a massage business at the establishment property admitted a violation of the code. the planning department issued a notice of enforcement to the property owner indicating that due to the established violations of article 29 of the health code, any subsequent applications to establish a massage business are property cannot be approved pursuant to planning code section 202(a) 4. it's important to note this is not a formal notice of violation and it cannot be appealed. a formal notice of violation could not be issued in this case because the actions ceased at that point. the owner was informed a letter of determination could be requested. the property owner did request that on june 25 of 2017, and on december 12, 2017. the zoning administrator issued the letter of determination

with the following conclusion: based on the information provided in the request for a letter of determination, as well as review of the permit and enforcement history for the property, the massage establishment on the property was found to be in violation of article 29 of the health code. as such, a message establishment is found to be operated under 202(a) 4. it should be found in violation of this code and will be subject to enforcement as provision 176 of the planning code for three years following closure of a massage establishment for violations of this code or the health code, no new massage establishment shall be approved at the site where the former massage establishment was closed. so -- and he goes onto say that this was abundantly clear that a violation was conducted here at the site which then

triggered this relevant section of the planning code which then automatically triggers the three year ban. that concludes my presentation. i'm available for any questions you may have. i'd also note my colleagues from the department of public health are also here to answer any questions you may have. >> so i do have a question and i don't know to whom to address it, so i'll start with you. it strikes me that the ban should be on the operator of the massage establishment, not the owner of the property. and so what icon concluded that the owner of the business can go and start another massage business anywhere? >> so the department of public health regulates the operators. they -- and for a variety of types of businesses. they grant and deny licenses for specific operators, and they can respond to what this agreement and what the violation could have meant for

that( specific operator. generally, all issues relating to the planning code fall down to the property owner. the way the code is written, this section, it is clear if this operation occurs in violation of the code, then that land use is not permitted for three years on that property. >> okay. >> so -- so -- so basically saying that the owner of the property has a responsibility to be cognizant and -- and therefore responsible for the activities of his tenant? and that's basically -- i mean, if you're going to take that position, that's what you're saying, 'cause i had the same question commissioner lazarus has. why should the property owner be punished for what the operator does? but what you're saying is that the property owner has a

responsibility to understand the activities of the operator and if the operator is operating illegally, it's the responsibility of the building owner to know that and take action on that or inform the operator that -- go on the record that the operator's being a bad person. >> the property owner is responsible for violations and the operator may be responsible for ceasing whatever the violation is that's occurring. but issues related to penalties and so forth, whatever they may be, whether they're administrative fines or in this case, a particular ban, those do fall to the property and the property owner. this does come up, you know, because this is the framework for all of our enforcement. generally, we do not regulate -- the planning code does not regulate operators or particular businesses or people, it regulates the land of which the property owner is primarily responsible. other departments do licensing, where it gets into the actions

and responsibilities of specific businesses and operators. >> so had -- >> so these questions, really, are directed -- should be directed to public health because they're not making the determination that something untoward happened. they're accepting that something happened from the sister agency. >> i'm not questioning whether -- i'm not questioning whether public health was wrong in taking their action. i'm making the assumption that public health was correct in making their -- >> no, i'm not saying either way, i'm just saying -- >> then my follow up question, therefore, 'cause we deliberate this, i think, appropriately later. my follow up question, mr. teague, therefore is had the property owner known -- i'm going to go on the side of the property owner right now, just for argument's sake. had the property owner known

that there was a -- an inappropriate activity or a breaching of -- of laws or -- >> public health? >> or public health occurring at the property and had gone to his tenant and said you should be behaving better because i know you're breaking the law, and that tenant still continued to break the law, then, the property owner still gets hammered. >> potentially, and again, there is potential recourse in, you know, the private sector in the sense that any tenant who's violating local ordinances and laws is most likely violating their lease and so their issues and there are options there for recourse. but i can't speak to the exact scenario under which the owner would be involved or not involved, and when that would

