president mazzucco: thank you very much. any further public comment? hearing none, i will close public comments. now for commissioner comments regarding captain mahoney's presentation. i just want to say, thank you. it was a great presentation. there was exceptional police work in those two instances. these are cases that you do not read about. you have great officers in english side station. a strongly-staffed stations. we appreciate that. we also appreciate the get together you are going to have on august 29 in reference to john young. i personally worked on that investigation for a year in the u.s. attorney's office that led to the arrest. when a police officer is killed in the line of duty, it is never forgotten.

that is a fact. it was an honor to work on that case and thank you for continuing to honor sgt young. commissioners, anything further? >> marlene brought up some good questions about a language access. i wanted to ask, how many bilingual officers are bad angle side -- at ingleside? how are they making sure that they maximize their language tools for the community. going back to translation materials, what is going on in that area? >> i have been there for five weeks, so i do not have a total number on how many people are on their speaking different languages. i read the reports every day and every time there is someone that is a victim or a witness that need a translation service, it seems every time we have one of our officers to the translations themselves, as opposed to to

bring the service. i would have to get that answer for you. as for the website, primarily in english. if we have a need for translation, we have the opportunity. we will work with community relations to get that translated. >> i noticed there were materials translated in different languages. the safety messages at my time. are other materials being developed contemplated and are handed out to committee members also translated? any gatherings or other rich were community members? i know there is a large asian population in the district. >> everything that goes out to the community, i will recommend that it is translated in spanish and cantonese. if i am putting out a community alert for a robbery series in a certain area or any kind of uptick in crime that i need to post, then i will certainly

crime -- contact community relations and work with them, the immigrant affairs, and have it translated and send it out. rarely will you see me and something ought with one language. >> captain, thank you so much for a three presentation on a number of different aspects about the ingleside station. very glad to see such a broad reaching program and operations. i would like to hear more about your distracted driver campaign. you did not actually have any statistics that one along with that, the way you did with your robbery abatement operations. is there anything you can share with us on that? >> the distracted driver campaign is just part in, still in the implementation phase. i had a staff meeting a week ago where i laid out a number of operations at my officers are handling. that is one of them. the impetus behind it, i am

looking at lowering traffic collisions. i plan to use a coordinated approach where i used bicycle officers to ride around different areas because they are sitting up high, but at the same time, not necessarily seem like you would in a black and white with the bells and whistles. identifying people who are talking on cell phones, doing what ever, and then radioing to a motorcycle unit who is close by to make a traffic stop and then citation to the driver for talking on their cell phone. >> is the program directly targeted at cell phone users? perhaps individuals such as iphone had gone? i see a lot of that while driving. is it directed at that, as well as other distractions? >> it is directed primarily

towards the violation of law. you hit the nail on the head. i would love to have california have a law that you cannot read the paper or eat what you are driving. i find that to be just as much as a distraction, but now, they are not a violation. >> if i did not eat and drive, i probably would not eat half the time. i will try to cut down. >> thank you, on behalf of the commission, for your presentation. thank you for putting this together tonight and think you to the members of the community that came out. we probably need to address the issue with reference to the website. next time they come on here, we will probably have a bigger turnout. language access is important, so we should look at that website to see what is going on.

>> we hear this a lot and obviously, there were some other things occurring. chief, if you might say something about -- we get the request a lot more. could you just talk about the factor that do not necessarily allow that? i guess you thought about that. you have been moved around. just some of the thinking that goes into why someone does not always stay at a station. >> in this instance, lou was a fabulous capt. here. he also had strong experience in crime scene investigation and forensics.

the captain who undertook the crime lab recertification and investigation, shepherded that from where it was to where it is, we needed someone who could hit the ground running and keep on going. we consulted with the captain as to who would be a and able replacement. the only person that she could think of a was lou. it is important to keep the crime lab moving. having capt. mahoney available, it seemed like a great fit. i think it has been. normally, at least as far as i'm concerned, i would but to see the captain see those -- spend those three years that mary is talking about.

