president goh: the next board meeting is february 8. vice president garcia: so that would be three weeks? >> three weeks, yes. president goh: is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, if you are inclined, we need a motion. >> so moved. president goh: call the roll please. >> we have a motion to rescheduled to february 8. on that motion -- commissioner fung: aye. vice president garcia: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> this matter is rescheduled to february 8. president goh: we will move now to item number one, general public comment. is there anyone who would like to speak on an item that is not on our calendar? seeing none -- oh, please step forward. >> good evening. this is indirectly related to an item on the agenda tonight. president goh: we should wait and speak during the item. thank you. any public comment under item number one? we will move to item number two. that is the election of officers. the rules state that the president and vice president shall be elected at the first regular meeting of the boa

commissioner goh: thank you. president garcia: i know whatever letter people got was a courtesy letter and was not required by the legislation. but did you happen to check whether -- did you have a list of people who received the letter and did you happen to notice whether or not the appellant got the courtesy letter? >> the department in this specific case was given a printout from the police department specifically. we did our best faith effort to extract that printout into a series of mailing addresses for this mailing. the courtesy notification. we do not believe the applicant in this case was necessarily on that list. based upon records provided by the applicant, he acquired a permit in approximate august or september of 2010 and is approximate two months prior to the change in legislation, so the public works did not know exactly what happened within the police department process. commissioner fung: how many other license holders we'll now call m.f.f.'s, failed to properly reapply and weren't wear of the ne

commissioner goh: thank you. >> in terms of this case, this is a tree that's currently the maintenance responsibility of the department of public works, and it was identified for removal by our staff after we have been monitoring it for several years. we did perform sidewalk repairs around this tree a few years ago. it's a species that is not highly tolerant of root pruning. we did not have to remove a substantial number of roots and repair the sidewalk but did have to remove some roots which is why we have been keeping an eye on it. in my brief i submitted some photos that i think showed the lean of the tree. if i can have the overhead, i'll just point out two photos first. >> where do i sit? wow. commissioner fung: please continue. >> this is a photograph i don't know the contrast is sufficient but i wanted to show, you can see the area of new sidewalk, it's the lighter color in the photograph. and i think it -- commissioner goh: would you please not disturb this meeting again. president garcia: it's not approp

sanchez regarding the commissioner goh's departure. congratulations. on this case, i looked at it today. dba would not have done any notifications whenever the permit was issued because it was not determined to be a structural addition to the building nor a demolition or a new construction. in section 106 of the building code, there are times we do it posting when the permit is issued or renewed -- or we notify neighbors of the adjacent properties, but in this case, because of the type of project, that was not necessary. i checked with the central permit bureau and they confirmed that. i am available for any questions if you have any. vice president hwang: thank you. >> there is reference to the street permit, which was posted, and i just noticed that. i do not have any details on that. i did notice, as well, that this licensed property is not adjacent to the site where the work is being done. it is actually just off that. even if we had done the notification, i do not think she'd fall -- she falls under the notification process. >> is there any public

commissioner goh: i have a question that brought to mind, ok, if mr. castillo is applying for a permit for the same location, is there any weight given to -- i don't know if it's true or not but we heard there's allegations he's been running that cart without a permit for some time. >> this is the first time the department of public works has been informed. we've been informed previously and once it was brought to our attention, we directed mr. castillo to cease and desist and at such time he acquire as permit under public works to operate. my understanding is right now we hav other objections except from mr. as -- ascarrunz and once the information was provided to us we sent inspectors out to validate and there was no one up there to inspect it. commissioner goh: he was given a cease and desist and he did cease? >> that's correct. president garcia: i don't understand, this gentleman, the appellant, mr. ascarrunz has two permit with, one for 28 and one for 2300 block of mission. so one at 24th and mission and one at 19th and mission. is he in the same

commissioner goh: aye. my last vote. 4-0. the permit is upheld. >> i miss having the gavel. >> we are adjourn. -- adjourned.

commissioner goh: no. >> the granting of this variance is up held. vice president hwang: we will move on to item number 12. francis mcdonald vs department of building inspection. the property at 340 spuruce street. permit to alter a building. application number 201130 four zero. we will begin with the appellant. >> good evening, my name is francis mcdonald. >> if you would pull the microphone closer. >> week, the tenants, on this building -- we, the tenants, of this building have been penalized when they hire unqualified contractors who do work beyond the scope of a permit when i do request to permit. as they did in the case of -- construction to read it was not a certified contractor at the time they began their work. they did corps' work. by the end of their work they did get to the certification needed. when they started, and they were not abatement certified. i'm trying to show you a pattern. the plans you see in front of you are misrepresented of of the structure as it exists today. because of this misrepresentation, and neighbors will lose thei