mr. lazarus? >> good afternoon, supervisors, chamber of commerce, we appreciate the opportunity last year and way back in 2006 in working with the city in developing healthy san francisco program, the health care security ordinance, it's a complicated issue, much that was broukt up from the grand ju, we appreciate their work and we cooperate yearly, thing that is are covered by federal law, it's not an easy solution, but the vast majority of san francisco businesses provide insurance and the vast, vast majority of son fra*ns businesses are spending required amounts of money, every survey and report by your agency show that and supervisor campos has acknowledge hated but there is an issue with some categories of business, but we're working together, small business associations, the chamber on educating employers and employees on the rights and obligations under this law. we've worked with television ads on cable television, the city, websites, direct communication with members, thousands of employe

thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> president hwang: go ahead. >> commissioner lazarus: mr burton, i guess, i am confused about what nile cafe claims to be. is it a cafe? i mean you can't be a cafe and a tobacco shop, as i understand it. so what is it? >> well, in terms of what it does, it does -- >> commissioner lazarus: it operates under a license as something. >> right. it operates under a license as a restaurant, is the main license. but it also has a tobacco license to sell the product. >> commissioner lazarus: but it's not a tobacco shop, is that -- >> under the -- the department is arguing that you cannot be a tobacco shop and serve food at the same time. that's the language of the statute. >> commissioner lazarus: well, if they're arguing it because it's in the statute, then -- >> i'm just telling you -- i'm not saying one way or the other. i'm just telling you their position. >> commissioner lazarus: and is it legitimate to argue that while there may be some ambiguity allowing someone to continue while it gets resolved you can make a similar argument that it cease

mr. pacheco when you're ready if you could call the roll on that motion please. >> we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the repeel and it is with the adoption revised plans, exhibit a dated august 22, 2012. and this is on the basis of agreement between the parties. on that motion, vice president fung, aye, president hwang, aye, commissioner hurtado is absent. it is 3-0. this permit is upheld with those revised plans and a notice of decision and order will be released, and no other rehearing requests are allowed. thank you. >> president hwang: thank you. calling item 6, appeal 12-081 kinami ahmed dba "nile cafÉ", appellant(s), versus department of public health, respondent. 544 jones street. appealing the 30-day suspension of a tobacco product sales permit. reason for suspension: violation of state law and the san francisco health code which p tobacco products. director's case no. smk12-06. we will start with the appellant's agent and you have seven minutes. >> thank you. abraham -- appearing on behalf of mr. ahmed. the reason for the appeal is the decision of the department is that it is overb

mr. johnson. and then the department will have until november 1 to submit any response documents. >> thank you. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus to continue this matter to november 7, and again it's to allow time for the sfpd permit bureau to reissue its departmental action and clarify this departmental action, and with additional briefing allowed. on that motion, vice president fung, aye. commissioner hurtado is absent. this matter is continued to november 7. thank you. >> president hwang: we're going to take a short break. (the appeals board is in recess). (p) we're returning to the september 19, 2012 board meeting of board of appeals (8) appeal no. 12-094 piper murakami, appellant(s) versus department of building inspection, respondent. 117 broad street. appealing the imposition of penalty for construction work done without a permit. we will begin president permit holder, the appellant, piper murakami. >> my name is piper murakami. thank you for letting me have the opportunity to make this appeal. i am just asking for the appeal for the violation fee of $1700 for the unpermitted removal of the -- tower from the firehouse on

mr. pacheco, if you could call the roll. >> on that motion from the president to reschedule item 9-12-096 to october 10, vice president fung, aye. commissioner lazarus, aye. >> thank you. the vote is 3-0. this matter is rescheduled to october 10. >> thank you. taking up item 1 which is public comment for items that are not on tonight's calendar is there anyone who wishes to speak under this item? seeing none, then item no. 2, which is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners. >> i'm sorry i made you wait for 10 minutes. i apologize. i had issues with parking. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, then item no. 3. possible adoption and consideration of the board's meeting minutes. >> i move their adoption. is there any public comment on the minute? if you could call the roll please. >> on that motion from the president to adopt the september 19, 2012 minutes, vice president fung, aye. commissioner lazarus, aye. >> it is adopted. >> item 4(a). requested rehearing of 12-083, gallagher versus department of building inspection. at that time, the board voted 4-0-1, one vacancy, to deny appeal and withhold the permit on the basis that

mr. pacheco, when you're ready. >> on that motion from vice president fung to deny the rehearing request, president hwang, aye. commissioner lazarus, aye. the vote is 3-0. this rehearing request is denied and a notice of decision and order shall be released. >> president hwang: thank you. so we'll move on to item 5 which is appeal 12-056 pat buscovich versus department of building dption. subject property at 2853-2857 broderick street protesting issuance on april 17, 2012 to inger conrad to alter a building to raise the building 36 inches, build new garage for future expansion. you may recall this matter was before you last time as a rehearing request, which was granted. so it is on for rehearing today so the parties can present to you a settlement. >> i'm irving seretski the appellant for the rehearing, on behalf of kate poll voi. we're happy to tell you all the neighbors on the block, all 2853-57 have come to a very great agreement, and we are very pleased with it. it was negotiated on the part of all the principals, and it is really a very satifactory agreement. we hope that you will do your very best to expedite our getting an