>> that is the issue. they live on a fixed income. they are retired. they have many health costs hindering their life right now. this is where we're at, basically. commissioner hwang: i need a clarification. i see a receipt for $2,047.20. that has been paid to the city? >> that has been paid. commissioner hwang: you are requesting a refund on that? >> any part of it. commissioner hwang: i just want to know what you are requesting. vice president garcia: to reduce it. commissioner hwang: a reduced by index -- reduced fine? >> i went to the department and filed for the permit. i paid $750. they never told me any notice to my house. they never warned me about

keeping the construction. i was waiting and waiting. we see a man from another department. he saw the construction was in place. he said that we probably had a permit. he sent somebody. they asked me for so much money. i said it was not worth it. i go back and he says that he would give me another person. he sends me an architect who comes over. he says it does not need a permit issued. my son and i did it. commissioner hwang: you have taken it down at this point? >> yes. commissioner hwang: and today the question is about the penalty you have paid and you would like a reduction. thank you. i think we understand the issue.

president goh: thank you. >> i did not know. president goh: we understand. thank you. >> mr. dufty? >> commissioners. the notice of violation was issued on may 22, 2008 for a structure 25 by 20 feet in the rear yard. that totals the entire yard. the $754 was paid to planning when they were trying to legalize it. that was for a variants that was not followed through on -- a variance the was not followed through on. it is in the brief period i think those fees -- it was in the brief.

i think those fees were not for a permit. no building permit was ever filed. on november 26, 2010, they removed the structure. at that time, dbi modified the value of work performed without the permits. the initial violation was 49 times $3,000. we reduced that to nine times $1,000. sometimes we do listen to people. this did not cost this much. the penalty would be significantly more than $1,800. i sympathize with the medical condition and the age of the property owners. at this time, i think the department have done everything feasible to drop the fees as much as possible. we do want to keep the nine

times on the $1,000 penalty. i can answer any questions. commissioner fung: thank you. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, we can move into rebuttal. president goh: i actually have a question for mr. sanchez before we take a bottle. -- rebuttals. i seem to recall we had a case of a hot tub covering in noe valley that was meant to come to us and did not come to us because the department decided something about it was ok. the you have any recollection of that? >> got sanchez, planning department. i do not have any recollection of that. i did review what joe duffy had

in his file. it would clearly require a variance. president goh: because of the size of the structure? >> it covered the entire rear yard and therefore would not be acceptable under the planning code. president goh: what if an individual has a hot tub and a cover over just that hot tub? >> the planning code does provide for obstructions in the form of a garden shed or something like that. that would be no more than 100 square feet no more than 10 feet in height. that would be covered. i will double check on that. they could have that, something like that, which would cover the hot tub. president goh: 100 square feet they could do? thank you. commissioner peterson: can i get some clarification -- were you finished? you said nine times a $1,000

penalty. my understanding was that the penalty is $1,800. can you clarify that? >> that would be nine times $1,000, based on the permit fee for $1,000. it is for work without a permit. it is not nine times $1,000. it is the fee for $1,000 worth of work multiplied by nine. it usually works out to about $1,800. it should have been nine times $3,000, but we reduced that. i do not think the permit has been signed off yet according to the permit tracking system. they still need a final inspection on the permit to abate the notice of violation. president goh: two times would be $400? you usually see it in our pocket. i don't see it. >> if nine times is $1,800, two

times would be about $400. vice president garcia: it would be 360. $180 is what you should have paid. nine times that plus the original fee it would work up to 10. >> i am not really up on the fees down there. i think it is around that. president goh: thank you. any other questions, commissioners? i think we have a rebuttal. >> ms. martinez-smith? >> the only thing i want to add is that my parents are not denying the fact that they put the cover up. they just were not aware that they would need a permit to do that type of work. they are not people that normally build things.

they are simple people. this was a very basic idea to protect my mother from the wind. in putting up what they thought was a regular, simple solution to the problem -- it turned out to be this very huge problem that cost them a fortune. the gazebo itself cost them $1,000. what they paid in fees with all the plans they have submitted is well over $4,000. we have receipts for the different architects they ask to put the plans together which were never accepted by the city. that is the main issue. what was supposed to be a simple solution turned out to be a costly and huge headache for them. they just did not know what was required to put up this type of structure. they did not -- they were not

doing anything behind the city's back, or anything like that. they thought they had a solution. >> mr. duffy, any rebuttal? >> i just wanted to add that the structure does have a sloping roof. i agree with commissioner fung and we do get a lot of people that buildings without permits. telling them they have to start from scratch again, because to get through the planning department is one thing, but then, the structural plan, as

