president hwang: will come back to the august 15, 2012 meeting of san francisco board of appeals. we're calling sylvia salvador against the boat department of building inspection, appealing the imposition of penalty on june 15, 2012, for construction work done without a permit. this matter is for hearing today, and we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. i am appealing the penalty -- >> your name? >> i am sylvia salvador, the owner of the property. the penalty that was imposed --

i did not know that i needed to have a permit for that. i had halted already -- i bought it already with -- and when the tenants living there did not pay their rent, i ask them to leave, and then they went to dbi and said there was no permit, so i was slapped with a violation. i got the permit, but i was imposed a penalty. and i am hoping for that penalty to be reduced, if possible. that's all. vice president fung: ok. thank you. president hwang: mr. dufty?

>> commissioners, the department issued a notice of violation following a complaint. basically, the notice of violation was for an illegal dwelling unit on the ground floor. the panel the was on the value of the work performed, and the penalty was assessed on the subsequent permit. i suppose in defense of the property owner, from my point of view, i see the notice of violation was issued on may 29, 2012, and within two weeks they got their building permit, so i was sympathetic to that because that shows that you are facing up to something that has been done illegally, as well as the lady did buy the property with an illegally in it. as she stated. -- with the legal unit. as she stated. with regards to the party, i

would be an agreement to drop the penalty somewhat, if that is what the commission would want. maybe not two times, maybe something in between would be fair to me. it has been there for a while and there has been rent collected on the unit. but there is a permit, and hopefully that is what we get. president hwang: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, miss salvador, do you have anything else to say? in rebuttal? you have more time if you want to, but you don't have to. you need to come to the podium if you want to speak. >> well, i am appealing the 9%, whatever, a penalty that was imposed, because right now i'm having a hard time.

i am just employed. i am just trying to get something to pay for my mortgage, and right now it is hard. thank you. the tenants have not paid up to now. vice president fung: you know what the laws is. the law is they can impose a penalty up to nine times. this board can only reduce it to a minimum of two times. >> well, i understand, i know, but at least it will lessen my burden. president hwang: did you say you are unemployed? >> i am an employee. president hwang: okay, i see. thank you. >> anything further, mr. dufty? ok, no?

commissioners, the matter is submitted. vice president fung: commissioners, i am sympathetic. it was not heard dueling, the original construction. i am prepared to overrule the department and reduce the penalty to two times. that is my motion. president hwang: ok. >> so on that motion, then, from the vice president to grant this appeal and reduce the penalty to two times the regular phase. on that motion -- president hwang: aye. commissioner lazarus: aye. >> thank you, the vote is 3-0. this party is reduced to two times the regular fee. thank you. >> calling item 8, appeal no. 12-078, burress and elizabeth

ericsson, purses the department of building inspection. the property is 2680 greene street, protesting the issuance on may 312012, to green broderick l l c a permit to alter a building, interior remodel at all levels, partial light well infill on west side, and seismic upgrade, including 3 new bathrooms, new wine cellar, laundry room, new elevator, roof deck, projected balcony at rear. one for hearing today. the zoning administrator seems to want to speak first. vice president fung: is their resettlement? >> no, the parties would like additional time to discuss the matters. if it would be possible to hold this over to the last item on the calendar, i know there is only one more item remaining, but hopefully there will be time for the parties to make it official. president hwang: i'm fine with that. >> we will hold this matter until we hear the next and last item on the calendar, which is

appeal number pull-079, terry meehan and judith winchel against the department of building inspection, property at 1607-47 avenue, protesting the issuance on june 6, 2012, to peter fealy family trust of a permit to alter a building, comply with notice of violation numbers 9700221, and 201291473, refer to single-family dwelling, remove illegal kitchen, relocate bath, and legalize bedroom and sitting area, provide one required parking space in the garage. the matter is on for hearing today, and we will start with the attorney for the appellant. president hwang: i just want to note that mr. dufty is not here. do we need him here in this hearing? >> i can ask for him to return, if you like. president hwang: just to let him know. this is his. >> right, he probably thought we

were on 8. >> if you could see if he is in the hallway, ask him to come back in. vice president fung: hold one minute, counselor. president hwang: okay, he has been notified you are on. i this want to make sure that he

knew that. >> yunis chang, appearing on behalf of the pilots terry meehan and judith winchel. this is a case regarding concealment. concealment of the tenant of the downstairs unit of 47 avenue was a little. the concealment to the department of building inspection that in 1996, a restriction was placed on the deed and that no borders could live in the downstairs unit, and concealment that a permit was filed 16 years ago to demolish the illegal kitchen and reconvert the downstairs unit into a single-family home. in 2002, when my clients moved into this downstairs unit at 47th avenue, they were never told it was illegal. they were never told the downstairs unit was not intended or designed for a living, sleeping, dining, and cooking, and they love their unit.

