>> that was submitted by your department. >> he asked us to look at other antenna types there was another appeal that was looks like an extension of the telephone pole i believe and they indicated that was not feasible because of the property for the antenna that's what i was told by the gentleman. >> thank you. >> you know we've been mitigated so many times i'll trying to remember what's for us to discuss. >> i'm wondering if your interested in considering the alternative design their i maybe another permit needed it would

be something to consider. >> may i respond to that and if i may typically, it had a wireless company 3 wanted to put up separate proposals, however, in situations where the condition is persuade by the planning department or rec and park department required a relocation or a back up situation for the pole we understand that's a condition to require an additional permit so we normally try to issue one permit to identify both facilities. >> and looukts the proposed alternative to sort of split the equipment you're saying a no new permit would be required. >> we've identified both sites as part of that permit. >> okay.

>> may i just alert mr. quan and the commission maybe mr. quan can respond. the notice for one hundred and 50 seats under the proposed location so we - you should consider whether or not a new notice maybe required if anyone is caught in the new envelope >> you're right we'll have to show the city attorney but if there's a change based on the city department if it what happened before as part of the conditions of approval we'll need another permit. >> well, what how many days notice would be required? >> i'm not sure. >> do we know up here robert

what's the variance notice. >> the notification period is 20 days. 20 days >> and with the proposed split equipment people in 9 room might have a problem with that okay. >> does that make sense to continue this. >> i'm leading that way the reason being we've had similar cases in the past when the notification has in question and the alternative location has also been in question so i think if the parties are willing to extend and that notifications on the second pole maybe it will

have viable alternatives. >> i'm not sure i'm going to agree with that for the following reason the ability of our board and planning to address the issues of a lot of those types of installations is primarily limited to aesthetic types of concerns. i don't see how switching a huge box like that from one side to the other changes the aesthetics of the situation. i'm bothered by the fact that we would be guessing that the people on the one side of the street would have no issues >> less objection.

>> i'm wondering if there's a way to craft this time period. one of the things when the appellant was suggesting there might be other poles obviously no one wants this in front of of their window. i'm sure people who have the permits wouldn't want this in front of their windows. i live in an area right in front of my house i have at&t i'll put that out there i don't have what i need from at&t. so but i think one of my problems here is and i'd like to get creative up here there's a way to provide the notice and i wonder in we can provide anyone the opportunity to weigh in and insure villaraigosa the notice

of the possibility which an alternative location. it may not be in our capacity to do that but to work with the people for the community i don't agree to put that in front of someone's house i san diego are that alternative >> one of the alternatives is to provide the permit and ask them to go back out. >> i also am disappointed that the corporation with enormous resources not to be in conversation and talking about alternatives sooner than on the way over here. i don't especially appreciate that given the resources available. you don't have the team and the resources to do that mates one thing but under those conditions

if under those circumstances they should >> at&t came to the department just now proposing the alternative conditions i want to i'm going to turn it over to at&t. >> i don't know if this helps i see at issue here if it would help you to approve the permit that dpw granted this evening we'll be happy to take the battery as a separate permit so approving that permit we remove the battery from that pole and go get a permit for that box at least we would have solved the noticing issue and giving people due process. >> i like that. >> thank you. >> you want to formulate late the motion. >> sure grant the appeal and

uphold the portion of the permit can we do that a partial. >> your conditioning the permit on the removal from the permit. >> the battery box. >> the battery part of the permit. >> and have a separate permit. >> if they want to bring a separate permit they can. >> would you be amenable to on the basis of the permit holders proposed the resolution. >> i like that. >> we have a motion from commissioner fong to withhold this that the battery pack be deleted from the scope of that permit and this is on the

appellate condition. >> president fong. vice president is absent. commissioner lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 4 to zero this permit is upheld on that condition and on that basis thank you. we're going to take forward wit

minutes to present our case to the board >> hi, i'm here to appeal the that penalty and i'm saying as a penalty what i would imagination it's a violation for violating the code or law whatever. you should punish the person that violated the permit the construction was done i didn't do it someone else did it without my knowledge without my prescription and i had no knowledge of it until after the fact and even then i don't know what had been done required a permit. so i don't know anything about permits codes anything i've never had to deal with this i

don't know anything about it i'm saying that okay. and you may wonder why how it is that this could have all happened it's a long story and would take a lot of long-range 7 minutes but essentially i lost control of my property a person came in there and took over my property and did all kinds of other violations besides this one we're talking about the windows and doors one of the main ones i had to deal with him he built a small house in the bashed of my house and a building department was telling me they were going to charge me one thousand dollars a day the problem was i downtown move s it because he spoep had tenants rights and that was his property

