>> okay. as far as hiding, i don't think he was hiding anything. the application was just incomplete. i explained to mr. johnson he would be eligible to reapply in 2013. >> for the new permit. >> for the new permit. >> i think all we're talking about today is the existing nelson permit, that the department revoked in conjunction with the denial of the new permit. >> okay. >> that's how i understand it. i'm getting nods from the appellant. >> okay. and again that falls in line with the municipal code, the law is very stubborn. i have other applicants that fall into it as well. >> but you don't have with you the application for the renewal of the existing permit, do you? >> not for nelson's, no. >> vice president fung: perhaps we should hear the rebuttal, and then -- >> okay. i just -- it's been so back and forth, i just wanted to make sure we're all talking about the same thing. >> vice president fung: officer, you still have time to make your rebuttal if you like. >> sure.

on the nelson permit because that's what we're talking about. >> i believe nelson's is, at this juncture, mr. johnson you can refresh me, but i believe it was -- it should have been expired. he was applying for the bay bridge. so i think it will be over any way by the time this year is over. >> okay. thank you. >> when i'm looking at what was appealed and what was given to the department, the letter issued by the police department seems to be crossing wires. it refers to a denial of a permit for nelson's towing. it does not say revocation of permit for nelson's towing that's why our caption says denial of permit. so i don't know if they have issued a revocation letter -- >> vice president fung: that's why it was confusing to all of us. >> right. >> mr. johnson seems not confused. at this point in time do you understand -- mr. johnson, could you stand up. at this time, do you understand

that you have an operable license to tow trucks, to operate a tow truck? >> yes. >> you have a license. >> yes, ma'am. >> under nelson's. >> yes, ma'am. >> so you have not been issued a revocation. >> no, ma'am. >> but your brief, your letter, indicates that you're appealing the revocation. >> well, ma'am, i don't -- i think it might be confusion, but i -- >> may i just read from the letter. >> sure. >> this is your letter, sir. it says on june 20, 2012, the police department made a decision to revoke my existing tow permit under nelson's tow which has been in effect since may 2007. >> i don't mean to cut you off but that's what i thought he was trying to do and that's what i thought i needed to address because i thought it was taking everything that i got, and i got

a family it feed. i mean i got to go to the end with it because i've been working here for the last 15 years, no problems. so i thought that's what was going to, to take the existing thing that i have, to work here in san francisco. >> okay. and that's because, at the top, as mr. pacheco's pointed out to us it refers to nelson's towing. the top of the letter from july 23. >> right. >> it says denial of tow car operator permit for nelson's towing, not bay bridge. >> right. >> is there a way to clarify, i would think there would, whether he has an existing valid permit. >> my permit is valid because i just renewed it 2011. they accepted my money and it's valid. >> is there anything before us? >> there's no document before us. i don't think that the police officer has disputed that fact. i mean you can ask him, but i thought in his testimony he also

said that the permit had been renewed, and -- >> then i'm lost as to what's before us. >> well, in my interpretation is that this is the revocation of the nelson's towing permit and even though it says denial on the letter. >> okay. >> but i'm happy to be corrected by the department, if that is not what they intended to do. >> okay. >> vice president fung: if that's the case we need to see -- >> officer. >> i'm looking, yeah. so that is corrects. nelson's towing was to be denied. the revocation was on bay bridge. does that make sense? >> no. it's just the opposite. what are you looking at, the actual revocation? >> the revocation to be denied he held a permit for bay bridge which was to be revoked. that's the way it should be. nelson's towing, he applied to work for nelson's he held a bay bridge towing. >> no, i didn't. >> that's what it says on this list here.

>> okay. >> either or, one is revoked, one is denied. >> continuance. >> vice president fung: that's what i was leading to in my comment. i think what we need to see is the original letters that were appealed, whichever one was appealed, but we need to see the original letter of action on a revocation, and on a denial, and what the heading was on those. and then put it together with whatever occurred at the appeal of one of those decisions. by reading this letter here, it appears that only one of those actions was appealed. but i not sure which one. >> yeah. well it was for the most recent, the most recent from what i understand was he wanted to work for bay bridge. i can take a look -- >> vice president fung: i think we need to see what occurred with both actions. and i think the appellant needs

to see it too so he's quite clear in his mind what he's appealing. >> i might suggest, if you do -- >> he might have -- >> continue this matter -- >> i think he thought that we were denying nelson's when it was actually bay bridge. that's why he wrote that on here. >> the letter itself refers to nelson's. >> yes. >> that might be -- >> i think that's the confusion. that's what he currently holds. >> understood. thank you. >> it seems unclear as to what actually the -- mr. johnson would need to appeal at this point. >> right. >> so perhaps we should -- we might consider continuing the case to allow time for the police department to issue a clarifying letter that would make it more specific what it is that's on the table here, and perhaps allow both sides to submit additional -- a briefing. >> okay. >> i think that's a great idea. okay.

great. >> vice president fung: how much time does the police department need to gather up this information? >> okay. >> vice president fung: madam director, do you have a recommendation? >> i would suggest we move this out to november so that there's opportunity for briefing and also because the board's calendar is quite full until then. >> vice president fung: and for the appellant to be able to review. >> so if you pick for instance november 7, the -- i would actually suggest that the police department be required to provide a clarifying document in the next few weeks and then there can be time for both parties to brief under the regular briefing schedule. >> vice president fung: assuming that november 7, perhaps you can suggest a timeline for both parties.