they have devoted time and attention, created this extensive garden, and now they have learned the unit is a legal. and they have been forced to move out and it would place on due hardship on them. they are considered a protected tenant with the assumption they tended to live there the rest of their lives. on behalf of my clients, we request they are given three- four months to move out. i have included numerous pictures of their garden, which will require a lot of time for them to move out. they have heavy rocks, he has a petrified logs that is very difficult to move, so we are requesting if the permit is granted they be given a few months to move out. another issue is if the permit is granted, there are no guarantees the permit holder will follow through. 16 years ago, they filed a

permit and that was not done. i have been here before the same members of the board a few months ago on a depressed property on the same issue. they felt a permit, said it would remove it, but they never did. i know it least three other tenants who have been affected because they have lived in a legal units, and they're told to remove it, but they have not. it would be in the board's public interest to ensure that if the permit is granted that provisions be provided to ensure that this permit holder will follow the rules, regulations, and orders of the department of building inspection. that is it. >> mr. mcdonald? >> good evening, members of the board, mr. vice president, madame president. i'm stephen macdonald, representing the permit holder. we have already got a couple of months by appealing to permit.

they will get 60 days notice. we have submitted are brief. there really is no fax, no law, no equity to support the appeal of this permit. i should note that some of the members of this panel may remember we have banned here before with the same arguments. we were here a few months ago, same landlord, same plaintiffs, same tenants' council, same illegal unit, and they beg for two months of the unfinished their semester. this board continued bickering for two months. we came back, and they did not making that claim. we have submitted evidence they have demanded $700,000. they're suing for every day they are suffering from this a legal, "uninhabitable unit" with all types of mulled problems and so forth, and to release their asking for in the brief says something about that the board

shall retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance. well, that is fine. we say let us have our permit, to comply with the city's order to remove the legal unit, and we have no choice. thank you. -- to remove the need legal unit, and we have no choice. president hwang: is there department will comment, mr. dufty? >> commissioners, i am just available for questions. i have one comment. the notice of violation for this, but tracking out on that today, there already has been an order of abatement posted on the property, which means it has gone through the enforcement. well. normally when there is in order of abatement at hand, it is very advisable for the owners to remove the violation.

i don't think that we can link in this any longer. there was indeed a permit in 1986 to do exactly the same thing, and maybe at that taken out and put back in again, i don't know. these illegal units, it seems to happen a lot where they take it out, they do the work, and then they put the kitchen back in again and ran a bit out. it is an ongoing problem, but in this case, i think there would be a reason to comply with the notice of violation, based on the order of abatement being posted. i am available for any questions, if you want. vice president fung: thank you. /5b7 ++ thank yd

that it is an rh-1 zoning district, said they could not legalize this property. president hwang: is there any public comment on this item? ok, seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. if you have anything, you have three minutes. use it or lose it. ok. mr. mcdonald, anything more? vice president fung: i have a question for the appellant. the permit holders brief indicates that your client is intending to move out of san francisco? >> i think they have been looking around for what they can afford, and they have not been able to afford anything comparable. they have this huge, massive garden, and for them to find a replacement home in san francisco, they don't believe

they can afford it. she was forced to retire because he intended to live in san francisco, but because of the situation, she has been forced to retirement. vice president fung: they're going to continue to look in san francisco? >> there are looking outside now because they cannot afford anything close to what they have currently. it vice president fung: ok, what about the unit that was offered to them. did that occur? >> it did not have the garden, and the selling point to them was the fabulous garden they have spent a lot of time on. ivice president fung: ok. president hwang: i'm sorry, did she say she was forced into early retirement? >> yes, it was a decision, knowing they had to move out of san francisco, and knowing they cannot find a replacement location in san francisco, she decided to retire early.

president hwang: ok. than kyou. >> commissioners, unless you have other questions, the matter is submitted. vice president fung: commissioners, in this particular instance, an effort had been made to try to assist the current tenants. the property owner is now faced with some potentially serious

actions since this has already gone through abatement and the enforcement action. i am forced to uphold the permit and allow them to extricate themselves from that together action. -- from that particular action. commissioner lazarus: i would support that. vice president fung: i move to uphold the permit. >> is that on the basis of the abatement proceeding? vice president fung: yes. >> we have a motion from the

vice president to deny this appeal and to uphold the permit on the basis of the pending abatement proceeding at the department of building inspection. on that motion -- president hwang: aye. commissioner lazarus: aye. >> thank you. the vote is 3-0, and this permit is upheld on that basis. thank you. >> thank you. are we ready to move back to item number eight? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. it is my understanding they have reached an agreement and will be withdrawing the appeal, but i will wait for them to come back into the room to confirm that. >> ok. vice president fung: did the add

a screen to the side of the porch? >> i don't know if the agreement is anything that would require this board to take any action, thank you. thank you, it sounds like they're still considering some of the alternatives, so i don't know if the board would like to continue the matter or to take a recess. to the board, i'm sorry. president hwang: how much time, five minutes. we will take five minutes. vice president fung: 5 minutes

is fine.