>> good evening, and welcome to the august 1, 2012 meeting of the board of appeals. frank fuong, would like to congratulate for his reappointment. >> thank you >> the president will be absent this evening. to my left is robert bryan. he will be offering legal advice. i am the executive director of. and we are joined by representatives from some of the departments that have matters before the board this evening.

scott sanchez is here. he is the zoning administrator. good joseph duffey is here. he is the senior building inspector. john is here from the recreation and parks departments, and i believe we will be joined by representatives from the department of public works. if you could please go over the meeting guidelines. >> support requests you turn off also funds -- cell phones. go \ please hold conversations n the hallway. four representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. they must complete comments in those periods. member is not affiliated have

up to 3 minutes to address the board but not rebels. members of the public who wish to speak on an item are out but not required to submit a speaker court -- as speaker card when you come to the podium. did the board and welcome comments and suggestions. if you have questions about requesting a hearing or schedules, please contact the board during our break or in our office. this meeting is to broadcast live on san francisco government television, sfgtv, channel 78, and the bees are available directly from -- and dvds are

available directly from sf teen gtv. if you intend the board to give evidenciary wait, please stand and raise your right hand and say i do after you have been sworn in. any member of the public may speak without taking this oath pursuant to the rights of the sunshine ordinance. do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? thank you. >> we will start with item number one, which is public comment on items not on the agenda. is there anyone who wishes to speak on this item? seeing none, we will move to commissioner's comments and questions. commissioners? item no. 3, which is the

adoption of minutes. for your consideration are the minutes of the july 25, 2012 meeting. >> any comments or corrections? if not, i move their acceptance. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, if you could call the roll please. >> we have a motion to adopt the july 25 minutes. on that motion, the president is absent. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. the minutes are adopted. >> i wonder if there is anyone here from the department of public works. i wonder if we should skip that for a moment and call item no.

5. we will move on to item number five, which is appeal number 12- 027, inge dhillon persistent -- versus the department of building inspection, and it is protesting the issuance of a permit to alter a building, removing a legal unit in garage, convert area to workshop with a half bath. this was considered a force and which further consideration today. commissioner lazarus has advised me she has looked at the video and documents from the hearing. perhaps we can start which mr. duffy, and you can have three

minutes to update the board. just to make sure the parties are here, is there someone representing dhillon? great, and the landlord? super. >> i did my inspection on july 23 and went to the building and met the owner of the building. i am sure you read the report said. inside the you did, it does have the code requirements you would need with regards to ceiling light. the biggest problem is access coming through the garage. that is the current condition, and there are some problems with the steps in the alleyway. the door swings over the steps,

so it can bee a tripping hazard. in order to convert this, i see some code issues. i have some photographs in the report which showed the proximity of the building into the garage. there seems to be some height issues, so i did recommend they get an architect to look into it, maybe to a meeting and try to address those issues, but i think it would be pretty difficult to convert that into a legal unit. it requires a lot more research and codes and i would have. i think an architect needs to get involved, and i am available for any questions. >> thank you. if we can hear from the appellant and her representatives.

anything more to say? >> no. >> you need to speak to the mic if you do want to come up. >> i did not hear there were any life-threatening hazards that were found. ms. dhillon continues to look for housing, but it is difficult. i just heard today of an opening in a senior housing center that is going to be taking applications on october 1 for one week. she got on the waiting list, so that is something, and the landlord just wrote -- just showed me three listings he came across, so we will investigate. all we are looking for is time to secure affordable housing in san francisco in the ideal world, so thank you.

>> if we can hear from the permit holder. >> hi, the landlord. the last hearing we gave some numbers about what it would cost to make the unit legal. i think after duffy looked at it, the fact we would have to make all three units up to code, the cost is going to be prohibitive, and i do not think we can afford to bring all three units of to code, so we would like a permit to stand. the real problem with the tenant, if it is not clear to her the unit is going to be removed, she is not going to look for a unit, so we are working with her, and it takes time, so we need her to give

clear direction on where we are going, so if we keep delaying the permit, she is not going to take any action, so if a permit is approved, i believe it is valid for a year, and if i can extend it after that. i would like you to make a permanent legal, and i would like to work to hopefully look for someone. >> the permit is not to make the unit legal theory is to remove it. >> it is to remove it -- a permit is not to make the unit legal. it is to remove it. >> she wants it so she does not have to move, and we are basically doing status quo, and i cannot just have an illegal unit with a complaint there