i couldn't touch it on the advise of any attorney and we had a director's hearing at the building inspectors and the person that z did this was told he had to get this out of there and he defied them. the deal was he was running for mayor at the time and his whole platform had to do with helping the homeless so this little house what a demonstration house how homeless could be housed. ; right? bp by on top of of that he turned my house into a homeless shelter having 12 men living there. he had extension cords and

garden hoses out into the backyard. he was acting like he owned the house and essentially he did on the advice of any attorney i didn't do anything about it i mean except we were trying to evict him the attorney said the only way to get the little house out of the backyard and was first evict him and after that send him notice to remove the property he had there, you know, or else we'll do it ourself. that's exactly what happened it took months and months a months after my attorney made motion after motion after motion to different courts. most of them refused to move on it because they were i assumed

they were afraid they thought he possibility could be mayor somehow. but anyway, so 150u6b8 he got evict and he had to get the house out of the backyard that was the main thing i was dealing with i had no knowledge there was an issue about the window and the sliding glass doors. i didn't know anything about the notice of violation being issued on that until january of this year. ; right? and that was 11 years later. first, i thought it was a joke they're coming after me after 11 years and i didn't have anything to do with it so, anyway as soon as i find out i went down to 9

building department and to take care of that. so if you were thinking that i actually economy about it 11 years ago and let it slide well, the best evidence and the only evidence that i can give that's not the case as soon as i found out by my actions as soon as i found out i take care of it immediately. it's not something i would have let slide so, anyway my whole thing is if this is the punishment for somebody violating the code or law then i shouldn't be punished because i didn't do it. that's and i understand and just

i'm not sure i assume you know the penalty was like $2,700 and on top of i had to pay 3 hundred on top that's $2,000 that's 3 months of my social security check. you don't i can't imagine how that's just. that's the moss month you can do is to lower it plus the $300 from the appeal. that's a pretty heavy fine anyway, thank you for your consideration >> i have a couple of questions are you currently living at the address. >> i'm there off and on. >> your renting it. >> no, no my nephews and her family move forward from connecticut. >> you're letting people stay there what's the tenants name.

>> jim reed and okay jim reed. done in 2003 >> yes. >> how do you know it was done in 2003. >> i'm assuming that's when the first violation was written from the papers i got from the building inspectors my so you got the first violation in 2003. >> no supposedly there was a violation posted or mailed my the other thing, too anything that was posted at the house was immediately ripped down. the person that was doing this was totally defying the city. >> and where you were at the time. >> i was out of time in sacramento and are you building in skoovment. >> no, no i go visit any

grandkids. >> you rented out your whole house to mr. reid. >> no, no i hadn't represented to mr. reid i knew him before. >> he was - >> you know from my attorney regardless of whether he was paying rent he still had tenants rights and on top of. >> are you knowledge there with him. >> on certainty occasions there was one bedroom i had retrieved stayed there. >> that's all right. i have nothing further. >> thank you. we'll hear from mr. duffey now. >> good evening commissioners. i'm glad mr. hansen kind of told the story about all the -- how this went on for several years. when i read the brief i

couldn't figure out how it was so old and what was going on, but obviously there was issues with someone in the building. but needless to say, the department did write a notice of violation on the 28th of august, 2003, for windows and sliding glass door on the east side of 116 franconia street without the benefit of a permit. submit a copy of this notice for installation of sliding glass door and window complete all work and correct all violations within 90 days. and to abate this notice you must contact the housing inspector. the housing inspector that wrote that back in '03 maintains penalty on the value of $2000. when i printed up the complaint data sheet, which gives us a timeline.

it looks like we had this -- this notice did get mailed to mr. hansen of 36 milan terrace, san francisco. i'm not sure if that was his other address at the time. it seems like it was an old case that never got resolved and every couple of years it looks like the housing inspection services reviewing it. they didn't sends it for a hearing, maybe because they were aware of the other issues because i did notice there was a notice of violation for electrical work done. so maybe housing had some similar think imilar sympathy with what was going on and didn't send it for a hearing. but eventually, they seem to be -- we are going through a lot of our old cases at the minute due to a directive at the commission, therefore we have to move on them. it sounds like we wrote them a letter and he did respond. he took that to building permit

and for that work and that work got completed and signed off, which was for the windows and there was a penalty of i believe, $2,160 so that's where we are at the minute. >> couple questions. do you know how he came to your -- to the department's attention in the first place back in '03? >> let me see. we got a complaint on the 7th of august, 2003 from a complainant from tom mayer, so he's a neighbor or he lives in the building, but that's who filed the come /phraeupbts. >> you said there were other violations as well?

