because the work was without a permit i didn't own the property at that time, she said do the work and go appeal this is why i'm here all that work was done prior to my owning the property i have the notice sent out in 2003 and i have a copy of 2347 when the notice came in i got it signed off and take care of it i'm asking for the credit for the 9 times fee i had to pay thank you thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners on the permit application it says to ply with

the notice of violation dated 8, 82018 remove the landscape i think the concrete to remove the non permitted structure i'm confused what we received the complaint on the june 27th o 26 for 2014 the description they powder concrete in front of the building and the neighbor is complaining i complaining because the foundation has black mold when we received the complaint in june, i sent inspector green out there he issued a notice of violation on the notice of violation a complete violation says the front area was powder without a

permit so the building permit was for 15 days and plans shall be unlawful for a impervious set back area and obtain a permit with the planning department approval required we end up getting that you've heard the lady say in august shortly after we issued the notice of violation and got the permit she got charged with the fees i'm sorry on the notice of violation the building inspector was 9 times on the value of work for $2,000 penalty the permit fees were 2 hundred and 7 thousands of which the 2 hundred thousand plus would w have been a penalty i've read the brief and she said she didn't own the property in 2003 there was a permit in 2003 we

signed off in 04 there was a planet there so somewhere between 2003 and 4 all i know we got a complaint in june, i asked the building inspector today did it look like it was done 10 years ago he said it wasn't fresh concrete we have a section in the code if you don't do the work and your getting pencillize listed we'll reduce that so i don't know why that didn't take place but she didn't say when she bought the property the penalty is severe i know i have the power here to reduce it but

excuse me. >> ms. linda you'll have time to speak in ruth. >> i won't be opposed to reducing it a little bit who did the work and when did she do the work the concrete was 10 years of a difference this person that filled the complaint in june decided to do so i don't know why maybe she can explain that. >> i have one question inspector is that the penalty for the structure in the back as well? the notice of violation that was issued by inspector green didn't actually reference the structure in the back i think what happened when they came to get the permit for the concrete that had been in the planted area the

further permit maybe they realized it was an old complaint and they tacked it onto the notice of violation i don't have a copy with me nor did i find one >> maybe i can ask the - >> there was a permit in 04 that dealt with the violation that got froze out we were clear oh, here we go we got a permit with the curve and open a new driveway and a and the building inspector referenced that permit then when we had a notice of violation in '03 for a garage structure that's been demolished and built with a perimeter wall there was a 9 times penalty for one thousand for that one i'm not

sure if that - seems like they put that one on the penalty is for the concrete work that got put in the not in the - >> are they willing so is dbi willing to combine the penalty and is that restructured. >> they didn't add the penalties on 2003 but only the 2014 one like i said, it maybe a little bit high but there's a lot of - there was in the last few years the planning department will be very much there was when the board of supervisors i'm not sure if they're there anymore they were adamant about people filling in the planted areas with concrete in order to park two vehicles in front of the proposed we were being told we're getting complaint we were writing them

out because their thank you for the opportunity the neighborhoods into concrete there was no - so that's why the violations came about. >> thank you let's examine that the 2003 the copy of the 2003 nov doesn't indicate what it is for your 2014 nov has a one listener that describes what it is for for the concrete. >> correct. >> and i believe n you communicated earlier, you don't know what the 2003 nov was for . >> i read a little bit ever 2 it was for something the attached garage structure if the 2013 was rebuttals for the

driveway area with the permit but a permit after that that got signed off in 2004 that looked like it was something similar to it was relocated driveway an open driveway and set back that came in june 2003 right after we issued the notice of violation the only thing it itself permit didn't reference the nov but for some reason the 2003 notice of violation has been you 4ru7b8gd onto the permit i'm not sure what that is. >> the appellants indicates a rear structure in the backyard and i think it was a fence i'm not sure but i did not find the notice of violation from 2003 i don't have it. >> then the last question would

be there must have been a time when you put in a little bit of a concrete driveway you didn't require was that before 2003. >> a little bit of concrete in the driveway i think it said 20 percent you have to leave as a landscaped area you can't completely cover it in concrete. >> i'm not tang talking about that that's a planning code you how much concrete in our driveway. >> you don't need a permit and why is there a nov it should have been a planning kovment. >> we have it in the building code we know with working with planning if they fill in the landscape area we can write it up as well and what i would say is that it doesn't seem like i