well. it is a fair sized project. it was not sought out properly, and i sympathize with the applicants, -- it was not thought out properly. it was a complete at the department that got us out there in the first place, so somebody was concerned about the size and structure will integrity of the project, ok? >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. vice president garcia: i think that there is obviously a lack of knowledge that there was a permit required. also, i think if given the age and the financial sense of this couple and also given the fact that they never got the benefit from the structure they built without a permit -- i know that might not really be relevant,

but when you realize all that was involved, trying to tear it down, and they tore it down, it is not like they now have it that they can enjoy or rent it out, so i would feel that it would be reasonable for this board to reduce the penalty to two times, which is the max. president goh: i would agree with that. commissioner fung: that is all right, go ahead. let me say something first. this particular case borders on a point where it starts to get dangerous, given the size and extent of it, you know, the collapse, this kind of thing, and i think this is where the department comes from in trying to and forced but it, and when i first saw it, this is right there at the edge of something that could have been much worse

in terms of life-safety issues, but, commissioner hwang, if you have a motion? director heinicke: -- commissioner hwang: i move that we reduce it to two times. president goh: if you could please read the roll. secretary pacheco: we have a motion from commissioner hwang to reduce it to two times. [reading roll] the motion is approved. president goh: next item.

secretary pacheco: no. 10, crown fortune properties versus the zoning administrator -- appealing a notice of violation and penalty dated august 17, 2010, addressed to pgb llc and crown fortune properties, regarding the business professional services is located at the subject property, which is in violation of the planning code. korff --

>> president goh:, the parties have requested that the zoning administrator speak first so that some backman information can be provided and some possible solutions. president goh: is that up to me? " >> yes. president goh: that is fine. >> scott sanchez, planning department. i did speak with the appellant and discussed some possible solutions, but i want to run through some basic background of this case first, and there was, indeed, one error in the notice of violation and the penalty, where we say the effective date of the ordinance. it actually was december 1, 2008, not november, as stated in the letter, and that was pointed out in the official brief, so

crown fortune appears to be established in 1986. it was on union street. the neighborhood commercial controls for north beach that required a conditional use for business and professional services on the ground floor went into effect in 1987, and at this time, it appeared that there was a retail use of the subject location, that it was maybe dealing antiques at the time. later, crown fortune moved into the subject. they did not obtain the required conditional use authorization. the department received no complaints about misuse until there was a conditional use authorization for a yogurt shop in the subject building, and they had a hearing scheduled for november, and we received a complaint on november 1, given that this was a priority, we are

not allowed to process any cases that get open enforcement actions. we issued a notice of violation the same day. the property owner for the yogurt shop also submitted a conditional use to legalize crown fortune at the current location. that was an incomplete application, and the project sponsor knew that at the time but did not provide the required materials immediately. that was heard on october 8, for the yogurt shop. they were ultimately approved. i do believe they did open up, but they are out of business. then, in may 2008, the board of supervisors introduced legislation that made many changes to the north beach commercial district. one of those changes was to make a business and professional service on the ground for a non permitted use, so that was

introduced in may, 2008, and in august, august 6, 2008, the department did receive additional information and materials that were required for the application, some nine months after the initial application was made, and the project sponsor was a form of additional materials were required. there was still cannot -- not enough information, and the site plan was submitted in early september. hong -- we've requested plans which are not delivered to was until october 2008. the notification hearing process for cu is not immediate. we have a backlog on the calendar. things do not get scheduled the meeting. at the time, there would not have been a way to have it heard quickly. in january, january 25, 2010,

the zoning administrator issued a notice of violation and penalty for the subject property. we subsequently had a zoning commissioner hearing, -- note president goh: -- president goh: what is the date of that? >> we had a hearing on march 17, which is the opportunity for the appellant in this case to describe how they think the notice of violation -- we ultimately issued a final administrative decision of last year. that is the item that is on appeal to this board right now. so speaking with the project sponsor note -- sponsor, discussing what are possible alternatives, and the deputy city attorney has additional ideas, and the board, of course, could have additional ideas, but it seems difficult if not impossible to remain this back

to the department and have the planning commission hear it, because at the time, currently, it is not a permitted use. there is no conditional use authorization at their current locations in the planning code. alternatively, an argument can be made for overturning the notice of violation, finding there is an existing legal nonconforming use in that it predates the controls. i do not see that there is any evidence of that. we have nothing that demonstrates there was a business and professional service at this location prior to the enactment of the initial ordinance. the board could make a decision upholding the notice of violation of penalty, and penalties could accrue, and they would vacate the premises.. the board has the ability to continue the item note to allow time for additional information to be submitted -- to continue the item to allow time for

