issues. what i saw was a cavalier attitude in terms of understanding who has access and being able to come in and out of a public right of way, so i am not sure what to do, whether to revoke this and be able to get somebody's attention or to find some better way of being sure people have access to public right of way. >> i appreciate those comments. i think the fact of the gate was put in a legally -- put in

illegally i found to be a problem at the last hearing. i was thinking we have some consensus on the threshold question, but maybe that is not the case. today when we were talking about non-compliance of the existing gate, i kept thinking, why don't we let them start over and do everything right, and then we had to go to the threshold question -- is it appropriate to have in the done -- to have it done. am concerned about the key issues. there are some challenges the may never be resolved, so close

to concern me. i think a better route may have been to go the more difficult route to, which is to make it no longer a public access l.aalley. i am thinking out loud, and i am unclear right now where i would go with this, but if i had to decide right now, i would lead to overturning the encroachment. >> doing away with the right to have the gate at all.

>> yes, given that it is not an and save space -- not an unsafe space, and people who reside in the building feel safe. those are the people that matter right now. they live there. >> could i just clarify? if somebody has a key, the fact of the gate is open for a couple hours would be moot. is that correct? >> yes. >> if everybody who felt they haveneed access had a key, it could be close 24 hours a day, and everybody else could open and close it as they came and went. good would that be your understanding?

>> unless you need to replace theskeys, but i would allow the permit holder to pose something that would give me greater confidence in having people provide access. we already know dear sensibility of the buildings themselves is limited -- we already know the sensibilities of the building themselves are limited. gwe do not want to create a situation that i do -- add to inaccessibility. i am willing to hear from the permit holder, how would he assure us of providing appropriate access to the tenants of both buildings?

please come forward. >> there are probably 40 tenants in each building. we could give each kennan -- tenant a key when they move in. >> they have been waiting for months. >> we have given out quite a few, but we could give them 100% to every tenant, whether they need it or not. but as the other building. we have no reason not to give them a key. it keeps people from coming into the building, so there are quite a few people. good and we cannot have security of the police force, and there is a lot of activity. we did think we were going in

the right direction, but then anybody could come and go. you could leave. gowe have the design pretty well done. there are some tweaks. >> you currently have security cameras that would expose what is going on in the alley? >> i think so. >> how long have you been doing this? >> six months. 5 i think it would be great if we could use some of the footage of the time during regular -- if you kept the gate open 24 hours and show as the footage on your security cameras and see what

kind of activities are actually take place in the l.a. -- -- what kind of activities take place in the alley. what do you think of that? you can look at the tapes. icommissioner hillis: would we e able to see the alley? >> i don't know, it is endless battle. the tenants want this, then they don't. i don't know what to do any more. we have been cleaning up the alley for years. the cameras do not stop anything. i was called one time because it was open and there was a vehicle there. i took a picture of it and the vehicle backed up and hit me. you are not supposed to park there. president hwang: is it the

parking that is an issue or the illicit activities? >> mostly, i would worry about the illicit activities. we do not use it for parking, but it was pretty bad. it is mostly probably during the night. then you have to have labor open and close it and we miss it. president hwang: okay, i just wanted to see if you would be open to that suggestion. that is just my personal point of view. commissioner lazarus: you are searching for a security without a date? president hwang: gating off a public right of way as a drastic measure. i have understood that it was done for murder nc purposes. they have had it illegal for over a year and are some disability access issues and potentially fire issues.

we cannot create another problem that is not resolving a problem. if there is a problem, i want to see the basis for wanting to date in the first place. >> the cameras will not be with. there are a dozen gates in the tenderloin like this, for same reason. president hwang: but here we have people who are in the buildings who are affected that are talking about issues related to disability access, not related to safety. somebody has been in that area 23 years. i have not seen people testify about the gate. and you could have brought them in. >> the road a lot of letters. we turned the man with the exhibits -- they wrote a lot of letters. president hwang: it is easier for me to hear them. i want to see the serious display that you have to gate off a public right away. vice president fung: i have a

question, then, of mr you. commissioners? i am trying to recall, idoes the department review for the reasons behind a closure, which in this instance is the their illicit activities or undesirable activities? -vstn

