am a probate attorney and i was busy working on that and she was taking care of the property. so i respectfully request that you do lower the minimum and take into consideration these things. thank you. any other questions? commissioner fung: come forward. >> would you like to ask me a question? commissioner fung: i will ask you the same question. in the cost proposal from the contractor, was the cost of the permit itemized? >> i cannot recall. this was 2003 and a few more in 2005. i am sorry. i really do not remember. i thought i did the due diligence by asking for the

workers' comp to be sure he would cover his employees. i wanted to be sure he had appropriate insurance and everything else. we had work done on our own home with a licensed contractor pulled a permit. that is levity on my part. -- that is naivete on my part. commissioner fung: the contract has been paid in full? >> with back in 2003 and a few more in 2005. he is licensed. so i thought that everything was done appropriately and properly. commissioner fung: thank you. >> if i may make one more comment, the work has been done. there have been a tenant complaints. there is no safety concerns or

anything else. -- there have been no tenant complaints. >> is there any public comment on this item? less >> any rebuttals? commissioner garcia: i wish i had thought to ask you about this before. the fact that these are vinyl windows -- is the allowable? >> the permit was signed by the planning department for them to replace windows as installed in vinyl, double paint. it is acceptable to the planning department. commissioner garcia: thank you. >> you have time for rebuttal as well if you care to use it. >> when i was asked to get the permit, i went to the entire

process with the planning department to approve of the vinyl windows. the neighbors have them. there is not a question about that. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner fung: commissioners, in the past we have always taken money away from the department of building inspection on penalty cases. however, usually those cases involve work that was done prior to a particular property owner coming into possession of that particular property. this case is slightly different , and the contractor is at fault.

i am wondering whether the permit holder is prepared to go after the contractor. and if so, i would publicly look to a continuance of this particular case. vice president goh: my only concern is the statute of limitations problem with the permit holder. when was the work done? 2005? 2003 on a contract? it might not be that easy to go after the contractor. commissioner garcia: as that issue was raised, i would ask the attorney. is there a window issue here? in other words, if you have a

year or a day to go after your contractor, the fact that they did not know this problem existed until recently -- does that start the clock? >> i think it is when you find the defect. i would have to research something like that. it is a private litigation matter between the two parties. commissioner garcia: i guess i feel it is totally unreasonable that the contractor might have done this to someone would do -- to someone who would think it would do what was legal or right. it does not seen these people were casual with the way they dealt with their contractor. they seemed to do all that was required, do their due

diligence. i would have this go away. i do not know whether they could prevail in a court of law or small claims court. i do not know what the maximus are there. -- the maximums are there. i do not want to give my figure yet. i want to find out whether other people up here want to reduce this by some factor. president peterson: i would support a motion that reduced its. commissioner garcia: do you care to give an amount? president peterson: i would reduce it to two times. vice president goh: i am of a similar mind since the much time has passed. the complaints seemed to come from a neighbor, not the department. i am also very moved by the testimony in trying to be diligent and making sure there was workers' comp and insurance and other things a good landlord

does. i also would be of the mind to reduce it to two times. commissioner fung: i am not in disagreement with not having the penalty accrued to the property owner in this particular instance, given the fact that they did what they did. but i would like to have them at least make one attempt to try to recoup this cost to the city. if that is not possible, i think the can hear the sentiment of the board members at this point. -- they can hear the sentiment of the board members at this point. commissioner garcia: one problem with that solution is that there would be ongoing expenses, if nothing else their time to come back. and i feel that the appellant in this case would be better served if we came up with a number. if to is not the number, a

different number that would put this to bed. as has been stated by the attorneys up here there is some question as to whether or not they can go against them. commissioner fung: i will request that the property owner filed a complaint with the state board. president peterson: i am not seeing the penalty. am i missing a page? >> it was actually almost $4,000, not $3,100. vice president goh: i see it now. commissioner garcia: am i misinterpreting what you said? if we were to go with the two, do you ask that the appellant been filed a complaint with the state board? commissioner fung: i would ask that they voluntarily undertake

the suggestion. commissioner garcia: i would move that we overturn the department. fwmóçó or overturn and reduce tax uphold the appeal and then commissioner garcia: a penalty of two times. >> the motion by commissioner garcia is to grant the appeal and reduce the penalty to two times the permit fee. on the motion -- commissioner fung: aye. vice president goh: aye. president peterson: aye. >> the motion carries four-zero. item five is appeal -- i am sorry. item six is appeal 10-011,

