tv [untitled] June 13, 2011 12:00am-12:30am PDT
be absent. patricia will provide legal advice this evening. i am the executive director. we will have cases before the board. we have sanchez here, the zoning administrator. tom is the senior building inspector, and dr. johnson is representing the environmental health division. at this time, if you would not mind going over the meeting guidelines and conducting a swearing in process. >> the board requests you turn off all phones and beepers. please carry out conversations in a hallway.
respondents each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for about those. it -- 4 rebuttals. members will have three minutes each to address the board and no reliable -- no rebuttals. members of the public who wish to speak on a particular item for us but not required to submit a business cards when you come -- are asked but not required to submit a business card when you come up. we also welcome suggestions. there are survey forms on the left of the podium as well. if you have questions about requesting a re-hearing, please speak to the board's staff during a break or call the board office in the morning. this meeting is broadcast live
on san francisco government television, cable channel 78, and dvd's are available for purchase from as of the tv -- from sfgtv. if you intend to testify, please stand, raise your right hand, and say i do. you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give an will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? >> and we will start with item number one, which is general public comment. is there anyone here who wishes to speak to an item not on the calendar? seeing none, commissioner's comments and questions seeing none, we will move to the adoption of minutes.
this is for the board meeting of may 25. any comments? >> my only comment would be that on item number five it would seem reasonable that because four votes were needed to overturn, it was up held. maybe that is a given. >> we can and that. -- add that. anything else? >> any other comments, commissioners, i will move to adoption without amendment.
>> as their public comment on the minutes? phenom, and we will call the roll. >> on the adoption -- seeing none, we will call the roll. >> on the adoption of -- [calling votes] 4-0, those amendments are adopted. >> we will move to item four, or addendum calendar. 4a is a jurisdiction request on natoma street. this is asking the board take jurisdiction over bpa 2010/10/27/3828.
the project is to convert storage to a new three-car garage, a kitchen remodeling in all units, add one new bathroom, foundation replacement, and post removal on the first floor. any comments? >> my name is maxwell. we represent appellants. we are here today because the permit holder applied for and was issued a permit in 2010 pursuant to unit remodeling. under the law, the family had a legal right to approve a permit within 15 days.
however, the permit holder waited five minutes to notify, and on may 2011, was served with a notice to vacate. it was only after a bout of the family found out about the december, a 2010 permit to install a three-car garage and make additions for kitchen remodeling. the permit holder claims that the proposed project is necessary for structural integrity, where the family has currently lived since 1986. a permit holder obtained a permit in 2010 in order to make repairs to the exterior and a basement foundation. the family had a legal right to file an appeal. the permit holder failed to notify the family. the family was denied a legal right to appeal common and they
now face the possibility of permanent displacement your year of the permit holder is not acting in good faith. he never discussed the project with the family. no. did he inform the family that they would face temporary eviction. the permit holder has submitted a violation issued by the san francisco department of building inspection. the notes as those not mention the need for foundation where paris and -- the notes does not mention the need for foundation repairs and replacement of our rear door. for additional support, the permit holder has submitted a report. the report recommended the southern portion be replaced. however, the same report
indicated the northern portion showed no signs of damage because it was repaired in 1995. that work did not cause the family to vacate the premises for any amount of time. thus it should not be a cause of displacement. the proposed additions are not being made to benefit the family nor any other residents of the premise. they are a low income family. may i please finish my point emma -- my point? >> if there is a question, you may take more time. >> finished the last point. >> they were denied their rights to a timely appeal. they were deprived of their legal rights.
>> did your client cash a check for relocation? >> i believe they may have cash a check for relocation, but we are not sure because they are not native speakers. the check was returned to the landlord. thank you. >> are there other tenants in the building? >> other units are occupied, but a number is not known. >> are they who vacating? >> it is our knowledge that they are not vacating. >> thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder now.
you have three minutes. >> i am on behalf of the property owner. let me briefly address the questions raised by the panel during your -- by the panel. the check was cashed and has not been returned. the other tenants have indicated they will be moving. some have come forward with additional tenants requesting additional payments. there is no declarations, etc. he would revise the panel but he had been talking to them all along about the need for the foundation repair in jacking up the the building. this was involved in zero lawsuits.
