commissioner hwang: well, i do not know. commissioner fung: what is the ultimate height of these trees? >> 25 feet. commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president goh: i have another question. how the buildings line up now. we have heard that there are 5 feet apart, and then we have heard that they are over 20 feet apart. >> both things are correct. they are 5 feet from the property line. this is the levinsons' the garage, and this does is 5 feet off of the property line. on this side, there is one very, very small window. that is that small window. commissioner hwang: could you go back? >> that is the small window that faces my client's property. that is their concern. they want us to eliminate the only window we have in the kitchen, the only window we have in the storage room, and much of the master bedroom window. this is the levinson'ss' house, and they have 20 windows. they have a double lot. their lot is 60 feet wide. they have a very large view. that view is only going to change slightly after this g aehwiler house. th

commissioner hwang: who was giving you a hard time? not the department? >> the community association. ucommissioner hwang:qÑkxi am jut trying to understand. your idea is that the homeowners' association was giving you a hard time. >> they know everybody there. we are trying to survive and do the best that we can. i am asking for your mercy. commissioner hwang: i understand. >> this is the second one, and it does not look good. thank you very much. presidentqaÑi peterson: commissioners, then the matter is before you. commissioner fung: as one who has been fairly sympathetic and first occasions, i am not so sympathetic on a second occasion, recognizing that employees do make mistakes. the rese business owner. the penalty could have been the maximum, and in this and to give instance, i need to support the ;çó this decision. commissioner garcia: i agree. when i first read this, i was surprised. they only asked for 45 days, and he stated is opening statement that he thought this was reasonable, and i consider it to if you were familiar with all of the cases t

commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president goh: it seems like if we deny the permit we are denying the repairs to the foundation for at least a year. i am not willing to do that or to force the permit holder to go through the emergency application process. i think continuance makes sense to the earliest possible date -- the earliest possible date after the board of supervisors. commissioner fung: i am in agreement. it is up to the permit holder to take whatever action he has under his control related to either withdraw will or requesting a disapproval. it is up to him to make a case with the building department, whether it is an emergency safety issue. what is before us is the fact that we cannot act. therefore, we must be consistent in that respect and continue this. i am prepared to accept the day that was discussed, september 22. president peterson: what are the implications for permitting -- commissioner hwang: what are the implications for permiting as suggested? what would be the implications? >> i am not

commissioner hwang: got it. thank you.ssioner garcia: i hesitate to overly simplified this, but it seems as though it hinges not on whether or not -- there is no question about whether the poll time driving requirements were met. i do not think anybody argues on either side. it would seem to be that it is the issue to me, unless i am missing something that was just addressed by the city attorney, is whether or not the various authorities who recommended or clarified proposition k were within their right to do so, and having done so does it clearly state there is an obligation to fulfil the ftdr. >> i feel as though everything was done properly in terms of deciding that an applicant as well as a medallion holder has to meet certain driving requirements. this applicant did not do so. i feel, pending the comments of my fellow commissioners, that there is no course for us other than to uphold the san francisco sfmta. commissioner hwang: i would so move. sorry, frank. president peterson: any other comments? commissioner fung: i

commissioner hwang: and i >> neither do we. commissioner hwang: and i

commissioner hwang: aye. >> this matter is continued to september 15. president peterson: we have a final set of findings to consider, will you call item 4c, please. >> another adoption of findings pertaining to the revocation of tax medallion and color scheme permanent. decided july 14, 2010. at that time, the board voted 4- 1 with commissioner hwang dissenting to uphold the revocation of color scheme permit and overrule the revocation of medallion on condition that said medallion be suspended for one year with adoption of findings at a later time. president peterson: the appellant does not like the findings. i don't know if anybody is here, is anybody here representing mr. hollis? they were very well apprised of this evening, i explained that if they had no objection they could come here. they do not appear to be here. >> and there is nothing in writing specific to their objections? >> she did not believe that the allegations supported the ultimate decision to suspend and revoke. president peterson: nothing more specific than that? >> mr. hollis doubl

commissioner hwang: something you said struck me.if the code is not enforced retroactively, why is the goul d's property affected? >> any legal window. it was not installed with a permit. and the widow seems to be an aluminum window. those windows where probably available in the 1960's or sometime about then, so i do not know if that window was ever -- on the property line, especially because it opens. and, furthermore, the permit was filed with the notice of violation. commissioner hwang: i understand about that, but i am just wondering about the grandfathering. >> i do not know how grandfathering would apply. commissioner hwang: i think you just said that it was legal. >> is that the same? that is much better. >> [inaudible] course of rather have that than a blank wall. >> did you have a motion? >> yes, i'm trying to figure out what i was speaking. as i read this applications, it indicates that the windows being removed and the walls filled thandinin, the only way to be ss the option. this is either the option for me or a window as