department, who is in support of the closure of this alleyway, and that they also provided documentation of the fire department saying that this date was appropriate for the needs of the fire department, for the local fire station. so there are backgrounds associated with the identification of an emergency order authorizing the closure of this date in this specific case. vice president fung: okay, there was no directors teetering or appeal? >> not in this case. vice president fung: okay, thank you. i'm willing to float a motion if you are willing to hear it. i am prepared to uphold the department of streets and mapping on their permit, with two conditions. one is that they procure a building permit with any required modifications for exit paying for ada purposes, as required by the building department, and secondly that the installers of the gate, in

this case the permit holder, supply keys to every unit in both buildings within one week. do you have a procedural question? president hwang: ok. >> if the date or to remain closed and locked, i would like a call box at the sidewalks of my drivers can call up to the apartment and open up so they can pick me up to the handicapped access in the building. vice president fung: mr. duffy, you have questions, comments? >> sorry about complicating

things. the moving back of 3 feet of the gate could create the level landing issue, because i believe that slopes down towards the street -- from the street towards the alley. even if they apply for a permit, i hope they get approval for it. if that permit was not approval, then the p.w. -- and the dpw would be revoked? i was looking at the gate and it's correct location, moving it, it is very hard to get that, and you have to have a level landing at the gate. i don't know if it will be a problem, but if it was, how that would affect if they would not be able to get the building permit, on their condition, then that would revoke the permit? vice president fung: yes. >> ok, that's fine. sorry. vice president fung: counselor?

>> i just want to remind everyone, including my commissioners, what would happen in the event the permit is revoked, and that the applicants would not be able to apply for the same permit for another year, and if the circumstances. unless the circumstances that lead to revocation had somehow changed. vice president fung: understood. commissioner lazarus: i am now somewhat confused. is there a gate there that is permissible? vice president fung: i believe based on the presentation made by both the building department and dpw was the main gate for emergency vehicle stays in place. it is the person gate that moves back so as it swings out it does not swing over the sidewalk. am i correct? >> inspector duffy is correct,

there might be a possibility that if the date is moved back, additional work would have to be made in the public right away to provide the level landing and other accessible features. the department would issue a supplemental permit for reconstruction of the sidewalk as appropriate to make it happen in this case. president hwang: and that is at the cost and responsibility of the applicant? >> absolutely. vice president fung: we don't want to make the situation worse in terms of accessibility. president hwang: and the supplemental permit would be appealable? >> that would be correct. at them as would be the building permit. >> correct. vice president fung: before you leave, or my conditions clear to you? >> yes, it was, building permits required, keys be provided to

all units within both buildings by the applicant, and any adjustments required to be made on the gate would be needing additional permits as appropriate to satisfy the access. vice president fung: right. president hwang: i have a friendly amendment to the motion, and its conditions would be pending the perfecting of the permit and applying for and getting them issued, etc., pending the hours of the gate to be open from 7:30 until 6:00 p.m., rather than 8:00 until 4:00 p.m., and that must be complied with. it is currently eight until 5:00. i like to extend the hours. vice president fung: until the permit is issued. president hwang: correct. vice president fung: i accept that. >> until the permits are final? vice president fung: yes.

everybody has their options for further appeal. >> ok, so there are i think for conditions. one is that building permits be procured. in fact, that is already a condition of this minor sidewalk encroachment permit, but you can restate it, and that the gate installers, the permit holder, provide keys to every tenet in both buildings. vice president fung: every unit. president hwang: within one week. >> and you mentioned the requirement that all of the next sitting and load and that ada requirements be met, by both the building and the department. vice president fung: that would be accomplished by the building permit, not a separate condition. >> and then that the powers that the gate be open to be changed to 7:30 in the morning until

6:00 p.m., seven days a week, until the permits are final. vice president fung: that is correct. >> and that would be the building permits. ok. commissioner lazarus: a clarification, the issuance of the keys one week from -- vice president fung: today. >> i think it would need to be when the board issues its decision. there is a 10-day rehearing request, and if nobody filed a request, we issue with on the 11th day. if somebody supplies a request, we would have to honor that. vice president fung: i would hope the permit holder would look at that before that time.