-- in all lawsuits. if you take a look of the photos submitted, you can see the car wash, the damage caused, which caused a violation. we finally got an injunction against a car wash. goothey have provided a report which we have given to you. it clearly states the documented conditions showed the following is failing. there is a clear indication that the tenant will be adversely affected if they are not allowed to move forward, because the building is at risk. you can see exhibit 3 an exhibit 5. we presented a panel of
documents to the panel. it is clear from looking at exhibit 3 that we have two engineers saying this is necessary for the safety of everyone involved. it is our position it would be fruitless to allow further time when there is no evidence that they would be adversely affected. we would like to move forward to protect everyone. >> i have other tenants that i got a letter they are moving out, and we have got to repair the building. i told him on several occasions -- they know the building is settling, and we have to raise
the building, and i have been talking about it, and i do not know why they are saying they do not know anything. >> how do you speak to them if english is not their language? >> they speak very well english. he is working here in the community. i do not think language is a barrier. >> are all the other tenants agreeable? >> yes, one tenant send me a letter. they said they cashed a check and are moving next friday. >> has the other one been served? >> yes. she is advising of thermite the
one other tenant. new -- advising there may be one of her tenants. i have been in contact with his lawyer. we have not heard he does not intend to move, so the only obstacle we are aware of is his family. >> is your intent to start construction and right away? >> yes. we have the contract in place we are ready to go. >> it is not really relevant, but are any of these upgrades going to be subjected to a pass through? >> no.
by how long is the work expected to take? >> between 60 and 90 days. >> anything else, commissioners beaumont now thank you. -- anything else, commissioners, any other public comment? >> is whether this is a life safety issue. >> it looks like this is just routine inspection by the housing department, so they would just look of the common areas. they did not look that any of the structures.
>> have you read the engineer's report hama? >> briefly. >> did you find anything about whether this needs to be done or a description of whether the project sponsor is declaring a safety issue? you have an opinion on that? >> i did not study it enough to give a good opinion. >> could you say your name for the record? >> i am looking at the online complaint form. it says no working for the new garage. do you know what that means? >> i am guessing that has to do with the bureau streets and
mapping. it probably has to do with sidewalk work very good -- sidewalk work. let me see if i can find it. >> i have some questions about the collapse of risk. you do not have an opinion about that? >> i am not an engineer. >> did you find notice was sufficient? >> i think the notice was really an inspection of the common areas. it is called a routine inspection. that is held by the inspection commission. it is an annual or semiannual inspection. >> what i am asking is whether
or not more notice was required than was given to the tenants are the project sponsor. >> that is not something our department regulates. >> who wouldn't? >> civil law. don >> thank you 3 good -- >> thank you. let's of planning the same question. >> the property is located within the zoning districts within the special use district. there is no zoning requirements. however, they do add in the section 312 notification,
certification is required for expansion of a building. we do require notice of the adjacent property owner. there is no specific notification for the tenants. not about would be applied idea. gooattendance and were informedf the issue. -- tenants were informed of the issue. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, the item is submitted.
>> commissioners, the argument that has been named by the appellant is related not to the loss of tenancies. i do not see anything relating to due process or to the actual permit itself. i find the property owner has his rights. i believe that should be addressed with the board. it >> i would agree, and i would add that although we do not have an opinion about life safety issues common -- life safety issues, it would seem and we are
required to rely on the report by the engineer, and i find that to be compelling, and there would be further possible harm to this family. they would be adequately compensated, so i would not support granting jurisdiction of your your -- jurisdiction. >> i have similar beliefs. this is troublesome and concerning, and i think it needs to be remedied. i am in favor of denying the jurisdiction request. >> is there a motion, commissioner of hamas -- commissioners beaumont -- commissioners? >> the move to deny
jurisdiction. >> on that motion -- [calling votes] the vote is 4-0 to deny jurisdiction. jurisdiction is denied. >> we will move on to item no. 5, king market versus the department of public health, and this is an appeal of a tobacco product sales of termite -- sales permit. the reason is selling to minors. we will start with the appellant. are you here? is anyone here representing the appellant in this case hama?
it appears there is no one here. we can either move forward and hear from the doctor or we can hold this out until we hear from the next case. >> is there only one more? >> yes. >> we will put it after this one. >> we will of holdren the appeal. we will move on to item no. 6. the property is at 5009, third street, a permit to operate a tattoo and body piercing parlor, the reason for
suspension violation of san francisco health code s 258. is the appellants for that matter here? the appellant is not here on that case either. >> i think we are moving a little too quickly. let's go forward with this one and hear from dr. ojo. >> if you would not mind. >> i am representing the san francisco health department. of in march we revoke the health permits.
employees was not in operation. they failed to provide a record for each customer, and they failed to implement the equipment for cleaning and disinfecting and piercing equipment. they were also operating at a tattoo establishment without current license and failed to pay the license fees. you have to pay your current year license fees. we also received a complaint
that they had tattooed a minor in the establishment in december of 2010, that the licensed tattooist testified that he tattoos miners during the hearing. the grandmother of a minor confirm that her granddaughter who is 14 years old was tattooed in december of 2010. in the same hearing, they discontinued tattoo and body piercing