Thank you so much for hearing our appeal. Happy birthday. Im sorry were this is taking up your item. Time. Here is the block we live on. Our house is in the middle here. And mr. Lees house is on the right. This is the first subdivision in San Francisco. We made good effort to solve this problem with mr. Lee. He has been unwilling to compromise or find a solution. He says he needs a window for ventilation and as a fire exit. Both are which are illegal uses of Property Line window. This is the Property Line window. Our goal is to treat the permit like a new window. For several years thats what i was told would happen by the preservation folks at the Planning Department. Heres the permit. You see the permit. Unfortunately you dont see this on the screen. These are joe duffys notes about the permit. When i heard it was happening it was crazy. We filed a complaint with d. B. I. Mr. Lee was able to walk down the dbi to get a permit to change the window. Mr. Duffy made all kinds of note about
You stated that the permit was improperly issued . Correct. Secondly, we heard mr. Curran talk about while this window open into the neighbors Property Line, does this set up automatically the opportunity for notice of violation . It has been discovered that theres a window that is not exactly legal because it goes into the neighbors Property Line without permission . That specific issue is not addressed in the planning code. I should ask mr. Curran and the next part, whether that would narrate a notice of violation as recently discovered is a win toe that windows that opens across the Property Line. Correct. From taur perspective, we dont address that situation. If we did if it was legally done, now its not conforming to the code, that would not be a violation. It would be allowed to stay that way. I cant speak to the Building Code. Thank you very much. We have lots of questions for you. Welcome back. Thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item. Please approach. Good evening a
Resistant walls and weatherization. It speaks to the disconnect we find there and that comes from the project Design Professionals and percolates down to ending up with something that is maybe a little beyond but, you know, some of them we see a little bit beyond, but again, the universe with 49 hopkins projects, its pretty small. Just want to make that clear. I spoke about the facade, its not difficult to preserve stuff like that. Shoring and bracing. We dont see any reason as inspectors why it cant be preserved and then going back to the code perspective, its better to upgrade the areas of the building not visible right away. I would suggest an element of joint effort. Documented and approved by the Planning Department. Penalties. Two times penalty is based on the valuation of the work performed in access of what was approved. So if the number is 10,000 just for example and they do an extra 1,000, its two times based on the 1,000. Its limited and thats what the code allows for. We ca
Is the Code Enforcement fees and orders of abatement, that takes it into thousands of dollars for assessment of Code Enforcement. Referral to the City Attorney for litigation and possible financial penalty, we have evidence of that here. Our unlawful demolition code prohibits the project from proceeding for five years, in consideration of 317 of the planning code, where theres a bit of a contractor. I think whats important to understand about our code section regarding unlawful demolition, it states when no demolition permit is in place, the unlawful demolition and five years would kick in. But just bear in mind, these jobs have significant permits. They have hopkins had a 650,000 permit. There was demolition shown on it. I would suggest the unlawful demo is probably more tailored to the guy who gets the Kitchen Remodel permit and takers down the building. He has no demolition permit whatsoever. These guys have significant permits. They go beyond the scope, we stop them, we send them b
For example and they do an extra 1,000, its two times based on the 1,000. Its limited and thats what the code allows for. We cant go beyond our code. Those are the tools we have. The nine times of course is we hardly see this, but when somebody were to go out there and completely tear down a building and have no permit at all. I dont know if i have ever seen that. Monetary penalties as were saying are typically small based on work valuations. What does add to the penalties is the Code Enforcement fees and orders of abatement, that takes it into thousands of dollars for assessment of Code Enforcement. Referral to the City Attorney for litigation and possible financial penalty, we have evidence of that here. Our unlawful demolition code prohibits the project from proceeding for five years, in consideration of 317 of the planning code, where theres a bit of a contractor. I think whats important to understand about our code section regarding unlawful demolition, it states when no demolitio