result in a violation of the health code. i would, you know, defer to my colleagues for that specifically. but if they do determine that there was a violation of the health code and inform us, then, essentially, this section of the planning code is automatically triggered. >> so one more question, then. so -- so with regard to that scenario, which i suggested, if the owners -- if the owner discovered that there was an issue, and if the owner discovered that the -- that their tenant was misbehaving or acting inappropriately or breaking the law or whatever descriptor you want, then, the owner's action should have been at that point to terminate the lease because of that bad behavior. and then -- then, they would

have received absolution to the health department? >> well, i would have to defer there, because you're describing parameters under what a violation would not occur and essentially be abated to the point where no violation would be kind of written up and reported to the planning department, and under which situation it wouldn't matter. they'll still get the violation and referred to the planning department. that's a determination of public health. >> so it's similar -- i'm going to make a -- an analogy. if -- if an owner operates a bar, and's running that bar, and the bartender serves an illegal -- even though the owner trains their bartender, threatens their bartender, do not serve anyone under the age of 21, and the bartender serves that drink, the owner loses his license and loses the bar, so it's similar -- similar to

that. >> it's a -- a fair analogy, i think. >> okay. >> i don't think commissioner lazarus was finished. >> i'm sorry. >> no, that's all right. so based on what you said, notice to the property owner is somewhat moot because this is going to kick in -- this provision of the planning code -- as soon as you're notified that the health code was violated in the sense, right? there was no recourse, essentially, for the property owner. >> well, there's kind of two parts for that because the health department has requirements of notifying the property owner of the health violation. and then, again, once we were made aware of the health code violation, we did contact the project sponsor. we are required to contact the sponsor when there is a violation or i should say, the property owner. and -- and it may be possible that the -- you know, the interactions with the health department, the issue of the three-year ban did not come up

because that's not in health code. that's not what they implement. they have their own violation procedures that they are following. the three-year ban is in the planning code, and as soon as we were notified of that, we opened the complaint case, and we did mail that notice to the property owner. >> okay. so the -- the question, when i was reading the brief, that comes to me, is that you have dph, which evidently, this guy violated, and he's attendant to the property. the question would be when there was a private settlement being entered which would condemn the license and the -- and the current business, you know, i think the property owner wasn't aware of that till the l.o.d., the letter of determination that was required. shouldn't there be a piece when you're sacrificing a value of your 3r0 your property that there's a notification prior to that settlement agreement, especially if it's going to have a financial impact?

that's probably for the department of public health, as well. but since the planning department is the -- is the enforcement process, as far as the land, since you're going to enforce on the lapd, should not it be a part of that process initially, letting that -- this property owner aware that this action's going down and yes, maybe he couldn't have stop it or it was going to happen any way, but shouldn't there be some type of notification when it happened and a fail-safe for that. >> sure. one, as called out in the letter, the doting manager representing the owner was present for both of the inspections and did, i believe -- was at least given copies if not also actually signed the inspection card, and so i think there was expectation that as a representative of the owner there that that was going to be relayed to the owner, and that through those inspections and through those reports, they were documented to be essentially documented to be in violation. i'll refer to my colleagues on

the other end because there is more their department. the admission of a violation was part of the agreement. again, we were not -- we're not aware of that process to notify anyone about the planning code issues until we're notified about the -- >> no, no, i get it. >> sure. >> and we understand that there's people operating in the shadows as somebody mentioned. >> right. and obviously, this is a very serious issue, and that's why very serious -- >> it sounds so familiar. was this before this board, was this violation befored board? >> for this specific business before the body? >> yeah. >> i'm not aware. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. is there any public comment on this item? >> yeah, if you folks have questions, i think all of your questions were directed at

public health. >> yeah, maybe the representatives from public health can... >> i don't have questions of public health. i -- okay. >> so -- as explained, evidently, it affects the property owner and whether the property owner is part of this deal or not, when you're -- when you're doing enforcement as far as an operator acting poorly and badly, and it is going to affect the property value, at which point do you have a fail-safe that the property owner is contacted and informed, especially in this particular case 'cause there was a -- i guess there was a private settlement that had come to -- >> right. patrick fauxhall, department of public health, environment assistant director. yeah. typically the point at which the property owner is notified is following the issuance of a citation and a hearing, a director's hearing in which an

