>> is it working now? ok. we need to take a three-minute recess to fix the system. >> ok. we are resuming the meeting of may 11th, 2011 board of appeals. we are in the middle of 4a.

i believe there are 16 seconds left on the clock. ok. if the permit holder has anything additional to say you have a few seconds left. hold on. try the other one. it worked before. just use that one, please. >> the mention of contractor should be changed to surveyor. the surveyor. >> ok. so this time according to the surveyers information we have already made the change, you know, have a draft.

it is also completely according to the specs. >> your time has expired. if you want to make one more sentence to wrap up to make up for our interruption, go ahead. >> thank you. >> can he show this, then? >> sure. >> ok. >> ok. the outer wall hasn't been touched at all. just answer remodeling. >> ok. thank you. >> mr. duffey. they might not be getting it

downstairs. >> good evening commissioners. joseph duffey, department of building inspection. sorry commissioners. i actually went to the building today after reading the brief i was a little bit confused and i wanted to learn something more about it. i hope that i can explain what is going on. the building permit which was to add the study room and bathroom on the first floor when that permit was presented it showed it allowing the openings to be installed with the door and several windows on the property line.

however a survey has been requested by the building inspector, and i believe that as far as i know both parties got surveys. the property line is actually 2.3 away from the wall. had that been originally told to d.b.i. we certainly would not have approved the windows and doors on the property line. in my estimation this permit could be revoked because it was submitted with improper information or certainly at least revised to show a completely different layout for this ground floor because these windows with bedrooms could not be approved as they are.

the other permit for a second floor remodeling, the only issue that i would have with that is the addition of a window on the second floor that is too close to the property line. i believe that was labeled as a that permit should be revised. i don't think that could be used as a bedroom, but it could be a steady or something, it is up to them. certainly, dbi has problems with the permit. i guess we need to revoke the permit or revise it. if you have any questions, i could answer them. the architect? yes, it seems to be a mistake by the architect, whenever the

plans were drawn. it was shown to dbi as 3 foot 1 inches, but it is only 2 foot 3 inches. >> one was a mistake discovered? >> when the survey was requested by the building inspector. >> which was when? >> some time between when the permit was issued in a complaint with received. >> first, what are the rules regarding posting the notice? posting them on the second floor is sufficient? >> that is okay. it is that it must be posted in a conspicuous place on the building. >> that means that you could read it, though, doesn't it? >> the code is gray. a lot of the properties in san francisco, the living room is on the second floor and there is no where to post it on the ground, so you see it on the second

floor of the time per tha. president goh: if you were to revoke, there would not be a one-year waiting time? >> no, it should be over the counter approval. mr. sanchez could speak to that. there are involved in the approval. president goh: and they could appeal that if there were still inclined to do so? >> yes, there were discussions with the property owner. it seemed they were not in favor of having any openings on that property line. that is the subject of the appeal. obviously, the other folks, if they want to appeal that permit, for other reasons, they are more than welcome. but these people at 171 indicated to me today that the kind of knew that was a big mistake and it should never have had the openings on the side of the building. i think they want to revise the

whole floor plan and make the openings on the other side, where they have room on the property line. but it would mean a lot of demolition. the building is currently in a rough frame, a lot of rough electrical and plumbing, that would have to be torn out. president goh: okay, if the commissioners did not have any questions for mr. duffy, let's hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good afternoon. it's got sanchez, planning department. i had the opportunity to review the plan, and it appears they comply with the requirements of the planning code. the rooms on the ground floor comply with the rooms. the planning code requirements have been met. there is no notification required for the work they have done. in fact, the permit that

included the second level does not even require planning review. we reviewed the ground floor and the ground-floor rooms, and comply with our requirements. president goh: but they don't comply with the adjacent properties? >> the issue is the building code compared with the planning code. with the planning code, we're concerned with the illegal units. we came up with a bulletin that refines what could be approved on the ground floor. we look at bathrooms. that is the critical thing, bathrooms, what bars, 1 3/6, things like that. in terms of windows, project laundry sinks, things like that. in terms of bedrooms, that is up to the building code. president goh: is there any pubn this item?

seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioners? commissioner fung: are you the realtor? are you related? >> no, no. commissioner fung: a friend? >> helping the permit holder communicate with the office because of language barriers. president goh: i think we're finished hearing from both sides, though. we will discuss it. commissioner fung: she is not being paid or as an agent, and she is allowed public comment. president goh: would you like to ask her question, commissioner? commissioner fung: no, i think she is allowed public, if she is not a party. president goh: it sounded to me

from the director that she had been representing permit holders with regards to communications with our board, so -- >> it is your call. i think in some ways she was acting as the permit holders agent. normally we would exclude her comment from public comments. but i don't know the details. president goh: unless that commissioner has a question for her? commissioner fung: alright, i will ask a question. what did you want to say to us, shortly? >> just to clarify some points, surhirley lee. i do not take any pay. i just translate some phone calls and reschedule, things like that. i just want to clarify something. for the 2009 permit, they have

a new permit. they really want to submit the new floor plan to dbi for approval so that and start renovations. right now, they only have one room, two rooms for use of the nine people living at the property. right now, 84 living -- right out, living at the property is very inconvenient for them. they submit new floor plans. they don't touch the outside wall or the existing windows. it is just for internal remodeling. that is what i wanted to say. commissioner fung: thank you. vice president garcia: ms. lee, do you have any knowledge if this permit has been withdrawn? >> i understand they have two

permits open. vice president garcia: new permits? >> no, no, i was referring to the 2009 permit, during the jurisdiction of appeal. they have two permits. they will submit a new, revised floor plan instead of these two. vice president garcia: okay, i think i understand, thank you. >> to be clear, commissioners, the two permits that were cancelled were revision permits to the permit that is subject to the jurisdiction request. that is the 2009 permit, the appeal that was canceled was for 2010 revision permits. what you have before you are the original 2009 permits.

>> i believe we just heard her state they're interested in withdrawing those. could we ask the permit holder to confirm that, please? president goh: i think mr. duffy had earlier said it -- well, they can revoke, but if they are withdrawing, we don't have to look at the jurisdiction request. are you withdrawing the permit at issue today? >> yes, 2009 year? what year, please? president goh: 2009. >> not withdrawn. president goh: okay, thank you. >> only revisions. president goh: okay, thank you.

mr. duffy, would you say again what you said earlier? perhaps i misunderstood about the revocation. about the revision permits that were withdrawn and what would need to happen now. >> i think we are getting confused, but the original two permits, 2009, are the original permits. they subsequently got to revisions. those that canceled. those are gone. president goh: the war on our calendar as 5a and b. >> but the work was never done. that led to revise the layouts or something. a part of my visit today was to verify that was not done. it was ok to cancel those permits and that canceled last week and withdrawn. those are gone. the permits, the original permits cannot be withdrawn because the work has already started. so dbi cannot allow that.

but they could be revoked or they could be revised. that is something maybe we should continue it and let dbi figure out. those permits, definitely, are not right. there is no way those windows and doors on the property line should have that -- there is a san francisco building code that lets us revoked a permit when the information on the plans is not correct. so we could revoke that permit and ask them to submit a new permit. that is up to them to submit the new permit. president goh: regardless, you had said because of the distance between the two properties, the with the plans are fodrawn, they cannot go forward. either we can revise and they're stuck for a year, are we lead them so that the problem is

taking care of and perhaps -- this is a problem. if your department takes care of it by revision, and the jurisdiction requestor would again have to request jurisdiction, i think. it is that correct? >> no. >> if they have a revision permit, that is appealable. president goh: okay, so they have a chance still. >> the windows would be allowed on the property line, but not for veterans. all of the rooms -- but not four bedrooms. all of the rooms on that side were all labeled as patterns. that is the big issue for dbi, there is no egress from the veterans. -- from the bedrooms. i think what we're missing here is the property owners definitely do not want the current layout as it is.

either we revoke it, or they revise it. president goh: 1 or the other, and in either case, the jurisdiction requestor has a chance on this 2009 permits. >> in the revised status, but that is up to them. president goh: okay, thank you. commissioner fung: in any event, there will be some action by the building department. >> based on what i saw today, yes. commissioner fung: which means, then, the permit holder has to look at his options and make some modifications of some kind. and exactly. that is right, yes. and i will be directing the senior building inspector for the area tomorrow to take that action, to open it up. thank you. president goh: commissionercomme

to move to continue to the call of the chair. is that appropriate for the purposes of allowing the building inspection department to either take action, and in the meantime, that may then result in the jurisdiction requestor position being moved? president goh: we could, and then debate and vote for it to fall off the calendar. how about may 25? it is your motion. commissioner fung: before we get that far, i would like to make a comment. i am not sure that i would concur with that. there will have to be some follow-up action with respect to this permit. taking jurisdiction over it requires us, then, to decide if there was something related to government action or actions that did not occur.

the subject of this. did not report -- the subject of this permit did not require notice, is not section 311, and whether we need to find it, if something occurred that created a due process issue for the neighbor, i am inclined not to take jurisdiction because there will be subsequent actions, potentially occurring through future permits. at the same time, i would recommend to both parties to enter into further negotiations, because, at least speaking for myself, it is not likely that i will delve into the property line to speak. that is something that probably needs to go through the courts. however, both parties have certain problems.

