motion to reduce that by half, 45 days. yeah, 45 days. >> you are asking to a friendly amendment to the motion that is on the floor. >> thank you. >> i would accept a friendly amendment. >> grant appeal. >> reduce penalty to 45 days. >> would you like to keep the same basis or a different basis? >> yes. >> we have a motion then from commissioner fung to reduce the suspension from 90 days to 45 days and this is on the basis stated in the departmental brief from the mta.

on that motion, president hwang. >> i. >> commissioner? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0. the suspension is reduced to 45 days on that basis. thank you. >> okay. >> thank you. >> number 7, appeal no 12-145, abolfath hosseinioum, 965 mission street, appealing the imposition of the penalty on november 6, 2012, for construction work done without a permit. application number, 2012/11/05/3563. the matter is on for today. you can begin with seven minutes to present your case. >> good evening, president. and good evening commissioners and good evening. >> could you speak into the mic?

>> yes. good evening, everybody. >> and so my name is abolfath, hosseinioum and i am the owner of 965 and i am here for the notice that was issued for demolition work that the permit was in process, but not issued. and this work, the scope of the work is moving some interior non-bearing walls and some suspended ceiling for the future ti work. i have applied many months before starting the job. pardon me, i submitted my application and i had every intention to get the permit to complete the job. and since the ti work was not 100 percent in place, and we did not have secured any tenant and so there was some issues

that the plans for the application was supposed to be completed and so that was the reason the permit was not 100 percent done. i have demonstrated and in this application, at this application has presented. part of the application was submitted and approved several months before it started. and so, i would appreciate the court to consider, yeah what the penalty has been applied to this permit. it is the violation and we have picked up the permit and the time that i was surprised that it was i was penalized nine

times of the permit fees. so that is it. have any questions? >> >> sir, it is actually ten times. but, yeah... you indicated that you are a property manager? >> i am the owner of the property. >> the owner? >> and have you had to have permits before? >> yes. >> and always i, every job we have done in the building was always, it is done we do a permit. only this job, every even you started the demolition and do something of the work usually the consequences is that you have to get the permit in order to do that ti work, the new construction. i did not really just realize that would be just in the violation. because in the past, we picked up the permit and it was the permit for the demolition and

new construction simultaneusly. and so there was no structure or no life safety issue involved, i did not assume that that would be really a violation. and so otherwise, i had applied for it, i mean it doesn't, it means that we did the work without permit. and so the permit was in process. >> okay. thank you. >> how much longer would you have had to wait to have avoided this penalty? >> how much longer would you have had to wait for the issue ans for the permit to have avoided. >> i don't understand the question. >> you went ahead with the work prior to getting a permit. >> yeah. >> how long would you have had to wait. what was your understanding? >> i did not, it was not my understanding, i did not really know that would be a violation because i had started and so,

there was some question internally where for the ada we did not know in what extent we have to in the new work we have to comply with ada. because we had the existing bathrooms, and enough sufficient bathrooms, but i did not know that how many of this bathroom can be demolished in order to convert it to meet the ada requirement. and so we did not touch the bathrooms and so i was in process and going with the architect and going back and forth to see what it needed for in the future scope of the work. so the plans were delayed and so, we went ahead and started the work and so, really that was an assumption. that was not intentional

violation. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you can sit down now, we will hear from mr. duffy. thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, joe duffy, i don't think in the brief that you actually have the complaint or the notice of violation. i brought some extra copies if you are interested in seeing those. >> yes. >> the top of... give me one, will you. >> sure.

>> i brought 11. so the top sheet is a complaint data sheet which is really, it gives you the details about the complaint, when it was received. and what the work was, the description, the inspector and then received 12th of october, 2012 and then the 19th of october, 2012, i believe that our building inspector got in there and issued the notice of violation, which you can see on page 2, which was for entire third floor being demoed and the plumbing and electrical permits and the conditions exist with the loose wiring and the uncontrolled debris and

dust. he valued work to having been done to $20,000 and he imposed the 9 times penalty that is required by the code. i have a couple of photo graphs that i could show here if i could pop them on the overhead to show the scope of the demolition. so you can see that the floor was pretty much demolished, and there was some debris, around the place and suspended ceilings had been removed. and just the demolition, no construction, no reconstruction had started when our inspector was there. so the penalty, i believe is in the region of $2,109.78. and and the department would like to keep the penalty on for doing the work without the

permit. just if you have any questions, i am available. >> i have a question. so the permit holder has indicated that he had started the process prior? what does that... >> right, i should have spoke to that, thanks for reminding me. this is a building permit application, and when you go into the building department you get this writing slip on it and you fill in your application at the ground floor and then you run it to the department departments, building and planning and dpw and it looks like the gentleman stated that he came into the building department and got some approvals. i see something here from on the back of the permit application, i will put it on the overhead just so that everyone can see it. this is the back of the permit application and what it says in the planning department it says not applicable interior only and no change of use, and the person's name was mcaretta 2,