establishment is found to be liable of having violated the law. following that, then, we're imposing either administrative civil penalties, sometimes suspensions or permit revocations, and so it's at that point typically that the property owner is notified. in this case, we didn't get as far as the director's hearing, we cited an owner for violations for a variety of reasons. i think the owner realized that they were very serious and opted to enter a settlement agreement which they voluntarily closed their facility. if we can get a problem establishment to voluntarily close their facility without having to go through a director's hearing process, that's a win for the department, so we're -- we're happy to settle cases like that. >> which i agree and commend on. but at which point by doing that, it voided the

notification to the property owner, even though the property manager was there. >> right. so the -- and -- and that's true. i think what we've done is a couple of things. in this case, the property owner representative was present, as was pointed out, at both of the inspections that were conducted. in fact at the second inspection, they even signed for the notice of violation, so i think it would be hard to say that they weren't aware. but you're right, and looking back on it, we've now amended our process so that if we reach a settlement in a matter that potentially could impact the property owner or we're going to refer it to zoning, then we would notify the property owner of that referral at that time. i don't think that would change the outcome. >> yeah. >> because the violation had already occurred. >> i agree, but at this point, you've amended your policy essentially because of this

particular case. >> variety of cases. >> okay. >> we have -- i kind of look back at 2017. i think we maybe had 70, 75 issues to hearings, and we settled maybe half of those. >> okay. >> but again, you're clear that the property manager was present during these discussions? >> that's correct. >> as a representative of the building owner. >> that's my understanding, yes. >> so i agree, i agree, i agree. what i'm missing here is if the property manager was present during these meetings, they are -- it's been fully disclosed, what does -- what can the building owner do then? i mean, if the property manager then goes to the building owner and goes, oh, my goodness, i've just discovered our tenant is doing bad things. >> right. >> then what can the property

owner, at that point, do to stop from getting into the position that that owner finds himself in or herself in today? >> right. i think the -- and i'm not an attorney, but i think the expectation would be that in most of those cases, as was pointed out, that would be a violation of the terms of their lease, so they would want to proceed with possibly evicting their problem tenant as opposed to incurring some liability for the activity that they're doing there. it isn't just limited, i should say, to the discussions that we're having tonight. i mean, ultimately, there's -- the state has something called the red light abatement law which allows -- and the city attorney has filed cases against property owners that have problem massage establishments located on their property. so the property owner is fully

held responsible for those activities, where they could even involve property seizure and very large fines and so forth. so this is sort of one step in that process that could ultimately end up there. >> so had the property manager gone to the property owner and said, oh, my god, i just discovered that all this is happening, and the property owner at that moment would have said, breach of lease, i'm out, you're gone. >> right. >> would the property owner -- would the property owner then have been relieved of the burden which he or she now finds himself saddled with? >> yeah. i think as far as the public health department's enforcement process is concerned, as i said earlier, having the business removed -- problem business removed is a win. so if that problem business was removed as a result of a termination of their lease

agreement, we would have no reason to move forward with some sort of enforcement action. the idea is to get the problem business to close, ultimately. now, i don't know the particulars of the case, if it involved large fines or penalties or something like that, we may have to look at cost recovery for the department and that sort of thing, but from my position, i wouldn't be inclined to invest the time and energy if the business has closed and moved out. >> so had that happened, and the business was moved out when that manager went to the owner, and the owner could have, would have, should have ceased the lease agreement, then would the owner have found himself in the position or herself in the position today of having a configured space as a massage parlor which is unrentable? >> yeah, i don't think so. >> thank you. >> let's go through the process

a little deeper. you folks make the determination that something untoward and illegal is happening. you went through the process of citing them, and then, you've made an agreement to settle. after that, did you then notify planning that there was this illegal action here? >> yes, that's correct. >> okay. isn't that the same as a -- as a determination? in other words, both planning and you have indicated that because you settled, there was no actual action that would have been either appealable or would have required notice. >> right. >> but the fact that you sent a