larissa belsky versus the department of building inspection about the property 530 liberty street protesting the issuance of a permit to alter a building with pressure treated plywood sheets. we will start with the appellant. >> commissioners, thank you for giving me the opportunity to address you. i worked hard to save enough money to buy my home at 524 liberty swoop -- liberty street. i love my neighborhood in my home. unfortunately, my neighbors have obtained a permit to make a material change that would irrevocably harmed not only my house but impose an eyesore on me and several other

individuals in the city. i asked the board to revoke the permit so my neighbors will have the sighting that originally said they would. in their 311 notification, the owners testified to painted siding. now the plan untraded pressure- treated plywood sheets as a finished product. this unattractive large wall from a zero lot line, visible from almost every room in my home as well as other homes and public places in the neighborhood. in 2008, i asked what this what was going to look like. i was told by the project's sponsors it would be cited and painted to match the other walls of their charm. the permit in question was approved without my knowledge. no notice was provided by the city even though i have a request for notification on file. i should have been contacted in november 2009 by the planning department when the permit was

signed by them. they were aware of a previous board of appeals hearing regarding the same subject property. they should have contacted me over the change materials. the planning department should have contacted me to confirm the story about the sighting, especially since i had a citation on file. the change greatly affects my property. this was not followed or was ignored. if i had been notified in november i would not have to appeal this permit as i would have been able to explain i never denied access. the staff of the planning department unilaterally made a decision that seriously impacted me and my surrounding neighbors. the action of the planning department in signing this contradicts proposition m and section 101.1 of the planning code. these actions have resulted in an exposed building wall that does not conserve or protect the

neighborhood character. the finished materials do not meet the intent and spirit of the residential design guidelines for proper finishing materials and is out of character. product sponsors say they sought the revision to the original permit. i never denied them access to complete the work. why would i deny them access to complete an unsightly wall i have to look at every day? why would i be upset if they installed siding that matches my own home? the other side of the home are all sighting. when i asked the project sponsor in april exactly when i denied access he could not tell me. but he said -- i only found out two weeks ago the the nile to the contractors. it was here say from one of the workers on the site. i had only one interaction with the worker on the wite, which

occurred before i was approached by the project's sponsors. the worker was on my roof, talking on my cell phone, no where near were the work is taking place. i have skylights on my roof. besides having my skylights and my privacy invaded, i did not want someone falling through. i told the worker to get off my roof. i suggest you would not want someone tromping on your roof without authorization or proof of insurance. i have already submitted a long series of e-mail exchanges. i never denied the project's sponsors access to complete the sighting. in march of this year they told me to work with their lawyer, which i did. he and i have exchanged written correspondence and had a half hour conversation in april and july. on three separate occasions of may and june this year, agreed

the contractors could come to my home. i continue to be willing to provide access to my property as long as my neighbors provide me proof of insurance and a satisfactory timeline for the work. letters have been sent in by neighbors in support of producing this permit. there are at least a dozen. you should have copies of those. people are here from the neighborhood to support me to revoke this. i ask that the board revoked the permit because it is an error, a unilateral decision made by staff planners. i paid for a notification. the city cashed my check. it is active and on file. the permit holder never discharged the time line information, went around the permiting system, and misrepresented my position. as you can see in writing, i will allow the permit holder access to my property as long as i receive proof of insurance

and a satisfactory timeline of the work. this is information anyone in my position would ask for. it is normal practice for construction projects in san francisco and access is necessary, especially when 20 foot scaffolding is involved. i asked you revoke the permit for pressure treated plywood and ask that this work be completed in a timely fashion. commissioner fung: can you turn than the other way? >> this is the view from the neighbor's property. this is from kester street. this is a view from my bedroom. this is a view from sitting at my dining room table. that is a view from my den.

lastly i will show you the 3-11 notification. this shows that it would be siding, the wall in question. walls would all be siding. thank you. commissioner fung: did you respond to the last offer from the attorney regarding the sharing of costs? >> i did not because i do not feel it is my responsibility to complete my neighbors work. i was not responsible for delaying the project. i never denied them access. they received money back from the scaffolding company. i am not the one that denied them access. commissioner fung: thank you. >> we can hear from the permit

holders now or their agent. >> madam president, commissioners, my name is conrad donner. i am here on behalf of lisa kinimaka and kanthryn hathryn h. that is whether the building inspector, when he made his report in october was misled into believing that there were access issues. his notice and report is attached to the response as exhibit b/ the contractor had finished the exterior. that was his part of the job. but he was unable to direct the

scaffolding so he could affix the siding to the rear of west wall of this residence. in this report, the building inspector advised that there was a modification permit that was needed both with respect to the scope of the work and the materials. without that, they could not secure a final certificate. i think the starting point for this is to acknowledge that both the building inspector and ms. belsky understood that scaffolding and access to erect scaffolding were essential to this job. her e-mails to you, which she

submitted, indicate that she understands this. obviously, man cannot sit on a plank hanging down from the roof with pressurized tools. that is too dangerous. the most important letter you have before you. in that letter there is a clearcut statement, non- ambiguous. she instructed our crew not to enter her property. the crew from that point on did not. the building inspector was at the job site throughout the course of the construction. he speaks to the contractor and he speaks to the men.

