commissioner fung: imn 2007. >> in 2007. commissioner fung: and? >> and i thought the matter was cleared up at that time. vice president garcia: if you thought it was cleared up, what caused you to go and get the permit to legalize it. >> i told him we did not do any window work and the stucco repair was so minor but that i would do it myself. -- that i would do with myself. >> the matter came up because there was a director's hearing. it was the code enforcement section at the directors hearing. we were under the impression it had been cleared. commissioner fung: 1 was the director's hearing? -- when was the director's hearing? >> may 12. commissioner fung: this year? >> of this year. vice president garcia: it seemed to me that you were saying it would have cost a lot less to repair the two windows and the stucco work than $1,000. >> i think he must have misunderstood. vice president garcia: i think i must have. >> it was the stucco work. vice president garcia: you know that the fine is based on what would have cost to pull the permits for the two

commissioner fung: on the basis that she is unemployed. vice president garcia: if i could add to the reasoning, commissioner, i would support that, but the additional reason i would give it is the fact that she thought she was in the hands of someone familiar with construction, familiar with replacement windows, and relied upon that, and she was not aware that a permit had not been pulled or was told that one was not needed. >> on the basis she was relying on experienced contractor. vice president garcia: right. >> ok. if you could call the roll, please? >> the motion from commissioner fung to grant the appeal, reduced to two times the regular fee, on the basis that the appellant is unemployed and rick blight on an experienced -- and relied on an experienced contractor to pull the permit. on that motion -- [] [] [roll-call vote] thank you, the vote is 4-0, and the appeal is granted, the penalty is reduced to two times. >> item 7, appeal number 11-043, page group for says the department of boating inspection, subject property 1138-1140 page

commissioner fung: 42 inches. vice president garcia: which is not safe. >> i would not put my four girls up there, no. commissioner hwang: do you have the language of 460? i do not have the full text, or much text. >> is the 10 foot exemption you are curious about? commissioner hwang: yes, 260 b one. >> shall i read it into the record? commissioner hwang: 20 over had first and see if i can read it. thanks. commissioner fung: is that standard issue at the planning department now? [laughter] >> i guess. we should revisit our budgeting. commissioner fung: maybe. >> is all eligible? -- is that all legible? commissioner hwang: i can read it. that is good. is it b1 cap b? >> the 10 foot reference appears here at the bottom of b1. commissioner hwang: ok. >> i am sorry. i may be pointing to the wrong code section, commissioners. commissioner peterson: what is this language. it says the exemption chambly limited to the top 10 feet of such features. the height limit is 65 feet or less and the top 16 feet of such features we

commissioner fung: yes. yes, just tonight. i am not even sure i am asking the right questions based on the fact that this is a sight permit versus a structural package, -- a site permit versus is structural -- versus a structural permit. as to the alteration portion, the existing structural framing looks like it varies in size. >> are we talking about this photograph? commissioner fung: yes. >> ok. these are the existing, and these are the new. commissioner fung: so all of those are new at that point? >> no, not all of it, because if you look, the new is the one in front, but if you look back further, those are not new. commissioner fung: right, and i guess my point is, the members sizes vary between the two portions of the wall. >> you are correct that it looks like is, that it varies, but on this portion, some of these look like they might not even be the same size, but these are the wall that as construction goes along, if they are the -- not the right size, they will put another next to it. >> good evening, commissioners.

commissioner fung: the write up is quite limited. it's sort of relates to having gone through many years of history with this issue of communication equipment and everything that there are limitations in terms of what planning can or cannot do with respect to the qualitative reviews of these permits? >> that is correct, there are a variety of state and federal regulations that supersede local jurisdiction or limit local jurisdiction. commissioner fung: the letter from your department? the shortness? >> it is to the point. commissioner peterson: i am happy to start. we have seen a few of these cases now, and i think there has been some conduct in prior cases by the company's that perhaps was improved, but i think in this case in particular, i am inclined to uphold the permit for nextg in this situation. it appears they follow the process. there was notice. it is unfortunate to have these boxes near you, but it is part of the city planning and processed, and i moved to uphold this particular permit. commissioner fung: commissioners, at