>> well i would say then that the police department would have a clarifying statement of the action, the hearing officer's action by october 3. and that would give mr. johnson 'til the 17th of october to prepare any additional statement that he wants to submit. and then the police department would submit a response on the 31st -- i'm sorry, the 1st of november. so -- actually would be the -- we work on thursday. so then october 18, and november 1. so want to make sure you both understand what is being proposed, that the matter be continued so that the police department can issue something in writing to mr. johnson and to the board that makes it clear what it is that -- what action actually has taken place, on

what permit. and then mr. johnson, you have opportunity to submit additional briefing. i don't know if the board wants to set a page limit. leave it to the same 12 pages as usual? >> vice president fung: i think that's okay. >> by october 18, 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 117 broad street that i live in. it was during a rainy season earlier this year. i got the notice in late april, violation i items. and when i met with the -- i met with someone -- i came to the planning department to meet where someone who gave me the violation to find out what he needed to do, and he helped me get through the process and i was aware that i needed the permit when the -- came down because during the storm this year it started raining raining. you provided written statement

and pictures. once the workers were up there we were going to flash and fix the -- tower but it was very unstable and not built very well. and so i made a hasty decision to have it taken down, trying to fix something that was broken, and i didn't want it to fall off and i didn't want it to fall off the building. to -- it's in the works now. so i'm just asking to have the violation fee reduced. >> that's a pretty substantial structure. were you aware that you would need a permit to remove it? >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. o'reardon.

good evening, again, commissioners. patrick o'reardon, dbi. a complaint 2012, 17641 was filed on april 18, regarding the demolition of this hose tower at the old firehouse building which is now residential at 117 broad street. site investigation followed by the district building inspector on april 23, and a notice of violation was issued. the notice stated that the hose tower at 117 broad street, a known historic resource, built in 1896, has been demolished without permit or city planning review. the notice of violation also requires a building permit be obtained for the rebuild of the structure, with planning department approval. permit application 201207245594

was filed on july 24, 2012, reviewed and approved, on september 10, 2012. now, what was approved was a site permit. so it wouldn't qualify for actually doing the work. it was a conceptual design mainly for the purpose of having planning approval. so they now have a site permit which has been approved, but not issued, and we are here, i guess tonight, to deal with the penalty issue. the nine times penalty is required for work performed without permit per table 1-a-k of the 2010 san francisco building code. i sympathize with the fact that the owner was getting water in their house, and, you know, any of us would want to remedy that situation. my thoughts are that it would

have been probably better had been -- would bei, and i, for glad to go out there and look at the situation, give them advice regarding water-proofing or what permits would be necessary. and it's really unfortunate to see this structure that was taken down. so i leave it in your hands for decision on the penalty. i'm available for any questions. >> how old? 198096? >> that's what was mentioned on the notice of violation. and some of the pictures in the materials -- >> yeah, i see them. >> show -- or indicate that it's an old structure. >> okay. >> vice president fung: you'll get a chance for rebuttal after the department's. >> is there any public comment?

okay. seeing none, then we can take rebuttal. >> thank you. this is all very new to me, and i do currently have an architect that's working with me to come up with a similar same hose tower. and right now, the structural engineers are working on how to make it so that it will be more stable. so it's not like i'm not going to put it back up because my idea is to preserve. the money part is very little to the whole amount of what i am spending to preserve the building. but every little bit counts to me so that's why i'm here tonight. >> sorry, what was the last thing you said? >> every little bit counts for me because i'm self-employed, and i really love this building. and i didn't like the fact that i made this bad choice to take it down, but now i'm just working with the system now to get it back on track. thank you.

>> president hwang: we have questions. go ahead. >> commissioner lazarus: you talk about workers who found the structure to be problematic. what kind of workers were these? were they -- did they have engineering understanding, or familiarity with these types of buildings that we're telling you that basically you were better off to tear it down than to try to fix it? >> right. they were up there saying that it was moving -- >> commissioner lazarus: who's they? >> oh,, the construction -- the contractor workers i had. hispanic workers. i use those construction company, the contractor i mean. and it was based on his advice. >> commissioner lazarus: contractor that you had used before? >> i'm sorry. >> commissioner lazarus: a contractor that you had used before? >> i have. and because of what he was telling me, i probably got very more concerned about the structure and stability of it versus thinking of the process with the city, and permits and

all. i think they were up there and made a hasty decision that day. >> vice president fung: further questions, commissioners? >> thank you. >> anything further mr. o'reardon? commissioners -- >> vice president fung: anything from planning? >> addressing the historic nature of the structure? >> dan snyder from the planning department. i think our only comment would be to provide some some background and context on the history of this building. it was built in 1896 engine company no. 33 firehouse recognize in the here today book

which is an acknowledged historic survey. this property was considered for city landmarking in recent past. it did not receive that designation but it was considered. it's a category a known historic resource. and commissioners, that's the basic set of preservation fact. we're of course happy to respond to your questions. >> vice president fung: thank you. >> it says -- i think you wrote here that you're a designer. what kind of designer are you? >> i'm sorry? >> what kind of designer are you? >>ographic designer. >> thank you. that's it.

>> vice president fung: well i think the advice you got -- i think we already -- unfortunately the advice you got, i think probably was not correct. it would have been not so difficult to brace this portion of effort, and then to replace it -- excuse me, not replace it, but to remove the materials that had been damaged, and reattached in a form because that potentially could have been a lot less costly than if you had gotten into the black hole of preservation. but given that this is -- she alreads