tv   [untitled]    September 22, 2010 8:00pm-8:30pm PST

commissioner fung returns? >> ok. we're ready for you. go ahead. >> good evening, commissioners. i am here on behalf of my clients who is sitting to my right along with their daughter. at this time, i like to have him speak first. he is in a second language, so

his daughter should be able to provide that. >> the first thing, [unintelligible] secondly, we compare to the city that inspects -- [unintelligible] >> may be your daughter can

help? >> they say it is illegal, so we will find out -- [inaudible] [unintelligible] i don't know why the city is still keeping the omission to permit for the window. so, secondly, the city -- why there is an illegal -- that is all i say.

>> my name is regina, i am the daughter of the appellants. i have learned -- and lived on bryant street for all 20 years of my life, and that is why i am so concerned about how it involves our house. there is a party that nearly caused a fire. our family has been afraid for our home in case of another situation that occurs. our neighbors of 2510 bryan street started renovation that includes renovation of the window on the north property. our concern is that the window would cause a breach of privacy being that the window is only 6 inches from the property line. this is a photo taken from our

house showing how close the window is to our property. it was in renovation at the time. we don't mean to cause any trouble for our neighbors for the renovation, but we are very concerned about the window. on june 30, 2010, it was clearly in violation of california code and no permit was on file to allow the work. we are concerned that this window will be a fire hazard in the future and create excessive noise. thank you. >> i would like to offer some information on our appeal. our argument is that the permit holders began work without obtaining proper permit initially.

our second argument is that the permit was issued in error as the proposed work was in violation of the california building code. the respondents believed that this is not in violation because of the existing window, but our contention is that it was an alteration because, for one, they're changing it from an existing window, and secondly, there are concerns in relation to having a minimum of fire separation, and also 5 feet from the property line. if i may, i could have the

overhead? this shows the proximity of the properties. and there appears to be a difference in size from the windows that is being proposed at this point. it does exemplified that the proximity is definitely an issue. >> i don't mean to cut into your time, but can you put that picture back up, please? that one. are you saying that there are 6 inches between those windows? >> my client is on the side. >> you're saying that that is 6 inches? >> i will show you what was provided by the respondents that

shows more of the difference -- it is 8 inches. my clients confirm yesterday that it is actually 6 inches away. taking that into account, their concern about privacy issues and the concern about there being excessive noise, the respondent can alleviate such potential concerns that my clients have by changing the window. likewise, having installed opaque windows so that it will alleviate all of these issues. our argument is that that is not sufficient enough based on the history of these properties.

we ask that the board uphold the appeal and that this will allow my client for all of these years -- [chime] >> wasn't there an additional window? or is that not this case? >> is only that window that is an issue, i believe. >> can you put that photo backup that shows how close it is your client?

>> the window to the left is the new window, and the window to the right are your clients windows? they appear to be set into maybe a light well sort of thing, right? and the windows to the left had been there, but they had been smaller or they had been a different configuration? and there had been windows there, right? where the windows that were their translucent, were they clear? >> [unintelligible]

they tore the whole thing down. i don't know what's going on. rightn ow, they change -- right now, they changed anything. >> they took them out and put in these windows? could you see through them? >> [unintelligible] you can look and see each other all the time. >> thank you. >> excuse me. >> sir, you will have 3 minutes for rebuttal. >> good evening.

my husband's name is richard. where the sole occupancy of brian -- that address on bryant street. in december of 2009, we realized our dream and moved into 2510 bryant st.. there was deferred maintenance and repairs that were necessary for home upkeep. we wanted to be able to begin renovation to our home that included the window replacement. maintaining our home is very important to us. the windows in our dining room were broken. we knew the windows were in dire need of replacement, especially after a particularly cold winter. we were not aware that a permit was required for when the replacement inside of a

building. we began work without a permit. upon receiving a notice of violation, we immediately stopped work on the windows. we went to the building department, described the project, obtain a proper permits to replace the windows. we continue to work and replaced the broken windows with obscure glazed windows. there are no larger than the previous windows and are in the same location. they're actually a little bit smaller. here is what they look like before. and now after. same location, same size, a tiny bit smaller. they're now obscure.

their replacement windows, not new construction. we received the appeal from the board of appeals and stopped work. we installed the windows and the interior. the building code requires us to maintain our building. they are a direct replacement. it would also have one other when no on that same permit, but that was not in dispute. we have this one also. we just put it on the same permit. the windows are a direct replacement of windows that were already in existence we wanted to increase privacy for our neighbors and ourselves.