commissioner fung: i think the will withdraw my motion. i will allow somebody else to make a second motion. commissioner peterson: i will make the motion that duplicates the comments of our city attorney. vice president garcia: will you repeat those? [laughter] >> to deny the appeal and upheld the department on the basis of the project need section 311 notice. the permit applicant is not barred due to changed circumstances, including there is a new owner and the variance is no longer valid. anything further or different? commissioner peterson: a and he is not barred from applying for this permit to obtain section 311 notification, to go through that process. >> the motion is from commissioner peterson to uphold the denial of this permit on the basis the project requires section 311 notice in the planning code. the one-year bar does not apply. the appellant may reapply for this permit. commissioner peterson: provided section 311 notices obtained. -- notice is obtained. and there is nothing i can do about fees? are there nov penalties paid?

commissioner fung: would you consider that? volunteers service that in the city. >> it's a good idea, but let them come to me and let me do the stairway. commissioner fung: the stairway is the issue before us. the community boards thing is voluntary by the parties themselves. >> i think that for today's case, we would like to let us do the stairway thing and in the future, she would like to go to the -- commissioner fung: community boards. ok. thank you. president goh: i was going to give you another minute if you have any for one -- a need for one. if you'd like. >> i would like to ask michael if a new permit is granted for the stairway to be rebuilt that the area be removed so there is not an eagerness to my roof and is -- egress to my roof. the entire stairway should be certified by a structural engineer. president goh: anything more? commissioners, any questions? commissioner hwanpeterson: at wt point will they be warranted? >> i think it will be required by drawings. the picture showed it at the bottom. >> how would they k

commissioner fung: mr. duffy, the foundation permit, the foundation work got a separate permit versus an addendum? excuse me. >> 1130 page street, i am not sure why they applied for that. they must have wanted to get going on some of the existing building and the new foundation. our department issued that permit. since that permit got issued, and since that day and up with1138 page -- with 1138 page street, we have changed our policy on that. it did show a new foundation. i am not saying that was right or wrong, but we are not going to give up a permit any more. -- anymore. the structure will upgrade permit was revoked because it actually, on the plan, it showed the new addition, which, obviously, you cannot build on that type of permits, because it has to go through the main permit, which would have required 311 notification. there was work on that permit that was not properly approved by different city departments, so that is the reason it was revoked, and because of the roof that collapsed and all of the

[laughter] >> there had been an earlier motion by commissioner fung. vice president garcia: i worried it was my motion. i am glad to hear it. commissioner fung: i doubt it will pass but i will make it again anyway. i will move to overrule the zoning administrator on the basis that the variance and the original permit to maintain the two units have expired and arnelle and void. >> one suggestion. it is not the zoning the minister

commissioner fung: i will start with a couple of points. i am sympathetic to them wanting some open space that is directly accessible from their unit. a couple of things, just from a purely technical basis. even with the change in height, you could not get an elevator that conforms with in the 16 feet in this high limit. you cannot get a stair penthouse, technically, to conform with this height. i have to do this to commissioner peterson. 25 years ago, there was a very famous name in san francisco. the zoning administrator denied his permit to build the market greenhouse on top -- to build an orchid greenhouse on top of his high-rise in pacific heights because it was non-conforming and above the height limit. the problem i have here perhaps is a little bit too much experience with this code section. that is that it has always been interpreted that way. the fact is that the 65 feet establishes the point at which exceptions take place. therefore i do not see any basis that i can even attack to give them what they want. commissioner peterson:

commissioner fung: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. president goh: aye. -- commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> is the public the modified soho -- uphelit is upheld with e modified scope. >> we will call item six now. this is a protest of the issuance on may 23, 2011 to cui zhu li, permit to alter a building. and we will start with the appellant. >> i am here for the appellant. we understand that it is not the role of the board to be the arbiters of good neighbor behavior. we're not here to impose this person on you tonight. the building code does exist to establish requirements necessary to protect general welfare of the general public and it is this role that we ask you to consider this evening. what we have here is a property owner that consistently performs work without acquiring permits as required by law. she has admitted to this behavior and having been cited as such, the conduct unfortunately has persisted. sometimes she is caught red handed. sometimes she is caught after the fact were able to persuade an ins

