president goh: welcome back to the july 27, 2011 meeting. it will return to item 5v. b. mr. duffy, if you could explain it to the board please. >> commissioners, we got together and we're going to remove -- >> he gave me the wording, he would like the bellpull the permit, all work to be struck from the scope except for two things. remodel the term in unit 340 and comply with -- that is it.

commissioner garcia: which deals with what? >> repair of the stairs to make them safe. and the departments will still need the permits to comply with the other, that we don't understand any way. if applicable. commissioner peterson: the unit number again for the bathroom? >> 340. president goh: striking everything that we are striking, does it prevent a problem -- the present a problem for a one-year statute? >> i was going to recommend that the board state in their motion that the permit holder would not be precluded from replying to do

the work under the other nov's in one year. it would constitute a change of circumstances. president goh: ok. the somebody want to be the one to make this motion? commissioner garcia: we thank you for doing that. president goh: i will make the motion. >> to grant the appeal on the condition that all work to be struck except for the remodeling of the bathroom in unit 340 and the work under violation. and the permit holder not be barred to reapply for this work. >> on that motion from the president.

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 inspector that she has now

done what she has done to her property. the appellant here has personally witnessed a substantial amount of work being done by unlicensed contractors in and out of this building. and at the time the complaint is made, it seems the word is taken in she says no work, therefore nothing is done. when this property was marked for sale, it was advertised as recently renovated. without permits to that effect. she is reaping the benefits and touting the virtues of this. the history of serial abusive by this landowner should not require -- is require a process

for complaint against the property. but it appears that the level of investigation and scrutiny has not been increased but lesson. coupled by the reasonable plays by the neighboring property owner, the damage of this unrestrained flaunting, the failure to investigate and take action is inexcusable. we're here to do what we can to turn the tide. axa has a license to continue her flagrant abuse of the permit rules and increases the damage of the appellant. while spelled out, specifically, we ask a following of the board tonight. she has agreed to insulate the new piping on her landing where she has moved water heaters. we would ask that the board memorialize this.

secondly, we ask the board to order the removal, and there is a number of reasons for this. it is without question that this new window was installed without a permit and replaced in 2005 with a new window and moved above the edge of the appellant's roof. it made contact flush with our roof a significant noise from this window and directly into the corner of the appellant's house. access is obtained by the neighboring tenant and left on the appellate's roof. we voiced concern in january of 2007, but nothing has been done to alleviate this issue. it is our relief that it is a and violation of the building code and code of regulations.

that specifies that openings in exterior walls have to comply which indicates that an alteration of an existing window on another property line which is clearly what we have here what violate the california code of regulations that require the alterations chow comply with the requirements of the code of new construction. you could not have a window there. it is of great concern. because the exists with less than 3 feet of fire separation, we ask that the term that should not have been issued or abated, and certainly not retroactively, finally, we implore the the board exercise the authority to inspect the

property in order to perceive the scope of non-permanent alterations. where comprehensive -- confident that the modifications will confirm that dramatic changes have occurred over the past several years and were all done with this regard to the permit process. as far as seeking relief from the governing body, this is our last chance. the ongoing pattern of altering her property is destroying the quality of life. we have reached out to engage in mediation, but those efforts have been met with silence. we feel that a comprehensive review of the property as opposed to just taking the word of the appellant -- she cannot

be afforded the benefit of the doubt. in closing, i want to thank you for your consideration. we ask that the relief requested and granted. >> will hear from the permit holder now. is there someone speaking on behalf of the permit holder? please step forward. >> i represent the owner of 1231 york street.

the repairing of the stairs is permitted by the building department. over the last six years, there have been 18 complaints from the appellant as for regarding the window, that was also investigated and concluded has permitted the, too. and also about the flooding, it was only a stop of the gutter that has already been fixed and had nothing to do with changes. and also about the stairs, she was trying to make a simple emergency? prepare to respect the need to be fixed right away for safety purposes. the work was halted by the appellant at the expense and safety of the upstairs tenants.

and because of this, the simple repair was changed to a multi thousand dollars renovation project that makes them pay to address all of his previous decisions. i would request and appreciate very much of that you really isn't a permanent and approve the owner to fix the stairs heston as possible to avoid any injuries from occurring. since we live in the same community and since we are neighbors, we should respect each other. i hope there'll be no more need for complaints in the future. and also, i have the pictures that are also included for you. and these are here if you have any questions. >> i suggest you put them on the

overhead. >> is under the porch. this is exhibit two. this is extending -- >> can you turn them in the correct -- >> sorry. this is the dry-rotted stairs. this shows all the complaints from the appellant from 2005.

they have all been investigated or are not active anymore. this is the diagram showing when those -- windows. it is included in the brief. >> i was mostly interested in the color photograph, thank you. commissioner garcia: this is a permit for the stairs in the backyard and to comply with the nov. what is the scope of the nov under this permit? i will wait to ask mr. the feedback -- duffy that. >> thank you.

>> it is really just a typical permit that we see. the drawings to less than 50% and we go out and inspected. it's this year to comply with the notice of violation. and there is a complaint that got investigated. the cases of them. there was an issue ready on the same day as the complaint, filed. what happened was, the permit

for the property line whistling in expired system. -- that was showing an inspired as the = --r expired system. it had been completed. we corrected that. the property line was signed off in 2007 but not reflected in out system. for some reason, one of the inspectors -- we corrected that error. the department does not have any issues with the permit. president goh: just for clarification, the sperm that

has nothing to comply with it kolkhoz there is no notice of violation, it should probably not say that. president goh: thanks. 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 three or four times the was not resolved. >> because a veteran, you need egress from there. commissioner fung: one last

question. there appears to of been a number of complaints. i don't see a record of that, but the standard departmental procedure is when an inspector goes outut and looks at it? >> it gets a complaint number and investigate the best they can. the the right of for a violation or of the. -- abate it. they have all been abated for various reasons. that would have been a notice of violation. the are no active complaint at the moment. we've had a lot of complaints on it. commissioner garcia: the only one has to do with the window

being replaced without benefit of the permit? that's the -- >> yes. i'm not sure if we wrote about one up. there is a complaint made about it, but i don't know if there was a notice of violation. i did not have time to go through them all. it is a lot foof work going through each one. commissioner garcia: the record would not indicate a history or record of serial abuse of building codes? >> no, i wouldn't say so. i wouldn't say that. i don't think so. there are a lot of complaints. if someone thinks there is a lot more work done without a permit, we can go out there.

we have investigated 16 there already. president goh: any public comment? we will move into rebuttal. commissioner garcia: is your foot really hurt? or are you doing that% of the? -- for sympathy? >> i wouldn't go that far. this is fine, i've been sitting for awhile. >> unfortunately, making complaints and having a quick visit does not solve the

problem. the continue doing it and i was just trying to see if we could get something in place here tonight. one of the problems with shooting first and asking questions later, having someone beside you later is it is going to be difficult for someone to go back and try to figure out what the window was changed. whether the work was done to change the structure of the house. we're having to constantly be behind gears, if you will. that is why there are so many complaints. if there is a process by which the investigations of our complaint by the billing department not include

interviews with the owners or fixtures of what this place might have been, who is not the landowner. it is something that we are trying to avoid and not abuse. that is why the appeal tonight. to try to retain some order and right a ship. commissioner fung: you indicated that you or your client offered mediation. what kind? >> there are a lot of disputes, it might be outside the purview of this board. there is a lot of rambunctious behavior next door that we feel the new structure of the building foster's.