they stated as if the windows are new openings, and they are not. it actually increases their privacy and to minimize noise. we intend on being good neighbors and apologize for the noise that the work produces. my husband spoke to discuss the issues. she was forthcoming and polite and described this was a negative experience with the windows wide open. we do not intend on being inconsiderate towards our neighbors. she had also been ill during our renovation. we apologize for this construction and for the inconvenience the work has caused. projects can sometimes be allowed, but they usually increase property values that adds value to the entire

neighborhood. we have always been quiet neighbors except during the renovations that have occurred during work hours. we secured our permit, we were honest, and we paid penalties. we understand that there is still concern that we began work without a permit, but we don't know why any more. corrective action has taken place. we invite them to communicate with us directly so we can attend to future concerns. referring to our three windows, if the window opening would have to comply, they were not in large so that it does not apply to our case. however, our home was built 110 years ago. our window also does not pose a

fire hazard. it doesn't apply to our work because it is under the same code. the maximum percentage of unprotected wall openings is 25%. there are 8 inches from the property line and does not comply is the 25% of the wall opening. our neighbors also have windows closer to the property line and we would not oppose the operation. in closing, we want to note -- we are conscientious homeland owners and neighbors. we want to work with them, but we did not understand why they are appealing as permit that allows us to approve our existing windows.

again, if we had left them alone, neither one of us would have been protected from malaise. and we would have continued to have little privacy with the glazing. we want to know what they're asking us to do if the permit is revoked. we wish to be able to retain the natural light that we do had rainy season is around the corner. we do not feel animosity towards our neighbors, and whatever decision is reached tonight will not affect us wanting to have a relationship with them. >> can you upon what you mean -- can you define what you mean

obscure? >> you can't see. >> they wouldn't be able to see anything? >> of the previous ones were clear -- >> were you working with the contractor or doing it by yourself? >> i had hired help. >> did you have a licensed contractor? >> no. >> i was going asked about the obscure glaze. >> we don't know existed 110 years ago, but we think they had been there for a long time. >> they were would, not vinyl? >> we have other when does in the building that are --

>> mr. cornfield? >> i am with the department -- people are just trying to simply maintain the building that they no longer can enjoy the benefits that were allowed when the buildings were built. we do allow people to maintain when does even if they don't meet today's code.

we are further instructed to do so under the california health and safety code. we do our best to enforce light and the ventilation property line issues. we take it very seriously. there was an error, i think, made by the permit older that said it 25% opening is permitted, that is only when your 3-5 feet from the property, not from the adjoining structure, but it doesn't apply in this case anyway because we're talking about repair and maintenance. we would support the upholding of this permit. >> is there any public comment on this item? we can move into rebuttal.

you have three minutes. >> i would like to say that it remains our contention that this act of the windows is an alteration, one that is subject to california building code, and that being the case, the question whether or not things were grandfathered in, the fact that the window was done without a permit initially and subsequently won was obtained, that doesn't rectify other issues regarding the proximity of the window to my client's property. if the board is inclined to uphold the permit, i would

propose that perhaps we can offer some type of compromise, perhaps that the windows themselves can be fixed windows. windows that are not operational, so that it would allow the sunlight that was mentioned by the respondents, and it would alleviate concerns that my clients have. if that is the case, the chance of them being subject to such hazards, with that, i submit this matter to the board. >> thank you very much. i understand what he mentioned. we obtained the proper permits, we did the work professionally.

we improved our property, and we also improved their privacy issue and the noise factor is much lower. this is a win-win situation for everyone. we think that they should be happy about these new windows, and we don't understand what they want us to do with them still. we ask you to uphold our permanent so that we can finish renovations and protect our home. it will want to maintain our home and want to be good neighbors. we want to increase communication with them as well. >> we have not opened these windows since we moved into the house to measure the distances between our house and the neighboring house. >> we don't intend on opening the windows. we don't want to invade their privacy. we appreciate that we haven't heard them either.

they have been polite to us. this is not a fight that we think is going to be nasty. we will be quiet and we don't intend on opening these windows. we really want to maintain relationships. >> anything further from the department? >> shall i start, or do you prefer? commissioner fung: i always like to start first. >> i am sympathetic to the appellant. their fire hazard concern and a loud parties concerned. it sounds like those issues were issues that had to do with the previous occupant of the building next door, so the

building is 110 years old, the windows were probably there when the building was built, and to me, they are in the same location, a little bit smaller. they have better glass and it seems to me that the appellants -- i am in favor of the preservation of our old building, even though sometimes it means that we end up with windows in strange places. there are windows all over the place where they wouldn't be approved. i would be inclined to deny the appeal. >> that was very well said and i have nothing to add. >> i appreciate the town. i agree and i understand issues

of proximity. we all have to face those, but i do appreciate the tone of the permit older and the civility that has been going on. i have listened very carefully to the compromise position, and the think that given the placement of the adjacent window, if that is not a fixed window, it will not make a difference as far as malaise. it is not really going to help that in my opinion. in the interest of time, i am not going to say anything else. >> i am in agreement. their glass is still transparent, and the fact is, they have not had to replace theirs.

in terms of acoustic property -- i am hopeful that they will be able to shake hands after words and continue their living. >> i move that we deny the appeal and uphold the permit. >> i understand that it is maintenance and repair, it complies with building code? that motion -- to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on a good basis stated. [roll call vote]

the motion carries 5-0. shelly power through? >> i have been asked for a very short break.