tv [untitled] July 2, 2011 9:30pm-10:00pm PDT
9:30 pm
is that flat? ok. >> someone did complain about this. it must have been a bad enough condition, but i don't think it is going to fall straight on the sidewalk. they said at 3 foot by 6 foot, and that would be quite a bit of stucco, if it fell. it is just the timing of the notice of violation and the timing of getting the permit, for years, and the work the department put into it. vice president garcia: thank you. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, we have three minutes of rebuttal. >> i am the appellant. the question is, if those windows were replaced at all, and i say they were not, we did not do the work. did anybody ever before do the work?
9:31 pm
i don't know how the inspector arrived at what he picked out when he looked at the pictures that they were replaced. therefore, and the amount of work stated on the permits this kind of arbitrary, $1,000. for what, to fix the stucco? ? and i have talked to the supervisor of the inspector, and he did not say anything that could be down further. that was in 2007. this is for years, five years later. commissioner fung: mr. von ucerkman, can you explain why you did not respond to the notice of violation for several years? >> yes, i went into the office and spoke to the supervisor of the inspector. commissioner fung: imn 2007. >> in 2007. commissioner fung: and?
9:32 pm
>> and i thought the matter was cleared up at that time. vice president garcia: if you thought it was cleared up, what caused you to go and get the permit to legalize it. >> i told him we did not do any window work and the stucco repair was so minor but that i would do it myself. -- that i would do with myself. >> the matter came up because there was a director's hearing. it was the code enforcement section at the directors hearing. we were under the impression it had been cleared. commissioner fung: 1 was the director's hearing? -- when was the director's hearing? >> may 12. commissioner fung: this year? >> of this year.
9:33 pm
vice president garcia: it seemed to me that you were saying it would have cost a lot less to repair the two windows and the stucco work than $1,000. >> i think he must have misunderstood. vice president garcia: i think i must have. >> it was the stucco work. vice president garcia: you know that the fine is based on what would have cost to pull the permits for the two windows. >> i understand. commissioner hwang: do you contest that $1,000 is excessive, the you dispute the fact that $1,000 is in excess of what it would cost to replace the windows and the stucco repair? >> no, i do not. commissioner hwang: how was it that you arrived at the conclusion that the matter had been resolved prior to the directors hearing? >> i asked for continuance. commissioner hwang: no, we heard
9:34 pm
testimony from a client that he had a conversation, and following the conversation it was his understanding that there was no further proceeding? i'd like to misspeak. -- i don't want to miss a beat. >> that was my understanding. commissioner hwang: and how did you arrive at that understanding? >> that is what the supervisor said. commissioner hwang: would you not expect something in writing? >> i know, i figured that the matter was so minor. i told him there were no windows replaced and the stucco work was taken care of. that is where we left it. commissioner hwang: who was the supervisor that you sit up to? -- that you spoke to? >> i don't recall. vice president garcia: and this conversation took place in 2007?
9:35 pm
>> in 2007. vice president garcia: thank you. >> mr. duffy, you have three minutes of rebuttal. nothing further? commissioners, unless you have questions for mr. duffy, the matter is submitted. commissioner hwang: i have a question for mr. duffy. if an inspector's notice of violation is disputed, an individual would come to the supervisor of that inspector's office, is it a practice where the department would or early resolve the issue without further paperwork? >> yes, i probably should have explained that. well, not always, but sometimes when they get these notices, they want to speak to the supervisor of the inspector that issued them. it happens quite a lot. sometimes they are abated if they are issued in error or they need to be amended or of the
9:36 pm
party needs to be amended, but that should have been a discussion with the senior building inspector and the property owner. i don't have any documentation to say that happened. i just have my complete data sheet that said it was the first notice of violation cent, and then the second notice of violation cent. normally, that discussion happens as soon as we issue the first notice of violation. if there was a discussion, maybe there was a misunderstanding between the property owner and what he heard, but we, the department, issued the second notice of violation. within about five weeks of the first one. i don't have anything here to say there was that discussion. but there is the possibility that he misunderstood it. commissioner hwang: thank you.
