this might not be a satisfactory arrangement of least have supported party and the use of j c c four showering purposes. the bathroom is completed. maybe you would be able to do that without this board having to close. >> i concur. i think a two week extension only does more harm than good here. >> i doubt if this board can force you to do that. would you step up -- are you willing to extend that? >> absolutely without

reservation. >> i think that would do more for the palette than harm. >> thank you, sir. >> i think some of these questions are more rent questions and the board of appeal questions. >> is very motion? >> i will move to uphold. >> the motion is to uphold, permit number 2011-5-12th on the basis that the project complies with the code. >> yes. >> before we do that, madam

director, do we need to take an action on five-to be before we vote on this? >> we can do it separately. ok, so we have a motion. please call the roll. >> the motion is to uphold the permit on the basis that this complies with the code. on the motion, -- >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> aye. >> the vote is 5-0. the permit as of health. >> we have item 5b to grapple with.

>> we have a filly to prosecute, we can dismiss. the appellant did not show. we heard from mr. duffy that the department is to do something with the permit and can provoke it. i am satisfied with that. >> if you choose to overturn the department, the pilot would have -- >> my concern about this is that this would be the one-year statute that they cannot be applied. it seems cleaner since we have heard from mr. duffy then they need to do something with the apartment. i don't know if that is agreeable to the other commissioners?

>> i will make a motion. >> might give the permit holder an opportunity to speak. >> certainly. >> my comment is that it is not our intention to do any more work than is permitted. there is a separate permit under this application for the heaters in unit 358. there is at least one other permit that has been pulled under this application. we have been working within the rules, even though the application itself might be broad.

i'm committed to make sure the paperwork is right. it is our belief that the work itself has been done under the permit has been permitted. >> i think that mr. epstein is referring to maybe plumbing permits. those are fine. i don't have any issues. of a flight to work to figure out each notice of violation to see if it would be ok to go ahead. during my research, i saw that it could not do it on this permit. it will probably mean another permit to to leak from the scope of this permit. there is no it the way to do this without revoking. i don't want to revoke it, i would rather clean it up a little bit like getting a

permit that takes some of these items of, which i think would be acceptable to mr. epstein. >> there is another option, mr. dufty, that we continue this case if we can modify the permit. perhaps we should continue this and have you provide the direction that the department requires. of i am sure that there are elements of the work which needs to be finished for other tenants and perhaps then clean up the paperwork through the modification of this board. >> the board would issue the permit. >> we would condition the existing permit. >> it sounds like the board which a strike all ordinance except for the bathroom in

model. is that acceptable? >> a rather it was comprehensive. perhaps there are items there veto about that needs to be done, otherwise there are other tenants? >> you would run into a lot of work if the violation is there. some of it would be ok if what i know this is quite a lot of violations that would not be covered under this from the foot that is not a solution. >> that way we can clean this up. >> that does not affect this plumbing permits. i think we would like to go ahead with the bathroom remodels, which is final, and then the logical permits which are fine, and then take all of the notices of violation of this permit. >> when you are going through line by line, can you add something about the lead paint

abatement? >> i would like to contact our housing inspections. we want to make sure that the contractor does comply. >> is very motion? >> i want to be perfectly clear. >> there are probably appropriate portions that we don't want to delay for a different tenant. if we continue this, would that

delayed the ability to do that work? >> yes, we can finish the remodel on the bathroom. >> what problems do we present to you if we uphold the permit? >> i could take other action later. the permit has not had a final inspection. there is the effort to remove some of them and to revise his permit and to delete the scope of work and some of the violations. >> or, we could modify this permit right now by deleting all references to the mou. >> i could explain what the proper permits are. he has the proper permits. there is even a notice of violation on here that has been

available. this is a badly written permit. >> ok. >> is that mr. sanchez's faults. >> not tonight. >> is there any public comment? ok. >> i will move to uphold the permit -- excuse me, grant the appeal. >> mr. duffy has made reference to the stairs and that is a separate permit. actually on the application, it refers to the violation to look

at that particular application. what i would ask the board to do would be to deny the appeal and to give mr. duffy and i the opportunity to sit down. i can give you my pledge of good faith. i don't think that they have had any problems dealing with me. this will allow us to move forward without concerns over what exactly it is that the board has told us that we cannot do. >> he is constrained about figuring out what has been done rather than trying to figure it out. that is my concern. thank you. >> is any rebuttal from you? >> i think we're done.

>> this was simply require a continuance. >> we to hold to other tenants in the building because there is work that could be done. unless we can go over it, i would be voting blindly. this seems like mr. duffy is uphold in the arrangement. >> i would personally be more comfortable with that. >> i am comfortable with the concept. >> the council for the permit holders suggested that we deny the permit.

>> i would say to uphold and go forward. >> , the comment that was made is that he felt very comfortable that is dealing with the permit, things that might not be in the permit. nothing will be strapped on the rug by doing that.

-- swept under the rug by doing that. christ can we hear from the permit holder what particular work would present a safety issue if this has been allowed to continue for two weeks? >> the issues that i'm concerned with are that there are some steps in the back stairs that need to be repaired prior to the actual demolition and replacement stairs because they create an immediate health and safety issue. there are plumbing issues that are being dealt with which create the same issues. there are also heat issues. there are two units.

as a matter of fact, the person who is appealing is simply wanting to put in heaters for the unit. the heat in her unit would be affected, particularly in 356, which was done by the first contractor. that is the list as it comes to me right now. >> if the board believes is permit was issued in error, there are aspects that don't comply with the code, i would recommend not approving it. once the board approves it, that approves a permit.

this is lawful and allowed under the permit, it might be preferable. >> if i had five minutes, i think that he could get through each violation and agreed to remove them from the permit. there are some that we can keep on their probably. >> i was about to suggest that we take a break after this case. why don't we do that and give you a chance to have a conversation. >> i thought that we should not go ahead with this permit with the references to the violations.

>> i was calling to suggest a break. might we break for 10 minutes and returned to this case. 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 exting 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.