the reason mr. sweeney from the department of building inspection, our director, when there is that there was a call about a fire in that area, and so mr. sweeney, i guess when he got into the building said to the -- said that the single- family drumming had been convicted -- converted into a three-unit building, one with a gas stove, a kitchen, bathroom, and the lighting or ventilation, with gas heaters, and then the third four probably the legal part of the building, a single residents, said mr. sweeney wrote on his notice of violation -- so mr. sweeney wrote on the notice of its violation the amount by nine times which would be the value of the work converting it into a three dwelling building, adding the

two illegal units, so i believe the fire may have started in the neighbors building. i do not have that information. i do see an emergency response for 182 madrid, but i do not have information on that property for me -- before me tonight, so i do not know what penalties were imposed. two units were added to it. we do ask that the penalty be kept in place because there is the safety, the illegal wiring, plumbing, and a lot of times this work done in an substandard manner does cause fires, which could cause injuries, so we do ask the be kept in place, and i am available for any questions. presidents goh: did mr. sweetie indicate that those two units were occupied? >> and not in this, no. president abbas -- president

goh: is it in there? >> i see it permit back in 1966, so i'm not sure when the work would have been done. i do hear someone say they are putting in cabinets three times, but there are no building permits for cabinets prior to -- i went back in the records today in the microfilm. i did see the windows permit, which was expired and never got a final inspection, and then there was a roofing permit. they did take up the permit obviously, and that is why they are here. in september, to comply with the notice of violation. that permit is in place, to remove those two units and revert back. president goh: has that happened to >> it has not been signed off on.

-- has that happened? >> it has not been signed off on. president goh: the nov was may of last year/ -- ? >> what happened was that there was a fire, and mr. sweeney has to go out there immediately, and there is a fire. there is structural damage to the building, and they may have pointed out because of the fire, and it could be electrical wiring. there is no indication here. it just says the fire started at the roof above stairs, and single-family dwelling converted into apartment building with three units and three levels of occupancy, electrical, plumbing more, performed without permits. p&e shut off power and gas, and

-- prior to reenergize in the property, so that is what i have on the response. -- prior to reenergize inga -- reenergizing the property. it could have been five years, tenures, it is hard to tell. -- 10 years, it is hard to tell. president goh: ok. vice president garcia: does dbi have any hardship requirements? >> in this case, it did not happen, but they are here tonight, and we put the nine times penalty on the permit application, but hardships, we always refer people to the director for that. they have that discretion.

we do not have been at a lower level, where we are. we are not allowed to drop penalties. commissioner peterson: what is the dollar amount? director goldstein: on this, it says -- >> and then planning. commissioner peterson: so it is just the 6116 penalty. >> $3,500 plus. that is the nine times. nine times on 40. on top of the building per is ad that is where we write our nine times and 40,000, and that was done by the building inspector when they come in for the

permit. commissioner peterson: ok. >> that is what i said to mr. sanchez, their fees are almost as much as our penalties. vice president garcia: maybe you and answered this already, but permits have been drawn to abate all of these issues? >> yes. vice president garcia: and you said you do not know it two other families are living there? just the one family? >> the permit, it looks like it is to take the two illegal units, they are going to be gone, and it will be reverted back to a single-family dwellings. vice president garcia: i was wondering if you knew what it was right now, whether it was single-family. >> i do not have the building inspection history, but i do see

with the plumbing and other, some of it has been inspected, so they have started to remove the legal work. vice president garcia: that helps, and there is one major, not multiple meters. >> i could find out. -- there is 1 meter. vice president garcia: what i am wondering is when this person move in if there were 3 meters. >> i do not know that. it was definitely single family, but we do not know when that illegal work was done. it is far as to tell, as well. he purchased the property in 2001. it is hard to tell. that is a question for the owner more than me. vice president garcia: thank you. director goldstein: is there any

public comment on this item? seeing none, we can have rebuttal. three minutes where you can speak. commissioner fung: translator. president goh: speak into the microphone. >> he also wants to add that for some weeks, he was out -- without electricity and gas. [speaking foreign language] for the same reasons, for the reasons, ok? as you probably know, with the economy, there is a lot of struggling, and he has a two- year-old daughter that he has to support, you know, so, basically, he is coming to

appeal. commissioner peterson: does he live on the property? >> yes, he does. commissioner hwang: and were there people occupying the two other units. >> yes, and they are more like relatives, cousins, uncles. commissioner hwang: are they tenants? >> [speaking foreign language] only one room. he has one tenant. commissioner hwang: thank you. director goldstein: anything further, mr. duffy prove the matter is submitted -- mr. duffy? the matter is submitted.

