Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    April 23, 2011 7:30am-8:00am PDT

7:30 am
>> i do not know. i have not been here before. are you going to accept his word that he is? .vice president garcia: i guess what bothers me is there's no one else here claiming to be the appellant or claiming to represent the appellant, so it would seem that he has got representation. commissioner hwang: are you singing this is the same person as the appellant? >> i do not know. if he is not the appellant, he should not be taking 7 minutes. if he is a person off the street, he should get three minutes. do you know what i mean? i was going to have my contractor show up, and i think ms.. goldstein said if i was not going to show up, she should be notified of who was taking my place, and this does not seem
7:31 am
correct to me, is all i am saying. note -- >> i have been do a lot of these hearings, and people of represented appellants all of the time. i am fine with taking this on continuance if that is what the permit holder wants to do. eric krebs is an attorney who approached -- filled up the protest as a representative, as an agent, representing an organization for which i am a member. i represent the appellant. if there is a problem with that, then -- commissioner hwang: you are representing the lawyer? >> no, the lawyer was representing the organization, and i am a member of the organization, san francisco citizens against building permit
7:32 am
fraud. i am representing them. president goh: this is a little unusual. commissioner fung: commissioners, i think if he says he is representing them, we should go with that. commissioner hwang: it says eric krebs. >> we usually let people appear. there is no board rule to prohibit that. if there was evidence brought forward that suggests that he did not have authorization to represent the appellants, the board could reopen the case at a rehearing, but there is nothing in the board rule, but i do not believe there is anything pitt that would prohibit it. -- anything that would prohibit it.
7:33 am
commissioner peterson: it says eric krebs, and then it says bad it is the san francisco citizens against building permit from, as if they are representing themselves. commissioner hwang: i guess the paper that was submitted was for the entity. president goh: we have never had an objection, so i am inclined to go forward. let's just go forward. >> i was here earlier this evening representing another protest, and he has filed four protest with fraudulent names,
7:34 am
and that is why there was no appearance earlier. there are two more more -- more permits than he has been protesting. vice president garcia: you are protesting another permit. >> he is now filing a protest against mine. so this is a waste of time by mr. sollner. i have a case to present. president goh: i thought the clock was running on you. go ahead and present. >> i think if you direct your attention to that, you will see that he has submitted plans for existing and proposed, nearly identical. as far as the plans that were
7:35 am
submitted in getting his permit. and i have two sets of plans, each from unrelated licensed professionals. one is an appraisal for the property. another is an architect. this was just prior to the purchase by mr. sollner, and i have the existing four planned by two independent people, independent professionals, that are completely different. mr. sollner would like us to believe he has virtually no changes, and that is an old trick, by saying something existed when, in fact, it did not. vice president garcia: he is
7:36 am
asking a reasonable question. had this been given to the permit holder? would you give him a copy so that he would be reassured? you are not allowed to speak from the audience. you might get up and meet her so she does not have to go all of the way to you to do that. the commissioner hwang: could you please put it on the overhead so i know what you are looking at? >> this is the existing floor plan. they are nearly identical. what i have handed out our plans just prior to the purchase of the property by mr. sollner that
7:37 am
shows that the four plants for the existing are fraudulently identical to the proposed plan. an appraiser went through a property. and if you look on the sheet, where there is a number of diagrams, the first diagram to the right shows the interior area of the property does not extend into the backyard, so the enclosure of an exterior porch was represented to the existing when, in fact, it was something that planning required to have a notice. as well as an architect went through the property, as well, and these are all existing floor
7:38 am
plan drawings, and those will corroborate in that the area extending into the backyard would require planning department notice. it has been represented as pre- existing when, in fact, all of the internal walls of the apartment are shown to be nearly identical to what he is proposing. in fact, it is not even close to what was in the property, and that is verified by two independent, licensed professionals. i think there are a lot of other points that i could bring up, but i think this illustrates what we are talking about. vice president garcia: what relief are you seeking? >> i do not think there should be allowed to be issued that is based on fraud, and this is clearly fraud, and he has fraudulently represented -- protesting other permits, and he
7:39 am
has done the very same thing. vice president garcia: just stick to what is before us. >> this is a matter, and i mean bringing it to attention. vice president garcia: thank you. president goh: >> before you start the seven minutes, i am sorry. basically, i want to talk to the attorney. if somebody comes in and says you are not best person, what is this? is this defamation or slandered? i am on national tv here apparently. i did not know this was closed captioned. people are out there watching.
