6 months later and calls me and said that we send you letter for hearing. [inaudible]. i don't know what to do or say, i did not receive any letter from the departmentful or and i was trying to explain what happen and she started yelling at me i told i apologize if i miss [inaudible] sometimes i have two kids [inaudible]. busy taking care of them. school and pick up dropping off. all kind of stuff. i said i apologize if i did not receive the mail. could you sends me again? she send me and the letter saying that i cannot [inaudible] for 20 days. i my % is 50% [inaudible].

it is hard to sustain the business now. in that situation, it stop mow for 20 days not selling tobacco and i lose this customer. how i stay in the business. you know. the cigarette is bring customers. so ma'am it happened one time and i -- assure you will not happen again in the future. i top cell selling what she found i stop it and never going to happen in the future. i strongly request you to help me. or remove my supension for 20 days, you know and let me sell the tobacco so i can sell. thank you your honor. >> thank you. we have a question from president lopez. and commissioner eppler.

thank you for your statement. i did want to inquire about you -- tell us that the two items were you know in the back of a shelf. am can you tell us give us more detail where they visible? to the public. >> from that position in the back of the shelf? >> or if you give us color about that. >> sure. your honor, it was all the way in the back but yea people if someone try to see very well they can see it. but if attention i said [inaudible]. you know. been sitting 6 months or something. and the problem was like buy the tobaccos you know the [inaudible] the wholesale which

i can carry sometimes which i don't carry. it was like long time ago when we got it was employees not banned in the city. that is the reason why i added my shop to get customers, and then after that i pick today up whatever is not okay to sell. you know and these two sitting for awhile i did not pay attention. you know. and i apologize to her and said it will not happen again and if you look at my number i don't sell much tobacco my business is 50% slow down. than last two years. >> thank you. >> and setting aside the prvenlts two item on the shelf have you sold any e cigarettes. no. >> that would that include

before. what was the last time you sold. >> to be honest i think year and a half ago something like that i'm not too sure. i don't know -- name the time may be i was closed sen-8 months for my shop was closed for sen or 8 months the. [inaudible]. and i open it again. everything was you know -- messed up like i had to close the shop like 8 months. 7 or 8 months. and i reopen it and somehow, some item was misplaced but i did not pay attention. i see that i will for sure take it off. and i didn't know this. it was sitting in the back. thank you >> thank you commissioner

eppler. >> yes, thank you for your testimony. to this point i have a question -- you did previously have e cigarette the shop and removed and inspected how did these two additional items come to be on the shelf missed in the inspection and discovered you complied with the earlier order? how did that happen and can you explain how they came to be back on the shelf after found du not have any on the shelf? >> your honor it was whook we are okay to sell all cigarette like especially whatever the legal stuff not the illegal. so. one of my customer he live down the street and said do you have a cigarette. a long time ago. 2-3 years ago, that's why i called nile suppliers and sends

me one, 59 it was throw piece or something. 2-throw years ago. one i stoled and after i in to close the shop for 7 or 8 months. and i close temperature you and not then seven or 8 months later i reopen the sxhom have these two. one of my upon coworker and put it inside in the back. and i did not pay attention after that, i don't know i don't have metal cigarette or nothing. you know i was like i'm okay i'm open mind, you know. i have been there for 9 or 10 years and never did anything wrong. everything is by the rules. you know. like this is thing happen and i apologize to you your honest

orbit give me a chance to remove my citation for 20 days. >> understood. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> vice president trasvina. >> thank you for your presentation. i have two questions. i see this is a 20 day suspension of tobacco sales permit. can you estimate what the financial impact that would be on your store? on you? >> in 20 days it is i think going to be at least like 2-3 thousand dollars for cigarettes. >> may be two. the things -- the if i have tobacco i will have customer. it is bringing customers. if you want to give me the

number for everything else 4-5 thousand dollars. >> this would be the sales plus the customer what the customers would buy. >> yea. attracted to the your store. >> yes, your honor. >> and i note in the form from the city that there were 14 items that you they benched on the shelf. of various e cigarettes can you estimate the value of 14 e cigarettes? >> like okay to sell only these 2 not able to sell. all together i say about 220 manage around 220 or 250

approximately i'm not too sure. >> thank you. >> you are welcome >> thank you, we will hear from the department of public health. welcome you have sen minutes. good evening. commissioners. i'm inspector michelle vega with dph. and i also over seat retail tobacco program. and i'm here will city attorney is not available today. so. as you have heard we are here today because the spate appealing dph's order of 20 day suspension of the to feel backo permit. which lacks merit. number one, the appellate can see they have made sales of

restricted e cigarettes. based on a sale it means any sale or offer to sell or exchange for are any form of consideration tobacco or any person by any bhorn operates an establishment. you includes the display of tobacco product practice. appellate does in the challenge the suspension process. appellate does not challenge the length of the suspension >> fourth the appellate has identified confusion on the basis of their appeal confusion is not a basis toup hold the appeal until february of were 2020, and in november of 2020, dph engage in the 2 educational enforcement campaigns. since the law start in the january of 2020. with that, dph notified all

businesses with the notice in early of 2020 and a retail booklet provided as well. the noticer and booklet notify period about the ban on the sale and display of restricted e cigarettes looking fd approval. the noticer and booklet contact information and we highly encouraged retailers to reach out with questions they may have. in addition the educational to the educational enforce familiarity campaign and out reach and specific low to this appellate, dph conducted two compliance upon checks from 2022 to 24. each time. we found upon prohibited po tobacco productos site. these were opportunity for the appellate to engage if they help

questions about the sale restriction. appellate does not nor sdrm the appellate deny violating by stocking and reselling restricted electronic cigaretteos site. lastly, asked in lieu of the 20 day suspension given a final warning the health code out lines the max threshold dph is authorized to enengage in first time can result in max 90 day suspension. second in 6 months suspension. third flult max year of a year suspension. as board members know dt h makes every effort to educate prior to enforce. . dph regulation that speaks to that enforcement we implemented

with sale restrictions of e cigs. am in these regulations dph out lines minimum threshold of suspension. first time a 10 day suspension or 72 hour removal of the product. second a 20 day suspension. third di violation in 40 day suspension and fourth i have scompligz any after will result in a 90 day suspension. the appellate was benched to be in violation on two occasions. they stocked the items with the intent to sell. . dph 20 day suspension below the max threshold authorizes dph a second day suspension.