16/12. i don't know what happened, or why they didn't continue with that. the subsequent permit was issued. and to comply with the notice of violation. i have the details of that. but i believe that it was in november, the 5th, it was a permit issued for a demo of interior walls and removing of the suspended ceiling to comply with the notice of violation and the future will be under separate permit. and that did not go through the planning department it does not need to go through the planning department. so it is a permit application, maybe he did come in. >> mr. duffy, this scope of work normally probably would have been an over the counter. >> it is the over the counter. i don't know why unless, you know, some people think that like he indicated that he

needed to aggregate the demo work plus the new ti work. >> some people start with the demo department and we have seen that earlier tonight. but some people start with the smaller part and move to the bigger one and expedites the thing but we like them to get the permit before they start the work it is better. in this case we got a complaint from someone in the building and i was just looking through the building history today. and have not been in that building since going back to 07 and then that as a matter of fact in 2007 we noticed a violation and there was a notice to comply with the complaint to install a window and remove a door. we also had issued in regards to that and there was not a penalty, i don't think on that. i believe that it might be a tenant and landlord thing going

on, a lot of them do get through quickly, it is usually heat or quality of life complaints but they seem to get debated. but there was a number and there are only two active complaints on it right now and the rest of them have been abaited. >> the permit holder mentioned that in the past they had always applied if a permit. did the permit history indicate that their track record is what the permit holder said? >> there are a lot of permits on it as well. there is a lot of work done on the building and the track history, it is probably is okay. but the one that showed up that they had done work previously without a permit. there was a complaint and then they got a permit. we may not have issued a notice of violation, sometimes when we go there, if we don't get in, we leave a note saying that we are looking to get in to investigate and some people rush down to the building per department and it saves them the penalty. we have to see the work before we issue the penalty.

>> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay. seeing none, then mr. hosseinioum, you have three more minutes if you have anything else to say. you can speak again to the board. >> okay. >> basically, i want to reiterate that this work really was with the intention of the finalize the permit which has already started and i did not have the intention to do any work without any permit. and so what mr. duffy has mentioned in the past in 07, there was a tenant installing a window in between two rooms and later i came to the building department and i took care of

it. and so, that is basically it. i own the building for 13 years and i always have been complied with the rules and regulations of the building department. we have about four permits in place and i really should in the last three months. >> could you explain inspector duffy indicated that potentially you were going to get a notice of violation in the past for work done without a permit. >> that is what i mentioned in the 07, there was a window installed in a wall by a tenant and so the building department notified me and i went over there and i took care of it. >> okay, all right. thank you for clarifying that. >> when did you do the demo work? >> it was done in october of last year. >> okay. the permit application shows a date of february. >> yeah. that is correct. i originally i went over there,

i have applied for the permit to do the various work from four one to seven that is my permit. and so since we did not have any potential tenant or so, we did not process with it, what is it? proceed with it. and so, in later of the year, around september or october, market start to get better, and so, i started just thinking about it and starting some work. and so pretty much in october, i started 30th and we started opening up the entire floor and this floor which we did the work there was no tenant it was total empty. we have many floors totally empty with no tenants and so with that floor we start doing the work and demolition and all of there to just progress.

but, definitely, we were working with the plans and with the architect to finalize the scope of the work for the future ti work and future tenant. that is the reason it started later and did not have any reason to start the work prior to that day. >> is your building entire building an office building? >> yes, it is. >> >> and since we added some tenant on different floors, if you start the demolition and make the noise and then they start calling and complaining about it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> anything further mr. duffy? >> no? >> okay. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> normally i am the easyist one on these. >> yes, you are. >> i have a little bit of

confusion on this particular case. and given some experience, you know, with the process, i would be willing to split the baby and cut it to five times. >> i would concur. i mean, because of my profession, i understand what 965 mission is, and i understand that vacantcy is tough and things are just starting to get good now. and i would concur with commissioner fung and i would agree to reduce the penalty in half as well. >> okay. >> move to grant the appeal and reduce the penalty to five times. >> on that motion, from commissioner fung, to reduce

this penalty, from nine times to five times. on that motion, president hwang? >> i am going to reluctantly vote yes. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> the vote is 6-0, this penalty is reduced to five times the regular fee. thank you. >> okay we will move on to the next case which is appeal number 12-151. item number 8 on the board's calendar this evening, 465-10th street, condo home owner appellant, 264 dore street protesting the issue ans on november 19th, 2012, to daniel kennedy to permit to elect a building two story auto repair

garage building with 1997.5 sf ground floor area, application number 2012/01/27/3062 s. and we will start with the appellant's attorney and you have seven minutes. >> i am steven williams and i represent the 465-10th street association, also known as the stage house law building. this is an important building, if you read my brief you will see that it is listed on the national register of historic places a rare honor for any building. it is also listed with the california state and local registers of historic places. this building has evolved into long-term housing. and it has changed over the years. it was converted to live and work a long times ago in the terms of the modern live work in 1998 and so it has been in the neighborhood for a long time and seen a lot of changes

