>> welcome back to the may 16 meeting curia we are calling

i'm prudent -- item number six. maria, 270 montana street. construction work done without a permit. application 6814. ruan hear from the appellate. please step forward. you will have seven minutes. >> you have to pull the microphone down to yourself. >> good evening. my name is maria cartagena and i am here for the resolution about my appeal. >> did you have any comments to make about the penalty? >> yes, because i have to pay

nine times for the violation. i have to pay nine times. if you can remove the penalty for me. >> y de want us to reduce the penalty? -- why do you want us to reduce the penalty? >> when i bought the house, it had a bathroom downstairs. this is the reason i bought it because we live up and down. this happened because my kids laughed -- left and i rent the apartment downstairs. i do not have any idea. >> you save this worked happen

before you bought the house? >> yes. >> anything else? thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners, the department received a complaint on the 10th of january 2011. mold is on clothing. we issued a notice of violation from housing inspection. then we have the first notice of violation, some correspondence with the owner, then we issued a

second notice because we had been asking for a permit to be applied for. that did not happen. eventually we did have a permit application in 2012. that permit got issued and there was a nine times penalty. we are asking that the cat on the permit because of the notice of violation. we would respect any changes from the board but we would ask it be kept. >> and do we know whether or not the fact that to be a first was not abated had anything to do with a language barrier? >> i do not know anything about that.

any more questions? >> ms. cartagena, you have any -- one moment. is there public comment? please step forward. >> you have to pull the microphone. cause i am worried about the money. i had no idea you had to pay a lot of money for the permit. i got into an accident. my kids before my mortgage. this is the reason i cannot do that. i cannot fix anything that year.

>> thank you. >> mr. duffy? commissioner, the matter is submitted. >> can i ask one more question of mr. duffy? were you able to see the unit? and you have a sense of when it was constructed? >> i do not see that on the notice of violation. they said when they were when -- when they went they saw this illegal units. i did notice from the property profile that the owner -- >> it is conceivable it was not there. >> she said when she bought it, thinking her family was going to move in downstairs. when they moved out, they rented

it out. it probably was there before she got it sure it -- bought it. >> the penalty is $2,000. and my looking at the right information? -- am i looking at the right information? >> it is nine times on the value. i believe that was -- i have that here. it should say a penalty fee. >> that is nine times what? >> based on the building code,

the nine times penalty. if you came into a permit for $25,000, you would multiplied duffy by nine times. -- multiplyin the fee by nine times. it is to remove the legal kitchen, the cooking facilities, and legalize the rooms for habitation. she would have to hire an architect. shall have to show that on the plains. -- she will have to show that on the plans. >> in cases where the owner has purchased a property where work was done prior to ownership, what is your ruling on that normally? >> the department's or mine?

i will give you the department. in the san francisco building code, if you brought in documentation that you did not do the work, there was an allowance. that has been taken out of our c be in the code that you could get a break if you prove you did not to the work and you did not own the property. it is not in our code anymore. the department would say you would have to pay the penalty and bring it to the port -- board of appeals to get it repealed. the director made that change. >> i can guess what your personal and -- >> 0 little more compassionate. >> it is either nine times or two times. >> mr. duffy, for the next time, the surcharges, are they fixed? or a function of the total

amount? or is that fixed regardless what the penalty is? >> i do not know the answer to that question. surcharges are part of every permit. are you asking if the surcharge is part of -- because of the penalty? >> if the amount is greater, is a fixed amount? >> i would imagine it goes by the value of the work. >> not the board of appeals a surcharge. >> i understand that. >> in just clarifying. >> i could research and get back to you. there is a detailed, there are a lot of surcharges now.

tc, school boards. they aren't part and parcel of building permits. -- are part and parcel of building permits. >> commissioners, the matter is yours. >> i accepted the explanation, the fear of the process and the accident she was involved in and i would move to reduce the penalty to the minimum we can, two times. >> that is a motion to grant the appeal and reduced the penalty? that would require four votes. >> on that motion from

commissioner fung to to reduce the penalty to two times the regular fee. president garcia: aye. vice president hwang: aye. commissioner hurtado: aye. >> the appeal is granted. the penalty is reduced. >> we will call the next item. david cincotta at 1858 greene street protesting the issuance on march 15, 2012 to alter a building. work approved under the application 880493 two. to renew expired permit for final inspection. this is on for a hearing today. we will start with the appellant, mr. cincotta. you have seven minutes.

