necessary. in some cases where it was purely aesthetic, i had also and from a designer's point of view, i also supported certain instances against her recommendation. this, however, is very clearly to me a case where renewal is necessary. i am prepared to support the permit. the approval of the permit. president goh: after reading the materials i felt of the view of my -- my fellow commissioners articulate. listening to the testimony and thinking about it further and listening to ms. short, i am inclined to go the other route. i am not -- we already heard

from people who will vote for granting and that makes my vote not worth a lot. i am not going to win this one. i do appreciate the testimony and the heart for these trees, and a related move me today. -- it really did move me. >> your vote would be to allow the removal. uphold the department. i am on the fence on this one. like commissioner huang, it does not matter. these are majestic trees and they are spectacular. i went by them for a site visit. i generally vote with ms. short

because we are generally voting to save trees and i will vote that way in this particular instance. my vote will not matter. do we have emotion, commissioners? >> i would move that we deny the appeal and uphold the department and allow for the removal of these trees. i have to go through your findings or is that automatic? does that have to be read into the book? >> you can incorporate the dpw order number. >> do you have that number? i already put that aside. 179675. >> you can call the roll. >> we have a motion from the vice-president to deny this

appeal, uphold the permits. on the motion, commissioner fung, aye. commissioner huang, no. commissioner goh, aye. three vortes are -- votes are needed. this permit is upheald by -- upheld by default. >> we will move on to the next case. item nine has been continued to january 18. we will move to item 10 which is appealed number -- [no audio] appealing the imposition of penalty for construction work done without a permit.

the application no. -- we can start with the appellant. they keep. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, a board of appeals. my name is -- and i am just here to write a letter on his behalf. an english manor, explaining, giving them a broad, general idea of what he is bringing forward to you, ok? so his name is mr. jose pocasangre, and his letter is like this. my name is jose pocasangre, and my wife is marta pocasangre, and

we decided to buy 178 madrid street. the house needed some remodeling. so they began to work on the walls, put new cabinets, paint, and other minor works, ok? and they continue by saying when they bought the house, they were not aware that the house basemen had in legal issues, ok? -- basement had legal issues, ok? they decided to change the windows, ok? the contractor told them that they needed a permit to replace the windows of the house, ok? they obtained a permit, ok?

and then they have worked very hard to be able to pay for the high mortgage and property taxes, ok? sometimes, they have even gone to the bank to borrow a loan to make an -- make it. currently, his wife is not working, ok, because the company that his wife was working for moved to another state, and also, they are getting a loan on top of that to pay the overall permit, ok? so they basically are struggling, struggling to maintain the house expenses, so basically what he is asking is for the amount, $7,500, if it can be lowered, you know? if it can be lowered based on

the legal issue -- the legal issue that he is facing, a kick, with the city -- the legal -- the legal -- illegal issue that he is facing, ok, with the city. so we can translate for him. commissioner fung: i think you need to state for the record that the work he is being penalized for was not done by him. >> ok. [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> si. so, basically, the work on the house was already made before he

bought it. he bought it in the condition that the house was in, so basically, he is now being penalized. president goh: could you also say that he bought a house in 2001? >> yes. [speaking foreign language] the house was bought in 2001. >> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> [speaking foreign language] >> ok, according to what he is saying, the case is his neighbor was also penalized, ok, ok? with the same case, ok? but he was able to get the penalty lowered, lowdown. president goh: ok, anymore,

commissioners? >> to consider what happens. i did not know this happened. i did not know there was an illegal. the windows, and then it was next to my house, the fire, and the fire department went into my house, and they found out there was the illegal area over there. i do not have the money. i work from month to month to pay. i want to see if you guys can consider this. commissioner fung: ok, take your time, sir. we understand your situation. >> i am a family, and i am the

only one working right now. -- i have a family. director bornstein -- goldstein: -- >> good evening, again, commissioners. jim duffy, dbi. july, 2011. 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,