sorry, 38 windows. so, i guess that would be 20 windows that are at the rear of the building or other places on the building that could be approved,v but we cannot do the 18 windows, approve the 18 windows on the front. and in regards to other properties in the neighborhood not having compliant windows, i've reviewed the properties that were provided by the appellant and did not find building permits for those windows as well. i would note that the residential design guidelines, the most recent version adopted in 2003, and the window replacement standards were adopted in 2005. so, certainly there could have been windows that were replaced prior to to updating our guidelines. they were approved by the building department. we are approving by the current laws and current guidelines. in reviewing this, we cannot approve the windows unfortunately. and generally we would request wood windows. that can be a costly

alternative for people, so, we do -- can approve alternative. there could be fiberglass clad or i think also [speaker not understood] clad windows, but we would need to see a sample of those in order to ensure they were compliant or compatible with the building. so, with that the department respectfully requests that the board uphold the denial of the subject building permit application. certainly i guess an option for the board would be to -- you know, maybe overturn the denial for at least the windows of the rear so they can allow the windows of the rear. certainly we would request that the board uphold our denial of the 18 windows in the front of the building. and i'm available for any questions. >> go ahead. >> how did this come to the attention of the department in the first place? >> [speaker not understood]. i'm assuming there was a complaint from a member of the public about a window replacement without permit.

that led to dbi issue of notice of violation and that led to the property owner doing the right thing to come in for a permit to legalize the situation. however, we were unable to legalize it because the contractor that the property owner hired did not install compatible windows. >> and i think there is reference to a fine. is that something that is imposed by dbi or -- >> yes. they were probably assessed a fee. the board does hear these kinds of appeals for penalty. it goes up to nine times for [speaker not understood]. i don't know if they assessed the nine times penalty fee on this permit or not. >> mr. duffy like to speak on this or -- >> no. >> so -- >> [speaker not understood] there is no easy answer to it. that's all i have for mr. sanchez. anyone? >> i have a question. so, there were in this exhibit, do you have a copy of this? >> yes. >> the papers. >> yes. >> can you address that all

these others have windows that are probably not -- i mean, i'm not -- >> i appreciate -- >> not knowing anyone else is here, i don't know how old the buildings are. whether they would require -- >> i did a permit review and did not see permits. i think the issue is these were done without permits. i would be sending a list to the department of building inspection of properties that did not obtain the proper permits for the window replacement. >> got it, thank you. so, they'll be treated in the same manner. >> yes. >> thank you. >> absolutely. >> mr. duffy? >> commissioners, the department did receive a complaint on that. we opened a complaint on the 29th of may 2009. i see a notice of violation -- that's what i'm looking at here anyway. we did issue a notice of violation.

we waited until 2012 for some reason. but an open complaint with this department states construction work was done without a permit, site inspection revealed that windows were replaced without the benefit of permit. as you heard, the windows maintained by the [speaker not understood] from the front are visible from the street. we did -- it was a nine times penalty of $6,000 on that. i do not know, maybe the applicant would know if he paid the fee or not. it may have been paid into the department. sometimes we lower those and the department -- i didn't get the fees for the permit. this is, as mr. sanchez said, really unfortunate. i hate to see these come into the building department. these people have hired someone. they've taken out the old windows to put in these new windows, and guess what? now they have to take the new windows out and put in a window that meets the planning code. so, it's really a double-whammy. it's really hard. but, you know, it really does

-- these window contractors need to secure the permits with the city. it's probably good salesmen and the work is done on the weekend or something like that. and the other buildings that mr. sanchez talks about, if we receive the addresses and we know just like any building if there is no permit history and we notice the windows are pretty new, they're all going to get probably a notice of violation with a nine times penalty as well unless they can produce a permit. so, it's a tough one. i know. >> if a permit was issued, they still don't meet the guidelines, then there is still an unresolved issue there, right? >> [speaker not understood] the permit. >> the permit is disapproved, planning code did not approve the permit because it was for vinyl windows when the planning department saw the permit when they were getting to comply with the violation, they said, no, you can't have vinyl windows in the front. >> the assumption is it wasn't applied for? >> it wasn't applied for. we wouldn't have written the violation in the first place.