commissioner fung: we know that. president goh: -- director goldstein: which of you would like to go first? mr. duffy? >> it sounds complicated, and in this case, i would say we would not be here if we did not have the roof collapse. it triggered seven complaints to dbi right up until pretty much now, and it appea

officer suguitan and fung were met by the woman outside of her porch. officer suguitan observed at the front door of the residence was open and stepped inside. officer suguitan noticed mr. smith and mr. rios, an additional roommate, were standing face to face having a conversation. both men were approximately 7 feet in front of officer suguitan. officer suguitan looked at both men and stated, how are you doing, we are here to help. mr. smith and mr. rios both faced officer suguitan. immediately, officer suguitan realized mr. smith's and were behind his back and concealed from officer. officer suguitan directed mr. smith to "show me your hands." instantly, officer suguitan here's what he believes is an item quickly being taken out of a sheaf, and without notice, mr. smith raises a large machete above his head and in close proximity to officer suguitan. officer suguitan, fear for his life, draws his department farm, and that close proximity begins to rapidly backup. mr. smith begins to advance on officer suguitan. of a suguitan continues to back up, but b

commissioner fung: -- we would like to keep that penalty. icommissioner fung: do you consider that for window replacement or the minor repair to the plaster that requires a permit? >> it appears that it is for both. the wording on the permit says the windows installed in the 1960's by the prior windows. the building inspector that wrote the notice of violation wrote in 2007. i could not see him writing a notice of violation for windows that are 40 years old. so the windows may be no more than that. i am not sure, i am just going by the notice that he wrote. but the penalty is for the windows and the minor stucco repair, signed off and completed on the 14th of june, this year. vice president garcia: mr. duffy, the amount that is derived to assess the penalty, is that formulary? is that what it would cost for the permits for the two windows? >> well, the 1000 other value is the value of the permit. the penalty that was assessed was than nine times probably on the amount of work that the building inspector estimated, $1,000. that is a formula i

commissioner fung: did you look into the co conformance? >> i saw it in the brief, but i was mostly interested in the stair work. from my research, if you have an existing property line window, you can replace it in kind. there is no working property under appeal. it is just the rear of stairs. >> what about the allegation that it was replaced in kind. it was out of the and provides access to that room. >> i believe there was only one window in the room. >> this appeal was based on -- i never really pay much attention to the windows. >> how would this board deal with the issue if there is an issue that the window is being used for that. >> is more of trespassing issue and call the police. we have property line windows. i know i see property line windows open all over the city. and you can't change that if it was an existing window. if it changes in size or location, you are not replacing in kind. but you have would have an open window to someone's roof, you should not go through it. commissioner garcia: we had a case that was before us thre

commissioner fung: and one of the main differences would be the level of notice? >> that would be correct, sir. commissioner fung: okay, is this facility approval by your department as currently constituted? >> as currently constituted and moving forward, it would fall under re tier 3 facility, given that it is not a significant street. planning would still need to -- given that it is on a significant

the presiding president is president goh, vice-president garcia, commissioner fung, and commissioner peterson. at the controls is the board's legal assistant. i am cynthia bornstein, the executive director. we are joined this evening by representatives from some of the city departments that will be appearing. we have tim fry, representing the historic commission, and joseph dufty is here representing the department of building inspection. we anticipate that the zoning administrator, scott sanchez, will be here shortly. at this time, if we could go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all funds and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of presentation are as follows -- appellants, permit holders, and department holders -- and apartment representatives have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must be in these times. members of the public or not affiliated with the parties have up to t

fung lao, whose laundromat was in the process of being robbed at gunpoint. judge: whoa, whoa, whoa. or not guilty. those are your two choices. not guilty, judge. okay. question... and i ask that all charges be dismissed, in that my client was acting as a good samaritan. whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. first case, counsel? no, your honor. as if. well, the way this works is we go through a little fact-finding process... the facts aren't in dispute. my client walked in on an attempted armed robbery. the legal defense of "necessity..." hold on. your honor, sometimes in the interest of judicial economy, and convenience to the witnesses, cases can be expedited. counsel... trials are expensive. they can bankrupt rich people. as for the poor, forget it. this could cost damien winslow his house, if only he had a house, which of course he never will. why? 'cause he's poor. counsel. as for the witnesses, they're here today. we can get this thing over with. how many here for this case? look at that. unbelievable. is that not unbelievable? am i to understand... all these people? every last one of them.

