>> this is about a window permit. she got the permit pretty quickly after risch -- after we cited her. this sometimes happens. the window people are not great at getting the permit is done. this is just a lack of construction knowledge regarding the permits. our department is happy enough on that one. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? president garcia: i wish there was a way to accept that agreement. i wish there were a way that we could compel people to come before us.

we have had the situation before where, and i'm not saying it is an allegation, but it has been alleged -- we have no independent knowledge. if the contractor did do that, which i believe he did, there should be some sanctions against that contract. if we impose a contract, it would not be against the permit holder. i move that we accept the arrangement made by dbi and the appellant. >> we have a motion from president garcia to reduce this penalty to two times the regular fee. commissioner fung: aye. h vice-presidentwang: aye. commissioner goh: aye. >> the motion is approved.

>> moving back to item number five, a few jurisdiction requests. the board received a letter from jakke bryson requesting that the board takeover jurisdiction over variants case 2010. $1.74v -- 2010.1074v and a permit -- and a building permit application. the appeal period ends on may 16, 2011 and june 16, 2011. the jurisdiction requests were received at the board office on december 30, two dozen 11. the project, rear yard variants, adds one dwelling unit at the second and third floors within a three-story building that covers the entire lot.

the project of the building permit is an interior renovation within existing shell including 730 square feet on outdoor open space within to corker corp. -- within two courtyards, subtracted from building volume, new windows on the north west and south facade, no change to the east facade, no change to a number of parking spaces, conversion of offices to residential single family. >> good evening. i decided to not use my choice. i am very grateful for the opportunity to appear before you and to explain to you why i was party in filing this appeal. it has to do with the fact that

there was not the posting. i know what the big white piece of paper looks like which would have told me the 15-day period during which i could have filed a protest. we have a problem in my little neighborhood between ninth and 10th, howard and folsom. i am out every day, whether- permitting, looking for graffiti, vandalism, people sleeping on doorways, people on the sidewalk, various characters. i am out and about. the only thing i noticed at touadera 34 ninth street was that -- at 234 9th st. was the building permit. i am thinking ok, i'm going to file an application for it when i filed with the planning department, in a decided to deny my reasonable accommodation

request. if you remember the earlier part of 2011, it was a tax return and i said i needed a one-week continuance to get the names and addresses. they were insisting that i needed to follow that step. they talked among themselves, called me back and said, we are not going to grant your reasonable accommodation. you will have to figure out how to get this in by our deadline. that was not one to be possible. i have asthma and arthritis. i thought, my next step is going to be the actual posting of the notices. those postings' did not happen. as i've stated before, there is a problem in the neighborhood with the non-residential warehouse owners. even the city and county of san francisco did an improper roasting. i know what the process is. here i am and i'm hoping to be

given an opportunity to be able to have the period of time properly posted so that people in my little neighborhood, i am the most able-bodied person i know, would be able to get themselves together, get their letters together, and protestor it i think you and i have six seconds to spare. president garcia: you mentioned that part of the issue of not being able to file an appeal required getting the mailing addresses. why is that required? >> when the planning department says you need to do x, y, and z, i had the paper work fax to me and i was prepared to fill it out.

i was told there needed to be notifications of people read receive the same thing in the mail that i had telling me something was one to be going on at 234 9th st. it was their requirement. who am i to argue? i am not an attorney. who am i to argue? even though i am part american indian, my rain dance was not happening with little water. i could not make it stop raining and they refused to grant me the reasonable accommodation. when i went to the planning commission on the at&t powers that i spoke of, and i let the commission know that my reasonable accommodation request was denied, cristina fell off her chair. i said, i am taking that up in another arena. thank you for. one of the comments we have in san francisco is we do not have an ada compliant reasonable accommodation policy other than

the city's attorney's office. it has been gathering dust -- a gathering dust for four years. i am a product of that. i believe in due process and that is all i am asking for. vice president hwang: in your appeal letter, you read the signs appeared around december 19, 2011. on the jurisdiction request date, what date was that? december 30? as of the 19th of december, that was when you first had notice of the construction of was taking place? >> i am so glad you asked that question. i was looking out my only back window, which would look up and out at 234 9th st. it is the first week in december and it is dark out. i see these guys all dressed in

dark clothing which these miner's lights on their heads. i am wondering what is going on on the roof. we do have problems. you can climb from rooftop to rooftop and get on top of these. i am thinking, am i going to have to call the police to see what is going on? i had been out earlier and it had not rained triet i called in my graffiti and look for other stuff. i did not u see didp. -- i did not see anything up. her around december 19, a sign appears. i am going, great. now i know and what is this? it was for a construction zone parking here. 90 days, three months with no dates filled in. it is like these things just

