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 30day 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 doesnt 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 determination . I took over t
Is that the punishment be changed or modified, there be a fine or the 30day suspension at the election ever either the board or the defendant. When you have a small store like this, people come in and buy cigarettes and then they buy other things. Theres certain things that lead people to want to come into the store. They will do what we call leaders in the retail business. Regretiblely, in this store one of the most important leaders it has is Tobacco Sales. Im not going to comment on whether people should or should not be smoking, im only going to comment that it is legal and it is a way that people will actually go into the store and buy not just cigarettes but other items as well. This its really important when there is a violation, yes, the violation should be addressed and its a serious violation. What im questioning is that there should be an alternative to both fine and or the suspension. The suspension in certain cases can lead to a punishment which is far worse than what woul
Mr. Elman, we just called this appeal. Were 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 were asking for is that you revoke the permit thats 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 issues and answer question
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 is a lo
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 inche