determination to planning for them to then pursue their own actions, isn't that the same as a determination? >> i'm not sure i completely follow, but i think that as was pointed out earlier, there's sort of two parallel processes running here. we make the referral, but we can't have the planning department take any action. that's really their departmental call to make, depending on what it is that we send them. they can look at that and say this is not actionable. we're not going to take any action on something that's a stipulated agreement. they can do the same thing if we send them a determination from a director's hearing. it's sort of their call. we're not forcing the planning department to take any action, we're simply making a referral. >> so every time you folks have a settlement, you send a referral to planning. >> it depends on the settlement, so as i said earlier, we took a look at the

process because prior to this, we were only sending the determinations that came out of a director's hearing process where somebody was found liable at a hearing. we -- like i said, we settled a whole bunch of cases, maybe half of the ones that we end up entering into settlement agreements with. so we haven't had that many cases, though, where somebody has voluntarily closed their facility as a result of the violations that are found. usually, these violations are not of that order of magnitude. so as i said, what -- we changed our process so that if and when we make a referral to zoning, we would also make the notification to a property owner that this had occurred. as you have all pointed out, though, the wheels are already in motion at this poiat point. i'm not sure there's much that can be done; the ball is rolling. >> and is your department aware

of that three-year ban by planning. >> yes. >> you're ware aware of that? >> yes. we are aware of the three-year ban from planning. and i think they would know better than i, but i want to say that was added at the same time our health department ordinance was amended, i think, in 2015. and the idea was that if we close a facility and some of these facilities have been there for quite sometime, it really doesn't do the city any good to close that facility and open the next work for it to be a problem for somebody else. the massage establishment, there's a built in clientele, it's just like playing whack-a-mole. it's to prevent that from happening, so it gives the location a chance to cool down

and maybe another business to move in or something to change. >> okay. >> and i'm assuming, also, that the city was looking for a greater partnership with landowners who were put on notice with that potential three-year ban of an inappropriate business, that they better be diligent about who they rent to and also being diligent about making sure that that -- >> that's correct. >> that party is operating appropriately. >> right. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you very much. >> so there's no public comment? we can have rebuttal. mr. klein, three minutes. >> yujust three points. the analogy you drew regarding the liquor license is valid. however, even if a bartender were to sell liquor to someone underage, they would have a right to have a hearing. this didn't occur here. this allegation that the

property manager was present is a disputed fact. there's nothing in the record that shows a writing that was given to the property manager that would have put the owner on notice. in the notice of hearing, i think, and the notice of violations from march, it said in the department's records property manager showed up at the end to close the door. that's the only reference to that property manager. they're assuming that the property manager was present, but that would be contrary to his declaration where he says he was only present the second time, and it was only at the conclusion of the inspection. the lease that we attached to the brief provided that the landlord would have had the right to evict the tenant had they just known. the health code and the

planning code are replete with due process protections. the planning code requires notice to the property owner under 176.1, and the health code requires written notice to the property owner under 29.45(b). those notices were never provided. this would not be a due process issue if they followed the statutory guidelines for bringing this. the settlement agreement was overbroad. it only was turned over to the planning commissioner to close the establishment without the owner ever having notice of that settlement agreement. you know, a simple letter would

have enabled the property owner to evict the tenant. it would -- the tenant would have been found to have been in breach of the agreement -- and in fact, the tenant was evicted prior to the notice that the planning commission had sent out. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. mr. teague? >>. >> good evening again, commissioners. cory teague for planning department staff. just to confirm, yeah, this -- the three year ban requirement was added to the planning code in 2015 in conjunction with updated to the health code. and one thing i wanted to just clarify, it's an important distinction here, and i apologize for reading from verbatim from the code a little bit here. but the point is that this section of the code gives a couple options. it basically says if you're

found to be in violation of article 26, there's a three-year ban, but it also says if a massage establishment is found to be operating, conducted or maintained contrary to this code or the health code, and it goes onto say for three years following closure, so on and so on, for violations of this code or the health code, no massage establishment can take that place for three years. the point is that in this situation, it's very clear that there were actions going on there were a violation or at least were operating, conducted and maintained contrary to the planning code and the health code. in this situation, the specific trigger was the violation that we received from dph. that is the only way that this ban can be incurred. it was the way that was used for this one because we did