president goh: comments. commissioner fung: i guess i will be consistent. i am normally against the multiple penalties. in this instance, not only will he be paying a portion of the penalty, but he will be faced with loss of rental units. -- loss of income from a loss of rental units. i remember making site visits when i was at planning and visiting sites that had 20 to 30 people in them, and i am not sure that is the case here, and i think the department is correct in looking at those situations begins they do not want it being unsafe, however, -- because they do not want it to be unsafe, however, i am sympathetic with the cost of the permit, ripping it out, and the

penalty, it is significant. i would support reducing it. president goh: which is two times? i would agree with that. any other comments? commissioner hwang: because we heard from a spokesperson that the belief is that the penalty is like $7,500, and, in fact, i just want to be really clear, the penalty as assessed by the department was closer to $3,500, and when we talk about a reduction, that is not going to reduce the wall $7,500. it will reduce the $3,500. -- not going to reduce the whole $7,500. i am moving to reduce the penalty to two times. director goldstein: commissioner

hwang, is this based on the fact that the work was done prior? commissioner hwang: the work was done prior. director goldstein: ok. secretary pacheco: we have emotion from commissioner hwang to reduce the fine to 2 w times based on the fact the work was done prior. on that motion, commissioner fung, vice president garcia, and president goh. the penalty is reduced to two times the fee. director goldstein: we move on to item number 11. president

director goldstein: we are calling item number 11, jo r -- jordan kwan vs. the department of building inspection for 791-79327 avenue, protesting the issuance on october 7, 2 with us -- 2011 to alter a building. we will give three minutes to each party. please step forward.

and thank you for your patience sitting through this long evening. we appreciate it, both sides. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is jordon -- jordan kwan. we are at 791. we have tried to get an agreement. my initial request was with that thought for a setback from a property is known. on december 19, i suggested a five-foot setback on it two stories instead of a single story, which allows them to have two stories, which they have rejected.

they mentioned this adjacent to their house only has an four- foot setback, so i said, what about a four-foot setback to the property line? they also said no. nearby, a property to the north, there is also a permit in the process, and i look into that, and i would like to assure you this drawing -- to show you this drawing. on this house, there is a 3 foot setback to the north and also a setback to the south, and also, i talked to the architect, and he explain to me that most of the houses that have two-story extension will follow the existing house line from here,

that the setback will follow through like that, and as you can see on the other side the existing house wine and it will follow the line, and i would like to assure a two-year -- to show to you that this is the existing house right here, and this is sent back on both sides. however, when they extended the two stories out, there is a setback to the north, but to the right side, there is absolutely no set back.

i also want to point out, just the first floor without any set back to the property line, it would be very easy for them to add it to the second-floor since the footprint is already there. again, i only right now and asking for a three-foot setback. i believe this is the basic minimum. we need space in between, and we need the ambient light, and even with their proposal, they still have the upstairs and downstairs combined. director goldstein: thank you. we will hear from the permit holders. >> my wife is going to speak. >> we got married one month ago. commissioner fung:

congratulations. >> i am erin. he never mentioned an optional four-foot setback. that was not mentioned. that was just mentioned right now. he was adamant at our meeting on the 19th that it was a five-foot setback, and we said we would be agreeable to a three-foot setback on the upper level on his side, and maybe he could go back to his family and see if they would be agreeable to that, and then when i spoke with him on the front and a few weeks later, he was agreeable to a three-foot setback, but it had to be on both levels. so we are agreeable to the three-fruit set back on the upper level, and we have also pushed -- to the three-foot setback on the upper level, and it also pushed it back.