normally, when someone is promoted, the community is happy for their captain and understands. is when they move around a letter early short of three years that it confound the community. i do not want to do that. >> since i have been on the commission, we like our captains to stay there, but there are a lot of factors that go into the apartment and decisions to move people. the one i generally heard was, we would like to give individuals different experiences in the city. i just wanted to hear some of the other things that happened. i know you consider that, and it is hard for you as a chief to pass a law, somebody is going to be there for three years. i just wanted to hear, if it can

happen, please, but these things that go into consideration when we move somebody. >> [inaudible] >> knowing that mary harris and mary tran are from ingleside, i thought the transition was critical. and steve career. i did not want to leave you out. -- steve courier. >> the good news is, the heart

and soul of the department is not move around. the captains are pretty much uniform in terms of leadership, but you have a strong team out here. >> any further comments? commissioner cahan. >> i just wanted to thank you for the reminder about the language access. we have voted on the language and prayer access -- priority access, doing that more in the future. translating websites, making sure any kind of community engagement, reports of crime, especially, should be translated so that members of the community know. there is no point in putting them out if half the community cannot understand. not just ingleside, but dropped all district stations. we passed a general order last

year on general access but the implementation has been slow. >> we have recovered some items for future consideration but maybe we should look at some more meetings in the future. >> last week, we listed our priorities. i know is pretty soon that we are going to look at that. we will have another chance to do that. >> especially in light of the presentation, the captain spoke about an incident witabout a robbery that was not even reported due to the language access. fear of the police, not feeling comfortable. that is a strong case for which probably move this sooner than anticipated. maybe next week when we do our scheduling, her priorities are ready to go, and maybe we can move that in to address that issue in the near future.

commissioners, anything further? we have completed the presentation of the captain. line item #4. we have had public comment. >> item 4 is at adjournment. >> so moved. >> second. >> all in favor? aye. thank you, everybody.

>>. evening, and welcome to the june 29, 2011 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. joining vice-president michael garcia is commissioner frank fung, commissioner hwang. at the controls, we have the board's legal assistant. i am the executive director. we are so joined this evening by representatives of some of the city departments that will be participating in the hearings this evening. we have the senior planner and

assistant to the zoning administrator representing the planning department and the planning administrator, and joseph dufty is here representing the department of building inspections. it at this time, if you could please go over the meeting guidelines. >> the board request that you turn off all phones and pagers so they did not disrupt the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of position are as follows, appellants, permit holders, and representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for a bottle -- for rebuttals. members of the public were not affiliated with the parties have 3 minutes each to address the board and no rebuttals. members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to

the board staff when you come up to the lectern. speaker cards and pans are available on the left side of the lectern. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions. there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the lectern as well. if you have questions about requesting a re-hearing, hearings, or schedules, please request them after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning. the board office is located at 1650 mission street, room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgtv cable channel 78, and abb of this meeting is available for purchase directly from sfgtv. at this point, we will conduct our swearing-in process. if you intend to testify in any of the hearings and wish to have the board did your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand, reroute right hand, and

say "i do" after you have been sworn in or firm. and a member of the public may speak without taking the oath pursuant to their rights under the sunshine ordinance. do you solemnly swear or affirm that the testimony or about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> thank you. we move to item one, public comment. is there any member of the public wishes to speak on an item that is not on tonight's calendar? seeing none, we move to item two, which is commissioner comments and questions. commissioners, anything? seeing none, item three, the adoption of minutes. before you for consideration are the minutes of the board's june 22, 2011 meeting. vice president garcia: it looks

like there are no comments or suggestions, so i move that we adopt the minutes as written. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, it called a roll, please? >> on that motion to adopt the june 22 minutes -- [roll-call vote] thank you, the vote is 4-0. >> subject property 161-165 newman street, appeal number v 11-035. the board voted 4-1 to grant the appeal, overrule the denial, grant the variance on condition that a notice of special restrictions be filed against the property records which limits both properties to single-family dwelling and no further envelope expansion, and

with findings and further conditions to adopted at a later time. those findings are before you this evening. the parties are in agreement with the findings as drafted, so it is submitted to you for your consideration. vice president garcia: are there any commissioner comments? i move that we adopt the findings as drafted. >> is there any public comment on this item? ok, seeing none, if he could call the roll, please. >> on that motion from the vice president to adopt the findings, with no changes -- [roll-call vote] thank you, though it is -- the vote is 4-0, those findings are adopted. >> thank you. call at no. 5, which is appeal number 11-070, franz von

uckerman verses the department of building inspection, 1354 york street, and the imposition of penalty on may 12, 2011, up for construction work done without a permit. we will start with the appellant. or his agent. you have seven minutes. >> thank you, i am here to represent the appellant. 1354 york street. we have a notice of violation issued in 2007, april 5, for two windows replaced at the ground level at the front of the building. some stucco work on the front exterior was also in disrepair. a building permit was filed on may 12 of this year.