receive that violation notice from the department of public health. i just wanted to clarify, and if you have any other questions, i'm happy to try. >> but this would go also with what you just read in keeping what we discussed before. part of that code is for landowners who are considering leasing to something like a massage parlor, which could either be down the street or narrow or a little curvy and off the street and narrow. so the message there, is that if you are a landowner, and you're going to rent to a business, it could go off into a curvy world, that understand the circumstances of that responsibility of getting -- of leasing to that type of business. >> correct. and i think what i said -- paraphrasing what i said earlier was obviously this was a very serious issue and the city finds it a very serious issue, and it has some very serious consequences in the

code. >> thank you. >> okay. commissioners, the matter's submitted. the standard for l.o.d. it's abusive discretion. >> i'd like to add a couple of things when we start to think about this. one is i don't think that the bartender in the bar is the example i would use because they're governed by the state, and the state, on an infraction, have set monetary penalties which are not very high initially. i think the better example is cigarettes because dph handles that. >> yeah. >> now if a employee sells to

somebody. >> yep. >> they get cited there, but the citation then -- then notice is provided to the owner, because it's the owner's license that they go after, all right? in this instance, nothing like that happened, you know, so... >> well, nothing like what happened? >> so the owner never got a chance to participate in the -- >> process. >> the process of either fixing the problem or settling in some manner with dph. you know, i'm not even sure whether dph has the ability to not -- not go the route of a planning code infraction. >> unless you believe that's --

i agree with you, unless you believe what has been represented to us here, that a -- that the building's owner's property manager was there at the time that the violation was offered and therefore, the building owner -- the property -- the property manager should have informed the building owner that there was an infraction, and then, the building owner could have been a lot more proactive in doing exactly -- in getting involved in the process, which is what the spirit of the law seems to require. >> if one wants to read into that. >> yeah. >> if you look at what the inspection team wrote, that is there, if you look at what the attorney has provided in terms of their declaration, they

don't quite mesh. >> that would be the issue. >> you know, did he just lock up or was he fully aware of what the charges were being brought forth? do you have a response to that? [ inaudible ] >> okay. come forward. >> so i brought with me senior inspector kim, and she was actually there and she was the one who actually issued the notice of violation. she would be able to testify as to who signed for it during the inspection, if that's okay sfl so she's waited. she might as well join us. >> right. >> please come forward, and if you could relate a little bit of what mr. polk did, okay? >> hi. my name is regetta kim. yeah. on both occasion, december 21st, 2016, i was conducted a routine inspection with another

investigator, jorge montel. and at the time, both the owner of the massage establishment, mr. mead, timothy mead, and the property manager came down to greet us during the inspection. and then, following the march 2nd of 2017, i was there, conducting a follow up inspection with a team of inspectors, and again, mr. polk, he came down. and at that time, the massage establishment owner wasn't present, so he was the one who signed the actual inspection report. and we were giving him the inspection report and the notice of violation at the same time, yeah.

>> okay. >> that's it. >> questions? thank you. well. >> mr. polk was present. >> yeah, i think -- i think the process was flawed. they've corrected it, but at the same time, there's no clean hands that the property owner was aware of it and is looking for a loophole here. i'm not willing to give him that, myself. >> why -- that -- i'm confused. the -- the -- the property owner became aware of the situation when their own property manager came down and signed the notice of violation. >> yeah. >> so -- >> he was there twice. >> he was there twice. i'm missing -- >> yeah, but there's no legal notification, and that's what the basis of the appeal is on, that there was no legal notification, and there is that loophole, which i'm not willing

to support. >> similar ly, i think the department erred in issuing an l.o.d. from dph that was faultily because of lack of notice. >> yeah, there is that. >> that's my opinion. >> i'm not seeing it that way. >> i understand. >> okay. >> somebody want to make a motion? >> i'll make that motion based on what i just said, madam director. >> okay. that would be to grant the appeal and overturn the l.o.d. on the basis that the zoning administrator erred by relying on a faulty violation issued by department of public health due

