the november 12th, 2014 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals, the presiding officer is board president ann lazarus and she is joined by commissioner frank if you think, commissioner honda and commissioner wilson. the board's vice president hurdato resigned a few days ago and so there is a vacancy on the board and according to 4016 b, the board may over rule an

action by a vote of three members, four votes are not required when there is a vacancy. >> to my right is robert brian and he will provide the board with any legal needed advice, and at the control is the legal assistant and i'm the board's executive director. and we are joined tonight as well, by representatives from the departments that have cases before the board sitting at the table is scott sanchez and he is the city's zoning administrator and also representing the planning department and planning commission and we will be joined by joseph duffy representing the department of building inspection. if you will go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process.

people affiliated with the parties must include the comments in a 7 and three minute period, others not affiliated will have up to three minutes and no rebuttals to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, members of the public who wish to speak on an item are asked but not required to submit a speaker card, or a business card to the staff when you come up to the podium, speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. and the board also welcomes your comments and suggestions and there are customer satisfaction survey forms on the left side of the podium. and if you have questions, about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules, speak to the board staff during a break or after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow morning, the board office is located at 1650 mission street, room 304. and this evening is broadcast live on san francisco

government television, sfgov tv channel 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase, directly from sfgov tv. thank you for your attention, and at this point in time we will conduct our swearing in process. and if you intend to testify at any of tonight's hearings and you wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand, raise your right-hand and say i do after you have been sworn in or affirmed. please note that any member of the public may speak, without taking this oath, purchase su ant to the ordinance under the sunshine ordinance. [swearing in ] >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioners item number one, is public comment, any member of the public that would like to speak on a matter that is

not on tonight's agenda, is there anyone that would like to speak under general public xhepts. >> item two is commissioner's comments and questions. commissioner? s >> no. >> okay. seeing none, then item three is the board's consideration of the minutes of the board meeting of november 5, 2014. >> corrections? additions? if not may i have a motion to approve the minutes as submitted? >> so moved. >> with that, commissioner fung's motion? >> and before we take the role is there any public comment on the minutes? >> seeing none. >> on that motion, from commissioner fung to adopt the 2014 minutes, president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> thank you. >> and the vote is 4-0, and

those are adopted. >> item four is appeal number 1 4-155 leticia luna verses the department of building inspection, 246 tingley street, appealing the imposition of a penalty for construction work without a permit and this occurs on november 5, 2014 and continued to allow commissioner wilson to participate in the final vote, and i understand commissioner wilson that you have reviewed the video and you are prepared to participate tonight? >> yes. >> okay, great, commissioners we can go back into the deliberations because the hearing has been held. and if there is any comments by commissioner wilson or a motion that any commissioner wish to make? >> wilson, any questions or comments? >> no. >> thank you. >> i believe last time,

commissioners the discussion was that you were interested in reducing the penalty, but without a sufficient number of board members present you asked for the matter to be continued. i don't believe that there was a statement as to what level of reduction you were looking for. >> as i recall, mr. duffy says that they would have done it and administratively if it had been requested sorry, okay, thank you mr, duffy says yes. >> i will move to grant the appeal and to reduce the penalty to the minimum that we can of 2 times. >> all right. >> and based on the fact that the appellant did not own the property and did not do the work that was cited. >> thank you. >> when you are ready? >> we have a motion from

commissioner fung to grant this appeal and reduce the penalty two times the regular fee and on the basis that the appellant did not own the property at the time and did not do the work in question. >> on that motion, to reduce to two times? president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 4-0, and this penalty is reduced to two times, on that basis. >> thank you. appeal, november 14-161, and it is lisa cacavvo and friedemann, thomma on 3627-22nd street for imposition of penalty for the work done without the permit. and we will hear from the appellant? >> you have seven minutes to

