deem it abandoned. that's my position on it. >> what you are saying is we shouldn't have accepted this appeal? >> right. >> i understand that point. i think it was confusing in trying to figure this out and i'm sure it was confusing for the legal side to look at this. but i would probably approach this slightly different in saying how can we allow some level of closure. i would probably allow him to complete his application because i think there is going to be appeals that the directors hearing and let them go through their process to determine whether it's an appropriate location and then we'll see whatever comes back to us. >> right, but what authority do we have to do that to do anything? >> i thought we had two options, one was to allow him

to complete the application by granting the appeal. >> in essence by doing that you are consenting to the issue before you. i think you have that option if you want to proceed that way. >> i tend to agree with commissioner hurtado, the action taken would be tolling the time at the department. i don't think that's really within our purview. >> the question is do we have jurisdiction. i guess there is two ways of looking at it. it is involving a permit although not fully completed but evidently it's strong enough where they can release this one until someone makes a decision and that's why they are here today, right? but i agree with commissioner hurtado as well that maybe we are not the body that should hear that? >> yeah, i mean, i think march 2012 was the initial application. that's almost 2

years. i think that the department has been reasonable in their actions and has sent two certified mail notices one of which i think was received, one was returned and the other one was received and also an -- e-mail and mr. castillo but for lack of resources he knew he had to pay the money. i don't think the department's actions were unreasonable. i would defer to their administrative discretion on this one. >> is there a motion? >> a motion to deny the appeal. >> you can deny it on the lack of subject matter to jurisdiction. >> that would be my motion, yes. >> you wish to make that?

>> yes. >> mr. pacheco? >> are you voting on this appeal or dismissing this appeal? >> we are dismissing this appeal? that's my motion. >> the denial would be you are accepting jurisdiction. >> my motion is to reject the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. >> and there would be a refund. >> right. >> thank you for the clarification. >> we have a motion then from commissioner hurtado to reject this appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and a refunded fee to be afforded to the appellant. on

that motion to reject, commissioner fung? aye. president is absent. vice-president lazarus? aye. commissioner honda? >> aye. >> the vote is 4-0. this is rejected. >> you can contact the office and we can help you with a refund. contact mr. pacheco tomorrow if you would like. thank you. we can move on to the next item 8.88 appeal no. 13-159 ysabel navarro, appellanttss vs. dept. of building inspection, respondent 480 amherst street. appealing the issuance on november 05, 2013, of penalty imposition of penalty for construction work done without a permitt. application no. 2013/11/05/1183 for hearing today.1234 this is on for a hearing. navarro, please step forward.

you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> hello, my name is isabelle navarro. and i went to the department of building inspection. i built a deck on the back of the house. but i fixed everything is back by november for my first time and i didn't know i had to ask for permission to build a deck. that's why i'm here to get back some money. it's too expensive to build a deck and then put back everything. so, thank you. >> ms. navarro, you have

already removed the deck? >> yeah. i have here. november 5th, everything is fixed. i have this paper, the inspector come to my house and signed the paper. >> okay. thank you. >> i have a question, you own other property in san francisco? >> yeah. >> i have only one property. >> okay. i guess this is wrong then. okay. thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> good evening, commissioners. the department received complaints on january 2013 that there was a deck and windows being built. our

building inspector went to the property on the 25th of june and issued a notice of violation. inspector barrios. that an addition was observed approximately 25 feet by 15 feet protruding in the rear yard without a permit. he gave a stop work order and a penalty on the value of work performed for $10,000. subsequently the property owner came down to the department and filed for the building permit. >> mr. duffy, are we talking about the same case? $10,000. it doesn't show up anywhere here? >> that's what the building inspector said as to the value of the work. they came into

the department on november 5th and applied for a building permit to beat the notice of violation from approximately 129 square feet and remove the installing door and reverse to initial condition. so obviously there is a discrepancy on the size of the notice. however we did a $10,000. i don't think they spoke to the member of the chief of building inspector. this could have been lowered. they are reverting it back to the original condition. we would probably have reviewed that penalty at the time of issuance. i think what's

happened was they spoke to the inspector and they are here appealing the penalty. yes they worked on it without a permit and there should be a penalty but not as much. if you feel you want to lower it, that would not be against my thinking. i'm sure the department would go with that as well. >> i guess it was not just the $10,000 that i didn't see any mention. the notice of violation which we don't have a copy of it. you said it was an addition going back? >> when our building inspectors write-up decks, the deck is treated as an addition. sometimes they write addition instead of deck. in this case the inspector did