converting it to a warning will not stop the behavior of selling tobacco despite. dph is anding the board to uphold the permit suspension of 20 days of the appellate's tobacco perimism consistent with the public narcoticive to protect the health and safety of the city and in the use the imposition of i 20 day suspension is appropriate. thank you. >> i see a question from vice president trasvina. thank you for your presentation. i upon had a few questions. because the from the health code i reviewed in the materials in this record, and your oral statement, there is a lot of

interchanging ever different words. sometimes mean the statement and sometimes they don'tful for example, the products do they contain tobacco? >> yes. my understanding they contain nicotine and not to becomeo that is fine. we got sales and distribution and display. in the code. was he charged with selling or charged with displaying? or were they existing in the store? that were on display based on the ordinance the display of fo tobacco products are considered a sale. >> aside from the code calling -- display the sale, you don't have evidence that anybody

bought them? that's correct >> thank you. on the issue of >> as i understands it, there were no complaints filed against him? >> that's correct. >> it was a routine inspection. and there were two. >> yes. >> one in may of of 22 and there were 5 required actions for 5 violations. and what was the result of that? reinspection conducted within 72 hours and abaited. reinspection on may third. abated the violations. other worn. they were all abated quickly without dispute? 2022. >> yes

>> two years later there was another routine inspection no complaint. any evidence he was selling aside from displaying. evidence of sales to a person? >> we did not bench the transaction, no >> what was the upon response to the reinspection. for the twenty 24? yea >> the reinspection was conducted all items remove friday display and not benched. and that remember reinspectionful conducted in may of 2024. at that time we notified the appellate it is considered a second violation he remove today off disflit is still teamed i second violation. >> what is the authority to

call it a second violation and treat him differently. it is a second i have haitian the first we benched on the compliance check in 20 twoochl some of the products that was benched in 2022 was benched again in 2024. and at that time, the first i have fligz lieu of a 10 day suspension, were which authorize in dph to provide that in lieu. a 10 day suspension we allowed him to remove the products from will the display within 72 hours. and unfortunately, we are here today 2024 a compliance check was conducted and here again

observing boxes on display on the shelf. okay. wham i'm trying to get at is why does two years apart, why is it what is the authority to sigh that is a second violation with a different treatment than happening a second time yoochlt as the. appellate is the permit holder for the tobacco permit. and there is it is part of the ordinance he tails inasmuch comupon pliant inform the time line of him holding mispermit. upon point mow to where that is?

i believe that the upon lagzs this we have the rule and regulations that we have that we establish with dph has minimum requirements of suspension period this is need to be -- issued. based on the number of violations that the permittee has. and based on that the first violation as i stated before, i believe, is -- first time violation minimum suspension is 10 days. second violation is a minimum of a 20 day suspension.

et cetera. and then thank you for all that information. i'd like to get an answer from the deputy city attorney whether section heart attack 19 time period of time suspension of permit is applicable to this. it does tuck about each suspension is an inspect sanction. this should be treated inspect not >> thank you. >> commissioner swig. commissioner trasvina's comments brought up another thought. we had these before. and this is no new orleanses.

and in the past our position has beentrary to what commissioner trasvina's line of questions went into. we can discuss that later. i understand your position. but really reminds me of -- drive nothing a car i like your feedback on this. it reminds me of driving in the car and i'm doing 45 in a 25. cop pulls me over and said you are 45 in a 25. that's not good. i say, police, officer i was daydreaming i'm sorry. and says, i will let you off this time if i catch you doing it again there will not be another. exclusive then 6 months later i'm driving 45 in the 25 and same spot and same cop says, you are doing 45 in a 25. i know you.

we discussed this before. and gives me the ticket. and that's. what is this am i going in the right direction? you visit the -- appellate once and you point out the regulations. the regulations are printed in a variety of places. and -- what got me was that you cleared off the shelf in 72 hours and you came back and the stuff was back on the shelf. there was cognitive actions. is that it where -- you came in did the warning, from promiseed slow down 25 in a 45 we cleaned off and taught him how to drive by taking off the material off the shelf and you come back it is all over again this time does

not work well. is that >> that sounds about right. i believe that we gave him the opportunity to on the first violation to remove it. therefore we had begin him the 72 hour removal in lieu of a 10 day suspension. unfortunately, you know 2 years later he are seeing the same products and that warning was not. >> please don't peek it is not your turn, thank you. upon >> thank you. that warning did not was not enough. and we are here today to seek for a bigger penalty rather then and there a warning. we have ghan to him in addition to many hours as well. >> come is the cop giving the second time giving the ticket.

>> yea. >> second question, i seem tom i have been doing this february awhilism can't keep everything straight. was there ever a practice to commissioner trasvina's line of questioning related to did you then and there whether knew he was selling it was on the shelf. sorry, they were available for sale because it was on the shelf. was there a practice at some point or am i dreaming about. and inspector or somebody making a transaction? which would on the item. was there as from around that. i remember the massage parlor world we have done those licenses. and were there was a swat and

somebody went in asked for the massage and improper massage was offerd and police took action. was there manage with to back open products where a transaction was attempted which sealed the deal. >> we do and still practice that. we random low select permits retail tobacco shops and decoy operations with the police department on saleos minors. we have an adult decoy that would go out on a monthly basis to see if they can get a sale for flavored tobacco electronic cigarettes. >> so, just, you know which would alleviate commissioner trasvina's concern this was not just a painting on the wall but

a for sale item. why was what is the selected nature about who gets the cigarette's off the shelf and you are guilty versus walk negligent shop and [inaudible] was an oversight and -- my mistake. >> unfortunately for the decoy operations we have roughly 585 retail to becomeo shops in the city. to the demand we are not able to hit every spot. that's why we do conduct the compliance checks. i want to also note they've the appellate does also have a food permit with the health

department. so the routine inspection conducted was in conjunction with the food inspection as well. the food inspector inspects for tobacco as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. thank you for your testimony the appellate said there were two pieces of e cigarette i guess two found on a shelf. i look at the inspection form from may of 24 and want to verify i'm understanding what sorry says. i count you benched two blue classic 6 max glows, 3 joule boxes and 5 bloom float? that's 16 separate is that the

second warning as the second, second observation of unpermitted use the 16 piece. >> 16 pieces was the second violation. correct >> and the photographs were provided alonging with that. i see the blue cigaretteos a counter than a shelf. with the shelf behind it. were they taken of the e cigarette in native condition? except for the once held. was that where they were found. can you commentom that. >> this is correct that is the display behind the register that was taken. there are some photos taken by the inspector like the max was of and the flow removed from the will shelves just so we can take better photos of the product. >> okay. >> and i'm you know following up on commissioner trasvina's question.

i'm looking at the code. i looked a bit at the regs around the coyed and the legislation authorizing and the prohibition of the products i seat word sale used a. fair amount. i understand this means distribution i'm having trouble finding the word display so i can make sure i did not miss anything. i believe that is in 19h under the definitions. 19h.2. i don't see further questions you can be seated. we are moving on to public comment suspect there anyone in the room withhold like to comment on this case? kidnap on zoom who wants to provide comment. raise your hand. okay i don't see public comment.