>> just a reminder, since this places conditions on the permit, it is as if you or granting the appeal, so it would need to be voted. -- it is as if you are printing the appeal, so it would need to be voted. >> we have a motion from the vice-president to grant this appeal, uphold the permit, with three conditions -- that building permits be procured for both buildings, i believe, that gate keys be provided to all units in both buildings within one week of the release date of

our notice of decision, and that the gate shall remain open -- vice president fung: 7:30 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. >> until the burning -- building permits are final. vice president fung: yes. >> ok, on that motion -- commissioner hillis: aye. commissioner lazarus: aye. thank you, the vote is 3-0, and this permit is up held with all of those conditions. thank you. >> ok, item number six, pat buscovich against the department of building inspection. subject property, 40-50 lansing street, protesting the issuance

august 24, 2011, to lambert development lansing a permit to alter a building, demolish and remove existing wood form work/shoring at north end of building, in order to comply with notice of violation. this matter was heard on november 16, 2011, and is on for further consideration today. it was continued to allow time for the department of building inspection to contest a site visit. again, commissioner lazarus has had an opportunity to review the video and materials for this matter. i think we will begin with inspector dufty. no? >> i am the attorney for 15 guy place, the property owner

involved in the suit. i was surprised to see mr. buscovich here. i attempted to contact him in the hallway, was not successful. i was able to reach his daughter, who informed me that mr. buscovich was in a dental chair with emergency board canal surgery this afternoon. based on his absence and emergency, i am asking for continuance on behalf of the property owner. vice president fung: would you always do that to other opponents? >> mr. buscovich is actually on our side on this. president hwang: is there someone here on behalf of the permit holder? vice president fung: it'as moot. do you have anything? president hwang: no?

ok. >> again, on behalf of the property owner. surprised again not to see somebody who is the permit holder, also. if the board's inclination is to uphold this appeal, we of course would be in support of that. president hwang: which one do you want? just kidding. vice president fung: you know, he asked for continuance. president hwang: that is what he asked for. i have already written it down. >> president, would you want to take public comment on it? president hwang: sure. >> is there anyone here from the public would like to speak on this item? ok, seeing none. president hwang: i move to continue the matter to october 10? vice president fung: it has only been a year. aok.

>> we have a motion, then, from the president to continue item 6 to october 10. on that motion -- vice president fung: aye. >> thank you. commissioner lazarus: aye. >> thank you. the vote is 3-0. this matter is continued to october 10, 2012. president hwang: i would like to take a short

president hwang: will come back to the august 15, 2012 meeting of san francisco board of appeals. we're calling sylvia salvador against the boat department of building inspection, appealing the imposition of penalty on june 15, 2012, for construction work done without a permit. this matter is for hearing today, and we will start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. i am appealing the penalty -- >> your name? >> i am sylvia salvador, the owner of the property. the penalty that was imposed -- i did not know that i needed to have a permit for that. i had halted already -- i bought

it already with -- and when the tenants living there did not pay their rent, i ask them to leave, and then they went to dbi and said there was no permit, so i was slapped with a violation. i got the permit, but i was imposed a penalty. and i am hoping for that penalty to be reduced, if possible. that's all. vice president fung: ok. thank you. president hwang: mr. dufty? >> commissioners, the department issued a notice of violation following a complaint.

basically, the notice of violation was for an illegal dwelling unit on the ground floor. the panel the was on the value of the work performed, and the penalty was assessed on the subsequent permit. i suppose in defense of the property owner, from my point of view, i see the notice of violation was issued on may 29, 2012, and within two weeks they got their building permit, so i was sympathetic to that because that shows that you are facing up to something that has been done illegally, as well as the lady did buy the property with an illegally in it. as she stated. -- with the legal unit. as she stated. with regards to the party, i would be an agreement to drop the penalty somewhat, if that is what the commission would want. maybe not two times, maybe

something in between would be fair to me. it has been there for a while and there has been rent collected on the unit. but there is a permit, and hopefully that is what we get. president hwang: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, miss salvador, do you have anything else to say? in rebuttal? you have more time if you want to, but you don't have to. you need to come to the podium if you want to speak. >> well, i am appealing the 9%, whatever, a penalty that was imposed, because right now i'm having a hard time. i am just employed. i am just trying to get something to pay for my mortgage, and right now it is hard. thank you.

the tenants have not paid up to now. vice president fung: you know what the laws is. the law is they can impose a penalty up to nine times. this board can only reduce it to a minimum of two times. >> well, i understand, i know, but at least it will lessen my burden. president hwang: did you say you are unemployed? >> i am an employee. president hwang: okay, i see. thank you. >> anything further, mr. dufty? ok, no? commissioners, the matter is submitted. vice president fung: commissioners, i am sympathetic. it was not heard dueling, the original