áf ++ the police 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 construction. i am prepared to overrule the department and reduce the penalty to two times. that is my motion. president hwang: ok. >> so on that motion, then, from the vice president to grant this appeal and reduce the penalty to two times the regular phase. on that motion -- president hwang: aye. commissioner lazarus: aye. >> thank you, the vote is 3-0. this party is reduced to two

times the regular fee. thank you. >> calling item 8, appeal no. 12-078, burress and elizabeth ericsson, purses the department of building inspection. the property is 2680 greene street, protesting the issuance on may 312012, to green broderick l l c a permit to alter a building, interior remodel at all levels, partial light well infill on west side, and seismic upgrade, including 3 new bathrooms, new wine cellar, laundry room, new elevator, roof deck, projected balcony at rear. one for hearing today. the zoning administrator seems to want to speak first. vice president fung: is their resettlement? >> no, the parties would like additional time to discuss the matters. if it would be possible to hold this over to the last item on the calendar, i know there is

only one more item remaining, but hopefully there will be time for the parties to make it official. president hwang: i'm fine with that. >> we will hold this matter until we hear the next and last item on the calendar, which is appeal number pull-079, terry meehan and judith winchel against the department of building inspection, property at 1607-47 avenue, protesting the issuance on june 6, 2012, to peter fealy family trust of a permit to alter a building, comply with notice of violation numbers 9700221, and 201291473, refer to single-family dwelling, remove illegal kitchen, relocate bath, and legalize bedroom and sitting area, provide one required parking space in the garage. the matter is on for hearing today, and we will start with the attorney for the appellant. president hwang: i just want to note that mr. dufty is not here. do we need him here in this hearing?

>> i can ask for him to return, if you like. president hwang: just to let him know. this is his. >> right, he probably thought we were on 8. >> if you could see if he is in the hallway, ask him to come back in. vice president fung: hold one minute, counselor.

president hwang: okay, he has been notified you are on. i this want to make sure that he knew that. >> yunis chang, appearing on behalf of the pilots terry meehan and judith winchel. this is a case regarding concealment. concealment of the tenant of the downstairs unit of 47 avenue was a little. the concealment to the department of building inspection that in 1996, a restriction was placed on the deed and that no borders could live in the downstairs unit, and concealment that a permit was filed 16 years ago to demolish the illegal kitchen and reconvert the downstairs unit into a single-family home. in 2002, when my clients moved into this downstairs unit at

47th avenue, they were never told it was illegal. they were never told the downstairs unit was not intended or designed for a living, sleeping, dining, and cooking, and they love their unit. they have devoted time and attention, created this extensive garden, and now they have learned the unit is a legal. and they have been forced to move out and it would place on due hardship on them. they are considered a protected tenant with the assumption they tended to live there the rest of their lives. on behalf of my clients, we request they are given three- four months to move out. i have included numerous pictures of their garden, which will require a lot of time for them to move out. they have heavy rocks, he has a petrified logs that is very difficult to move, so we are requesting if the permit is

granted they be given a few months to move out. another issue is if the permit is granted, there are no guarantees the permit holder will follow through. 16 years ago, they filed a permit and that was not done. i have been here before the same members of the board a few months ago on a depressed property on the same issue. they felt a permit, said it would remove it, but they never did. i know it least three other tenants who have been affected because they have lived in a legal units, and they're told to remove it, but they have not. it would be in the board's public interest to ensure that if the permit is granted that provisions be provided to ensure that this permit holder will follow the rules, regulations, and orders of the department of building inspection. that is it. >> mr. mcdonald?

>> good evening, members of the board, mr. vice president, madame president. i'm stephen macdonald, representing the permit holder. we have already got a couple of months by appealing to permit. they will get 60 days notice. we have submitted are brief. there really is no fax, no law, no equity to support the appeal of this permit. i should note that some of the members of this panel may remember we have banned here before with the same arguments. we were here a few months ago, same landlord, same plaintiffs, same tenants' council, same illegal unit, and they beg for two months of the unfinished their semester. this board continued bickering for two months. we came back, and they did not making that claim. we have submitted evidence they have demanded $700,000. they're suing for every day they

are suffering from this a legal, "uninhabitable unit" with all types of mulled problems and so forth, and to release their asking for in the brief says something about that the board shall retain jurisdiction to ensure compliance. well, that is fine. we say let us have our permit, to comply with the city's order to remove the legal unit, and we have no choice. thank you. -- to remove the need legal unit, and we have no choice. president hwang: is there department will comment, mr. dufty? >> commissioners, i am just available for questions. i have one comment. the notice of violation for this, but tracking out on that today, there already has been an

order of abatement posted on the property, which means it has gone through the enforcement. well. normally when there is in order of abatement at hand, it is very advisable for the owners to remove the violation. i don't think that we can link in this any longer. there was indeed a permit in 1986 to do exactly the same thing, and maybe at that taken out and put back in again, i don't know. these illegal units, it seems to happen a lot where they take it out, they do the work, and then they put the kitchen back in again and ran a bit out. it is an ongoing problem, but in this case, i think there would be a reason to comply with the notice of violation, based on the order of abatement being posted. i am available for any questions, if you want. vice president fung: thank you. /5b7 ++ thank yd

that it is an rh-1 zoning district, said they could not legalize this property. president hwang: is there any public comment on this item? ok, seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. if you have anything, you have three minutes. use it or lose it. ok. mr. mcdonald, anything more? vice president fung: i have a question for the appellant. the permit holders brief indicates that your client is intending to move out of san francisco?