so we will move on to rebuttal. and you have throw minutes to address the board. >>. s your honor. you know the thank you for that. you know she was mentioning like she gave me 2 citation i think this is the 2 years ago inspector came and will said you find everything is okay? i upon don't remember what she was talking about 2 years ago. the last time twounld everfound 2 blue cigarettes before that i had throw inspections. i got an 87 mark out of handled. everything was okay. but i don't know she brought it to me like 2022 gave me one

warning letter. i don't remember. this is the first time -- she told me the two cigarettes you cannot sell. after that, you know like since 22 to 24 i had two or three inspections. and imagine this is the only one that i don't remember when i bought them. may be a long time ago sitting for a long time. i said that i apol yoiz tell not happen again. i give me one more chance i will never do that same [inaudible]. so, and that's all i got say. i apologize again will not happen again. that's all. >> okay. thank you. we have a question from commissioner eppler.

no problem. vice president trasvina. thank you. i wanted clarify one thing you said. am i to understand that while you have the inspection in 2022, and the inspection in 2024 that we know about, that you had other department of public health inspections in that time period? yes, your honor had almost 2 or 3 times health inspection. throw times i saw two different people telling me two things 1 guy said don't do this the other guy said do this one i was a bit confused. whatever they want me to do every time they came and asked

me to do something i say i will do it whatever. and said don't do that i stop it. you have to have like you know a paper towel hi temperature you clean it up i clean you if paint it i pin it. every 6 months than i come and want he to may i have a shelf under need to bes paint i pin it and told me like you cannot put the cardboard on your shelf. >> so. so i'm clear, though, that in the time period that we are speak of not just the two in 22 and 24 it is other timeless the same department come and given you a clone bill of health or not had a comment or found everfound improper tobacco products? i'm sorry your honor. >> the two times and other times they came and there were no to becomeo problems?

>> no to becomeo nothing everything was okay and fine. this inspection i never seen her she is new. and came and said you cannot upon have these two. >> thank you no further questions we'll hear from the d. public health you have 3 minutes. i want to conclude we make every effort to educate the retailers first before enforcement. in the appellate's case we have conducted several educational out reaches before inn force am on the two occasions. the appellate's first violation was a warning. and allowed him to remove the products within 72 hours in lieu

of suspension. with that said, we are seek for the board to uphold the 20 day suspension on the retail tobacco permit. >> thank you. president lopez. >> thank you for your testimony. we are looking at section 19h of the health code. gives us the upon one year time bar on a second qualification or violation qualifying for the increase of in -- a suspension period. if you have an alternative framework for the method you are

aushg plying of having it be cumulative oppose to the one year limitation under 19h19 were you able to find everything else >> made an attempt to the look at retail rule and regs but i was unsuccessful of researching now. >> thank you. >> deputy city attorney huber >> i being at least speak to how i read the code at least we have 19h19 provides the time of suspension of a permit. and that allows the direct to susspends it for a max of 90 days for first violation. and provides if a second violation occurs within 12 months may suspend for a max of 6 months.

there are then the department of public health regulations which provide for guidance. i will start by saying, this board is bound by the code. so -- this board must follow the code in 19h19 which means that the max would be 90 days we don't have a second violation within 12 months. the dph guidelines provide a granular guidance around the time frame without reference to whether a second violation occurs within the first year. i think that is where the department is coming from. upon is under their own regulations if a violation occurs regard rolls of the time period from the first. if a second violation occurs their guidelines provide the suspension period is 20 days.

those only am gun to 90 days. the dph lagzs are all within the 90 day time period the coded provides for the first violation. hopefully that clarifies it. commissioner this is merit is submitted >> commissioners begin our discussion. with commissioner swig at the far end. >> thank you very much. i -- have experienced many of these appeals in the past. we run in a couple we are there to maintain compliance to the rules. that's what our jobs are.

second of all, the argument is has been historically and again today, listen, if you shut me down for 20 days then and you don't allow me to sell cigarettes the aggregated cost is significant and burden upon my [inaudible]. the ruleers set forth to stop behaviors and guest retailers to think about their responsibility to the public. that's why they there in the first place. and it is just for me it is like that speeding anal gee. might get a nice cop but if he

catches you the second time he will not be so nice. and in and this case, the appellate was -- caught the first time. and -- the opportunity to be for a suspension was waived. and proverbally dodged a scombult got caught again, whether that was related to negligence or that was related to purposeful behavior to put those out well and get away with it that's not the point. the point is a responsible business operator would be should be conscious about doing something which he has been trained to do. which there is clear communication both in writing and then as a result of the

first event. so, you get caught twice i believe that you should be held accountable in the spirit of the mayor's lessons from the podium. and that this is only 20 days and not 90 days is i think -- very nice of the department to only do 20 days instead of upon 90 days they could do. i am sympathetic to the operator that this is costing him money. but i again we raises the issue of precedenceful how many times not this week. because this is our first hearing but discuss today in every hearing in the past if we set the president, wave the

compliance to the technicality in the code the next time it happens the appellate will say lin you did it for that guy how come not for me. i'm also scare the precedent setting. i can't support the appeal. i want to share with commissioner trasvina a bit of frustration with the code and the way it is drafted. i think this as you pointed out there are words used in different combinations of words and capitolized and not that could mean different things. i think taken as a whole you know we can infer a meaning as to what was meant by them. in ways would be nice if were clear exterior had guidance on it. but, i could i am also

sympathetic to the loss of business the appellate would have in the face of this -- suspension. but -- this -- you know -- we -- look at culp ability when we make the decision. and when there is discretion can be exercised by the departments in a punishment. and if this had been a company e cigarettes on the back shelf that would be one but we have 16 items that are in the ready low available displays for sale. and because the code allows for a first time mistake to have a suspension up to 90 days associateded with this in the second instance of been caught

with the items and after the education, i think that the department has exercised discretion by only allowing for a 20 day suspension period. i also don't think i can support this appeal. i appreciated the expected and usual care with my two colleagues and my president give to the various issues that come before us. i come to an opposite conclusion. for example, commissioner swig's anal gee it is proffer says do it.

he maedz the changes and begin the reinspection form. have you done everything we asked you no further action required. and the bottom it says well is also some general warnings. not once did it say, you will you are going to be considered a second violator either ever or within a year. there was no notice as to that second violation issue. the second time two year later and in00 eye take note that it is the owner says they come other times to inspect and have never have been any complaint. and never finding of a sale.

there is the display. to call a second violation is i -- following the code of h19t is not a permanent scarlett letter that tony's market has to wear. a second violation after a year. if they told him in 22. second violation. you are off you have done and remedied the problem no further action required. that would be a different situation inform this case, they came back in 2024 and found the

various things that were on the shelves. and said you need to clean them up in throw days they within back and all gone. getting a reinspection report. you have done everything we are supposed to do. i say to be held accountable he has been required to fix the problem and the appropriate remedy the second time was, fix it immediately. which he did. no further action required.

