Stay updated with breaking news from Carol seligman. Get real-time updates on events, politics, business, and more. Visit us for reliable news and exclusive interviews.
attorney, my recollection is he did speak, he did talk to the hearing officer at that time. he was given, from what i remember, ample time to explain the situation. the hearing officer did uphold the 30-day suspension of the original notice. basically, after i read the brief, i did, i inquired at other counties what they do regarding these and what i did was i took the most successful rate of reduction in sales to minors, which was out of los angeles county, and asked what they do. they do have that in their ordinance this they can charge these monetary penalties. because of the success rate i was interested in what they did and they strictly do suspension of permits. and our ordinance here in san francisco, the way we read it, it doesn t allow for any kind of monetary penalty. clearly a violation of california penal code this section 308 only allows for us to do a suspension on the permit, which was what we did in this case. how did you arrive at the 30 day determina ....
mr. elman, we just called this appeal. we re ready to have it heard when you are ready to start. commissioners, since this matter is two appeals joined the parties will have 14 minutes to present their case. mr. president and members of the board, i am howard elman representing the appellant, carol seligman and we are, the other appellant has granted us his time so that we could have a little bit more it make a coherent presentation to you, because there are some complex issues. what we re asking for is that you revoke the permit that s been issued and require the permit to correct all the nonconforming uses. our appeal is supported by testimony from fire experts jim mcmullen, mr. moony who is here tonight, the state fire marshal for 7 years. he cannot here to testify as an expert tonight because he is testifying in some expert out of the city. mark moony has equally strong credentials in the packet presented to you. he is here tonight and able to speak on those issue ....
that is correct. i can have my client testify to that effect. she doesn t speak english very well, but from my understanding of what she has told me or her husband has told me, she has been running the store over 20 years, the impact would be quite substantial. it s substantial enough they hired me to come down here and file this appeal and have it heard. and i think if you tie that in to the fact there s really no rhyme or reason for the 30 days, they are not even applying a 30 day rule, they are applying a 25 day rule and los angeles has a 23 day rule, i think reducing the suspension, appropriate. and what do you feel would be an appropriate fine? $5,000. it s not the amount, it s not the amount of the money, it s what the impact is. if my client is willing to pay that, then he s willing to pay it. thank you. mr. kessler, do you have any rebuttal? you have time if you d care to use it. no? okay. then, commissioners, the matter is submitted. five thousand i ....
i think we are over the he said- shesaid at this point. the reports its belt the report speaks for itself. they submitted fraudulent plans. they were told to resubmit them. they have been given plenty of notices of violations. they have failed to cure any of them to date. the record speaks for itself. i do not think i need to engage in some of the misrepresentations been aimed at us. all we re asking for, everything on this list, we discussed with valerie. her husband was supposed to be there, it took him the better part of two hours to find parking. be that as it may, there is no surprise. we are not pulling any punches under the belt. the biggest item that we were requesting, that we gave up on, we pulled it out. everything else is reasonable. with respect to item number four, the proposed west elevation, this is something i just found out a couple of weeks ago. in good faith, if she could work to have that removed. the 6 inch encroachment, they have built a house 6 ....
these items. i am not sure if i can address all of them. [inaudible] i can try to explain. what he is talking about is that years ago, a gentleman filed some sort of judgment, when that judgment, that the property line is 6 inches over from our wall. i do not know how to go about addressing that. that is not legally, i do not know if it is within our means. i know much of the other items, i have not been able to read through. they re similar to some of this. the windows looking into adjoining properties, the east elevation, that is all of our windows that were pre-existing. that is not possible. that requires all of those windows to be closed. people have no light and air. on the west side, there are no windows. again, the list, i can go on and on. our plans have addressed all the other issues. we really have to move on. thank you. the public hearing is closed. commissioners? commissioner moore: i am basically confused. when the applicant first started, it seems l ....