one it is regardless of the amount of that space from the building to the property line, they have access to that, and currently they do not because there is a gate across the entire opening. so with the parties don't negotiate some type of reasonable -- so if the parties don't negotiate some type of reasonable relationship for access, for how they designate the property line, then they will continue to have legal problems. vice president garcia: right, i agree with what he said, commissioner fung. the only issue out that it is adding to the brief wide jurisdiction was being requested because of zoning issues and the planning department is satisfied, has told us it is not a zoning issue. that it fits the proper matrix having to do with whether or not

there will be an additional unit in that building. i also believe i would not grant jurisdiction. commissioner fung: i believe the designation, r-3, is for the building department reference, and not the zoning department, which would be rh-3. >> you want to make a motion? vice president garcia: i would move that would deny the request for jurisdiction. >> shall we call the roll, commissioners? commissioner hwang: i will withdraw my motion because it will result in the same thing, and is neither here nor there for me. president goh: just for the record, i would be inclined to grant jurisdiction after a continuance, because i think the jurisdiction requestor or the building inspector said there wall and the to do what they want. and because i think that posting notice on the second

floor is insufficient. but i don't think it will make a difference on this outcome, so let's go ahead. >> we will call the roll on the vice-president motion to deny the request. president goh: yes. >> on that motion from vice president garcia to deny the motion on the jurisdiction request -- [roll call vote] thank you, the vote is 2-2 to deny the jurisdiction request. >> if know whether motion was made, the request would be revoked because of operational law. shall i move on to the next? ok. it thank you all. president goh, i understand from

mr. duffy that he is willing to reduce the penalties associated with item number 8. if we could call that item now, what could have those individuals able to leave the meeting earlier. it is that acceptable? president goh: yes. >> okay, are the balance here for item number eight? you are, great. item number 8, appeal number 11- 032, taso and celia manitsas, appealing the imposition of penalty on march 11, 2011, for construction work done without a permit, application number 2011/3/11/1914. mr. duffy, if you would come forward first. >> i saw from the paperwork that the notice of violation was

issued on march 11, 2011. on the same day, a building permit was obtained for that work. so somebody came right in and took care of the permit. that is very fast action, and in that case i would like to reduce the penalty, which is typically what we would do in the department if we were allowed to at the counter. i think the fact that they were doing that and got the permit, and it was a kitchen bath remodeler, minor work, really. president goh: okay, thank you. >> ok, so we will hear now from you, sir. >> good evening, commissioners. i on the house on jones street, single-family home downtown -- i own a house on jones street,

single-family home downtown. we have been there since 1997. i have been having a tough time with tenants in the area. the house was completely remodeled in 1995 by the previous owners. anytime tenants move out, we paint it, clean up the kitchens and bathrooms, so one, so forth. this last time, in january, when my tenant moved out, we found problems. when we started cleaning up and doing the touch, we realized the house was in disrepair. the tile was falling off, the kitchen counters were falling apart. commissioner fung: sir, you realize that the maximum we can reduce the penalty is up to two times, and the building department has agreed to that, sir. >> ok, just like to explain myself. if i knew now what i know now, i

would have obtained a permit. that was an honest mistake. i was not trying to pull a fast one. i was just trying to explain. president goh: thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? ok, commissioners? commissioner fung: move to reduce to two times. >> ok, call the roll, please. them on that motion, from commissioner fung, to reduce the penalty to two times the regular fee -- [roll call vote] thank you, the vote is 4-0, the penalty is reduced to two times. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will go back to item 4b, 2344 market street, asking the board take jurisdiction over a

notice of violation and penalty issued by the zoning administrator on may 7, 2010. the appeal period ended may 22, 2010, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on april 8, 2011. notice of violation and police, noncompliance with conditions of approval requiring all noise to be contained within the facility. we will start with the requestor or the requestor's agent? nobody is here on this item? ok. president goh, we can either hear from the zoning administrator are we can pull this item until later in the meeting to see if and when shows up. president goh: no, let's hear from the zoning administrator. >> for the record, the jurisdiction request was filed on april 8, and the receipt mr.

pulte walked out of the room with was may 11, the no change. >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. this has been an extremely frustrating enforcement case for the planning department. prior to the hearing, i spoke with the enforcement planner who had been handling this, and she wondered if they would show up because they have not showed up, they have not been doing the things they need to be doing in order to come into compliance. there have been very non responsive. actually, we have directed them -- there is an outstanding penalty of $50,000. that may begin within the orbit of the history. 2000, there was a planning commission action that authorized activity at the subject property. it 2009, received a complaint. from 2009 to