can the department say that the first violation occurred two years before. can that be hel against them in 2024? in that regard it does not look to be that way from the. statute. there is another 6. section d each is an inspect assumption you can't tie the two together. if they could do this there is no notice the notice to him was -- no further action required. i say he deserves to be held accountable for the distribution or display. bum a 20 day suspension which would cost him 4 thousand dollars for potential low selling 225 dollars worth of

cigarette system an abuse of discretion because -- the -- rampeting back in the first of violation i don't see how there is the authority to do this. he deserves to be penalized for the this. i say the 20 day suspension is -- an abuse of discretion or beyond appropriate. to use the traffic violation analogy. when you get points on your record they wash off after awhile. and that is the framework adopted under the code.

this feels dornt me even though i do think this the -- the testimony of two products you know hidden in the back of a

shelf seems in dispute. and with that in mind i think if it would be appropriate to treat this as a first violation. under 19 heart attack 19 which according to the department's suspension period framework would lead to a 10 day suspension. i think that makes alost sense if there is a way we can -- uphold the appeal on the continue the suspension is reduced to 10 days i would say be comfortable with that. we have further comments from commissioner swig. >> i was going in the same direction or keeping an open mind and not trying to be ridge and i had lin to fellow commissioners. and i like the city

representative from the d. health stand to the podium, please. so. let's pay attention to the two commissioners and hear had they had to say. which is -- the gap. in time. seems it is -- instead of the -- same cop pulling over in a short period of time. the operator got a break the first time when he ksdz have got a 10 day suspension the first time.

>> yes. >> and let's say -- and then we look at the pregnancy of the two commissioners well, there has been years past have passed and the gas has been too wide here. so in this case, let's put out what the president said. and -- look at this as a first time. what would have been the minimum and maximum suspension period for violation. if you take in consideration that the gentleman is wide. am he would still begin the 72 hour removal. i can give him a pat on the hand

for that. if we continue to that -- type of enforcement it really -- doesn't do it justice for the health department to make sure that we protect the public in making sure the protects are not out on the shelves and on display for minors or anyone that can get their hands on as far as illegal sales of tobacco and nicotine products. is there an option on first time violation for the department to suspend the license? i'm hearing i heard there are is this was a benefit that was offered the first time to the appellate. that you gave him you first 72 thundershowers get it off the shelves and waiving the

potential suspension would you confirm what that was? >> that was a 10 day suspension. >> okay. >> and -- and -- i mine as well ask, and -- what is your position if this body looked lookedtrary ash arbitrarily and this should not be first time. we were bending over backwards from my point of view what would you feel about can we do can we go to a 10 day suspension or is it either the 20 day that you recommend or we are nothing? i think we need to uphold the 20 day suspension.

. we need to be mindful as let appeal had the had the right to appeal for the 20 day suspension which he waived his right for an appeal. with the director of public health. the notify initial determination was issued at that time he had 15 days to dispute the violation. to us which he failed to file with the department. therefore, hafs note on the violation and on the initial notice of determination is deemed final. and he did not exercise his right as well for a director's hearing >> so on top of the argument that we -- by -- not following through and not sustaining the

20 days suspension because it was a second violation, and that would take the teeth out of the -- department's mouth, that curtail this behavior also the option had been given for him to question this 20 day violation once. he waved that this it is a by the of the apple and you are object to that. you are on two elements one this is the second time, second time around you get 20 days. and that's how your department runs and second low you had your chance, you lost your chance when you did not question it the first time up don't get a second by the. is that where we are >> that's correct. >> thank you. commissioner eppler. i appreciate my fellow

commissioners attempts to mind middle ground or analogies are not working very well. i agree with commissioner trs vina we could not suspend it for more then and there 90 dayy evers we can't tax them together under the code. i think the better analogy is what happens if we had someone this was a hazzard ace waste and go in andan likewise it and see yes. 72 hours to shut this off and shut this off we don't come become for two years and emitting the waste again how would we think about that is that different? i think my might be we might look and see what our full discretion to enforce the restrictions. i'm sensitive this legislation of written by my supervisor because of affects of vaping tools and e cigarette in the southeast sector of the city they were not illegal they were

used by youth and others and marketed as smoking aids they were nicotine addiction devices. this is a -- like hazardous waste a thing that is regulated for good health reasons why public health is here today. department of public health can issue a 90 day suspension in this circumstance and because we have a couple of instances of the products sold, when they should not have been, there are legal ways to sell products that are similar.

to bring up he did not file an appeal this is had the mayor is talking about. if the department help said, we have no jurisdiction, he did not file the appeal. right there on the code is you can appeal these to the board of appeals. so -- the fact that we are here the department is engaged waves an argument they have that this businessman did not file the right piece of paper and appeal to the director. this is a small business person, not someone equipped with a deputy city attorney. not someone who request appropriate multiple declarations as the department representative and two declarations prepared on her behalf this is a small business

person. did not get notice. of the issue of the second violation. did not get notice that he was under any greater responsibility as a first so called violator that first time violation status expires. and then so you take so -- here we are trying to to an agreement. and they say. say 10 days and split the difference. but what i go back to is the department did not have the authority to treat that second the earlier violation in this matter. and in fact rodriguez the on sight investigator for the department said due to past violation this is may as a result in suspension the the

conduct they saw. if we treat this as 2 separate violations the first was addressed and the seconded was addressed in immediately by tony's market, immediate coming in to compliance with the law. the city had their chance to come up with manage this can fix the probable. that should be the end without going to the further step. now from a year on he knows. he is in this now he will if whatever we do will be clear he is held in violation for the

next 12 months he knows that if anybody come back and sees everything that will trig are an even bigger sdafrngz eversanction we will be able to achieve the protection of the customers and youth without going over board in harming a small businessman with a potential loss for,000 which is my math is 20 times the value what it was they found he was selling. i recommend, i would -- i would move to grant the appeal. based upon the -- abusive discretion of the department. a motion to from vice president

trs vina to grant appeal revoke on the basis that there was abusive discretion by the department. correct? on this motion, president lopez. >> no. >> commissioner eppler. >> no >> commissioner swig. >> no. >> so this motion fails. i will make a motion to grant the appeal on the condition this the suspension reduceed 10 days in order to treat the may 20 torviolation as the first violation under dph guidelines. >> okay. on that motion vice president trasvina? ? commissioner eppler. >> no. >> commissioner swig. >> no. >> that motion fails. we have any other motions.