present your case to the board. good evening. ladies and gentlemen, and thank you for giving me time to present my case. we have been imposed a penalty for the work done without a permit. my name is freidemannand, last name is thomma and i am the co-owner with my wife lisa caccovo on the property, and we have purchased the property on november 1, 2011. and soon after we moved in, we anonymous complaint was placed for the city and a city inspector came to inspect the property and informed us that it was a legal unit back at the end of the property, behind the garage. and we were assessed a penalty in an amount nine times that is

usually assessed for the work permits. and we like to appeal that penalty due to the fact that the work that was done in the inlaw units was done prior to us owning the property, and approximately, around 2009. we don't have the specific dates, because it was done by the previous owner. the disclosure that we received during touring the property and the consultation with our realtor, which was pargam, the only evidence that we noticed on the property was that the bathroom and the kitchen, or, i am sorry, the bathroom/a shower off of the kitchen were done without a permit but everything else was indicated as or nothing disclosed and so we believed in good faith, which was corroborated that we did the work with the permit and we

learned that that is not the case and we are in the process and have obtained a variance and we need to obtain a second variance which is in the process and soon there after, we will fix the problem. thank you. >> i have a question. so, since this has come up and the notice of violation has been issued, and have you gone into mediation or arbitration. >> and so we have come in the voluntary mediation with the brokers and we have done the mediation with the sellers. and if we have completed those mediations last year, in november. >> okay, so thats that been resolved with the previous sellers and so are they paying for the penalties at this point? >> they are not paying for the penalties, they are paying maybe a 30 percent of the construction costs. we decided not to pursue them

in court, which we could have done. and but, for the reasons of just cost, and time, we basically settled for an amount that is as i said, maximum of 30 percent. >> okay. thank you. >> sure. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, the notice of violation that was issued was following a complaint that was received by dbi july second, 2012, but in the housing inspection services, and this is anonymous complaint from, possibly the unit behind the garage going through with the kitchen and bathroom and separate entrance, and that, with the housing inspectors

were down, they should have noticed a violation. and basically saying, that the use of this building is with the unit on two floors of occupancy over the floors, and there are two dwelling units and two floors and the permit research failed to produce any evidence that the permit was issued and it was done to the present use and there was a nine times fee on the permit fee assessed, on the amount of $12,000. and as you heard, the permit applicant say that they aapplied for a permit and they were set up to the nine times fee on the 12,000, but you might have told by 1500 dollars, i believe. and one thing that is in or in the 2013 san francisco building code, this is addressed actually if the i will just read it out for you. the building official may reduce the investigation fees

to 2 times the amount of the permit fee, as called for in the section, 110, and table 1 aa and the building permit fees of this code for work that was constructed for the current ownership, providing for the documents provided and so, i don't think that happened at dbi. and not a..., if the people did not own the property they really should have only paid two times when they got the permit. and so i think that if that is the case, then, it would be right that we reduce it to two times, that is our, and it is in our code, but i am not sure if it was discussed at dbi but obviously we are here and this penalty is on the permit, and then the code allows for it. and i think that we, and i mentioned that on the previous case, last week. and what i will do, is probably educate some people down at dbi on this and that section is pretty new in our code and it was in it and put back in over the years, but it is in there now, to be used for this

purpose. and that is where we are. >> so, so, it is pretty analogus to the case that we just dispensed with. >> if they can provide the document tas they didn't own the property, the one thing that i noticed on the notice of violation, it didn't, the work did not say that it was recently done and stuff like that, but i heard enough from the new owner that they obviously thought that something that there had been work done up and i believe, full enough that i think that i spoke to someone about this case and maybe it was this gentleman, that pointed about how to go about legalizing this and it does ring a bell. >> so, are you in the process right now, of legalizing the space. >> yeah. >> okay. >> and anything for it. and we are going to legalize it. >> yeah. >> i think that is where the permit and have the permit here and i will read that out to you, to comply with the notice of violation and the building

for the main floor to the basement, and north floor to the rear and legalize the basement north floor to the second legal unit and so that is what they are going to do, provide housing. >> okay. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay, seeing none, there is rebuttal time, do you have more? >> thank you, for the elaboration and not so much of a rebuttal but a clarification, we submitted all evidence to the board with respect to when we purchased the property. and when the work was done as well as the advertisement of the property. and it is clearly seen in the property that that work was done before we even owned it. so just a clarification on that item. >> i have just a quick question.