additional information to be submitted. those are some of the options that i had seen and wanted to inform the board of, and i did discuss that with the appellant in this case. i am available at. -- i am available. perhaps regarding the legal status. i am here for any questions. thank you. >> good evening. my name is ron, and i am an attorney representing crown fortune. the reason we wanted to do the flip in order is to give you the background information, because what we have here is a long time standing neighborhood business that has been operating for almost 20 years there. there have never been any complaints there. it is a very small space of 700 square feet. there are how many units? 32 units. crown fortune owns the building

and manages the building, and that was one of the main reasons that he moved from union street, because he was having trouble managing it, and he wanted to be on site so he could provide good service to his tenants and there was also square footage for commercial uses. but it is really a question of fairness and equity here. it was, as mr. sanchez -- i am sorry. i am not from san francisco. it was because of another application that this report came in, and it was an attempt to stop another application, which ultimately did not happen, but i some mr. garcia have a smile for the business that was approved that is now out of business, and that is what happens sometimes in these neighborhoods but the point we were trying to make in this

appeal was that the initial, on september 3, the application was deemed complete, as far as my clients were concerned. i am really impressed by your electronic stuff. i am from another area, and i was on the city council for 20 years, and i can assure you, we cannot afford this kind of equipment, so this is kind of new for me. this was for a conditional use permit. nothing on this document shows in terms of the foreplay and that you have to put in, labels on every single closet -- in terms of the floor plan that you have to put in, labels on every single clause, -- closet, and this was the plan was submitted on september 3, and this is the one i referred to in my document. there was an email that said,

"ok, this looks great, but would you mind labeling this thing? it looks like a closet?" which it was. >> and then so we can tell what the square footage is powerboat -- and then so we can tell what the square footage is. unfortunately, the person who was handling this then went on vacation for a month or the rest of september, so that was going to be an issue, too. what happened then -- vice president garcia: the person that was handling it for your client? or the person who was handling it in the planning department? >> the planning department. i understand this is not relevant for san francisco necessarily, but we always made it very clear with our planning

staff that if you're going to get an application, where the applicant believes it is complete, and you do not, you are required to give not only written notice but are required to tell them that it is still deemed incomplete. that did not happen in the email. consequently, my client felt that, ok, no big deal to give you said in the email "looks great, but would you just do a few minor things?" that is where it broke down, and we believed it had been deemed complete, as we did, there certainly was enough time to have this thing heard before the december 1 change in the law. that is the issue. so i respect mr. sanchez and his statements that as it stands today in january 2011, it may be legally difficult. i do not believe in possible. i believe it is possible to determine that we were deemed complete, and i am not a latin scholar, but the note is one of the phrases i did pickup -- but

that is one of the phrases i did pick up, and then allow us to go to the planning commission for the conditional use and have it yet to be considered for december 1 note, because -- have it considered for december 1. this is not a use that is causing any problem. there has not been a complaint. there is a tenant in the building, and she likes the service she gets. it is a quiet operation, and it does not cause any fuss at all, and that is what i would ask you to consider that, or, mr. sanchez' suggestion, if you feel it must be determined a violation, that the fine be suspended to the call of the chair and that we move forward with this operation. i have one of the property

managers with me. and i must say, your buzzer is quite interesting. >> one of the things i wanted to show, this is the same exact drawings, and the differences, approximately 840 square feet and then a labeled a storage room. you can see that i use a typewriter to put this in. otherwise, it is the same elevation. nothing else changed. a quick background of the complaint, it sort of stems, as we said, from a neighborhood group putting a violation or making a complete on our space in order to stop another conditional use hearing from happening. i would like him to have a few words, note but i just really hope -- a few words, but i just

really hope -- newmont -- vice president garcia: there is rebuttal. >> i am the property owner, and i am also the president of crown fortune properties. i bought the property in 1986 and operated first from the union street office and moved office around 1990. i moved it because it was really quite difficult to manage the property from quite a long ways and found myself going to the property several times a day often, and so, i would find my -- [bell] commissioner fung: finisher last

statement. -- finish your last statement. president goh: what did you find yourself doing? your last statement, what did you find yourself doing? >> i can finish? not only was it easier to manage and easier to service it, it provided a very quick, convenient, easy access for the tenants to see us if they had any problem and so forth. we have 31 partners in the complex. we have 10 commercial tenants, restaurants, and five office suites. if we were forced to move, we would not have anywhere to go. we would have to relocate some other place. note it would be not so convenient for the tenants, either. the space -- president goh: sir?

sir? your time is up. you do have three minutes rebuttal time. >> oh, ok. there is just one more thing that i want to say. i have tried to rent it for commercials, and it is too far up. there is poor access in terms of traffic. why it would be required to be retail, i have no idea. president goh: thank you. commissioner fung: i have a question for the attorney? >> you have a question for me? commissioner fung: no, for your attorney. what is it you're asking of us? >> i can tell you what i would like to have happen, a