>> motion it deny the appeal ask as the department proceed with enforcement appropriately. we have a motion from commissioner swig to deny the appeal and deny the order on that motion president lopez. >> no. >> vice president trasvina >> no. >> commissioner eppler. >> aye. >> that motion fails. so looks like the under lying order will be upheld by operation of law. we will take a 5 minute break. we will come back at 6:35. >> thank you. wang back to the san francisco board of appeals we are now on item 5.

this is appeal 24-063. adrian and catherine wadely versus build be inspection. 1754, 27th avenue. appealing the issuance on november 15, 20 torto tony yue alteration permit rear deck on second floor. we'll hear from the appellates first. welcome. you have 7 minutes. thank you. hello we thank the board for considering our appeal and their helpful staff in giving guidance about the process. we rescue noise that the board

has heard many similar appeals of deck projects. we live a house down from the permit hoerlsd on east side of 27th avenue. . the houses are typical of the sunset district. no side access to roar gardens and built up to the property line. our two houses built to a design by costelo builders in 19 tlochl we had good relations with our neighbor for many years. we have throw main points. we wish to preserve our enjoyment of light and privacy in our home we enjoyed for 22 years. we provide a time line next of

communications about their deck project. we could had discussion busy their specific plans in our privacy concerns and come to arounding before their designs were drawn up before they applied for a permit and before permit was issued there was time for this to happen. we also have slides at the end for rebuttal period. >> next slide. we welsch to preserve our existing enjoy am of privacy. the city makes available hand out on residential decks we found on line. the hand out notes that planning encourages a 5 foot setback when a proposal encroaches on a neighbor's privacy. and says that deck design sensitive to the neighbor's privacy. for more than 20 years had an existing enjoy am of light and

privacy in our home. a view of 75% of bed itself. their deck and set become plans were not shared with us not asked for input or if we had privacy occurrence. we have privacy concerns. here is a time line showing communication about their deck project. shows this we heard on and off about their plans to build a deck since 2014. significant low we expressed interest in seeing deck plan and knowing about the set badge the details were not shared with us. in march of 2014 they asked to see the plans for our deck part of the house when we fwaut and said than i expected to start deck construction in may of 2047

we could not find our plan and than i did in the start deck constructions in may of 2015 we learned from their tenability they were ready to start deck construction 3 weeks later we invited them on discuss plans. they agreed but two days later cancel specialed said they would not move forward with deck construction. after a gap of gleers june of 23 demolition began next door. we check exclude saw there was no permit to build a deck. in fall of 2023 we had our first indication this dent construction may be happening son they asked you to cut our tree back to allow room to build their deck we were told deck construction would star in first part of 2024. in december of 2023 we suggested pruning our tree in the winter to minimize damage to the tree n. e mill we asked them about the setback from the property

lin we did not pleasure the answer to the set become question. a year later on november 18 of 24 received notice from machining a permit issueed build a deck. our neighbors did not discuss deck plans nor ask about privacy concerns. this is just free throw show the december 2023 e mail in which we agreed to cut become our tree and asked about the set become of the deck from the property line. the guide lines suggest this conticketing neighbor early in the design process to identify and resolve conflicts. and there by avoid delays later. we had a good repore with open communication. we encouraged them to share deck

plans with us. could had sdukzs about the set become. we are reasonable people of hypothetical story here is how it motive work. they show plans ask what do you think of our plans. we reply this 3 foot setback looks close our master is there how about a 5 foot setback. have discussions and reach a compromise may be agreeing a 4 foot set become before they finalize design and submit permit applications. resolution and request. planning encourages a 5 foot setback from the deck proposal encroachos enjoy am of light and privacy this would be true when houses are built up to the property line as ours are. we would gladly accept the 5 foot setback. however we are willing to accept a 4 foot set become as a comp 4

foot setback preserves our enjoyment of privacy. our deck has a 4 foot setback and it is 4 foot 2. and we recognize a 5 foot setback is not practical the same reason a 3 is not. a 5 and throw foot setback. in the same problem of the deck rails meeting window panes rather than solid wall. a 4 foot setback does not create this problem. with our deck with the 4 foot setback the rails meet the house rather than the windows. the concern situation in which we find ourselves could have been avoided we are disappointed it come to this and look forward to the discussion and hope for a resolution with neighbors. >> time. >> thank you. >> vice president trasvina?

then commissioner swig. thank you. in the materials this your neighbor submitted to us. they suggest a privacy screen. and i'm worning whether you had a chance to see that and what your reaction whether that address its acknowledges your privacy occurrence. how does that address your occurrence or what is electric nothing that? suggestion? >> we have not been able to see any plans for a privacy screen we don't know if a privacy screen might address our occurrence. that is not subject of this permit the permit is to build a deck and our understanding was that we need to address that permit not other possible scenario. yes.

the illustration and we know this a couple of thoughts occur. so one elevation is mobile screen on wheels and could be moved out of the way. and second we don't know may be we can get guidance whether tell be a rechoired inspected item that could not be removed. we seem things before online and we note that you say -- we are making a decision for the long-term here. >> seems to me, that the illustrated screens proposed, being be moved and motive not be maintaind and taken away by the current ocuponpabilities or future of the same house. commissioner swig. i was going to ask -- the same

question i will add-on to that one thing for you should information why we bring that you want we will can do that. we can make it if we this board can say and okay. we'll deep the way it is but as a condition of moving forward we can mandate a privacy screen a fixed element. so, in that spirit, i'm going to we ask what commissioner tras vina asked if a condition with a throw foot setback that there would be a permanent privacy screen opaque what your feels be about that we can put this in. we have not seen proposed designs i don't know what our feels will be about that.

i don't find the two that illustrations included to be sufficient. but i don't have been anything about dimensions. there is little we know the information we had the proposal it is a deck permit. with a 3 foot setback and i feel that is when we are challenging here today. is there another with a different may be -- acceptable privacy wall built. does that exist that would be acceptable. may be we will don't have enough information here today. >> i understand that position. and i will ask mr. birmingham. i will get you ready to address it -- can you give us a tutorial on privacy screens. height might be. when they might entail and the might is the key word.

could, would, should. and may be that will continue the conversationment the length of your deck, you have a 5 -- sorry. you have a 4 foot setback that is really driven and did not if you in. >> correct >> we bought it with the deck. jot common sense about your deck is that it attached a solid wall. >> oshg opposed to a window. common sense. what is length of your deck not

the length of your deck it extends to the backyard and the length of the -- project experiencey proposed deck? i don't know the length of their desk from the grounds level not the it is 12 feet from the extent of the bay window it is less it is 10 foot 6 inch i measured 10 foot 4. >> there is -- 10 and change and yours is 12 and change. >> yea. no point just informational. thank you very much. >> thank you. no further questions you can be seated. we will hear from the permit holder. mr. yue. welcome you with 7 minutes to

present your case. thank you. commissioners and everyone feb. for being here. wish everyone a happy new year. appreciate your time. i'm tony yue. together request my wife we other owners and permit holders 1754, 20th avenue. a bit about our house and project. them is our deck is per of a large are project to extend our living space. we have been working on this for a long time to give our growing teens more space and the deck is i final piece. the kidsmented a deck and asked us why we don't have a deck. both neighbors both sides do have decks and we are the only house that does not have i deck. both are large are than our proposed deck. and -- we hired a licensed engineer to design this for us