think 9 times in 2000 in my opinion is a little bit too high the discussion sunshine could have happened in 2000 i'm not the permit holder he spoke to someone on a higher level by i work as a senior building inspector we routing reexamine them and use the code section in the work was done by a previous owner we automatically will adjust the penalty and we have the right to do that so - i'm not sure how that conversation went. >> thank you. >> okay any public comment on this item? seeing none, then mrs. luna you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> i do have the paper that came in i got a copy from the city in 2003 when there was another owner and i have the sale of my property i bought it

in 2007 i have copies of that so obviously i didn't do any of this work i take care of the problems because they called me and told me this was an issue she said it wasn't you that did the work and i asked why you filed it and she said it was getting mold in my garage i said i'll take care of this i have the documents of purchase date and the papers that came in 2003 all right. thank you. >> ms. luna. >> yes. >> there's a question raised because the copy i provided of the 2003 summary of the nov does not have specification to it as to what was done.

>> it just said work done without permit i got this from the city i thought i was pulling out the permit for the front concrete i don't know when the was is if the structure in the front yard. >> yes. the shed and do you remove that. >> i did i removed going both thank you thank you. >> anything more mr. duffy? >> i was looking i think the 2003 notice of violation and noticed on the line let's see what it was for - it said work without permit on

safe building but the penalty on the 2000 permit is only for the work we said in 2014 the 2000 penalty was on that the building inspector wrote up for the 2003 it wasn't put on the permit. >> this is so you would mr. duffy that when they visited the department somebody brought forth more details on the 03 that's why she had to remove the piece of the rear yard. >> certainly the housing inspectors services it's not about a year if you're getting a permit if we'll put it on there and it can clean up things. >> i think that it's now been abated. >> yes. the work has been

completed. >> including 03. >> yes. i have uh-huh. >> rove the non permitted structure. >> it could be a fence or last us no plans or anything so while i'm saying the penalty you can just - >> thank you commissioners the matter is submitt submitted. >> in trying to reduce it we're going to have to continue it; right? >> you need 4 votes to reduce the penalties so that's your inclination we should find another date and i'm so inclined i'll take her at her word. >> that's an 59 convenience.

>> i move we continue this. >> we can continue it to next week. >> to november 12th? >> yes. >> okay ms. luna are you able to be here next week step to the microphone. >> yes. i am but what do we need to bring in. >> we don't have enough commissioners here you bring in importing and exporting that nothing. >> mr. duffy you want to see take care of that administratively. >> r and i'd love to. >> if you take care of that administratively you can withdraw the appeal. >> i'll look into that and get together with the director again

and again i want to let her know it will be a 20th century 2 times 3e7b89 symptoms people think they're getting away with no penalties but we can only drop it 2 times. >> we do our best to explain that to folks. >> i want to say from my end. >> absolutely. >> okay. so there's a motion then to continue this to next week the 12 to allow the missing commissioner to participant in the final vote mr. pacheco call the vote please. >> on that motion from commissioner fung to continue this matter to next week november 12th vice president is absent commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda. >> commissioner wilson is absent the vote is 3 to zero this matter is continued one

week until november 2012. >> with no alleged briefing required. >> next item item 6 for the appeal safety miller vs. the department of building inspection the address is 1485 clay street to clay street, llc of an alteration the renovation and we'll hear from the appellant first. >> i don't care. >> you have 7 minutes.

>> when you're ready i'll swish the microphone i can use this one and i'll swish it to that. >> so wherever our ride. >> good evening board members i'm stacey boyd in nutrient 5 he rvrpt ask you consider any appeal for the unit 9 is adversely effecting the impact i've lived another for 12 years whether the issuance of the permit and the landlord has not said this is for the changing the appellant tenancy the

landlord is user this for unit 10 as a just call for the housing service in unit 5 to be used as as bedroom during the night time and to be conferred into a living room with a bed that is stored in the ninth amendment it's not taken any square footage in my small dwelling sleep room the description used in the alteration permit payable has networked to mention the adverse effects on units 9 and it didn't accurately describe the renovation and remove the stair in the unit 10 bedroom it is not accurate the walls for the separate units in the and 10 and

storing the by the time the alteration will not - it will have a huge impact as a result the san francisco proufl the same day permits violated the due process right and the adjacent tenant not to allow a discretionary review and it will have an intelligent to be heard the california civil code states an agreement binds the letter to secure the right possession of the term of the hiring against all persons for the same the code sited by the tenant to secure to the attended the possession of the housing against all person's willingly claiming the same and the civil code preempts the codes wretched