>> hello, my name is david cincotta. i am here on behalf of the family. as i mentioned in my brief, i will not try to cover everything, but he bought the property at 1864 in 1868. this was for his entire family to live, at three of his daughters. the first thing i want to say is that i am only going to talk about this permits and the safety issues with regard to this permit. i am not going to talk about another lawsuit. it is true that they did file a lawsuit against my client. this case has nothing to do with this one. nothing that happens in that

case will affect that permit. they are totally unrelated. the only issue i am here talking about is safety issues. because i am not in the practice of filing spurious appeals, before i file this appeal i contacted the building inspection and talk to the inspector to find out what was going to happen with this permit. a conversation i had was not reassuring. it was his understanding that the work had already been done back in 1988 and they were going to come out and walk around it determined the work had been done and sign it off. that was not reassuring because, as i said, my client has a great -- put in a great deal of money and time to put in his family. we were concerned about that.

earlier i had a conversation with mr. duffy which gave me more comfort because he explained the level of detail that may be required. i believed we would need to be focused on what has to be done with this permit that is now 25 years old. i want to also make it clear this is not about permit issues with regard to co-matter is that do not apply to the safety issues -- code matters that do not apply to the safety issues. there is a raving that does not have the proper spacing but it is only unsafe to the lees. i do not care. they can do with it. that is not why i am here. the second issue is the matters

that have already been determined to be safe. i even mentioned that it looks like the sprinkler issue that was raised was eventually signed off. i am also not concerned about the illegal window that is there now. it was not done appropriately but what to the window does, we're saying that the fact it was not done properly, it did not have the required documentation, is evidence of why the work was not inspected. we have a job card that shows a number of things were never inspected. we are concerned with final inspections for fire,

mechanical, electrical, and seismic. those are the things that would impact my client. we are concerned that the department makes an inspection of those things. we understand that the code was not done properly back in 1988. if it was not done, we would like it to be brought to the current codes which mr. duffy assures me what happened. -- would happen. i do not want to get into all of the other things, the large package received from the lee's attorney. i know the reputation of the contractor and the architects, i consider a friend. but in my communications and the information i received, nobody

was responsible for making sure it was signed off. one explanation i got was this happened around the time of the earthquake. things were confusing. who knows what was signed off on. we feel this should properly be signed off. there is always the argument that the department is going to do this anyway. why have the appeal? i look at it the other way. if the apartment is going to do this -- department is going to do this, why don't we give the added focus this board can give it an emphasize this building -- and emphasize this building has to be inspected. i am asking that this board adopted the permit that will say they will do with a thorough

inspection of mechanical, electrical, seismic, and fire safety hazards. i am available to answer your questions. i think that is all. i do not want to keep you later than i have to. >> what would you have, what process would you have them go through? >> i am asking for an inspection of all the matters related to the issue. >> this is underscoring what might happen anyway? >> making sure that it is done properly. because this was not the impression i got from my initial discussion with the department. maybe other people understand this better than the inspector spoke to. he signed it off thinking that he was told all the work was done and all we need to do was a

final inspection. that was 25 years ago. >> mr. williams? >> good evening, president garcia, members of the board. i am steve williams and i represent ben lee and his family. i was confused by the presentation as the president of the board was. this is to renew avery expired permit for work already completed. the department does thousands of these a year. the appeal is based on a selective reading of the document out of the file. he skips over the ones that show that the work was done and put in and focuses somewhere in 1989

on items that were done halfway through the process. that is the basis of the appeal in front of you. the appeal itself stopped them from obtaining what they want, a final inspection. for him to say they want to delay the private -- process, come on. it is an administrator permit of work previously completed. this happened during the time of the earthquake. who knows what happened with the final appeal. if you took that time to go through all of the paper work in front of you, what you have is a project that was completed. the lee's hired some of the best people in town to do this.

it looks great. they obtained six permits for this job and a five of them were signed off as final. if you look at the paper work, you have 5 final permits in front of you. the only one that is not final is the site permit or the building permit. exhibit h, the fire suppression system, which was designed by an engineer, and that is signed off as final. electrical was final. the plumbing is final. the gas fixture -- those permits were all signed off as as final. the basis of the appeal is a complaint based on fire safety. the appeal claims there were

fire safety issues that were overlooked. this is incorrect from the paperworks the appellant put in, which is exhibit h. the lee's applied for a separate permit by a separate engineer. they had a separate contract with him, which i brought if anybody wants a copy. all you have to do is go online to see that permit was completed sure yet anybody can go online. it shows it was signed off may 21, 1990, was when the fire safety permit was completed if you walk through the dates in the other permits, this is when the entire final review and inspection were given.

if you look at the job card for the main permit, exhibit b, submitted by the appellate, the last page of exhibit b, which is the job inspection card. that tells you exactly what happened the day by day. these seven items are enumerated. the fireplace is not in yet. that is where the appeal stops. it skips over the next entry which says that items one and threw six were ok. he checked off six of the items. it ignores the fact that in many 1990 -- may 1990, there was

a walk through. that is what happens on every job. the inspector comes with his list of items that need to be finalized and that is when the final inspection was done. andy is crystal clear he has never had a job in town that was never finalized. all of the other permits that i have a name, if you look at the job card, they were all finalized. somehow this one did not receive the final inspection. it is not an unusual circumstance. it is merely an administrative snafu. many of those are done. the window. notwithstanding the contract to legalize the window, it is in the approved plans. look at page 6.