we personally fell the appellant's agent was acting on the appellant's behalf and it was the appellant's opportune sheet -- responsibility to ensure his agents are well trained in the law of selling cigarettes to minors. the suspension, i think, is very reasonable. the department asks that the board denied the appeal. president goh: i need to see a written law from the health department where it says -- can you talk about how shopkeeper's know about the prohibition and the penalty for selling cigarettes to minors? >> at the point of issuance of permits to operate, usually the applicant, in this case the appellant, received that information. during our routine inspection, my inspectors also mentioned it to the operators the need to display the products properly and the need for them not to sell to minors. the tobacco-free projects also mail out reminders every year to all the establishments. president goh: do these materials indicate that for a

we personally fell the appellant's agent was acting on the appellant's behalf and it was the appellant's opportune sheet -- responsibility to ensure his agents are well trained in the law of selling cigarettes to minors. the suspension, i think, is very reasonable. the department asks that the board denied the appeal. president goh: i need to see a written law from the health department where it says -- can you talk about how shopkeeper's know about the prohibition and the penalty for selling cigarettes to minors? >> at the point

you wish to speak to the appellants. robert longer, samantha wolf, toshira johnson, neal bardeck, brian webster. anyone who wishes to speak on behalf of the appellants, please step up. >> lawrence rosenfeld, 15-year resident of the inner sunset. on monday, april 18, at the at&t team came out to survey three sites in the inner sunset. the process consisted of asking us where we would like the boxes and telling us the reasons they were not satisfactory locations. for example, the challenges of trenching where there are many tracks. but nothing was said about how the fiber cable gets down the street. i am concerned that the city mandated 18 inch setbacks from the curb will be a problem for people trying to get children out of car seats or disabled persons into wheelchairs' or onto crutches. in a neighborhood that is short on parking, if there is a box that is blocking egress to your vehicle, you are in a world of hurt. there are enough issues like the parking set back that i think need to be handled from a central point of

we will start with the appellant. or the appellant's representative. >> by a.m. also going to request a continuance to a date when all five members of the board are here. unfortunately, i have to ask for that very crowded made calendar. my client has informed may that the family is going to be going back to jordan for the month of july and will not be back until september, so i would ask for the continuance so the full board can hear and consider all the evidence surrounding this appeal. president goh: in order to grant a continuance, first, one of the commissioners has to make a motion. first, let's hear from the department. >> i am a representative of the health department. on behalf of the department, i will object to the may continuance. this is the second time. i think we were supposed to have this case -- we reluctantly granted a continuance. i do not know of the absence of the vice president will make a big difference. president goh: ok, thank you. commissioners, if we were going to have a continuance, we would have to about a motion for a continuance, and

we will start with the appellant's attorney, mr. fukuda. you will have seven minutes. >> i will be brief. the first item i want to mention is that the actual appellant is a california corporation. ike's place is the business name. i simply ask the commission to recognize the true appellant in this matter. i would start by saying that bike -- that ike has suffered expensive lessons and learned a great deal in this matter with regard to his property. briefly, historically, he and his mother bought this 400 square foot store from a seller in 2007 and paid $3,000 for that store. they installed approximately 100 dozen dollars of equipment in the store. ike's mother took out mortgages on her house to finance the purchase of the business and operate the business. ike has improved the business for over two years. he went from no employees to -- he had 50 employees. in terms of the application, the city did not request a conditional use application for two per se -- for two years after he occupied the premises. the planning department advised him to

the third appellant point has to deal with noise. the potential noise and vibrations associated with the building's mechanical element not being -- or any other adjacent building. this would be required to meet all codes which control noise levels. the department of public health investigated complaints regarding fix mechanical source noises such as a ventilation systems, air-conditioning, motors and compressors. the district inspectors will take measurements to see if they stand to allowable levels. they will require the property owners to make sure that they are compliant. this might include times when the machinery is allowed to be turned on, relocating equipment, nor is compression measures, or other measures. the project is subject to the noise ordinance which regulates operational noise for all buildings in the city. the fourth point is air quality. this -- the operational air quality was considered less than significant. the proposed project would pose potential health risk, particulate diesel matter that is emitted during con

the appellant wants them to happen. it is a matter of getting clarity for everyone about what needs to be done to achieve that. removing the steel gate, which has always been a point for the appellant. keyboarding will come off the windows. the windows are to be replaced. any doors that needs to be replaced will be employed -- will be replaced in kind. i believe is not at the issue stage. we have a hold on the property overall. we have placed a hold on anything that happens on this property. we are trying to do what we can. if we can get a list, something that would be simple and easy for us to get all of the points on the plans and get the permit holder on board to do all of that work, that is what everybody wants. >> do you feel like there are a anyhanging chads? are there any issues that would cause for you to rethink having lifted the suspension? >> no. all issues raised have to deal with the permit that is waiting in the wings. >> mr. sanchez, i am still confused about the door at 731. we saw photographs-share woul