also wanted to highlight the pretty impressive track record of the regional project manager, howard fung. job well done, howard. [applause] thank you. >> thank you. just to make sure we understand, this is a partnership of a lot of folks. the general manager of the puc, the general manager for infrastructure, the assistant manager for external affairs, and a lot of you who have worked hard for the puc, we appreciate it. we also have the leadership of the puc, the commissioners to make the decisions. we have the president and the vice president of the commission. francesca is here to make another announcement today. [applause] >> i am so happy to be here to celebrate this project. i think it is appropriate, the weather we are having, as we dedicate the reservoir. it is a little strange to be getting this rain, but we appreciate every drop of it and we are happy to have a big reservoir. i am excited to announce that we have plans to install three small hydroelectric generators here on site. that is a clean, renewable energy source, something that we are committed to. it will replicate on a

on that motion, with that condition, commissioner fung. >> aye. thank you. this permit is upheld with the condition to strike the window. thank you, everyone. when a resident of san francisco is looking for health care, you look in your neighborhood first. what is closest to you? if you come to a neighborhood health center or a clinic, you then have access it a system of care in the community health network. we are a system of care that was probably based on the family practice model, but it was really clear that there are special populations with special needs. the cole street clinic is a youth clinic in the heart of the haight ashbury and they target youth. tom woodell takes care of many of the central city residents and they have great expertise in providing services for many of the homeless. potrero hill and southeast health centers are health centers in those particular communities that are family health centers, so they provide health care to patients across the age span. . >> many of our clients are working poor. they pay their taxes. they may run int

. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to grant on the idea that it was not made clear to thisndividual. the president is absent. [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. the jurisdiction is granted. you have a five-day appeal period. >> we will move to item number five. this is a special item having to do with the property on market street. the board received a letter asking the board set aside its decision after default of may 11, 2011, whereby the board declined to take a jurisdiction over a notice of violation of penalty issued by the zoning administrator. that is dated may 7, 2010, regarding non compliance with conditions of approval requiring all new ways to be contained within the facility. good -- all noise be contained within the facility. >> thank you for the opportunity to address you a. on april 8, i filed two appeals. one was the request for jurisdiction for his business, and also for of property on ortega street has been withdrawn. i entered today's date which was for the appeal as a hearing date for both of those matters, so i'm is the original hearing date, and this was

commissioner fung: aye. president goh: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the lotus 5-0. department is upheld. >> item 7 was withdrawn. there is no other business. president goh: ok. we are returned. -- adjourned. >> hello, good evening. welcome everyone to the 2011 you for your awards ceremony where we honor the amazing accomplishments of 15 of the most lot inspiring and wonderful leaders of san francisco. i am the youth advocacy coordinator of the youth empowerment bond, part of the department of children and youth and their families. i have had a wonderful honor of working with the 50 warriors in the past five months. each warrior before you was nominated by a community-based organization and has dedicated their knowledge, skills, and talents to improving the lives of others living in san francisco. although all warriors are similar in their passion for community change, may differ greatly in their path to positive change. through making documentaries, political organizing, creative workshops, and even boxing, they have made b

on that motion, with that condition, commissioner fung. >> aye. thank you. this permit is upheld with the condition to strike the window. thank you, everyone. >> i need your executive director of cnbc. -- i am the executive director of cnbc. i want to welcome you to this truly joyous occasion, commemorating the completion of the rehab of civic center residents. we bought this building 38 years ago, and it has been through a couple ofpartial rehabs before now, but before now, this had leaky plumbing, inadequate electrical. it was just one, slow elevator, and a dingy community kitchen. you can see what a beautiful space it is now. we raised $30,000,000.20% of that came from the mayor's office of housing. -- $30 million and 20% of that came from the mayor's office of housing. the department of public health is providing subsidies for the 100-plus homeless households' living here. housing and community development, enterprise. hundreds of staff people coming together to bring this beautiful project to fruition. in that sense, this is our model for preserving aff