by the landlord or the exceeded process of the ordinances of the building permits issued by the dbi pursuant of the zoning procedures they will preserve affordable housing in the case of residential mayor eric garcetti with the existing units awhile substantially reducing the size of on that is in the appellants brief the dbi can provide a discretionary review to implement the intent of the section 217 i'm asking the boards members to modified it to prevent alteration in units 9, 10 and 11 the adverse impact is enough to bringing unit 10 up to code should be considered i'm

hoping this hearing will result in an inbiased review by a licensed professional so the impact to my unit is protected. >> hi can you hear me okay. >> put it right in front of you have you. >> i'm a little bit slow in speaking if you have questions let me know i live at 1485 clay street in a one bedroom apartment on the other side of unit 10 i have disables resulted when i was hit by a car i've been trying to get back to normal or as close as possible the only way for me to manage my pain is by physical therapy which includes doing experiences at home i've set up my space at home to perform that

physical therapy and in a home environment directed by my physical thooeft i have a family member to stay with me to catch up with things in a bed that's in my living room i need the space to get better and control any pain as a says that a place where an occasional place to keep my equipment anothers floor level out the danger of falling over now the item i come before you and tell you that's not part of my apartment my apartment is ill regularly staipd shaped no modifications to effect my unit i wish it was as simple as that

i wouldn't be here and taking up your space the landlords said it is not a storage my apartment is eir regularly shaped the letter of the appellants brief they don't guarantee that no work will be done in my unit on the san francisco department of building inspection or any others entity that forces the tension i've tried to work with the landlord and the building inspectors to try to find out what the impacts may be on me he isle i'd rather not be here it takes a lot of effort i've tried to call inspector duffey and inspector powers several times this month they've not had a

chance to return my calls promise that once the building be permit is done i have no recourse to obtain i've depending on federal and state laws to support my position and the americans with disabilities act and the fair housing act and it's if this building code is done would the restriction it will violate the americans with disabilities act and the board needs to step in and protect my rights as the city has failed to do and the federal and state law preempts the dominate and the san francisco administrative code which is the protection by the public agencies and give respect to such rights as.

>> i'm sure there's a time limit it's up. >> i'm also depending on due process rights. >> we can't hear any more in our process. >> thank you. >> you'll have additional time on rebuttal. >> did he need to get up from here or can i just sit here. >> you can sit there that's fine we'll hear from the permit holder. >> here's extra copies does the board wish to have them over and over think the overhead. >> good evening board members

and city employees thank you for your time i appreciate our service and i'll try to keep this very brief i'm one of the building owns on clay street 1485 clay street is a mixed use building in san francisco and it is a hundred-year-old building we've eend to since 2011 it has a very sort of unusual design you guys have read about in the briefing it has most of the units have a raised floor bathrooms and underneath the raised floor theres a can have it which serves the purpose of storage in some cases a bed that go underneath f under it is an unusual design over the years we've had a vacancy come up in

the building we've tried to do the right thing by talking with the dbi and pulled permits we have licensed contractor and in everything we've done we've actually lowered the floor on some of the vacancy unit and beginning was aware of that in years past there of the definitely some sort of a precedent set in my opinion to bring the building and units up to code and compliance we would lower the floor because currently it is not compliant with the california building code so reiterate we've not got malicious intent towards the tenants wear grateful for the attendants they pay rent on time every month and unit temple has become vacant as of july 2014

and once we got the vacancy notice we could have served a thirty days notice of severance instead of we choose to communicate with the tenants we were going to be doing this but not starting work and since that time we've had a number of unanimous calls into the city that saying work had been started nothing was started and we involved dbi of step of the way to look at the work there was never an intention to pill the permits and try to get something by dbi dbi is fully aware they've given us a correction notice before we've starred r start the work and the steps in the bathroom have to meet the current code so we feel this is more of a matter for the rent board not necessarily for

the board of appeals this is will involve the neighboring unit needs to excuse me. needs to you know go basically settle on a rent compensation for the loss of this storage slash between spaces that exists under the bathroom in unit 10 and extends into her unit 9 that's something we're going to have to negotiate and probably are a mediation with the rent board we've tried in the past to offer sliegsz to the tenant in unit 9 every time we've tried to do that the tenant in unit 9 asked for further rent rescues and asking for more