to lack of notice, is that right -- lack of notice to the property owner, is that right? >> yeah. >> okay. and what's the vote requirement, please? >> four. >> four votes. >> four. >> to overturn the l.o.d. so on that motion. [ roll call. ] >> okay. that fails. >> okay. i don't know why you guys -- >> i know. >> lacking any other motion, the l.o.d. would be upheld by default, so shall we call the next case? >> call the next case. >> final, final, the best for last. >> okay. so the next case is item 13, peal number 17-200, william clarke versus the department of building inspection with planning department approval, the property is at 1427 yulloa

street, protesting the issue wednesday on december 21, 2017 to hubert hung and angela navarro, of an alteration permit, nov correction permit addressing complaint number 201777731, revision to bpa number 201702149335, correctly show existing condition of partially excavated crawl space, including media room, full bath and bar sink, and rear building elevation, modify proposed second floor, eliminate rear retaining wall and elevated deck, lower level media room and bath. and we'll start with the appellant, you have seven minutes. >> good evening, commissioners and staff. i want to appeal the issuance of construction permit

20170214. [ inaudible ] -- there were cut outs for the installment of new windows for a bedroom and bathroom. [ inaudible ] -- only sky lights. at this time i filed a complaint, and the permit was revoced due to nonlicensed engineer approved plans and unlicensed excavation. revised detail report was submitted, again, no mention of windows. the bedroom and bathroom windows in the original plan were removed and three new windows were planned to be installed for the compensation of lack of the light well. window 9-m is a bathroom window. 44 by 36, directly across and approximately 7 feet from the large eat in kitchen window of

1421 ulloa. the owners at this time said they're willing to reduce the size from 44 inches by 36 inches to 44 to 24. the difference in elevation, it would be level with my kitchen table. he also stated the window will be frosted, but there will not stob the light -- [ inaudible [ inaudible ] these houses, 1427, 1421, 1427, 1k3 1435 ulloa were constructed in 1927 with a similar design. the light well on the east side ensure privacy, and the quality of life without noise, order, and the bathroom light going on and off.

i have some pictures of -- this is 1421, the bay windows. this is 1427, and they're removing one kitchen window and putting a bathroom there. then, this is the removal of the light well, and the two windows, and the two windows which were going to be installed, but now they've changed that to one window. originally, with the light well -- originally, with the light well, this is how everything looked, and so there was nobody looking into anybody

anybody else's property. this 1435 also has the -- all the windows. i mentioned installing a sky light which was mentioned in the permit, but i'm informed the architect insists on a window, although new construction, remodels are used in fans and vented sky lights. i requested the owner to use a sky light so we could proceed with this construction and finished at neighbors. thank you for your time and consideration, president fung, commissioners, and staff. >> thank you. >> okay. we can hear from the permit

holder. >> good evening. hubert hung, property owner, along with my wife, angela navarro. my wife, angela and i bought our home just over a year ago, january 17th. we were newly married, excited to be first time homeowners, and excited to have a house to build a family together in the city we both were born and raised in. we planned to rhenvaowe vat rer home. we have every intention of living in this home and making it our forever home. from early on in this process, mr. clarke has raised a series of issues related to windows, leveeing a number of complaints on the property.

mr. clarke owns and rented out 1421 ulloa, and we understand mr. clarke tried to purchase our home from its prior owner. it's unclear to us what his end game is, but appears to slow us down, wherever property, leveeing a series of complaints against our property. i would note that he has a number of large windows on the west siding face of his property -- >> overhead, please. >> overhead, please. >> yeah. >> by our count, eight windows and a door. he has had issues with us -- he has had issues with us having windows on the side of our house regardless of the size or location, and told us recently that he didn't want us to have any windows on the side of our house, that we would, quote, ruin the integrity of the neighborhood, the resale because of his house and his privacy and separately suggesting that we fire or

architect, coincidentally, who's present. >> long night for him. >> yes, for all of us. i note that in an effort to play indica placate mr. clarke, we moved windows, striking this window entirely, with this revision mr. clarke suggested we didn't require a bedroom window and that we quote raise our children down stairs, we have tried to reach an amicable compromise, have assured mr. clarke and his wife that we have no intention of invading their privacy, and have intention to use a window shade, frosting the window if desired. he has grown increasingly hostile during this process and has chosen to bring this matter before the board. >> good evening. angela hung, sorry. name change. i just wanted to end here with saying it's been a year of