appear in the middle of the night. there were two sfpd no parking things. that is when i saw the dates filled in. 12-19 through march 19 of 2012. that is where i got the dates from. i am confused as to what is going on. i did make it to a planning commission hearing regarding the at&t wireless towers triet there were four or five other groups, some of them multinationals, and they were all there to speak to our specific addresses. the planning commission launched a fall into one agenda item. each group was allowed to appoint one person. i was a committee of one. he had three minutes. i had to get back to my building so i could not stay for the entire thing, but i met some new people. everybody was basically saying the same thing. i do not know what is going on

with this. from that september meeting until the big sign, which just spoke of a construction zone, which happens to be red-zoned with a nice white thing called a fire hydrant in -- it is a fire lane. please forgive me if it is not the place to raise that issue. if it is not, it would be the place for me to raise it at the hearing. where the -- where is the fire trucks opposed to park in case it needs to come to put out the fire? that is the other thing. vice president hwang: so december 19 was the first time you understood there was construction taking place? that permit had been issued. on december 30, you file the request. >> yes. when i got the letter from the person representing the building owners, the letter says they're

not doing the roof stuff. that was the at&t. the at&t was a 2011 permit. >> can we hear from mr. scott or who is representing the permit holder? is there anyone here representing the permit holder? please step forward. >> good evening. i am the facility manager and representing the owners of the property. i do not know if this is the proper place, but rob monaco is not the sole owner. he is not the owner of the property. it is listed under monaco properties, llp. for the record, i would be listed as a representative for the property. but this is all a little

confusing to me. as far as i know, we were issued a permit. the posting for the hearing was put in the window for 30 days. i have an affidavit of that posting. and a photo of the large white paper with the notice of hearing theire. >> if you could put that on the overhead -- >> yes. behind that is the photo. president garcia: who sign the affidavit? >> it is the architect. he happened to be there.

president garcia: could you point to the image of the posting? >> this is the window. there is a lot of reflection. you can see up here better. it is a notice of public hearing. >> what is the date on that notice? >> the date was february 23, 2011. >> what does the after that it say again? -- the affavdavit say again? >> "after that it of posting, and posted public noted -- pose a public case for 234 9th st. in

san francisco, up block for -- block 4. hearing to be held on the planning commission in february 23, 2011 he get -- 2011." i determined that the notice was real quiet -- the notice was posted during the required duration. as far as the question about the parking, we started construction on this permit december 5, 2011. the permit had been issued months before that. that is when our contractor was able to start. we did not need parking at that

time. there was no posted parking even though the window indicated that we had a 90-day parking. the signs on the curve were posted on december 16, two dozen 11. -- 2011. i do not know if that covers it, but for now. thank you. vice president hwang: how much of the work was completed? >> is started on december 5 and most of the rough framing is in. there has been no proof he worked at this time. the rough plumbing is about 70% done. electrical is about 30% rough. there was an at&t permit that was concurrent to this project.

they started in the middle of november and they were doing work on the roof throughout december. >> mr. sanchez. >> good evening. congratulations to former president go as she moves on. it has been an honor to work with you for the last four years. i appreciate your careful deliberation and you have served the city very well. thank you for your time. just some background on the case that is before you. i think the confusion stems from the fact that there are two different projects here. there is the conversion of the building to a residential use, which required a variance and building permit application under section 312. that project occurred earlier this year and there was a

section 312 notification posted for 30 days. there was a variance hearing as well as a notification for the variance hearing. that hearing occurred on february 23, prior to the section 312 notice having been issued. there were no members of the public that approach are hearing and expressed concerns about the various. i am not aware of any correspondence of anyone who expressed concerns about the project. ms. bryson did not indicate he intended to file a discretionary review. i did not ask specifically about that. i do not have information about what may have occurred during that time during the section 311 identification. . it is clear that notification was performed. in the variants decision letter was issued on may 6, 2011. there were no appeals on that.