9:37 pm
commissioner fung: usually, i am very sympathetic to peddle the cases where the work was not done -- to penalty cases where the work was not done by the current property owner. unfortunately, in this particular instance, too much administrative work took place, and therefore i am not sure i would support the reduction to the minimum that is allowed, but i am willing to consider something in between. vice president garcia: i guess i am confused. we have an individual who worked for planning, and that does not mean necessarily that he would
9:38 pm
know about all the procedures at dbi, but what is continuing to confuse me, if i heard mr. dufty correctly, there was a notice of violation, and then five months later a second notice -- commissioner hwang: five weeks. vice president garcia: do we have the second notice of violation? or is the one before us the second? so the one we have is dated 5- 24-07. iok, so the first was on 4-5-07, and that is referred to in this one. i am sorry, i'm going to ask a question. so when your client went down to dbi and spoke with them, that would be between 4-5 and 5-24. or is that after 5-24?
9:39 pm
>> i don't know. >> to the best of my knowledge, it was after. i don't even recall the second notice. vice president garcia: so your testimony would be as far as you know, you only got one notice of violation. >> that is right. vice president garcia: okay, thank you. commissioner fung: you want a motion? vice president garcia: please. commissioner hwang: my inclination is more along the lines of commissioner fung, because of all the work the department went through and the two notices of violation. i am inclined to uphold the department. commissioner fung: i move to
9:40 pm
overrule the department and reduce the penalty to five times. based on that the work partially is fairly minor, but the fact that multiple notice of violations were issued and the administrative effort to do those require some compensation. commissioner peterson: i wonder if i could not add that the appellant testified that he thought the matter was debated in 2007. -- that the matter was abated in 2007. >> so the motion, commissioner fung, is to grant the appeal and
9:41 pm
reduced to five times the permit fee, based on the fact that the matter was minor and the opponent of the matter was resolved, but the department had significant efforts to resolve it. >> on that motion to reduce to five times, on that basis, as read into the record. [roll-call vote] >the vote is a three-one, reducd to five times. the charter requires four votes to modify and overturn a departmental action. absent another motion, this upon the will be upheld at nine times. -- this penalty will be upheld at nine times. commissioner fung: we do have an unwritten policy that if a
9:42 pm
fourth vote is required and we're missing one commissioner that we would continue this. i am not sure the public wants that. -- i am not sure that the public wants that. >> yes, we do. commissioner fung: okay, i am going to move that would continue this to, what would you suggest, madam director? >> i would say august 17 would be an excellent date, or august 10. any of the august meetings. commissioner fung: is the 17th of cakewalks >> thank you, commissioner, august 17 is fine. -- is the 17th ok? >> thank you, commissioner, august 17 is fine. >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to continue this matter to august 17, 2011.
9:43 pm
it is to allow president goh to participate in the vote. up on that motion -- [roll-call vote] thank you, the vote is 4-0, this matter is continued until august 17. thank you. >> thank you. move on to item number 6, appeal number 11-073, irene acosta against the department of building inspection, subject property 20 walter street, appealing the imposition of penalty for construction work done without a permit. and we will start with the appellant. hold on one minute, please. you will have seven minutes, as soon as the clark sets the timer. >> good evening.