and it is all of the construction of the costco across the street and the revitalization of the whole neighborhood and it is more than ilittle ironic that i am here advocating for help for these live-work residents in that urging the board to protect this housing, back in 98, 99, i represented businesses all over this area, including a whole bunch of businesses over one block on 11th street, which made up the nighttime entertainment coalition for 11th street at this time in 98, 99 and i am sure that commissioner fung remembers. >> they opposed the housing and fearful that the long term commercial interests would be injured and not paying any fees for housing, it was really just a disguised condomimium project. the planning department fought tooth and nail, to put this housing in here. and i mean, they swatted down the community and approved

thousands of units in this area all up and down south of market. while the community screameds don't put in the housing, the department kept on saying this isn't housing. it is housing, the department admits that was a huge mistakes that 99 percent of the live work units is nothing but housing, look at how many there are in this particular area. the arrow points to where this one unit is. there is more than 65 buildings having live-work within a very small three-block radius. >> sorry, victor, i don't know if you can do anything about this, but or monitors are not allowing that. >> i will just hand it up. >> it is a map showing where they are. >> it is grossly unfair to now say this housing deserves no protection. and it does not make any sense. it is grossly unfair and unreasonable to say that the ha bitbility and livebility for

this housing can't be done. for this particular project, the position taken by the department at the planning commission was we are going to build a wall, right against the sole source of light for these units. the planning commission to its credit said no. the planning commission, over ruled the department granted the discretionary review and moved back the wall slightly and just didn't go far enough. and so, the department has already made an error and been over ruled by the planning commission on that. they said that it is an error not to treat it more like housing. it is an error not to give sensitive and compatible adjacent structures designed qualifications. so, i have attached policies that have not been passed yet. i spoke to the board of supervisors, land use clerk and

anticipated that they would be pass and they were passed on december 6th by the board of supervisor and they have been introduced to the land use committee almost a month ago, it will be a month ago, 30-day rule will expire on friday and so we anticipate that it will be passed. and that these land use designs will go into place. and if this permit is not finally issued before that time, we will have to comply with all of these new policies. and i believe that there is more than enough policy in front of you already with the general plan, the housing element, all of the neighborhood plans and common sense tell us, that we are supposed to improve, maintain, or housing at all levels. it makes no sense to punish the new owners. it makes no sense to punish the newest occupants of this housing, when they turned in that they had no idea that we were going to get treated like

housing and get the 10-foot set back that would be given to any housing unit. there is also other design guidelines, which i would like to submit, if i am able, design guidelines for industrial areas. which i think could also be used in this instance and it gives a perfect example and it is part of the code. >> what is it? >> what is that you would like us to see? >> it is the industrial design standards. >> industrial design guidelines. >> and they are not in your submission? >> they are and i submitted several others. but the point really is that the guidelines all say the same thing. whether you are talking about the residential design guidelines which the department in its dr analysis there is no guidelines at all that are applicable here. there are guidelines out of the general plans and the guidelines for the industrial areas and for the new soma plant and they all say the same

thing, adjacent development in residential areas or residential, not residential areas but adjacent to residential properties should be sensitive and compatible and it is not hard to understand and this particular design element, applicable shows how the rear yards should be configured when the industrial and residential areas meet. and the only thing that makes sense here is to provide a small set back, it will not hurt the next door development. we are not talking about a yard. we are not talking about a set back at the ground level, we are talking about the set back at the upper floors, they are building to the property line what the appellants are saying is don't put a solid wall in front of the own window that we have in our dwelling unit. and for those of these units

that is their own window. they live and work there, they are large windows but that is it, that is the only source of light to those particular units. so i am urging the board to, you know, take a look at the industrial design guidelines, and take a look at the other guidelines that i have attached as exhibit 9 and ten and use your common sense. that makes no sense to degrade and to devalue housing, this particular housing, for units of housing for the construction of an auto repair shop. and the auto repair shop will still be built. it will just be slightly smaller. if you gave it a ten-foot set back, it would lose something like 250 square feet or less. and in fact, if you look at exhibit 3, there is an architect who lives in the build provided different configurations where they could get more square footage. >> you know what would be helpful to me is in the exhibits in your submission,

you include many designs, the insert under tab three is pretty thick, but i would like an actual visual of the windows that are going to be blocked. is that the last tab? >> it is the last tab. and actually, i think that there is a couple of others in there. >> could you help direct us to this specific tab numbers? >> it is the last tab. >> okay. >> and i think that is the view from the inside. but then, >> so those entire windows will be blocked by this development? >> yes. >> it will be up against the patio and those windows face the patio. >> it will be against the patio or the windows. >> not against the windows >> is there anything that will be right up against the windows. >> no. >> if you look at exhibit 6, that shows the three window and

there is actually four that are affected of the units and it is these lower units. >> did you put that up on the overhead and point to it on the picture, please? >> i will look at that one. and it is these units here and there is one unit that faces directly north. we are looking. >> number 6? >> that is number 6. >> that is not my number 6. >> exhibit 6. it is not the exact same, but it is close, it has arrows pointing. >> no. >> okay. >> thanks. >> yeah. >> and both of the buildings on either side of this building are substan hally shorter so this is going to stick up and be as i said blocking those windows, it is not about views, it is strictly about light. >> okay. thank you. >>