the bottom level would go out to be 14. which would be allowable, buildable before. his building comes right alongside for 12 feet on that side, said that is where the 3 ft. said that would be flush. -- set back would be flush. blocking a kitchen window, which they just built stairs, 2010, brand-new stairs, without a permit. their complaint is that it would be blocking that window. we are agreeing to push it in 3 feet to allow light and space, and also we are on the north side, so they would not be getting any sunlight from our side. commissioner fung: you're

actually rebuilding the ground floor. >> pardon me? commissioner fung: your existing ground floor -- of, never mind. i understand what you are saying. >> we are pushing it out and pulling in the top level. commissioner fung: i understand. >> and the setback on his side, 3 feet on the upper level only. president goh: ok. commissioner fung: is this the first time you've spoken today? >> second. if they are willing to offer 3 feet on the second of all, that is more than adequate to address the appellants concerns. i did discuss this with the design team, and they thought that the proposal is completely code compliance.

no discretionary use filed by the appellant at this point to make changes. if the permit holder is willing to offer that, we would recommend they be that the board adopt the changes. -- that maybe the board adopt the changes. director goldstein: is there any public comment? ok, seeing none, commissioners, unless you have questions, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: i attempted to frame their ingratiation a little bit during our last discussion, and i noted that in order to compromise somewhat, it looks from the plan that the removal of the closet on that side which approximates a three- foot reduction was a starting

point, at least in my opinion, recognizing that the appellant's building is much more extensively than other buildings in the area, and i am prepared to recommend that we have a setback of 3 feet on the second- floor, which would establish a development pattern for that bombing and perhaps other buildings in the neighborhood that would be more sustainable. commissioner hwang: i agree with that. president goh: any further motions? commissioner fung: i am going to

make a motion to grant the permit with a three-foot pop out on the second floor, and adjacent to the kwans' property, and is that we're to the department? is it clear to everyone else? >> it is clear. the last time. i am sorry. just guidance for us as to our next steps. do we have our architect to resubmit? >> -- commissioner fung: resubmit, and it will go forward on that basis. >> ok. commissioner fung: you can also speak to senior inspector duffy. director goldstein: and you can

also call the office. my name is john kwan, property. we see that there is the set back on both floors. why are we having only 3 feet? commissioner fung: we have already made our decision. president goh: it sounds like an argument. commissioner fung: i am afraid we have already made our decision. >> i strongly disagree. commissioner fung: i understand that you disagree. secretary pacheco: your motion is to grant the permit with

commodification and a three-foot setback for the extension be provided, which is adjacent to the appellants' property line. commissioner fung: that is correct. secretary pacheco: on that motion, vice president garcia, commissioner hwang -- commissioner hwang: i just want to say that i would have voted for it without the modification. secretary pacheco: president goh. president goh: aye. item 12 was postponed.

director >> this is one of the museum's longest art interest groups. it was founded by art lovers who wanted the museum to reflect new directions in contemporary art. it has been focused on artists in this region with an eye toward emerging artists. ♪ it is often at the early stage of their career, often the first major presentation of their work in a museum. it is very competitive. only a few artists per year

receive the award. it is to showcase their work to have a gallery and publication dedicated to their work. ♪ i have been working with them on the last two years on the award and the exhibitions. the book looks at the full scope of the awards they have sponsored. ♪ it has been important to understand the different shifts within the award program and how that is nearing what else is going on in the bay area. -- how that is mirror beiing wht else is going on in the bay area. ♪

there are artists from different generations sometimes approaching the same theme or subject matter in different ways. they're artists looking at the history of landscape and later artists that are unsettling the history and looking at the history of conquests of nature. ♪ artists speak of what it means to have their work scene. often you are in the studio and do not have a sense of who is really seeing your work. seeing your own work at the institution have gone to for many years and has an international audience is getting the word out to a much larger community. ♪

supervisor chiu: good morning and welcome to the budget and finance committee meeting of january 11. supervisor campbell joined us shortly. our court today is mr. victor young. we had jennifer low. do we have any announcements today? >> yes, please turn off all cell phones. if you wish to speak during public comment, please fil