and to our knowledge it meets all code according to dbi and reviewd and, proved by every department t. is air modest and basic. 19 by sen. in our yard that is as much as we can goat to get over the counter permit. and -- we do understand that we are here our neighbors are concerned about our 3 foot set become invasion of privacy and we are feel for them and understand that. they had a deck for the 14 years we lived here and it is set to the 4 foot set become they are requesting of us. i we don't agree that become by that extra foot will solve the

privacy issue that is why we are more then and there happy to offer the privacy screen we feel that adequately addresses the privacy issue we will looked at it and. over head. basically we can look at all the angles we want this is their deck here not drawn to scale. our deck is more like this. but you knoween at the 4 foot set become they look in our children's bedroom for the 47 years that's the nature of live nothing san francisco. our bedrooms are in the back we drawn the curtain i don't expect thome do this we are offering the privacy screen. we can look at angle fist we put a privacy screen here that will make it hard for anybody to see

in the bedroom >> so, um -- you know -- we can see with the 4 foot set become they see in our children's broom and other day i took picture and left the kurt anxiety sxoep my son was upset you forgot to close the curtain i said sorry, but i forgot i was trying to illustrate that is a concern and we understand and i then and there we can't -- hire they put up a screen and we would appreciate that as well. some of the things see that my neighbors have said. about our lack of communication we have shown we tried to community now. did we show the actual plans? no, over a year ago we -- knew

we wanted put up a deck we did not have plans yet at this point we talked about a tree in the way and that it would be nice being -- neighbor low as possible.

we feel the screen is more effective and -- more cost savings for us that's a reasonable solution so we ask the board to approve or permit and allow us to move forward with no additional conditions. >> thank you >> thank you. i don't see questions at this time you can be seated. we will hear from planning department of good evening.

za for planning. this is an appeal of a permit for 764, 24th avenue. in rh1 zoning district. the required rear yard is 36 feet. represents 30% of the depth of the lot. you have seen the deck that was proposed and approved is within the buildable area not within the required rear yard it is code complying and it did not require public notice. to the neighbors. as you have seen the deck is only a total of 9 feet deep. 9 feet call and throw foot setback. and because of that it does comply with residential design guidelines we have an

informational hand out that we have on our website for decks like residential decks. common deck, i will post this quick. to show. and i will read from the right the deck on the left is similar to what is proposed here. what the state the tip at the bottom states the design surrender 10 feet kahl tall excluding railings setback throw feet from the property lines and the buildable area it should be approvable over the counter. this deck that was approved over the counter meets all the crip tear enthusiasm this is a state your name, typical type of residential deck this we see all across the city and in this case -- a flat lot building the same depth.

y it is a very standard scene we see across the city. so. was not need to modify the project for issues to privacy it was approved by planning over the counter. code compliant and did not require neighborhood notification i'm available for questions you may have. commissioner swig. >> the project sponsor. the appellate showed a document all about decks and said in the document we saw it on the screen that 5 feet set become is the recommended setback. you showed another document this says 3 feet is okay. where is the -- i mean i'm curious the ambigutey. >> that was a grab or

reproduction i'm not sure where that was referenced from i'm happy to reference where it was from. there are sceneos we want a clarjer set become in this 3 feet is fine. >> thank you. >> i should, sorry. i meant to point out that since the issue was raised of a privacy screen because of the context here within the buildable area and there are other relevant circumstances if there was a reasonable privacy screen addd that would not be an issue urn the planning code and would not be an issue with the guidelines. >> thank you. >> thank you. joy don't see questions we will hear from dbi.

the building department this permit to put a deck on the roar of a single family home at 1754, 20th avenue. i would like to say well is there are decks that i counted over 10 deckos this side of the street alone. about the same size this is in the normal not out of character for the area. and -- i did want to say that the neighbors there. this is the plans for their, proved deck than i built a small are shows a 3 foot set become approved. from the upon property 39 is when their deck was ash proved for this deck was never finaled they could renew temperature and

extend it to within athlete foot of the property line. permit holders not able to object it is 15 days after issued. but as far as the proif' screen as long not over 6 foot tall if so it would require a structure ral plan to stieblize it from wind and weight. it does seem like they are trying to work and hope they figure out something. this is high density neighborhood. they live next to. a deck that is the issue we come up again and again. privacy and light hopeful low they can work it out. as far as building department it meets all codes. it meet it is all code requirements >> commissioner swig. >> yep. thank you very much. thank you for this explanation of privacy screen if we -- were

toup hold the appeal with the mandate that the planning put up a privacy screen no more than 6 foot high. what would you anticipate the get conversation going in rebuttal. what would you anticipate the materials would that materials acceptable in this. >> there are guide lines i have to go become to the code certain amount of open space for light in between like a lattice. will turn train pleasantos. it didn't be a solid wall. have you to have light allowed through t. it is -- may be -- 40 or 50% open before 42 inches high opened. i have to look at the code there are some requirements but alost times it is something like

lattice situation you can train plantos it. >> and -- upon the concern of the permit holder i would have the same concern what would the impact an impact or what would be the impact on them moving forward? >> i think it would be we could be very easy overnight counter revision. you know it might not require that it might require a note on the approved set of plan to say a privacy screen it is less than sick foot i'm not sure it needs to go through. if over 6 foot you trun through -- you can do it if you want to >> not to over simplify like going to home depot. getting a certain length of lattice. and telling your contractor. i think the left time we talked

about an opaque plastic screen as well. it is something they have to agree to. between the neighbors >> okay. >> thank you >> commissioner lopez. your turn. >> one question. so the appellate voice concern about understanding the permit holder silence the home or rent its. someone takes down the gene had recourse would they have. not a lot the same turn around if they sold their home with the set of plans the next owner account revive the plan and build up it throw foot and they valid no recourse. we could i guess put manage in there a privacy screen will be provided but it is like remologying the railing. it will be can be alterd and get

a permit to remove that screen if they wanted to. >> okay. upon even if wee put a requirement for -- note for privacy screen on the plan, if the permit holder puts up a screen, take its down months later, i money on the plans it is permitted have to get a permit to remove if they did remove they would file a complaint.

now moving on to public comment is there anyone to provide public comment on zoom? i don't see anyoneful we move on to rebuttal. we will hear from the appellates. you have throw minutes to address the board. several the points we want to make have been addressed i will move to the additional 1 foot setback. we proposed a 4 foot as a compromise i think it would make a difference. we seen the hand out on the deck

guidance. we still feel we have an existing right of privacy. for 20 plus years and we don't understand why or how the these this -- hand out was not reviewd and we would like to find out what -- our neighbors thought about that section and whether they considered 5 foot setback and building it further out in the buildable are even though they have a design from an engineer and review by plan and dbi. we don't feel that has taken account our privacy concerns and while it may be true the neighborhood that hands out states existing right to private sxaes 92el is impacted. they do say they spent a lot on construction increase pregnant the setback will be expensive.

this being have been avoided with more communication, discussion. there are a couple of points we want to bring upper about their privacy occurrence not subject to permits. these are a couple of exhibits from the brief to you. top right the photograph that was taken from the by's bedroom. shows our deck. however, as can be seen it mostly shoes the branches of the tree it trim exclude than i had to add a green line to show where the deck edge is. the bottom left shows that even when the branches are there as they are now are blocking the view if our deck the by's bedroom. in summer the tree grows over

the deck. address exhibits 6 photo we cut it back to 4 feet from the property line at the time. we cut it back to the property line in the area office going to be and the they are showing a year's growth the deck was not built. >> time. >> thank you i don't see questions you can be seated we'll hear from the permit holder. mr. yue you have throw minutes.