in the disclosure, sir? >> tbs. >> transfer of the statement. >> transfer of the disclosure statement? >> for the record. and it says here that numbers 4-5, and 10 is the inlaw unit and then when you look up at the numbers it talks about how these inlaw unit was done without the necessary permits. so, i am a little confused about what you said about it not being disclosed, for the disclosure and there are other parts in the disclosure where it states that the inlaw unit was done without a permit for the bath, and for the kitchen. the advertisement of the house was fully furnished including the bedrooms and i think that

the reference you are looking at i don't think that it is as positive to the fact whether or not it was, entirely done without or without this, or without a permit. >> if it didn't pique your can curiosity, did you go and check? >> there were a number of steps that we took, the first thing was our realtor because that is one of the questions that i said well, what is the number of, and how many units does this building have? and interestingly enough when we looked at the water bill and when we looked at the electricity bill it is a two-unit building, when you go down to the building

department, it is inconclusive and so we actually don't know. and so, we have then kind of like had a choice to make it a determination based on what we saw, and meaning what the disclosure and what we saw on the electricity bill as well as on the water bill. and we spoke to some of the folks downtown about the downtown at the building department about the ininclusivety of whether it is a one or a two-building unit or na and it did not say literally. and so, we spoke to the, or our realtor about this as well. and i think that everybody comes to the conclusion and we asked, actually the other realtors as well, and the other realtors about the status of that unit and they said that it is an inlaw unit and the only two things that were not done with the permit was the kitchen in the bath.

>> okay, thank you. >> did you have a question, commissioner? >> actually, for inspector duffy. >> inspector duffy? >> and trying to clear it up. so, what we are referring to is the disclosures that were given from the seller to the buy er and it was done without permit and the new buyer just stated that just the kitchen and the bath, were there legal rooms down as far as the 3 r is concerned? >> i don't have that information, i don't know. i am not sure. i would need to look that up and i could look it up on the ipad, i was not focused on that and i was just focused on the penalty tonight. >> that is fine.

>> a lot of times there are, but, i don't know in this case. >> okay. just the disclosures were kind of vague in indicating that it was all done without permits but the permit holder is now stated that the kitchen and bath were the only items that were done without a permit. but i don't think that is going to effect how i see this any way. >> no, we are going to have two times on $$12,000. there is that and they have to go through the, you know, the design and permit process, and have to deal with all of the different agencies to get that permit to legalize it and they are going to have a second unit. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> so, i think that we, as our president stated is it is pretty similar to the case that we heard prior, and so i feel that two times penalty would be sufficient as well as that they are going through the process of legalizing that unit and the necessary permitting and planning that is required for

that. that is my thought. >> commissioners? >> do you have a motion? >> the same as yours. >> to accept the appeal and to reduce the penalty down to two times. >> okay, and a similar basis? >> correct. yeah. >> we have a motion then from commissioner honda. to reduce the penalty to 2 times the regular fee. and on the basis of the appellant did not own the property at the time, and did not do the work in question. on that motion, with that basis, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> and president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 4-0 and this penalty is reduced to two times on that basis, thank you. >> okay, thank you.

the next item item 6 is appeal number 1 4-151, stacey miller, and geeta bhadauria, 1485 clay street, and protesting the insu ans of the alteration permit, and the hearing was held on this matter on november 5, 2014 and continued to today, to allow time for the permit holder to submit revised plans pursuant to the board's comments and i understand that commissioner wilson has had a opportunity to review the video and the file? can you go from that? >> yes. >> so, i think with the president's consent, we will hear first from the permit holder. who submitted the plans, and you will have three minutes to speak to the board. >> thank you, board members and i appreciate your time again.