i saw another building like this, i think it was out in the richmond district, where the people were prepared to take the windows out. we give them a little bit more time than normal on the permit. for some reason we were able to lengthen it to three years instead of one year so they can do 20 windows in the front of the building instead of 18. they can do maybe five a year. that is not as big a financial impact. so, something like that. but that is just an idea that i came up with. >> okay. is there any public comment? seeing none, then, mr. tse, you have three minutes of rebuttal. so, my parents putting in the original windows was already a deep financial hardship for them. i mean, they actually are on a fixed income. my dad has astronomical medical bills every month.

and, so, this, just taking the windows out again and replacing the windows again would be a very difficult financial hardship for them. i know i've only provided 19 different examples in addition to my parents' building of buildings that did the same thing with the front of their facade by replacing the windows. i could have walked another two hours and got you another 20. i mean, i can walk the city and i can get you hundreds. i've driven by different buildings and i see the similar architectures. and with the same type of windows. so, i mean, my parents are asking why are they being singled out? i mean, i don't know the 19 examples that i've shown, if all of them don't have a permit. but if any of them were approved in the past, then i feel like my parents are being singled out that their building isn't being approved because of new guidelines.

so, once again, i hope that you take that into consideration and overturn the denial. >> we have a couple questions. how long have your parents owned the billion? they owned it for a little bit over 30 years. >> okay. and they currently live there, right? yes, my parents live in one of them. >> dwellings? yes. >> are they rented out? yes. and that's their only source of income. >> and they have rented it out for 30 plus years, so, it's probably paid for, right? yes. there are some tenants in there that have been there longer than my parents. >> and regards to the penalty that was imposed, have you guys paid that penalty -- we never got to that point because in order for us to pay the penalty, they told us that the permit would have to be approved first. >> so, over the course of 30 years -- well, first of all, just backing up, the window contractor they hired, do you

know if that person was licensed? i'm not sure because my parents were the ones that contacted him. and like i said, they found him from a chinese newspaper. >> right. can you find out? because i'm assuming if this person is a person that caused the problems -- i can ask my parents to get the information from the person. >> the other question i have is the rental property that's this old, 30 years with tenants, i would assume they know how to -- if they needed to do any repairs, pull a permit to do so, right? they've never -- like i said, they've always contacted a contractor and the contractor has always taken care of all the issues for them in the past. i don't know if they realize that when replacing the windows actually required a permit at that point when they it was done. and the contractor assured them that they would take care of -- that he would take care of all the issues.

>> thank you. >> i have a question for mr. sanchez. thank you. i don't know, it's kind of following up on the president's questions, which are is there a permit history for this building? have other permits been pulled before in the last few years? >> scott sanchez, planning department. just from the records i have here, there are only three permits on file. there's one from this one which is on appeal. there is one from 2006 for reroofing, which is showing it was issued, but not completed. and then there is one from 1992 which just says building use apartment. so, maybe that was some kind of clarification record, but there are no other building permits that i see in our system for this. >> okay, thank you. >> thanks. if i could. my rebuttal. >> yes. >> scott sanchez, planning department.

>> you have more to say? >> yes. >> now it's rebuttal opportunity. >> there is not that much more to add. i think this is an unfortunate situation. we cannot only approve the windows that are not visible from the front facade. so, from the front public right-of-way, there are 18 bin doze from the front. in particular the bay windows character features being rounded and it should have the rounded glass in that as well. ~ windows i understand the concerns about the enforcement issues and again we will take the [speaker not understood] and refer those to the department of building inspection for enforcement. in regards to, you know, our requirements we stine verithctionvly enforce the window replacement requirements for years. the current residential guidelines go back to 2003. so, i think we've been very conservative and very consistent in our enforcement of window replacement requirements.

it is an unfortunate situation the property owner obtained a contractor that did not retain permits. if that contractor is [speaker not understood] the slide rule. i don't know what recourse they have in trying -- it sounds like this is done several years ago now. if they can find that contractor and try to get some compensation from them for replacement of these windows. but that seems like the best course of action for the property owner to pursue. we'd hate to get into the circumstance of having people circumstance um navigate the planning review process. dork work without permit and installing windows that are not code com politev, appealing the board of appeals hoping the matter will get turned over so they can have the window replacement that doesn't meet our requirement. >> right. >> i'm available for any questions. >> thank you. >> and, so, once they say they agree to replace the windows with code compliant windows, then they would still be subject to a penalty? >> i believe that there would be a penalty.