>> thank you. excuse me. i want to address a few things. first, we were not aware we were required by dbi to speak with our neighbors about our plans it is not something we would have opposed there is a lot going on and you know i think we shown we tried our best at communicate with our neighbor and we had a great rep with them and feel like we have gone above and beyond top do what we could to be as neighbor low as possible. so, um -- and in regards to the statement about when if we move we have been here for 14 moving we put money remodeling our home

to expand space for our kid and new living space. also, you know, regarding the tree. i think that was a subject nawe discussed for a long time along the lines of discussing the plans for the deck we made efforts to make sure we did not damage our neighbor's tree that shows we do try to be neighborly. i have a photo that shows the tree did grow or i don't know if it was cut or grew it is 4 feet on our property line now this upon shows that is where it is. i think that the points about the tree blocking their view if seeing our by's bedroom is valid and i think that it would go to show that today block our view to their window as well. i wanted say those things and open to answer questions.

>> thank you. i don't see questions at this time. planning department. >> good evening president lopez. corey teague from planning 2 quick thing i went and look the at 5 foot reference that was for the side set become this same deck document an f, q section this provides more and says when you get in situations where someone's deck is beginning to encroach on privacy there is say recommendation it be 5 feet. you saw in the graphic and the context here it is not where we determine this deck to be encroaching in someone's privacy. that was not a thing where the 5 foot set become would be required. the question that combhrn lopez head, planning's purposes at

least if the board conscience a permit to have a feature a privacy screen, and then that permit is built -- using that continue, if you wanted remove that feature in the future we would say, we have to deny that and you have to appeal it back. essential low they skw to remove a condition the board had put on that permit woad not have authority to do. so from planning perspective if you took that action and required the privacy screen has a condition of approval would be required unless in the future an owner came back and questioned remove temperature those other two points i'm available for questions. >> thank you. i don't see questions >> thank you >> now dbi.

i'm sorry for the information i gave before core decorrect me that it would then need to be approveed remove that screen. i like to permit holder we don't require the neighbors to talk but encourage it so we don't end up here. hopefully they do work and find a solution and the picture of the tree is impress prias far as the aim of deck it blocks. you know it seems to go both ways privacy on both side its is a modest deck i don't think it is out of character with the block. i believe it was properly approved and uphold the permit and deny the appeal. please. >> commissioner swig. >> so you showed the plans that showed us the plans from the appellate that -- indicated that

they could have the their predecessor could have built a wide everybody deck than i still can do it. >> you stated also that you have observed multiple duck in flopping that same block. on that side of the street. >> right. >> and so as far as being an exception in any shape or form, as being done in the neighborhood that dog don't hunt >> well is a deck on each side and i will get a picture. you can seat deck on the, side guess up to the property line and have a fire wall in between

as well. >> its -- yea. they are asking for the same as everyone else on the block. and may be you can consider -- and -- therefore my i'm trying to -- you -- yea. so -- i answered the question. is everybody does everybody's deck have that throw foot setback and the answer is, no, because there is one house away that has no setback what so ever. all right. ask it that's it. the 2 foot set become a property line setback it would be still

considered reasonable and the context of the block and neighborhood >> yes. >> correct. thank you. >> commissioners this matter is submitted. >> commissioners let's begin discussion at this end with vice president trasvina and move left after. >> thank you, president lopez i want to thank our department of representative and it is neighbors for all the very good presentations. i see a lot of people with good will neighbors need to talk to each other in absence of this. i said i see people of good will here this deck has now divided you when you really should be united. was not that long ago that we had a warning.

this issue should be resolveod 20th avenue not city hall you have begin to us and that is your right. i believe that the yue family should its deck. i think that as a condition of this to address the various needs the privacy screen should be per of our disposition on this matter. i sense well is a commitment and suggesteds a way of compromise and i like to go forward with in in mind. i agree with commissioner trs vina's comments and point out that the reason why we will include the privacy wall a part of our disposition if we decide

do so not because of lack of good will to ensure it remains as a privacy wall in the future as things change and the block develops and turns over and has those things that happen that do happen in a neighborhoods. >> this deck is code compliant and consistent with the rest of the block. it is consistent with the rest of the neighborhood. we could very easily deny the appeal with no conscience what so ever that is the way it is. i applaud the permit holder for suggest even suggesting and the care to put up a screen. we can discuss this screen fwhau is an person piece that we do have a neighbor who says i'm not going to i could do this i'm

compliant i'm not goinga change it that's the way it is this is a nice man. and very nice wife and rest of his family no we will play nice and. it is up to us whether we need to accept this offer or just play compliance game code compliant and passes let's let it go. . that would be the discussion. and so let the discussion begin. i would go with mr. birmingham and say, put up a screen no more than 6 foot tall and make at this time appropriate material. look it in the upon permit so it is protected and perch taoist. does not affect property value for the 58 appellate and gives

them privacy i'm okay. let the conversation continue. >> i will make a motion and second here. but before i do i did want top echo the positive words toward the permit holder twrop being reasonable -- and neighborly in this venue. i think that also appreciate the acknowledgment that you know some improve ams could be made but i do appreciate the words and gestures that i think you shared here this evening. with respect to the appellate i don't like to say a couple of things, first. it evers were extreme low well put together and well presented. so even if i'm not sure we

approximately give you the 4 presented the backup option i wanted recognize that i think suggest that the situation. and i wanted say that the i saw on the materials of this tree was plant and raised from a seed. and that was impressive. and -- impressive and so i did not want this to without comment. with that i will make a motion to grant the appeal on the condition that the plans amended to include a privacy screen. on the -- side of the deck closest to the appellate's

property. of no more then and there 6 feet. according to the -- guidelines provided by dbi. >> okay. >> thank you. on that motion vice president trasvina? >> aye >> commissioner eppler >> aye >> commissioner swig. >> aye >> that motion carries 4-zero. and this concludes the hearing. >> thanks everybody.