the building permit application was issued on june 1, 2011. that permit became final on june 16, 200011. there were several applications for the wireless facility. that is specific to the conditional use hearing, which was heard by the planning commission in the middle of september and that building permit application was issued on december 9. that is when it would be commencing on that. in her brief, there was reference to a different notice that goes up. that is something not regulated by the planning department or planning code, but by the building code. the building inspector can elaborate on that, when it is required and not required. i am available for any questions. president garcia: you mentioned a decision letter. who gets that? >> is sent to the progress of her and any party to have

requested it in. they are usually people who have attended the hearing. president garcia: it would not go to the three people -- >> it would only go to those who requested it. >> you have the notification letters? >> i do. >> is the jurisdiction request your name within the radius -- requester's name within the radius? >> her name is on the map, that is correct. i have not had a chance to look at the mouth so far. just to be clear, the list of the owner's name is on the record and it -- if it is not alone, if it is rented, it will be listed as occupant. i will look through the records. commissioner fung: just to clear up a final point on my earlier question and, either an

appellant on a variance or permit is not required to do any mailing labels -- >> the discretionary review requester has a requirement that if you submit the review, you submit the labels. it is not a 50-foot radius -- not a full 150-foot radius. that is something we do require, the mailing labels from the d.r. requester. it is from the adjacent and never groups. commissioner fung: is that the only notice that is required? >> for the dividing properties across the street and adjacent and also to the right groups.

vice-president hwang: getting back to the notice that would go to the property owner, the jurisdiction request for, -- requester, you said it would not give the names of tenants that it is not occupied by the owner. does each tenant in the building get a notice in their mailbox or how does that work? >> good question. there are two for processes. the various process is owners within 300 feet. we get the owner information from the assessor's office. it goes to their proper mailing address. for the section 312 notice, it goes to owners within 150 feet as well as occupants. four occupants, it says occupant and has the apartment number or whatever it may be. vice president hwang: so each

unit would get its own notification. when did that one go out? >> that was for the full month of march. >> mr. duffy of. -- mr. duffy. >> i would like to echo mr. sanchez regarding the commissioner goh's departure. congratulations. on this case, i looked at it today. dba would not have done any notifications whenever the permit was issued because it was not determined to be a structural addition to the building nor a demolition or a new construction. in section 106 of the building

code, there are times we do it posting when the permit is issued or renewed -- or we notify neighbors of the adjacent properties, but in this case, because of the type of project, that was not necessary. i checked with the central permit bureau and they confirmed that. i am available for any questions if you have any. vice president hwang: thank you. >> there is reference to the street permit, which was posted, and i just noticed that. i do not have any details on that. i did notice, as well, that this licensed property is not adjacent to the site where the work is being done. it is actually just off that. even if we had done the notification, i do not think she'd fall -- she falls under the notification process.

>> is there any public comment on this item? president garcia: ms. bryson, you seem anxious to go to the microphone, but i'm going to give you a short leash. >> i did bring the discretionary review data that i have said -- i was sent from the planning commission. they do require two copies of a typewritten list, including all parties must be submitted with your application. the names and addresses for the mailing list can be obtained from the assessor's office and it is to include names and addresses all properties, including those across the street grid if you needed to see that, i was going to be required to get these names and addresses. i physically was not able to do

it writ if you need to see this, i have it. president garcia: it is not really relevant to a jurisdiction request, but i am asking you a question, if you do not mind. where is your objection to this project? >> my objection to the project has to do with the possible negative impact on the health of the people who lived in my building. we are practically in -- president garcia: you do not note -- you do not need to go into great detail. i just needed to go a little bit of specifics. what raises the health issue? >> the health issue would be noise, dust, the times during which the construction would be taking place. we did not have an opportunity to even hear from the person who

is proposing to do this, what it is they were doing, and they did not hear from us. there was no meeting with the neighbors who might be interested in coming for those who wanted to write letters. again, it is giving people who are already living there, and we live there and have been there since 2005. not giving them an opportunity to hear, once again, another warehouse to be converted into something. a basically, what i am saying is i would like to have an opportunity to be heard. i like my neighbors to have an opportunity to be heard. there are people in my building new -- who could not make it today.

hwang: i have a follow-up question to that. i know you had made an effort to make your issues herger it did you attempt to directly -- to make your issues heard. did you attempt to directly identify your issues to the building owner or facility managers? >> i was not able to do that. i appreciate you recognizing the fact that i have availed myself of the process. and the outcomes were quite positive for all concerned that i am very reasonable. i am very easy to get along with. my concerns are reasonable ones and they have been resolved by them in the past. vice-president hwang: but he did not take any opportunity to communicate directly with them? >> i do not know who these people are. they do not live directly in san

francisco. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. president garcia: someone. commissioner fung: i will start. what is before us is a tradition request on the variance which is granted spring of last year. the building for that all the variants -- that followed that variance. what is before us is not anything that relates to the