maybe mr. duffy can speak to that. there may be some discretion on their part to reduce it. i think it can be reduced to no less two times when it comes before the board of appeals. i don't know if the department of building inspection can have that discretion. mr. duffy could speak to what they can offer in the reduction of the penalty. >> mr. duffy? >> i mean, given the circumstances of what happened and i mean, what would the building department -- [speaker not understood]. i would be definitely sympathetic to the penalty. i would say our director, i'm sure, people above me would be as well. it's just, as i said, it's unfortunate that a contractor sells the job and the permit doesn't come into the equation, you know. it just calls -- we would definitely -- we would say we could reduce it to two times and maybe reduce the amount as well. so, i could work with the permit applicant to do that --

the property owner to do that when they come in for the permit. that would be something we would did. it's a matter of writing to us and explaining that again at that time whenever that is. it's no problem. i mean, i will do that. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i don't think we have much choice in this. and what i'd like to do is figure outweighs to sort of ease the pain because i do believe that the appellant was a somewhat unwiting victim. so, i don't know. i'd like to factor in the windows that mr. sanchez says could go without being replaced. i'd like to factor in the timing required for them to replace the remaining windows. and then whether it's within our purview or building department's to reduce the penalty to the least possible amount. so, i'm not sure -- >> the penalty is not at issue

right now. >> okay. >> we can leave that to the building department. [multiple voices] >> having said those other two things, i don't know, then, whether i'm upholding the appeal denial -- >> you'd be granting the appeal and issuing the permit on whatever conditions you would wish. >> right, okay. >> that's what the condition would be, to allow the -- to strike the windows at the front, but allow the windows at the rear. >> right, as approved by the planning department. and then also to allow them the kind of maximum flexibility in term of the timeline for replacing those that need to be replaced. >> scott sanchez, planning department. so, just to kind of clarify, it would be denial of window replacement that is visible from public right-of-way. and then in terms of timing, i

don't know, it's quite on the scope of this permit, but certainly our department would be willing to work out a timeline with them and the department of building inspection i know would as well, to allow them to come into compliance before pursuing further enforcement. so, i don't know that that's to say [speaker not understood] on appeal, but the departments do offer that to the board. >> that is just the one issue about those that need to be replaced. >> so, possibly you could, as mr. sanchez just said, condition the permit so that the scope of work would be revised to strike the replacement of all windows visible from the public right-of-way. any other comments? >> i mean, just so the tse family understands, we're kind of caught between a rock and a hard spot here. we can't set a precedent here.

so, what we're trying to do is the best thing we can possibly -- i understand. you know, my parents are in a difficult situation as well. so, we appreciate any -- anything you can do for them. and stretching out the timeline would definitely help them out in terms of the financing the new windows. >> sure. if it's any consolation, you heard mr. sanchez say that they will investigate the other windows that you pointed out. >> you won't be singled out. thank you. >> ready? >> in prior decisions we've used the word facade. is that not okay with the planning department? to strike the windows on the facade, is that what you were saying? >> scott sanchez, planning. the guidelines state that windows that are visible from a public right-of-way have to be

compatible. whereas the windows that are not visible from the public right-of-way, so, those that would be -- >> it would include windows on the side possibly. >> a corner property, something like that. just generally it's fair to say from the public right-of-way. >> okay. so, then the motion is from vice president lazarus to overrule this denial and issue the permit on condition that the scope of work be modified to strike the windows visible from the public right-of-way. yes? on that motion to overrule and issue this permit with that modified scope, commissioner fung is absent. president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? aye >> aye. >> and commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4 to 0.

the denial is overruled with this modified scope. thank you. >> okay, then, we'll move back to item number 8 and see if the parties are in the room. we will call appeal number appeal no. 13-001, geraldine rosen vs. department of building inspection. properties at 1041 shrader street, protesting the issuance on december 20, 2012, to laura and dave brown, permit to alter a building (add crickets to rear of house for proper roof drainage). this is application no. 2012-12-20-666 4, and we will hear from the appellant. ~ good evening again, president hwang, commissioners. ryan patterson for appellant, building resident. my client has just retained me and, so, i'm getting up to speed as quickly as i can.

i'm going to make a few important points and then ask you for a continuance until the next meeting so that we have time to continue our settlement negotiations and hopefully reach an agreeable solution between the parties. i understand that the owners are very eager to get this behind them and want this resolved tonight. however, for the reasons i'll go into in a second, we simply need a little bit of time most importantly to see the plans at issue. i understand that it has not been submitted to the board. >> mr. patterson, if you could hold on. am i continuing the 7 minutes or are you requesting a rescheduling? in which it would be a separate issue. however you prefer. >> you are requesting a continuance. let's do it the continuance time period. >> two minutes on the continuance? >> yes. may i ask if that continuance is denied, will we --