owning our home and not being able to reside in it. we have had to rent a small room and put our belongings in storage while waiting for a resolution. this entire process has been a real challenge for us. we just want to move forward with renovation and ultimately enjoy our home and standard a family. it's been a trying year. we've been what we feel is more reasonable. we've complied with code. we're desperate to move forward with our project so we can respectfully -- we respectfully request the board allow us to move forward with our project and our planned -- our approved permits. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. mr. teague. >> good evening again, commissioners. cory teague for planning department staff. subject property here at 1427

ulloa street is located in rh 1 district in the 40 x height and bulk district. the subject property permit was for primarily interior work and the addition of windows and in response to violation, just regarding the public -- the subject permit itself and its relation to the planning code, it was completely code compliant in terms of the interior work, and the windows did not require neighborhood notification, and as such, it was reviewed and approved over the counter by planning department staff on october 19th of 2017. i have to admit i was a little bit confused by the briefs and some of the information about prior work and prior permits. i didn't get a chance to fully evaluate anything related to prior permits, but i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. >> inspector duffy? >> commissioners, joe duffy,

dbi. on the permit that's under suspension, it was to correct a notice of violation in revision to the earlier permit. we -- i won't readout the full description. permit was reviewed by planning and voting, mechanical plan check, went through puc. it -- it -- we had a notice of violation on the property. the first set of drawings that was issued on the earlier permit, and that -- around february 2017 misrepresented the ground floor condition, and the dpsh-th-- they ended up exg more and got into trouble with that. our building inspector issued a notice of violation on that. there was a flooding detail on there, but actually, they would have had to excavate really deep. the plans were drawn by a

gentleman called ken chan, kenneth chan. so he seems to be not involved, anymore. obviously, we have a new architect. the problem seems to be -- and if i can have the overhead -- let's see here. so just point this out. we had an existing -- there was an existing light well prior to any of the construction starting, and there were two windows in that light well that were serving the bathroom and the front hallway, i would imagine. so with the first permit, that light well went away, and that left no windows here. then, they actually had a couple of windows in on that permit, as well that probably got missed by the appellant, and i do think now that it has come down to the one bathroom

window, whether the -- the -- the size of the window, whether it's the size or a sky light goes in. but i did contact mr. clarke and speak to him about this. but overall, the project is now back on track again, except i think these -- the issue is just the size of the bathroom window, and basically, that's what it's down to. and the -- obviously, with these property line windows, it's a little different than the case we spoke about earlier. there is enough separation between the properties that they're not required to be rated windows or anything because they are more than 3 feet from the property line, so both properties well have property end windows, but they don't have an issue, not like the previous issues that we spoke about tonight. >> that's nice because those fire rate are quite expensive. >> yeah. they wouldn't serve very well here because the bathroom needs

to have ventilation. it could be accomplished by a sky light, but most people put in a window, and usually, bathroom windows are of the smaller size, and so that's my opinion on it. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you. >> just to make sure i understand it, since we didn't receive any drawings, but the -- this permit, this is a revision permit, but it's a revision permit of the entire scope of work. >> that's correct, president fung, yes. >> not a piece of it. >> no. it's probably drawing what should have been drawn in the first place. the first permit didn't seem to do that. there was errors on it, and we had problems on it. we stopped the work, and they were made come in with this new permit now, and as i say, it's down, i think, to the bathroom window. everything else, it's -- they eliminated a second floor -- the deck was properly drawn on this one.

it's just a ground level patio deck, so -- okay. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, then, we have rebu rebuttal, starting with mr. clarke. three minutes. >> according to mr. hung, i told him fire the architect, that was not the case. he told me to fire the architect because the -- they went excavating under the house, and they put a compressor in there. these had a compressor in the with t garage with the workers in there, and they fired the worker and the architect. so i don't know why he said i said to fire the architect. and the problem is kitchen -- this window that they're putting in is 7 feet from my kitchen table. and so it's -- it's very close