i do have drawn my name is manoge (inaudible) and i am one of the investers llc that owns the building at 1485 clay street and we spoke last week about the request to lower the bathroom floor, which is elevated about 3 feet. and flatten the floor to make it the same distance or the same level as the rest of the apartment. we did have limited time in order to procure those drawings that were requested and we did so, we upon further review, by myself, i felt like we wanted a little bit more detail on the drawing and since, last thursday, we submitsed the drawings and we, and i have done a little bit more detail on the drawings that show the actual measurements, and you guys are not in the possession of the drawing and i actually

have it right here right now. and so you can see that what i am pointing to right now is what is sliding into a unit nine and there is the units existing and then it comes out of that and so that will be affected and it can stay put and will be used as storage and then, of course, for the unit ten, or for the storage and as it were, and that will be removed. and but that is not effecting the appellant. and on this drawing, here, you will see that there is the lower is being filled with the fire rated wall and the crendenza for unit nine as well as the wall is replaced for the neighboring wall for unit ten. and so, i just want to, you know, emphasize again, that we have had now, four dbi

personnel come out to the site and they have supported the plan to lower the floor and they believe that it is the safe thing to do and we as a ownership group believe that it is the safe thing to do, we don't want to sacrifice safety for the convenience of one of the tenants i mean that we realize that it is not an ideal situation that they are leaving storage for their bed, but this is for the betterment of the building to lower that floor and having said that, we did procure these drawings from the architect, and she did visit the site. and we, and if there is any questions on the drawings, i am happy to answer that. but we hope that it is in as clear to you as it is to us. >> so, has the loss of the space in the adjoining unit been addressed with that tenant at this point? >> that will be addressed and the tenant will be compensated

for the loss of the service. via a rent reduction. and we made an attempt to negotiate with the tenant and it was unsuccessful and so we will be most likely dealing with the rent board unless we can deal with it independently on our own, but most likely the rent board will be the independent third party adviser on the rent reduction, but we believe that this is a matter for the rent board, the appellant and ourselves. and rather than having the board of appeals, and appellant and ourselves. >> okay, thank you. >> and note for the record that the drawing was not clear. as compared to the photos that were shown by the appellant. your revised drawing clarifies that. do you want to submit that for the record? >> i love to, and i actually have five copies and i was going to give. >> is that okay?

>> yes. >> okay. >> you have copis for that? >> i do. >> there are four board members present and there are four appellants. >> yeah. >> we could do this, with one or two. >> yeah. >> okay. >> that is fine. we can share. >> the appellant one? >> yeah. okay, okay. >> thanks. >> okay, we will hear from the

appellant now. we are ready to hear from you. these drawings were submitted on thursday and we did not have time to, to review those. will we be able to review the drawings? or are we supposed to make our comments in one minute? >> this is the point of order?

>> yeah, this is just a point of order. >> we have a couple of point of orders that we would like to bring forward. >> she just asked a question, i think that there is, and i think that is... >> to the board to consider. i mean, one answer would be to if we could, hold this item until the end of the calendar. >> sure. >> and we did not have a chance to review these drawings. >> we understand, and neither have we, and so we have all just gotten them. but, i think that... (inaudible). >> and i think that it is fair that the appellants have a reasonable period of time to review the document so they can comment on it as well. >> i agree, and i don't know if holding it to the end of calendar is sufficient. if we need to hold it for another week? >> i am sorry, could you speak into the microphone?

>> all of my comments are for the drawings which i received on thursday. >> i think that we should... (inaudible). >> yes. all right. >> you know, the reason why we held this off was due to a question from the building department that there was inappropriate documents to reflect the scope of work. we supported that. i don't think that there is anything special about the drawings, that they can't be done tonight in terms of a review. >> so i am wondering if it is intersecting and asking mr. duffy to comment. we won't be counting this to your time, but we would like to get the building department's reaction to this, if that is okay? >> okay. >> we will be able to speak after this? >> let's see what we decide in terms of the case. because i