indefinite. i need some sort of resolution, but as long as i can see things moving forward, that is fine. i am in no rush to convict her, and i have been working with the lawyer and herself, but when i do try to talk to her, she calls it harassment, so i cannot talk to her directly. >> can you tell us how long she has been in that unit? >> i think she has been there 19 years. >> i cannot remember when this has been heard before. have you made progress in discussions on helping her find a new unit? >> no, she basically is not looking for anything. i look every now and then. my brother looks, and we did find this week something with a waiting list of three months to

one year opening up maybe four blocks from our place, and one of us visited it, and it looked like a pretty good place with one unit, so if she could get on one of those waiting lists and get a place, that is great, but i can not -- she is expecting you guys to say i have to make it legal, and at the moment is just being held up, so there is no decision in either direction. >> obviously, we cannot say to make it legal. we only have a permit before us, but i think we were expecting some progress to be made. in your brief, you say you are willing to negotiate to make the transition smooth, so i think we are looking for a good-faith efforts along those lines, given

how long she has been here. >> absolutely. i am not going to kick her out on the streets. if i get the permit, i am not going to get an eviction notice for the next day. that is not my plan. i can work to try to convince her what the endgame is, that she does have to be eventually move out, even if it is one or two years' time. that is the hard part at the moment without any resolution on this permit. >> this court has won an additional option. -- this board has one additional option. this and board could put off the decision. >> i do not understand fthat. >> madam director, perhaps you could explain what that means.

>> i am not sure if that is correct. it is independent from the appeal, and it would be in the department of the building inspections discretion as to whether approved a proceeding or not. often they do defer to us, but it is not a requirement. >> i think the department would like to respond to my interest statements. goo>> my apologies. >> i would like to clarify. it is sending the permit would not stop the enforcement proceedings. good -- extending the permit would not stop the enforcement proceedings. he could end up with an order of abatement on the property, and the lenders get informed of that. it can get messy. it is not going to happen in days or months. it could take a year for that, but extending it does not stop the enforcement of the

department. some people think it does, but it does not. i think they are fairly fast track on complaints, so i wanted to clarify that. >> thank you. commissioners? >> let me see if there is a public comment, unless you have questions for the other permit holder. is there any public comment? is yours. >> i can start. from what i recall of this case, i think we put it over in the hopes there would be more substantial progress to moving ms. dhillon out of the unit, and i did not hear that today, so i am perplexed as to why that did not happen. given what i have just heard, i do not think was postponing this

any longer is going to be beneficial to anyone, so i am inclined to uphold the permit and what the process move forward in terms of notice of violation and in terms of allowing the landlord, whom i commend as in terms of being willing to work with this, allowing the property owner to move forward removing the illegal units, and that is my opinion at this point. goo>> i agree with your original comment that we were hoping to see some progress made, so i would like to give both parties props. the mob will move forward regardless to see if there could be some progress made on the tendency, and we are working

with the tenant to try to figure out a solution. >> actually, the intent of what we had was to allow some time for this process to occur, recognizing it is not so easy to find other units in san francisco. this case was first heard in february. it is now five months later, and we have not heard of a lot of progress, but i would support perhaps a fixed timeframe in which the appellant needs to know that is as far as this commission is willing to go. i would except three months. good >> with the intent -- and

with the intent be to take formal action in the three month time frame -- would the intent be to take formal action in the three month time frame? i could see this dragging on. >> i would be prepared to take action at the conclusion of that period. but i think of some point the notice of violation will take up with the permit and force us to make a decision. >> if it is under the jurisdiction of the board permit, i would say the department could probably hold the enforcement action, but eventually expanding the permit would not last, and when if you would up hold a permit, we could not use that, but while it is under jurisdiction of the board, i would say the director would not want to go ahead with

enforcements, so we do have some time. >> thanks. >> i do not think it would be the intent of this board to put a permit holder in jeopardy with the notice of violation and possible penalties, and because he is trying to accomplish something, so that is rather encouraging. >> do you have a comment on what we are discussing? a brief comment please, and i will allow the owner -- >> i would like to make a couple of comments. a hearing was april 18. it was not february. i believe that was when an actual appeal was filed. there was a delay that we did not request. she has been searching for housing. she simply has not found anything. she has put applications in.