>> over the years there was electrical done without a permit and the structure done without a permit. >> what's happened with those? >> they've all been abated. they've been taken care of over the years. >> has there been any penalties? >> i didn't see any penalties on those. maybe the shed got removed. i didn't notice any penalties on that work. i didn't look that up to be honest with you, but it hooks like the cases all got abated for whatever reason. >> and you often will give your opinion on whether the penalty is appropriate or not. would you care to do so in this case? >> i mean, if the story is the gentleman was in a problem with a building and -- we put violations on a property, we don't go after the tenant, we have to put it on the property and the owner. it seems like it would be fair enough. the penalty seemed a little

excessive. it could have been a little bit lower. $1,000 would have been half the amount, so i would say i wouldn't be in total disagreement to lower it, yes. based on what he's saying is that's a bad experience to get through so, you know, i don't know -- there was nothing in the brief that mentioned about the eviction process and all that sort of stuff. had i seen that -- to be honest with you, many hansen -- i don't know if he brought that up with anybody. i know we do give for a /hraering to people during their time at the department based on their circumstances and we hear everything, so this would have been -- obviously the circumstances probably we would have lowered that penalty at dbi. from what i do everyday i probably would have given it good consideration so i wouldn't be against dropping it a few. >> thank ewe. you. >> that's the way it is. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> any public comment? seeing none, mr. hansen, do you have anything further to say? you have three minutes. >> yeah, what you asked about or what he was saying that if i would have come to them they would have considered lowering it before, and i did go to them, but i didn't, but i did it after -- excuse me -- after i had already paid the fine and so the person that i talked to there, he told me exactly what he just said. he said we would have been happy to work with you on this, except now you've already paid it, it's too much paperwork to undo it. that's what they told me. that was that. then the other thing you asked about who was the one who filed the complaint. that was the person named tom mayer and like i told you, jim

reid had taken over control of my one time i came there and tom mayer was walking around in his bathrobe and i was wondering what's this guy doing in here walking around in his bathrobe and i asked him and he said i'm paying rent to jim reid. eventually i was trying to evict tom mayer and then he was trying to extort money from me and told me if i try to evict him that he would call every department in the city and file complaints against me and that's how that complaint got filed about doors and windows is he did it. and eventually i ended up having to pay him $15,000 to move out, cash for keys. i've already paid. thank you. >> mr. duffey.

>> what mr. hansen stated is when the penalty is paid and once they paid it, the only chance they can appeal the penalty is the department. just wanted to add that. >> thank you. commissioners the matter's yours. >> i'm very sympathetic to be honest. >> do you have a motion? >> yep. i'll -- i make a motion to reduce the penalty to two times. >> and just for the record, before i vote on this matter, i want to disclose that i am familiar with mr. reid. i've represented him in the past on an unrelated matter, but it would not impact my decision here. >> i have a motion then from commissioner honda to reduce this penalty to two times the regular fee. on that motion to reduce, commissioner fung.

>> i. >> long long. hwang. >> no. >> president lazarus. >> i. >> thank you. the vote is four to one. this penalty is reduced to two times. thank you. >> thank you. our next item is item 8, property is at 1626 12th avenue protesting the issuance on december 19, 2013 of an alteration permit to add one bedroom, one bathroom family room, add one great room, one powder room, remodel bathrooms and kitchen on second floor per plans. we'll start with the appellants. >> my property is on the left of the subject property and i don't have any complaints about

the structural design that they're doing. it doesn't infringe on my light, air and privacy on the property. i'm concerned about the parking. there's now four bedrooms in a pretty small house and we did a walk through with the owner and architect and seemed like there was no way for them to get two cars in the garage. i'm fine with that if that's the way it's going to be. all i asked them to do was to get a permit to have part of the easement between my house and theirs for a red zone because what happens is people do not park their car in the garage. the last tenant that was there could not fit his car in the garage so he'd park down the hill and create a problem for

me getting in and out of my garage. so all i asked them to do was to get a permit to put a red zone on the easement. one of the assistants to the architects said that he put in the paperwork to get the red zone and i talked to him today and he said that he gave paperwork to the owner and that now it's out of his hands so that's all i'm asking for is to have that piece of the easement painted red so i can get in and out of my driveway. and if you can grant some kind of condition to their permit do that, i'd be very pleased. >> you stated that light and privacy were your concerns. are those -- >> no, it's not -- >> those are no longer your

concerns? >> no. because i had an architect and contractor look at the plans and -- >> now that you understand the plans it's not a concern anymore? >> yes. they called me about the plans and i understood so my main concern was the marking parking because we have parking issues in our neighborhood. people are parking on sidewalks, blocking driveways. >> you answered my question, thank you. >> you're aware that an mta red curb is 75 bucks. >> i'll pay the 75. >> okay. >> i mean, 'cause if i could get the permit i'd do it, but it's on their property side to -- so it has to be the owner of the 1626. >> and neither of the curb sides. >> and it would be a complaint red, so you would have to make the complaint for the ticketing