i represent the appellant. if there is a problem with that, then -- commissioner hwang: you are representing the lawyer? >> no, the lawyer was representing the organization, and i am a member of the organization, san francisco citizens against building permit fraud. i am representing them. president goh: this is a little unusual. commissioner fung: commissioners, i think if he says he is representing them, we should go with that. commissioner hwang: it says eric krebs. >> we usually let people appear. there is no board rule to prohibit that. if there was evidence brought forward that suggests that he did not have authorization to represent the appellants, the board could reopen the case at a rehearing, but there is nothing in the board rule, but i do not believe there is anything pitt that would prohibit it. -- anything that would prohibit it. commissioner peterson: it says eric krebs, and then it says bad it is the san francisco citizens against building permit from, as if they are representing themselves. com

we will start with the appellant and his attorney. you will have seven minutes. >> thank you, commissioners. i just received during the recess for response, i have not had an opportunity to look at. based on that, i would be seeking a continuance of this hearing to permit myself to respond to this. >> are you talking about the response dated march 17th? >> correct. >> i have not seen it until a few minutes ago. >> there was another attorney. >> he is a general manager. "did she receive it? >> i am not aware of it. >> we understand that you just served the party. >> i just realized there was no proof of service attached. i was looking at my files. i thought that there was surface to counsel but apparently it did not go out. >> it was not served. >> you are not party to this? >> no, i represent a property owner. >> commissioners, what is your pleasure. >> i move to continue. >> that would be my ordinary feeling but i don't know the relevance of the document that the appellant did not receive and how it really bears and with this board o

we will start with the appellant. mr. krebs. >> my name is w.b., and i am here representing the appellant. vice president garcia: what is not permitted is to yell from the audience. >> i will try to keep this as brief as possible. president goh: , to the microphone if you're going to speak. -- come up to the microphone. commissioner hwang: my question is what is the basis for your objection? i am the owner of the property. if he is not the appellant, then -- vice president garcia: if he is authorized to represent the appellant. >> does he have something that says he is authorized? commissioner hwang: if he says he is, we believe him. >> i do not know. i have not been here before. are you going to accept his word that he is? .vice president garcia: i guess what bothers me is there's no one else here claiming to be the appellant or claiming to represent the appellant, so it would seem that he has got representation. commissioner hwang: are you singing this is the same person as the appellant? >> i do not know. if he is not

as much sympathy as i have for the appellants, it is a jurisdictional issue. i think commissioner fung's items taken, and i am sure that he will make good on his commitments taken tonight. president goh: well, i am torn. i agree with what has been said to some extent, and i am also concerned when an alleged senior is told "we are going to give you a note one way or another, and if need be, we will eillis act, and the notices are a little bit troubling, too, finding out after the 15-day period -- 15-day period to appeal. on the other hand, we do need to show that it was some act of the city that caused the delay in filing, so i am not sure that i see that or that i see it well enough. commissioner hwang: there are some statements on the record were a do not see any support for those statements. it is difficult here to try to make a finding of fact when all the facts are not before you, but -- i do not know. i do not know where i am going to fall at this point. this is a difficult one, but as -- because as president goh said, it does trouble me when tenants are

-- from the appellants? >> thank you for hearing our appeal. team mobil proposed new sites in a two-block radius in north beach. one of these is the subject of the appeal before you. let me show you why this should not be categorically exempted. mr. president, members of the board, first i will give you a visual to complicate as i speak about industrial installations. imagine a forest that is managed by a timber company who was applying to cut down one tree at a time. there is no one analyzing whether they are damaging the forest. the defect in the planning department's approach is that the analyze each and every installation in san francisco individually and apply categorical exemption individually to each antenna and they fail to look at the entire forest. the wireless communication guidelines utilize by the planning department indicate that this address is a preference 7 site, the least desirable site for locating a cellular antenna. the guidelines require that such sites only are approved in rare circumstances. the city has claimed a catego

when the actual notice was issued, was the appellant made aware of potential penalties? >> it was in the enforcement notice, the first notice that went out in april. they were aware from april 21, 2010 of potential penalties. commissioner fung: that particular document is not in our pocket. it very clearly states what the penalties are? >> yes. i apologize if it was not in the material we submitted. it is a form letter format we send to all violators. commissioner fung: it is not necessary to place it, but if you would read the relevant portion that corresponds to the same penalties in the final letter. >> under the subsection "penalties and appeal rights," it says that failing to comply within 15 days will result in a notice of violation and administrative penalties of up to $250 per day may be assessed for each day the violation continues unabated. we believe it is very clear to all parties. thank you. president goh: it sounds like this prohibition applies to all cafes that have the retail coffee store permit. so there are many, many cafes in the city that also makes s