>> this is one place you can always count on to give you what you had before and remind you of what your san francisco history used to be. >> we hear that all the time,

people bring their kids here and their grandparents brought them here and down the line. >> even though people move away, whenever they come back to the city, they make it here. and they tell us that. >> you're going to get something made fresh, made by hand and made with quality products and something that's very, very good. ♪♪ >> the legacy bars and restaurants was something that was begun by san francisco simply to recognize and draw attention to the establishments. it really provides for san francisco's unique character. ♪♪ >> and that morphed into a request that we work with the city to develop a legacy business registration.

>> i'm michael cirocco and the owner of an area bakery. ♪♪ the bakery started in 191. my grandfather came over from italy and opened it up then. it is a small operation. it's not big. so everything is kind of quality that way. so i see every piece and cut every piece that comes in and out of that oven. >> i'm leslie cirocco-mitchell, a fourth generation baker here with my family. ♪♪ so we get up pretty early in the morning. i usually start baking around 5:00. and then you just start doing rounds of dough. loaves. >> my mom and sister basically handle the front and then i have my nephew james helps and then my two daughters and my wife come in and we actually do the baking. after that, my mom and my

sister stay and sell the product, retail it. ♪♪ you know, i don't really think about it. but then when i -- sometimes when i go places and i look and see places put up, oh this is our 50th anniversary and everything and we've been over 100 and that is when it kind of hits me. you know, that geez, we've been here a long time. [applause] ♪♪ >> a lot of people might ask why our legacy business is important. we all have our own stories to tell about our ancestry. our lineage and i'll use one example of tommy's joint. tommy's joint is a place that my husband went to as a child and he's a fourth generation san franciscan. it's a place we can still go to today with our children or grandchildren and share the

stories of what was san francisco like back in the 1950s. >> i'm the general manager at tommy's joint. people mostly recognize tommy's joint for its murals on the outside of the building. very bright blue. you drive down and see what it is. they know the building. tommy's is a san francisco hoffa, which is a german-style presenting food. we have five different carved meats and we carve it by hand at the station. you prefer it to be carved whether you like your brisket fatty or want it lean. you want your pastrami to be very lean. you can say i want that piece of corn beef and want it cut, you know, very thick and i want

it with some sauerkraut. tell the guys how you want to prepare it and they will do it right in front of you. san francisco's a place that's changing restaurants, except for tommy's joint. tommy's joint has been the same since it opened and that is important. san francisco in general that we don't lose a grip of what san francisco's came from. tommy's is a place that you'll always recognize whenever you lock in the door. you'll see the same staff, the same bartender and have the same meal and that is great. that's important. ♪♪ >> the service that san francisco heritage offers to the legacy businesses is to help them with that application process, to make sure that they

really recognize about them what it is that makes them so special here in san francisco. ♪♪ so we'll help them with that application process if, in fact, the board of supervisors does recognize them as a legacy business, then that does entitle them to certain financial benefits from the city of san francisco. but i say really, more importantly, it really brings them public recognition that this is a business in san francisco that has history and that is unique to san francisco. >> it started in june of 1953. ♪♪ and we make everything from scratch. everything. we started a you -- we started a off with 12 flavors and

mango fruits from the philippines and then started trying them one by one and the family had a whole new clientele. the business really boomed after that. >> i think that the flavors we make reflect the diversity of san francisco. we were really surprised about the legacy project but we were thrilled to be a part of it. businesses come and go in the city. pretty tough for businesss to stay here because it is so expensive and there's so much competition. so for us who have been here all these years and still be popular and to be recognized by the city has been really a huge honor. >> we got a phone call from a woman who was 91 and she wanted to know if the mitchells still

owned it and she was so happy that we were still involved, still the owners. she was our customer in 1953. and she still comes in. but she was just making sure that we were still around and it just makes us feel, you know, very proud that we're carrying on our father's legacy. and that we mean so much to so many people. ♪♪ >> it provides a perspective. and i think if you only looked at it in the here and now, you're missing the context. for me, legacy businesses, legacy bars and restaurants are really about setting the context for how we come to be where we are today. >> i just think it's part of san francisco. people like to see familiar stuff. at least i know i do. >> in the 1950s, you could see a picture of tommy's joint and looks exactly the same. we haven't change add thing.

>> i remember one lady saying, you know, i've been eating this ice cream since before i was born. and i thought, wow! we have, too. ♪♪ >> the wild type is cultivated sea food company, meaning we create

directly from the cells, fish and other sea food animals. there is so much around conservation of salmon. there used to be so many salmon and now all most done. none. we care about creating a food product that is nutritious, that is free of all contaminants that are unfortunately found in all our sea food today. so, where we where right now is in what we call the fishery, so right behind us is a sushi bar. this used to be a brewery we did miner upgrades so soon we will be able to serve diners here so they can try wild salmon. right over there shoulders they are able to see where it came from. if you are one of the people that likes having super fresh sea food, this is about as fresh as it gets. we want guests to interact with the people who create it, get to know them

and be part of this movement is of creating sea food for 21st century and beyond. >> [music] you are watching golden gate inventions with michael. this is episode exploring the excelsior. >> hi i'm michael you are watching golden gate inventions highlighting urban out doors we are in the excelsior.

pickleball. let's play pickleball! pickleball is an incredited low popular sport growing nationwide. pickleball combines tennis, bad mitton and ping pong. playod a bad mitton sized court with paddle and i plasticic ball. starting out is easy. you can pick up paddle and balls for 20 buck and it is suitable for everyone in all skill levels you see here. the gim is played by 2 or 4 players. the ball must be served diagnoty and other rules theory easy to pick up. the game ends when i player or team reaches a set score 11 or 21 point bunkham win bright 2 pickleball courts are available across the city some are and others require booking ahead and a fee.

information about the courts found at sf recpark. org if you are interested in playing. now i know why people are playing pickleball. it is so much fun you play all ages. all skill levels and pop on a court and you are red to g. a lot of fun i'm glad i did it. all right. let's go! time for a hike! there is i ton of hike nothing excelsior. 312 acres mc clarin the second largest p in san francisco. there are 7 miles of tris including the there was fer's way this spreads over foresxeft field and prosecute voids hill side views of the city. and well is a meditative quiet place in mc clarin p you will siendz labyrinth made of

rock:now we are at glen eagle golf course special try out disk golf >> now disk golf! so disk golf is like traditional golf but with noticing disks. credit as the sport's pioneer establishing the disk ballsorption and the first standardized target the disk ball hole. the game involves throwing from key areas toward i metal basket. players use different disks for long distances driver, immediateerate. mid range and precise shot, putters. players begin at the t area. throw disks toward the basket and prosecute seed down the fare way. player with the lowest number of

throws the end wins the game. disk golf at glen eagle cost 14 dollars if you pay at the clubhouse. there is an 18 hole course this is free. du see that shot? i won! am i was not very good now i have a huge respect for disk ball player its is difficult but fun. thank you for joining me in the excelsior this is goldenate adventures.