7:40 am
people accuse me of being somebody else. my name came in. is that public information, the name of this appellant? >> are you talking about the early case. >> we should stick to this case we are talking about. >> r m a pilot. i am not a contractor, engineer, a real-estate broker. we are talking about a 580 sq. ft. studio.
7:41 am
i pay contractors to do things for me that i do not know how to do. i do not know how to pour footings. i have contractors that i pay to do this. the previous contractor was the company that did the work on the building previously. that is one thing. this sketch, this is not an engineering drawing sketch that was shown. that is not an engineer at's. this is an appraiser that walked through this thing and took a look. this is definitely not what the unit looked like. these previous plans that he is talking about, he could have drawn these up himself before we
7:42 am
came here. the licensed engineer that drew all my plans previously was an engineer that he provided to me when he walked the property. this is so insane and crazy that i cannot believe it. we do not know where this is. this is not stamped. this is something that just showed up. this is nothing. the other thing is, as part of the previous construction of the building which the design group did a lot of previous construction on the building. san francisco garage put a gar age in this building for us. when you fly to hawaii, you do not fly it -- and go to the cockpit and tell him how to fly.
7:43 am
i am a licensed professional. i will do this. just like a licensed contractor. get in there and do the plans, just like i have. we have done everything that we were supposed to do. pulled the permits. you have read my appeal. i do not need to go into all of the baloney. mike contractor has done a fantastic job. we have passed everything in a measly two weeks because it is such a small, silly little job. we are ready to cover. mike contractor went in and pulled the dry rock permit. he made the changes. mr. dufty was nice enough to look at the project. he came out and sought
7:44 am
everything that was done. things are ready to go. you have somebody with a personal vendetta against me. somebody has three lawsuits on me. before i walked in here, and do you know what i got? i got served. i do not feel comfortable walking out of here. i would like to have an officer meet me here and walk me to my car. i have it two minutes and 30 seconds. i was not going to go into all of this, but i have gotten awful texts from this person. this was filed on the first of march. this was days before we were going to put the trim up and the appliances in. i am sure i could give you some
7:45 am
advice that would help you with our problems. we need to meet. i was on a trip to hawaii and this was what i was getting. there are two lawsuits that i will file against you on tuesday. there are three other parties that are filing lawsuits, too. i can help you make this all go away. you're digging a hole for yourself that will be very expensive to get out of. you have penstocks some very wealthy and powerful people. they will -- have pissed off some very wealthy and powerful people. they will make trouble for you. i am and armed services member and this is how i get treated? it is shameful. i have basically local condo that i want to remodel. i have somebody with a personal
7:46 am
vendetta against me. i got a phone call on friday. you are probably going to pass this thing on wednesday. do you know what is going to happen? they are going to do something else later on. all the work on my building was his done by his contract in arm and design group. this guy helped me by the property and he got in a lawsuit with me and several other people. this man is after me. i am glad we saved the best for last so nobody else would have to be around for this. i was over with his attorney and the four other defendants against us. i walked over here because i had to go take care of that. of course i got served. the guy is smiling outside because you got me.