i want you to consider two other factors together with the contractor pick statement, because i think that are important. first, during a period of 10 years before this dispute ever arose, ms. belsky not once but twice refused access to allow the premises to be painted. it should not come as too much of a surprise here. in our communications to the board, she complained that this on painted surface constitutes an eyesore. that should not be a surprise either. at a meeting that i requested and which chirac used to attend -- which are requested and which she refused to attend if either lisa or kathryn were

present, she admitted she denied access, but said that was just for a few days. at this meeting, i asked her if she would try to be objective. please explain to me why it when the contractor provided for the application of siding on all four walls -- the men were there. the equipment was there. the scaffolding was there. why wouldn't he have performed what he is obligated to do under the contract? there was no explanation that she could provide, and yet if you read those letters that are solicited from the neighbors to send in, it certainly appears from those letters that other explanations were made, such as

lisa and katryn were looking for a way out, which is nonsense. the building inspector was not misled. they sought a modification permit. both dbi and planning signed off. the fact is ms. belsky has changed her mind. this situation now is different. it is a lot more expensive. you have to start from scratch with a new contractor. how much more expensive? the contractor is going to anticipate or for see how much difficulty he is going to have. that is why three of six contractors who we saw said thank you but no thank you, we would prefer not to even submit a bid.

the others were up to $8,500 more than the original cost. ms. belsky would be pleased if you were to overrule the building inspector and revoked the modification permit so all of these costs would fall on her, but that is not an equitable or fair result. i submit that you should deny the appeal. make those parties sit down and talk. force an agreement. they both want the same result. that is how the result can come about -- if forced agreement between the parties that will not only the best for them, but also best for the neighbors. some did and some did not write

letters. for those reasons, a request that you deny the appeal. i thank you. commissioner fung: a technical question for you. the exposed plywood that is currently on the wall now -- is that the structural plywood or has it been applied over structural plywood? >> i do not have that answer. commissioner fung: the related question was how was the plywood installed. >> might contrasting experiences very limited. >> i am not a contractor either. in conversations with the building inspector, we were concerned about getting the sighting applied. we wanted to get the work done. commissioner fung: my question was very specific.

>> what he indicated was that the wall was secure. it was weatherproof. the plywood on top of its is adequate from a building and structural perspective. commissioner fung: let me rephrase the question. some walls are built flat on the ground and lifted flat into place. was that what was done here? >> that is correct. commissioner fung: so your existing wall has one layer of plywood over your wood studs. is that correct? >> i cannot answer. i would have to look at photos. that is the process by which it was directed. commissioner garcia: you referenced exhibit b. i think that is signed by mr. donnelly.

i assume he talked to pani agua. do we know whether or not he spoke with ms. belsky? >> i think we would have to ask her. i commissioner garcia: you are not sure? >> i do not have knowledge of that specific conversation. commissioner garcia: it would help us determine who shot it down. do we know whether the alleged refusal to access was predicated upon the preconditions requested by ms. belsky? do we know whether she was being capricious and whimsical, or was she doing it because no one had yet responded to the issues having to do with liability insurance? when are the timelines for the scaffolding? will i still be able to access my backyard?

these types of issues. do we know that? >> over a considerable period of time there was an exchange of these e-mails, some of which you have before you. there were a number of different requirements and demands that were made, including her satisfaction as to some claimed damage on the top of the wall. commissioner garcia: that comes later. what i am asking -- when the initial access is denied, is it denied because ms. belsky decides she does not want them to have access, or because she has not yet been satisfied that the request having to do with insurance has been satisfied? do we know that? >> i do not know that specifically, but if you read

those e-mails, the denial occurs early. the dispute is ongoing with regards to that. commissioner garcia: maybe you have to point that out to me. when i find e-mails, i find, "this is when i will be out of town. you may not come at that time." i find those kinds of things, but i do not see a clear pattern of "you may not have access to my property." can you point that to me? >> that is certainly in exhibit c. commissioner garcia: you had said e-mails. this is he said she said. this is mr.