9:44 pm
i am here to ask for a reduction of the work on this notice of violation. i had replaced windows so they could match the neighborhood without a permit. simply because when my dad was here last year, he had said we could change the windows when he died. a friend of mine in santa cruz owns a glass business, and he was asking if he could change the windows. i was like, i am not sure, but because my father passed away, since i was taking money out of my retirement plan because i am unemployed, i figured instead of paying several bills, i would go ahead and utilize him to do the job because he did not have any work. i even had to pick him up in santa cruz to do the worke. i did not know i had to get the
9:45 pm
work permit. i want to comply with the notice of violation and reduce it from, i was told nine times, to two times, because i understand i need it the permit, and i did not know what that time. -- and i did not know at that time. commissioner fung: is your friend still in business? >> yes. commissioner fung: have you gone after him for the permit cost? >> i spoke to him, but he got arrested for dui, so he just got out of jail a couple weeks ago and i owed him a balance of $400, but i cannot pay him. so i have not spoken to him. so, yes, i did, to answer your question. commissioner hwang: excuse me,
9:46 pm
why did you have your windows replaced? what was the point of it? >> i had been living in the house 20 years under my parents management, and i have two kids. when i moved from downstairs to upstairs, we did not have a heater. every winter time, the old windows were getting moldy. i did not find that safe, and it was really cold. so when my dad came home last year, i asked him. also, we got new tenants downstairs. they asked about the windows, and i enquired with my father, and he said yes. but he passed away in december. commissioner hwang: so you wanted to replace the windows because they were old, and that was it? and you wanted them to match your neighbors? is that we testified. >> when i changed the windows, a
9:47 pm
wanted single hong double pane because i knew it would insulate. most of my neighbors have vinyl or wood windows. i had aluminum ugly windows, so i figured i would match all of the neighbors. commissioner hwang: okay, so the window replacement was because she needed them to be replaced. it was not because there were damaged or broken or anything like that? i am just curious about the store. welcome all of the above. commissioner hwang: okay, got it. thank you. vice president garcia: was the appellant's time up? if you have anything to add, please go ahead. >> that is all. i want to comply, but i cannot afford. i am unemployed and i have a daughter who is a senior. i cannot afford it right now.
9:48 pm
or if i could have -- well, i cannot. so to reduce from nine times to two times, that would be great. i understand the violation. i just want to -- commissioner fung: thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy? >> i suppose the first question i was going to ask, is it ok to appeal the probably on the filed a permit? i was thought any should permit that we appeal to pummel the on. but we don't have a permit yet. we have an application that has gone through. i think they may have found out
9:49 pm
what the penalty is going to be, but the permit has not been issued. >> we have always allowed people on building permits to appeal prior to issuance for electrical and plumbing. for safety issues, you have to pay the penalty first, but historically, we have always allowed it pre-issuance. commissioner fung: i think before you issue the permit, the penalty has to be prepaid. >> yes, i was under the understanding that you appeal the public and then you pay it. maybe i read that on the back of the notice of violation. anyway, i think in this case, we are slightly different from the previous one. the notice of violation was given in april. april 5, 2011, and we issued the second notice on may 5, 2011. then within a week, the permit
9:50 pm
was filed. so we have referred it to code enforcement. the case has only just been received so it has not been set for a hearing and we have not spent a lot of time, as much time as we did on the previous one, so i would be in favor of reducing the probably, maybe not two times, but i don't think our department would have a problem with reducing it somewhat, maybe five times or something, but i think there should be a parody of some sort. i am available for energy -- there should be a penalty of some sort. i am available for any questions. >> ok, thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, you have three minutes rebuttal time. >> after meeting the planning department to go through the next process, i had to pay.
9:51 pm
when i went to the fifth store -- when i went to the frigid fifth floor, since my dad is the owner of the house and i am not a trusty, i had to track down my brother and sister to fill out the paperwork. while i was there, i asked if somehow i could go and get it reduced. i inquired about the second notice that was mailed to me on may fac5, which i filed may 4 ad it was not updated in the system yet. so why was in the process of doubling the pelmet -- the building permit, but i cannot pay that $2,300 for the violation. that is all. vice president garcia: did it you submit an invoice for the work that was done? or was this a case where that went by what is normal? >> no, because i had to get the building permit, had to go to
9:52 pm
the planning department and i had to pay, and then i had to go back to the building inspector. when i went back to the building inspector department, i asked to speak to mr. duffy, and their guy there said that if i wanted to appeal i needed to go to the board of appeals, so here i am. vice president garcia: i understand. i must have asked the question poorly. did you submit an invoice to show what the window cost to put in? >> they did not ask for it. vice president garcia: what did it cost you to replace it? >> it cost $5,000. their estimated cost was correct. but according to planning, i only needed to replace nine windows out of 11, because i replaced with a vinyl windows and they don't want vinyl windows. which i don't know the difference between vinyl windows
9:53 pm
and fiberglass, it looks the same. vice president garcia: that is another issue. you were saying that the windows that were replaced will have to be taken out and replaced with other windows because the final is not approved by planning? -- because of on the windows are not approved by planning? >> yes, a neighbor complained and said the windows were supposed to be wood. 80% of my neighbors who have replaced windows had vinyl. vice president garcia: that is a separate issue. my understanding is you either have to replace with wood or in kind. commissioner fung: yeah, but vinyl, and every instance you do not have to replace with wood.