the appellant, or the requestor, did not go through the process. i'm inclined not to grant jurisdiction. i wish there was some way we could codify what seems to be an arrangement that would prevent someone from standing on that deck and looking toward the window. all that is left to us to do is to hope that we are dealing with someone who is honorable, and we have no reason to think he is anything but honorable, and will do just what he said here. as for jurisdiction request, i would be inclined, with the others who have already commented, to not grant jurisdiction. >> i don't have anything to add. commissioner hwang: the timing of the notice and the change of ownership makes for a sympathetic set of circumstances. for that reason, i would be inclined to grant the request for jurisdiction. but, i will probably be shot down here. commissioner fung: i would make a last comment that there was a time period of about a month in which the appellant could have and did not. i think that is what is going to sway me. >> is their emotion, commissioners? commi

the action requested by the appellant, the appellant has requested more time to comply and wants reduction of the investigation fee imposed for work without probable permit. the department will have seven minutes to present its case. then the appellant will have seven minutes. there will be discussion and then at the end we'll have three-minute rebuttals. >> good morning, commissioners. allen davidson, department of owners inspection. illegal use of the occupation with a store at the ground -- occupancs with a store at the ground floor. it has a ground floor fronting howard and the second floor has been illegally converted into residence of two dwelling units established without proper permit. this stems from the city attorney task force inspection which was initiated following the reform from the san francisco police department. -- referral of the san francisco police department. a dwelling on the howard street side consisting of two bedrooms and one kitchen and the rear occupied approximately 2/3 of the second floor consisting of five bedrooms, one kitchen, one full bath and a separate t

but it concerns me to hear the appellant taking the position is. i think it is unfortunate because i know the appellant has brought many people here, who have taken time out of the middle of their day and have potentially wasted their time if this is somehow an invalid hearing. i am disappointed to hear that are taking that position, but that is what i just heard. that is the concern i have now. president chiu: let me suggest the following may -- falling way to move forward to this. are there any of us to believe we should re-much as this hearing and hold another hearing? -- re-notice this hearing and hold another hearing? we could vote on that. we could end this hearing now and what does it again for the future. but at this point, the 11 of us to believe this has been noticed properly. let us put that on the record. a future court can decide based on any appeal of this case the weather the brown act was violated. i suggest that as a possible way for us to move forward. supervisor campos: let me say that i do not believe that we should re-much as t

the amendment also requires that the office of enforcement of for the appellant an opportunity to meet and confer with in the first 30 days of asking for an appeal, and so we are hoping that that will help expedite an agreement between the appellant and the department so there would not be any need to hire a hearing officer to go through a very laborious, linthicum and sometimes expensive hearing process. -- linthicum and sometimes expensive hearing process -- lengthy. should there not be any agreement, and then the comptroller would have the responsibility to appoint a hearing officer. which we currently do. the amendment also gives us a little bit more latitude for appointing the hearing officer and allows the hearing officer to be either someone or an attorney with experience in construction law. we pay the rent board for that work. and then, finally, it establishes guidelines for the hearing officer process come on and the hearing officer must conduct a fair and impartial hearing and establishes that it is the appellant's responsibility by proving with a preponderance of evidence t

if you wish to speak on behalf of the appellants. in other words, the parties to just argued for the appeal of this project >> if i could have the screen? president chiu: thank you, sfgtv. >> a very large document you have before you, regarding supporting of the appeal. first of all, there are two highly possibly volatile gas lines at parkmerced that requires immediate action before any further action. secondly, this is a model of urban density and development. vacant space, infill development, professional integrity. if that is true, half of the city is suburban korea that is nonsense. the management deserves better from the city as a partner in the department's economic development. this is limited in scope and defies possibly that the city could be an active partner for development because economic development is an important part of the allocation of resources necessary to deal with the mitigation effects. there are the boundaries of the project, impacting san francisco university, and thank you very much. president chiu: thank y

i'm the appellant in this case. i want to comment on item 3, the protest of the findings mentioned of the supporting power equipment installed across the street from my home at 156 27th avenue. i found is a little bit rent. our appeal was granted because the department did not review the impact of the equipment installed on a protected block. when the planning department reviews a wireless permit publication, i assume they would review the totality of the equipment installed to determine the impact. 863 41st offers a good example case. i have their conditions of approval on the overhead here. this document shows that the planning department's conditions of approval, they required a flush mount design, they requested a match, and neither of these were met. they also required sf 0, 2, and 3. this is the document that the planning department referenced, the detailed drawings of the equipment that nextg is -- intended to install. if you go to page 3 of this document, nextg clearly advise the equipment they intend to ins

the appellate made some suggestions as it relates to noise in this case. the noise from these facilities are governed under the police code for the newly regulated noise ordinance. this is the first time the department has been informed of an excessive noise complaint. if this is the case, we will coordinate with the department of public health to do an evaluation for this location. moving forward, the applicant -- the appellant has stated about the inability to underground this area in the future. as he has suggested, the pole is currently a joint pole. as part of that agreement, if the city decided to underground the district, all over had polls -- overhead poles would need to have an alternate location for these installations. there was a comment related to the e-mail from the bureau chief, where they are pointing specifically to the statement that there is a limited ability to appeal. this e-mail was in response to a hypothetical question and posed by one of the board members. historically what we have found from practice from these wireless companies