the problem is you get on a wait list in san francisco, and you wait as long as you have to until you rise to the top of the latest. that is the problem in san francisco. it is not as if she has not been trying to find housing. as i recall from the april 18 hearing we spoke on behalf of the landlord in support of the city it -- of the landlord not fining him. he is being very reasonable under the circumstances. there is no reason why they should be penalizing this owner for granting this delay, and as i also recall, the purpose of inspector duffy going back to the property was to determine whether there were life- threatening conditions on the premise is that would put this woman at risk, and he determined

apparently there are ninone. >> you are repeating yourself. >> thank you very much. you would like to make a comment? >> we will have to agree to disagree about how they are looking for accommodation. when i speak to her, she says she does not need to move. that is that. i can talk to the lawyer, and we can try to figure that out. as long as she is doing that, that is fine. if she has not done anything by the time the notice comes out, there is nothing we can do, so i would really like her to be proactive and start looking. thank you.

>> commissioners. >> i will stand corrected. the first hearing was on april 18, so it has been about three months. >> i still fit regardless of whether or not it is difficult to get housing, whether or not she is looking for housing actively in san francisco, the issue before us is still year, and we need to decide now whether this permit should be upheld, because in mobil is not going to force the issue. what is going to force the issue is what we decide now, and i do not feel comfortable putting it off, because i do not think that helps resolve the situation, and i think that is at the service of the property owner and to ms.

dhillon. i understand we want to try to assist in the length of time she has in housing, but i do not think that is very fair to the property owner either, so i think what we should do is uphold the permit, and the property owner is willing to work with her in terms of the amount of time she has to move, but really, we need to not prejudice the property owner in terms of notice of violation. i just do not think that is a fair resolution either. >> i agree with you in concept, but i feel that if we gave them an additional three months for a total of about six months, that is a reasonable accommodation on both a part of the current

property owner and the department. it is going to take them three months to move the case along. i just feel six months is not an unreasonable time to look for a unit here in san francisco superior -- in san francisco. >> i would agree. i think the last time we heard this week gave three months to come back with the report, and i think we are all on the same page. we would like to resolve this, but giving another three months to resolve this i think is worthwhile, given the difficulty in finding housing here, so i would also support a continuance. >> the you have a motion? but do we have a specific date? >> yes, are we looking at november?

do we have november 7? 14? >> i moved to continue this on november 7. >> is it within the purview of the board to ask for documentation of the appellant for the efforts made between now now and then, a roster of calls, please she might be on -- lists she might be on, because arguably it is here say as to what she is trying to do. that would be useful. >> we can allow the parties to give us an update. >> to reset a page limits of any kind of argument they might make and allow them who -- do we set a page limit of any kind to

an argument they might make? i recommend a three-page brief to document the calls. whereas the motion is to continue this on november 7 to allow time to find alternate housing with a three page of a briefing allowed and unlimited and exhibits -- which three pages of briefing allowed and unlimited exhibits. >> the briefing would include the documentation of their efforts. >> on that motion to continue to november 7 -- [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. this factor is continued to

november 7 -- this matter is continued to november 7. thank you. >> i wonder if the dpw rep has arrived. >> i got a note. he has no intention of coming. they have nothing to say on this item. >> they do not object to the findings? >> they are neutral. >> i will go ahead and call item four, which is the adoption of findings at 27 avenue. the board voted 4-1 to grant the appeal and provoke the wireless and box permit with adoption of its findings at a later time.

it is the findings before the board for consideration this evening. and we will give the party's three minutes to address the board, and we will start with the appellant, mr. cooper. >> jeff cooper, thank you for taking the time. just a couple of comments. i quickly reviewed the brees. it feels like they are trying to create our record for discrimination. the act states, except as provided in this paragraph, nothing shall limit the state or local government over decisions regarding placement, construction, and modification of personal wireless facilities. the paragraph goes on to discuss how municipalities should not on

reasonably discriminate against wireless providers -- unreasonably discriminate against wireless providers. i have a chart that shows permit applications since may of 2008. there have been 235 permit applications in our city government and and i believe this is the only location where the permit has been overturned by the board of appeals. i think is a hard argument to say our city is discriminating against wireless and given the proliferation of violence in our city. in this particular instance, the equipment is not compatible with the location. the telecommunications act clearly allows local governments to be productive harness, and wireless -- hornbeck if not