>> then you have -- yes. thank you very much. >> two minutes first side only on the continuance issue. thank you. >> there we go. so, on the point of continuance alone, we request continuance firstly because my clients did not receive proper notice under section 311 and has therefore not had an opportunity to review the plans submited to the city. i understand also that the board of appeals has not received plans from the permit holder. and i think it's critical in this case this board have a chance to see these plans. there is an issue as to whether my client's adjoining window which has been completely sealed off, was shown in those plans. and whether the planning department actually took proper procedures to give notice. i don't want to take up too much more time on the continuance request. >> have you asked the permit holder if they would be --

i've asked and they are not amenable to it. >> okay, thank you. go forward. just as a last point, i do think there is a real possibility of coming to a solution here. just in the hallway, the permit holder's architect mentioned that she would have to speak with her contractor to see if this possible solution would work. i would love to have that happen and see if it works. and if not, we can come back and resolve this at the next meeting. i'll yield the rest of my time. thank you. >> okay. we can hear from the permit holder's representative now. hi, i'm bonnie bridges and i'm with [speaker not understood] bridges architecture. so, i have two minutes to talk about the continuance? >> yes. we are not in favor of a continuance. we would really like to come to a compromise solution tonight.

primarily because this has been going on for awhile and we all want to move on and do what we do as architects, which is design thing rather than act like lawyers. ~ the permit that was applied for on december 20th was for a cricket so that we could get proper roof drainage off of the rear gable roof on the subject property. the cricket required a supporting parapet wall. outreach was done to the neighbors. compromise solutions were presented and rejected. the window in question is a nonconforming illegal condition. a nonfire rated window and the property line wall that serves a toilet room. the only protected property

line windows are to the only source of light and air to ahab itable space. we have offered a compromise solution of a skylight. it was rejected. the suggested compromise that we had in the hallway, i just reviewed with the contractor. unfortunately that will not work. it will create a substandard detail condition prone to leaking in the future. therefore, we request the board to deny continuance. >> [speaker not understood], i know at one time my family consulted with ms. bridges as did i personally. it is in no way going to affect my ability to -- >> five years ago? >> it was awhile ago. but also my mom. >> i'm sorry?

>> my mother. >> consulted with you? >> yes. so i have to disclose that as well. >> and your brother and mother? >> yes, right. so, but i have a question about your continuance objection. did you submit -- you did not submit drawings. >> complete oversight on my part. we may have to do a continuance. otherwise, i have been here on my iphone and i can put them on the screen. and i shared them with the defendant in the hallway. and all of the information included in our brief is taken from the set of drawings, the two details in the brief. >> all right, that was all. i just wanted to make sure. okay. >> you can sit down.

>> i think looking at the drawings would be informative. and, so, hence not having them to, to review prior would kind of handicap our decision. and, so, i would say that to offer a continuance and that the drawings be provided for us to look at. >> i agree. >> i agree. i also want to say that the decision by the appellant to retain an attorney at the 11th hour for me is not a factor, even though it was put out there as a reason for a continuance. so, if we're doing it on the basis of not having a plan, i will vote for it. >> do you have a motion, commissioner? and if you do, pick a date.

we just want to make sure we call for public comment. >> right. >> if there is going to be a motion made, we need to do that. so, is there any public comment on the question of this continuance? okay, none. so, go for it. i think you stated that you would move to continue based on the fact that we don't have a plan -- the plans weren't submitted and the plans would be informative for our decision. >> would that be the basis of the continuance? >> yep. >> how about picking a date? >> i would suggest you say march 20th. that was what was requested. >> okay. so, i make a motion to continue this case till march 20th because or due to receiving the plans so that we may better --

better information. >> okay. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to reschedule this matter to march 20th. the hearing has not been held, there will be a full hearing march 20th and it's to allow time for the permit holder to submit the approved plans. no additional briefing, just the approved plans, correct? >> correct. >> okay. on that motion to reschedule to march 20th, commissioner fung is absent. president hwang? >> aye. >> and commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> and vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4 to 0. this meeting is scheduled to march 20th for the submittal of the approved plans. thank you. >> there is no further business before the board. >> we are adjourned. [adjourned]