write horizontal vertical addition. sometimes the deck is treated the same as an addition to the building. sometimes we call it a horizontal and vertical addition. >> the size is different? >> we are going to inspect it to make sure it's back to where it was. it's really unfortunate. i don't know why they chose to remove it. they could have gone through the process of permitting it. maybe they want to restart and r e do this. >> it's already gone. >> it's already gone. it's not signed off. we need to do a final inspection of that. they are putting it back to where it was and they have the cost of bg of -- building it and taking it away. i would say less of a penalty would be

okay. >> what do you think the estimated cost of putting it up and taking it down? >> well they have $5,000 on their permit application. that's fair. >> to put it up? >> yeah. >> what about to take it down? >> the $5,000 would probable include that. taking the job down is not that much of a job. what do they do with the material? they can come in and apply for a permit and rebuild it again. there should be some penalty on it. nine times out of 10 there should be a penalty of $1373 that the dbi impose d on the $10,000.

the total permit fee was $1810 with a penalty being $1372. >> isn't there a threshold below which we could not go with? >> they have the option. which is 1810? >> no. $260. >> on the contrary, we believe the department, before they pay for the permit, if they speak to some of the staff where pay for the permit, sometimes the staff will bring them back to the chief

building inspectors and we have a conversation. instead of going nine times on the $10,000. sometimes we go 9 times on 5 or $3,000. we would take into account that they are not keeping this structure. that maybe some guidance for you. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. ms. navarro, do you have anything further to sachlt -- say. you have 3 minutes. >> were there any other permits on this property? >> there was one in 2003 and that was complete and since then there have been none.

>> how long has this ownership? >> that's a good question. i didn't check that. >> thank you, mr. duffy. >> it says on the penalty questionnaire of 2006. >> they purchased it. >> ms. navarro? >> yes, when i received the first letter, they said it was 2 stories. no inspector came to see this was a deck. i just tried to put plastic wall to cover the window. that's it. i fixed everything. it's too expensive to fix. it was my first time. i didn't know i needed permission. i fixed

everything. that's why i think i can get some money back from the building inspection. >> ms. navarro, when did you purchase your property? >> 2006. >> and you never had to get a permit? >> no. never. >> okay. thank you. mr. duffy, anything further? >> i just want to add that even if they reduce the penalty and that's fine, i always like to tell people you have to get your permits. we have complaints everyday. building a deck without a permit is going to cause problems. this lady is here for that. maybe next time she'll come get some plans done and come down like everyone else does.

>> i'm sure that will happen next time. >> thank you. commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i would be comfortable reducing it to the minimum that the board -- >> $520? >> 2 two times. >> yeah, i would support that. i would also make it very clear if we are to vote on that motion that you have to get permits anytime you do building in the city of san francisco and hopefully this is a painful lesson of doing that in the future. we do see some mitigating circumstances. i think we are leaning towards reducing the penalty but we hope that you will take that

into consideration next time you do any building on your property. >> i will move to grant the appeal and reduce the penalty to two times based on the mitigating circumstances that the homeowner has never applied for prior permits and this is her first time and it was an honest mistake. >> on that motion from commissioner hurtado to reduce the penalty two times the regular fee. on that motion, commissioner fung, president is absent, vice-president lazarus, hurtado. this vote is

4-0. >> we are welcome back to january 29, 2014. board of appeals. item 9 will be scheduled for february 19, 2014. we are ready to call no. 10.100 appeal no. v13-166 nob hill neighbors, appellanttss vs. zoning administrator, respondent 1601 larkin street. protesting the granting on november 15, 2013, to pacific polk properties, rear yard, usable open space and dwelling unit exposure variances demolish existing vacant church and surface parking lot, and construct a new five-story over basement building with 27 dwelling units and 32 off-street parking spacess. case no. 2013.0980cev.no. 10. sf 101234 this is on for hearing today and we'll start with appellants representative. please step

forward. and you have 7 minutes to present your case. if you are giving

something to the board, you need to make sure the variance owner has one as well. >> we can share copies. all right >> linda chapman for nob hill neighbors. we are objecting to some and what we are not willing to have reversed is