9:54 pm
>> commissioners, good evening. i am with the planning department. the department maintains what has been characterized as a robust set of when the replacement guidelines, the actual methodology behind what particular window may be installed in a particular house varies by property and neighborhood. a very general goal of the when the replacement policy is to ensure that the replacement window is compatible with the original windows in the particular building, and secondarily what the neighborhood context. so if the appellate had wood double-hung windows when the building was constructed, in general terms, that would be the starting place for what the replacement window should be. vice president garcia: ok, even though the windows may have been
9:55 pm
at maysliders, it would have to go back to the original wood? >> in very broad terms, that would be correct, yes. >> anything further, mr. duffy? ok, commissioners, the matter is submitted. commissioner peterson: i have some sympathy for the appellant, being out of work, and i also think that she bit off more than she intended with replacement. so i would be supportive of production. commissioner fung: i am in agreement, and i think she will have bigger problems. vice president garcia: did you have -- commissioner fung: motion, unless there is further comment? i will move to accept the appeal and reduce the penalty to two times. >> which like to state the basis
9:56 pm
for the motion? commissioner fung: on the basis that she is unemployed. vice president garcia: if i could add to the reasoning, commissioner, i would support that, but the additional reason i would give it is the fact that she thought she was in the hands of someone familiar with construction, familiar with replacement windows, and relied upon that, and she was not aware that a permit had not been pulled or was told that one was not needed. >> on the basis she was relying on experienced contractor. vice president garcia: right. >> ok. if you could call the roll, please? >> the motion from commissioner fung to grant the appeal, reduced to two times the regular
9:57 pm
fee, on the basis that the appellant is unemployed and rick blight on an experienced -- and relied on an experienced contractor to pull the permit. on that motion -- [] [] [roll-call vote] thank you, the vote is 4-0, and the appeal is granted, the penalty is reduced to two times. >> item 7, appeal number 11-043, page group for says the department of boating inspection, subject property 1138-1140 page street, protesting the issuance on march 16, 2011 of a permit to alter a building. the addition and substantial alteration to existing two-story single-family dwelling the two- story vertical addition and horizontal addition at rear will result in four story for unit residential with mechanical,
9:58 pm
electrical, and plumbing included. this is for hearing today, and we will start with the appellant or their representative. please step forward. >> thank you, commissioners. i am here on behalf of the appellant, page group, llc, which owns the building directly adjacent to the affected property. i like to submit a letter from an adjacent property. a neighbor asked my client to please submit this to you. this is not from mosque, but it is from a neighbor. -- it is not from us, but it is from a neighbor. thank you. great, thank you.
9:59 pm
ok, that was the neighbor's time and not mine, right? thank you, ok. we are here before you on this appeal as a matter of personal and property safety, as well as the integrity of the building code and building permit process, and to deal with ongoing. negligence -- on going up. negligence and construction. a bit of background. last year, the former property owner of 1140 page applied to the building commission to extend the building vertically and horizontal lead to produce additional units. my client owns the building next store, but it next door, which is an 11-unit apartment
125 Views
IN COLLECTIONS
SFGTV: San Francisco Government Television Television Archive Television Archive News Search ServiceUploaded by TV Archive on