the permit application number 2011-925, and has been signed off on june 14 of this year. in order to get this permit, we had to pay $1,800 penalty. for the notice of violation indicated on the panel day that there was $1,000 of work. -- on the penalty that there was $1,000 of work. this is a commercial building. i talk to the owner who purchased the property in 1979. he did not install these windows. these were installed prior to its purchase of the property. there was no report, no disclosure that anything had been done without a permit when he purchased the property. the other item that you should know is that he is an elderly, retired at, on a fixed income,

and this permit, which costs more, over double the amount of work that was estimated, $1,000 of work was the estimate, and, first of all, he had not put the window in. second, the amount of the penalty is far in excess, 225% more, then what the inspector noted was the amount of work. therefore, what we are asking for today is to remove the penalty entirely. because mr. von uckerman uses the building, he has carr's stored there. he uses it as his hobby. we feel that the $455 that the permit cost is enough.

also, looking at the notice of violation, when it was issued, there is nothing to the record that indicates the building inspector before he issued a notice of violation had even done a permit check to see if the permit was done. therefore, we are asking that the penalty be removed. thank you. commissioner fung: when did your client purchase the property? >> 1979. >> thank you. commissioner hwang: in the questionnaire, it appears that your client was an expediter, a retired employee of the planning department? >> i am the expediter. commissioner hwang: okay, sorry. vice president garcia: do we know if additional work has been done since this building was

purchased and whether or not permits >> were > parked it -- or additional permits were done? >> no additional work was done. vice president garcia: was that done by your client or the same time as the windows? >> we don't know when. the repair of the stucco work? >> the repair of the stucco work was when the notice was issued. vice president garcia: was there a permit for that? >> we don't need a permit for the minor repair. i wanted to show you a picture. i am sorry, i wanted to show a picture -- here it is, of the building. is it coming up? those are the two windows in question.

i have circled the two windows in question. there is the building. it has been repainted since 2007. commissioner hwang: looking again at the questionnaire, it says what is your occupation, expediter. >> that is me. commissioner hwang: and mr. von uckerman, retired employee of the planning department. is that him or you? >> that is him. it commissioner hwang: okay, thank you. >> if there are any other questions, i would be happy -- commissioner hwang: how long was your client and employee of the planning department, and in what capacity? >> 20 years. commissioner hwang: what capacity? >> zoning administration, nonconforming uses. he did a lot of work on those.

commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president garcia: how was it determined the work was done in the 1960's? >> that is a gas. all we know it is it was done prior. we figured it was in the 1960's. i don't have any evidence, commissioner garcia, to back that up. vice president garcia: thank you. >> thank you, mr. duffy? >> good evening, commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. the department would like to keep the penalty of nine times because the notice of violation was given in 2007 and we did not to permit until 2011. we did quite a bit of work on the notice of violation that started off with building inspection, and the second notice of violation was issued,

so there would have been a lot of administrative work by staff. i noticed that the building inspector, can gonzales, wrote that the windows were 3 foot by 3 foot at the front of the building and some deterioration of exterior stucco finish, 3 foot by 6 feet. it was causing a hazard by the building permit application. that was in 2007. we finally got the building permit approval in may, 2011. so we would like to keep that ton a day. commissioner fung: -- we would like to keep that penalty. icommissioner fung: do you consider that for window replacement or the minor repair to the plaster that requires a permit? >> it appears that it is for both. the wording on the permit says

the windows installed in the 1960's by the prior windows. the building inspector that wrote the notice of violation wrote in 2007. i could not see him writing a notice of violation for windows that are 40 years old. so the windows may be no more than that. i am not sure, i am just going by the notice that he wrote. but the penalty is for the windows and the minor stucco repair, signed off and completed on the 14th of june, this year. vice president garcia: mr. duffy, the amount that is derived to assess the penalty, is that formulary? is that what it would cost for the permits for the two windows? >> well, the 1000 other value is the value of the permit.

the penalty that was assessed was than nine times probably on the amount of work that the building inspector estimated, $1,000. that is a formula in the building formula. vice president garcia: i understand the nine times as formulary, but did dbi rely on -- to the appellate submit any papers that it showed that cost considerably less, would have cost, from their testimony, about what it would cost in order to replace those windows? their statement is it seems as though dbi was figuring this at a much higher price. >> whenever the permits are applied for, the applicant puts the estimated cost on. if the staff feels that is too low, they can raise it based on

construction valuation. but that is usually a discussion between the plan checker and the person getting the permit. if there is a receipt for the work that is done, they could bring that in and use that to argue the point this work on the cost me $450 or $5, compared with $1,000. but i am not aware of any receipt that was produced to dbi, and we do except those invoices. this comes up not a lot, but it does come up occasionally. vice president garcia: in this case, there would not be an estimate, because they claimed the work had already been done. the pictures seem to suggest it would be very hard for any stuccoed to fall in the public right of way, because it looked to me when i was looking at the picture as though there was a fence. i am confused as to how that presented any danger to the public. is that aen