the location to the property. the size and dimensions are inadequate and the provisions for sunlight and unit exposure and adequate and there is no justification for these. it's an abusive discretion unless the zoning administrator meets all the constitutional riteria that are actually listed. the main wuz is that there has to be extraordinary circumstances that are not creating the choices of the project sponsor that relate to the property and those things have to be what causes hardship and the variations that are necessary in order to meet what other properties in the district would benefit from to make his benefits equal. in the first place, as you can see this is a huge site. it's about four times the size of the other properties and he considers that to be hardship, but most people would not consider it

hardship to be able to arrange your 27 units. this is where i gave you copies because it's small. you can see the scale of the neighborhood. the lots are smaller, the buildings are mostly 3-4 stories. he's building something enormously larger. he got a bulk exception which isn't before you, but he got a bulk exception so he didn't have to step back at the third and fourth story away from the courtyard to allow light and sun and now he's asking for variance because his building and lot and print is so big and therefore he doesn't have room on the largest lot on the district to put a complying courtyard or to comply with window exposure and sunlight which is going to affect the eight 8 units that are there.

the standards of the code are there because the city wishes there to be adequate light and space and open space and so on and there isn't here. this also is another picture which if you can -- i don't know, can you circulate these. this is a picture of the existing building and the buildings around it where you can see the scales of them. the roof line and they are on much larger or smaller lot. what is here is a hardship. what has happened is the sponsor took over or hasn't even purchased but the control from the unfortunate methodist. we have been told that church communities are sometimes seen as easy mark and obviously this one was and he got a hold of their site about 10 years

ago. didn't buy it but did use the opportunity to wreck it. what was in fact a church that was eligible for national register protected by ceqa and considered for landmarking that could have been historically preserved and what was wanted by non-profit housing developers who could have built and still want to two sides of that church and preserve part of the church for community use. that was also actually what the methodist wanted in san francisco and it didn't happen because of this considered hardship. what is being built there? i big building over 5,000 square feet. it is a family unit, he says and another one over 1800 square feet. this is in rm 3rd district in working class hill and doesn't have anything

like this around. this is like he's trying to get the privilege as other people. there are probably not many bigger than 1800 square feet. they are mostly one bedrooms and studios. he says it's a hardship to build on a corner. this is a similar lot across the street. this one also, there is this open space. i hope you can see it. right out to the street and all the way back through all of those units to look out on an open space even into street. the courtyard itself although it's probably located in a good place, it doesn't really give much exposure if you are looking out over it. if you were in, you can see that the building which is 5 stories high with this narrow space

down there the way it's arranged and no setback, it would be required except he got a bulk exception and if you are looking out of those windows, it's not looking at much but right across the street which is the walls. the courtyard itself, three parts are private open space. while that does allow that area to be counting for let's say exposure and light and so on, for this family building, he says he can't build his family units. he can not do the project or he will have to eliminate those units. if you take your baby or puppy down there, you are not going to have much room to romp around there because this huge building needs so much space. so we could not see anything about this that's exceptional except the fact that he's

really abused the process occurred to such an extent that the planning commission ers turned down the project unanimously and finally he's going to continue to blight the neighborhood. the whole neighborhood is suffering. we can't get anything done to stop this. therefore we are going to give him his conditional use and bulk exception and i would say that is not a good reason to give him a variance because of what happens at the planning commission that we are also objecting to. i realize you don't have that in front of you. and we have a much better plan there. tndc wants to buy it's and the mayor's office says that all cities should consider low income housing. >> okay. we can hear from the variance holder now. is

anyone here speaking on behalf of the variance holder? >> good evening. i am the principal in pacific properties. council for the methodist church. the zoning administrator is going to defend the decision tonight. i don't think they have anything to add to that. i would just make a couple corrections. also the art project director is here. there is no 5,000 square foot penthouse. i don't know what she's talking about. there are a lot of disparate comments. if there is

something bothering you, i can correct the facts if you have specific questions, otherwise i would prefer to have the zoning administrator explain to you his decision. >> good evening members. i'm gordon, the attorney for nevada state. we have owned the property since 2010. the zoning administrator granted three variances and this is an appeal of those variances. the appellant has said she's only appealing two of them if you read the appeal. three things i would like to say, one, the

appellant made a comment that tndc would like the buy the property. commissioner at the planning commission meeting held up a letter and said at the october 13th planning commission meeting this letter state to me that tndc isn't interested in this property. that's not a quote, but pretty close. you can look back at the tape if you like. we have tried to sell this property to third parties other than mr. mac ernie. we tried three times. finally, this property, as the appellant points out, a large property. if you look at other properties on that section, all of them have less open