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

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

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

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 understand the appellant's concerns. we try to address those issues in order to protect the building. we suspended the permit and review the permits. what was proposed under the permits was acceptable. we did note that there were issues with the exterior of the building. that is what commissioner fung noted that was earlier this year. it was to address some issues on this building. it was in addition to one of the permits that was suspended by this action. the permit that we will see as fixing one of these problems cannot be issued until the suspension will be released on the permits here. the appeals of the suspension prevents the permit from being issued. it removes the existing steel gate at the front or replaces the windows with the same kind of places the exterior door with the same kind of paint on the outside of the skill building and you can have some consistency on the outside of the building. we appreciate the concern about the replacement permit. it has not yet been issued. if there are issues that we need to c

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 cons

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 of

the rules of presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders, and department respondents have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board, and no rebuttal. please speak into the end of the microphone. to assist in accurate proportion of minutes, you are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card. they are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are forms on the podium for your convenience. the board rules for -- if you are interested in more information, please contact the staff after the meeting or at our office. this meeting is broadcast on sfgtv and rebroadcast on fridays at 4:00. dvd's are available for purchase. i will swear or affirm in all those who intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings. please stand, raise your right hand, and say "i do" after you have been affirmed. do you swear the testimony you

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. comm

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

-- 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 categor

we will hear from the parties, starting with the appellant. >> three minutes, starting now. with great reluctance but with the firm belief is in the best interest of the appellants, i and went to request an appearance -- a continuance to have the full board hear this. director goldstein: as you understand, when there is a missing commissioner, and the vote would make a difference -- >> my understanding in that in order to overturn the decision, and for your votes are needed. director goldstein: if you have three votes, " where the missing commissioner would have a difference, it would be continued. >> i'd like to ask a continuance. i would not like -- i do not want to do it, but i would feel bad if i did not. commissioner fung: we should allow the city to respond. president goh: i am sorry. what did you say? commissioner fung: we should allow the city to respond. >> we have no objection to a continuance. president goh: ok, it looks like the next possible date of the full board, when you will be here at 1:00 a.m. would be may 25. is that acceptable? directors goldstein: you ha

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 sa

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

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 tolet room off the pantry. there was wire and plumbing throughout. a little history of the case is on april 2 we received notification from the city attorney's office. on ma

if anyone wants to speak on behalf of the appellants, please step up to the microphone. my guess is there are a lot of folks who checked the rahm box. -- the wrong box. 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 wor

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

to facilitate the appeals process for both the department of labor standards as well as for the appellant. the procedures are also recommended to clarify the appeals process, and, hopefully, we will expedite the appeals process and also will encourage settlement and agreement of us sitting issues when there is opportunity to agree. and, therefore, i would just like to walk you very quickly through some of the changes. there are not a lot of them, but we do hope they will expedite the appeals process. nearly all of the changes that you have in the legislation in front of you are located between pages 8 and 12 of the legislation, so the wording that is undermined or crossed out represents the amendment to the legislation, in starting on page 8, the certification pictures shall be made upon investigation. the word "audit" was there. once they do their investigation, they do audit the amounts that were paid to determine whether or not the contractor, the subcontractor, had paid the appropriate amount to their importing ease. it also includes the edification of the grounds that will be appende

. -- on behalf of the appellant. thank you for agreeing to rehear this appeal. this is a complex issue that has far reaching implications for the neighborhoods, quality of life, and safety, particularly given the impact on families, use, children, and seniors. secondly, the pharmacy in this location is unnecessary and undesirable given the number of pharmacies that already exist in close walking distance. that was a letter to you from former supervisor chris daly. more law enforcement agencies are reporting that pharmaceutical diversion and abuse pose the greatest threat to their areas in part because of increases in associated crime and gang involvement which puts additional strain on agency budgets and assets. that was from the national institute of justice's 2010 drug threat assessment. finally, i am from the bay area and i visit all the time. all you have to do is go to civic center. this is called hill hill. this is like a blank market. that was from someone in las vegas about how easy it is to get prescription drugs at turk and jones and turk and leavenwort

are there any other members of the public who would wish to speak on behalf of the appellants? i would like to ask the project sponsor if you could step up and do your presentation. >> i am the outside counsel for t-mobile. i would like to refocus this to where we were. the issues regarding need or demand or exceptional circumstances. these are not really relevant to your review this evening. we are talking about whether a categorical exemption is applicable to the planning commission provided to this project. cumulative emf, that is an issue. this covers the ceqa exemptions. the planning commission took the words right out of my mouth. the fcc standard includes cumulative radio emissions. this concludes that your obligation is to ensure that our operations and the operations of wireless companies in san francisco are compliant with those standards. what you have confirmed that we are in compliance with the fcc standards, it takes it out of your hands and you are done. this is the most progressive in the country in terms of confirming that we are compliant both individually and

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 yo

>> the appellate stated a lot of things that i did not address in the brief. i will focus on the impact of illegitimate pharmacy in the tenderloin. at prior hearings in this case, i have discussed the procedural mistakes this board has made as well as the due process issues. i believe the record is adequate to show the superior court that the board violated its own rules. i will not belabor the point tonight. i hope that will not be necessary at the end of this hearing because i will focus on presenting evidence that bay drugs will have a positive impact. the north of market benefit corporation is a neighborhood organization that has been active in making the tenderloin safe and clean for the past six years. in my brief, there was a 2010 board meeting of the community benefit corporation. the appellate here was the one who asked for this meeting to oppose bay drugs. they asked for the meeting. there was 40-50 people at this meeting as well as my clients. we are where the problems in the tenderloin. the board declined the request to deny bay drugs. the board co

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 inst