to -- too close for comfort. and also, he says about it's been a rental, this is a rental at the present moment because my kids are waiting to move back into it. and the -- but i can't throw the tenant -- because he's a friend of mine, i can't throw him and his wife and kid and dog on the street. so just to clear the -- the issue. and anyhow, i -- i had asked mr. hung about putting in the sky light, but he -- because it was in the original plan that they were going to -- or paper i got that they were going to put in two sky lights. but i seehe seems to think no, want a window now, so that's it. i wish to thank mr. fung and staff and the -- for your time,

and thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. mr. hung, miss hung? . you have time for three minutes. >> i've met you somewhere before. >> you have? >> good evening again, commissioners. so, you know, i was brought into this project kind of to correct a number of inconsistencies in the previous plan and help the homeowners kind of realize a more comprehensive vision of their overall goals and their life in this house, and so we rethought the floor plan, and that's why you see changes between the original permit, which was not very well planned out, and this one. the one thing that i could offer at this point is, you know, possibly, we can relocate interior lights or use the type of lighting that doesn't have a

direct, you know, glaring effect through that window if, you know, that helps, and think the homeowners have said that they're very willing to reduce the size to 24 by 44, which is roughly half the size of this dais here. and, you know, i think that's something that could mitigate concerns. >> and frost it. >> frost it. >> obscured. >> yeah, obscured. >> are they willing to do obscured glass? >> yes. >> okay. thank you. that it? thank you. >> make one last -- >> go ahead. >> specific to the revision of the n.o.v., what they say is absolutely accurate. we have swapped out our entire team, and i think what's important to note is we are first time homeowners. we followed bad advice, and we have since -- we weren't trying to circumvent process, cut any

corners. we simply just got bad advice from a family friend, and we have since hired highly professional team in full. >> so if things, no cheap, cheap, no good, right. >> yeah. >> staff? city? >> commissioners, just to clarify before we go to vote, just the size of the window, i know the plans are different wh from what i saw in the brief. i think there's a proposal to make it smaller than what's in the drawings. i saw something or heard something that they were proposing to make it a bit smaller, so i just wanted to ask if that's -- because sometimes that can be, one you're going to make your decision because sometimes you add some stuff, make sure you get the size, as well. >> so -- so mr. duffy, what

size window is the right size window? >> that's not my -- i wouldn't know that to answer that question. i mean, it's -- i think it's 44 by 36 currently on the drawing. yeah, that's a pretty big window for a bathroom, in my opinion. that's bigger than normal. >> they put in their brief that they're willing to reduce it to 24 by 44. >> yeah, that's what i saw, yeah. so if that isn't part of the consideration, i just wanted to point it out. it's in the brief but it's not on the plans, so -- >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter's submitted. >> i would recommend if the -- if the project sponsors are willing to reduce the size to 44 by 24, condition the permit to that, and to make it obscured glass so that you really have no direct view. and then, they said they're going to put curtains. most people have curtains in their bathroom. >> they said shades. >> or shades, yeah.

yeah. >> turn it into a motion? >> yeah. can i make that my motion? thank you. >> so the motion -- i'm sorry. >> no, go ahead. >> specified lighting or is that not -- >> no. once you have it obscured, then, it's no longer direct glare. >> it doesn't matter. >> so commissioner honda, your motion's to issue the permit on the conditions to require that the bathroom window be reduced to 24 inches by 44 inches and be covered with obscured glass -- >> for the glass to be obscured. it's a type of material. >> you have a question process wise, sir? [ inaudible ] >> your question is, is it operable? yes, it is. >> and so if it's operable, then, that was the problem.

because if it's operable, then i have the noise and the sound and the order, and the obscured glass and the curtains don't make any difference. >> well, i would imagine if someone was in the bathroom, they would want the window closed, compared to someone in the kitchen. that's just my assumption, but, yeah. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i gave him an opportunity. you want to -- last comment, please. >> no,is i was just saying it'n awning window, and it's a rotary crank, not an up lifting window. >> okay. so this way. >> yeah. >> so commissioner honda, just to finish the motion, you said this will reduce the impact on the neighbor? >> yes. >> so on that motion by commissioner honda --

[ roll call. ] >> okay. that motion passes. thank you very much. president fung, there is no other business before the court tonight. >> this meeting is adjourned. laura thomas sitting in for our president bryant tan. so