>> it was from a customer. " commissioner hwang: 80. commissioner garcia -- thank you. commissioner garcia: while you are a pier -- did you have more questions? -- while you are up here. the doctor, is the accurate? has there been a case where someone was either suspended or revoked -- is he accurate? in which there were similar circumstances? counts of prostitution as there are in this case? >> i do not believe that is what he was dating. all of the consequences that this business has suffered to date prior to the relocation were fines. commissioner garcia: oh, maybe i misunderstood. can you respond to that? is a typical when we have these kinds of circumstances that a relocation be asked for, or is it unusual? >> i think the short answer is that this is not typical. it is atypical because we do not see situations -- commissioner garcia: the preponderant of events. commissioner fung: actually, commissioner, i did see something like this 25 years ago. president peterson: i think of a fairness, you can respond to the recent testimony. -- out of fairness. >> the one docto

commissioner hwang: aye. 5-0 to adopt. >> item #5 has been withdrawn, so we will move on to item no. 6. >> calling item six, the minimart verses the department of public health. it is the appeal of a 25-day suspension of an establishment permit imposed on june 9, 2010. the reason for suspension is selling tobacco products to minors. president peterson: you have seven minutes. >> i am here representing the department of public health on the matter. the department of public health found that they were doing business at the minimart. located in san francisco, they violated the san francisco health code, and the california penal code. his store sold cigarettes to a minor on april 242010. -- 24, 2010. the cigarrettes, an agent of the apellant. the apellant later identified the clerk as his father-in-law. he did not ask the minor for age and identification and sold a pack of cigarrettes to the minor. they asked who was with the undercover minor at that time. the officer returned and issued a citation to the clerk for follow-up. on june 9, 2010, session 1009.66 of the san francisco health c

joining her is vice-president commissioner goh, commissioner fung, commissioner garcia, and commissioner hwang. our board's legal assistant -- i am the executive director. tonight, we will be resent -- have the senior building inspector. it in the front row, we have someone representing the department of public and health. [unintelligible] at this time, i would like to ask you to please go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> we request you turn off all phones, beepers, and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows. they each have seven minutes to present their cases, and three minutes for a bottle. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3 minute periods. those not in conjunction with a party may have up to three minutes to address the board. they are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or a business card to staff when you come up to the lectern. there are available on the left side of the podium. the customer satisfaction forms are there as well. please spe

commissioner hwang: before we move to the staff, i have some questions.rd about some versions, in possession of the planning staff, and they received one as recently as last week. why are you providing different versions of this house? >> i think there is a misunderstanding between 2006, which was our first submittal. the first resubmitted, -- we submitted. because the home association stopped it, we had to comply. pdç77çÑi the one that is, you know, legal. we cannot go away from that. yes, we have the same approved plan. zyvsrÑiçóof those te plans that you handed to the appellants last week -- are those the plans? ño% hky0lñr>> . which we did only after we got -- after we received a permit in ó no, wt to have a two-car garage. no, wt whenever the neighbors have, that should be what we have. -- whatever the neighbors of -- have. that is what i gave to the neighbor. plan that added space to the garage. but that is not what was approved, right? >> to get approval from another department. from the building department. there is another department where you g

commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner goh: aye. commissioner fung: aye. the vote is 5-0, the minutes are adopted. president peterson: if you can move on to 4b. the subject property, it is appeal number 10-025. it was decided april 14, 2010. at that time, the board voted to uphold the denial of the tow firm permit with adoption of findings at a later time. president peterson: i would just like to confirm that you are able to revert -- review the video, commissioner garoh? commissioner goh: i did it, i was able to review the video and the finding. president peterson: commissioners, the department is an agreement that the appellant is not. i would like to give the appellant three minutes to address the board. >> asked me to read a prepared statement. he says, i do not agree with your findings that it poses a threat to public safety. we vehemently disagree that we have violated state and city law regulating the cartel and industries engaging in unfair and deceptive business practices. there are two parallel lawsuits against the city and county of san francisc

commissioner hwang: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. commissioner goh: aye. commissioner fung: aye. the vote is 5-0, the minutes are adopted. president peterson: if you can move on to 4b. the subject property, it is appeal number 10-