7:47 am
i was going to accept the service anyway. i just wanted to get this guy out of our lives. we just want to move on with our lives and be happy. it is frivolous baloney. i can tell you this -- >> your time is up. >> before you sit down, i do have a question. are any of the litigation is that you are involved in related to this property and the work that is at issue? >> no, ma'am. ok, mr. dufty. >> commissioners, when i read the brief, i did take the time to contact the district building
7:48 am
inspector. i asked the inspector to contact the contractor. we had some issues with some permits in the last year or so. we figured he would be familiar with it. maybe he could help with the hearing to answer some questions. we met with the contractor. there is a couple of active permits on the property, as you see. we did look at some plants that were there. there are maybe six permits. most of them are complete. we did see a suitable apartment that was done. the ceiling finishes have been taken off. it is about 600 square feet. there is some new framing in the walls. there was some work that was not part of the permit that we look
7:49 am
ed at, but could have been part of the other permits that we did not have available that day. what i did not want the contractor to do was to go out there and do that again and to make sure that he was covered under all of the work that he was doing. the plans that i saw pretty much covered it. all of the drawings were not available. there was some framing at the rear portion. the porch was existing from the back. this is what we would typically see. it did not look like something that would be typically enclosed. there is some new wall framing that could have been part of the dry rock permit. that was an earlier permit that
7:50 am
was issued. there was a window at the back that looked like it was going to be permitted to a patio door. all of the wall and ceiling finishes were removed inside of the unit. i am available for any questions if you have any. >> this per met -- permit had an original evaluation of $25,000 and then it was confirmed by your staff as $25,000. is that correct? >> a studio apartment that would be remodeled, it was pretty close to what it should be. there is a new permit on 418. what i suspect happened was that all of the work that we look bank act was not covered under the plan. you subsequently got a revision to the dry rock permit which
7:51 am
pretty much at all of the permit work that i saw. >> that would have its own body weight in. >> $10,000. it -- its own evaluation. >> $10,000. for a first year apartment remodeled it is pretty close. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? >> how many people are going to speak in public comment? you will have to speak under the rebuttal opportunity. >> good evening. i am from the libertarian party
7:52 am
of san francisco. this meeting is at now, what? 10:00. it has been going on since 5:30. even if these people were making minimum-wage, that as an opportunity cost at those number of hours spent and all of this. if we had to build a system from scratch, san francisco being started as a new city, would we invent any of this? i would say that we would not. people against each other and produces conflict in our community. we should have property rights. if it is your property, you should have the right to build what you want on it. they are better in terms of not having zoning laws. some of this has been tried.
7:53 am
it works. it would work a lot better than what we have. in the meantime until we can get there and have liberty in this country, instead of having to have a vote to approve everything. everything comes before you. the person has title to the property. i think that is the conscientious thing to do. >> any other public comment? if you are the contractor, then you would need to speak under the rebuttal opportunity given to your client. ok. with no other public comment, we will move into rebuttal. we will start with the appellant. do you have anything more to add? >> i do. with respect to the evaluation
7:54 am
-- valuation of the job, you can ask the contractor under oath, what he was charging him. what the contract price was. i have been in construction for 25 years and the job is not costing $25,000. there is a denial that i made up these plans. they are not made up. who is lying? is it the independent architects and the appraiser who have gone in and digram the property or is it the permit holder that takes the position that i hire professionals and it is not responsibility is what i have heard. it is not a problem to bring in those two professionals, if that is what it takes. i did not make it up. that is the diagram and they are
7:55 am
consistent with what is pre- existing. the only variation is the one that is exhibit 14 of the permit holder. when they go out to look at it, it all matches up. that is not what was there. i think it is a simple question. it comes down to who is lying? is it the independent professionals or the permit holder? that is all but i have to say. >> thank you. >> typically, when you want to authenticate documents, you bring that person in to let them know that they have the people there convinced that they are trying to do that person. we have to take your word for it rather than an independent professional that is not in the room. have you been in touch with
7:56 am
these people? >> yes. i'd >> -- >> i did not see any declaration of that. >> i could get those to you. >> thank you. >> i do not really have anything else to say. after those nasty texts, i sent these to the guy's attorney and said, do not contact me anymore. i had to file a harassment complaint. other than that, you guys do not really want to hear about that. mr. dufty was glad enough to go out there and look at the property. he made recommendations to my
7:57 am
contractor. they were taken care of and addressed. there was definitely a porch out there. these drawings are ridiculous. he was my broker, this guy? are you going to believe that a united states marine corps officer or are you going to believe this guy with the stuff that is not stamped or anything. but have drawn them up himself. there was definitely a porch out there. mr. dufty went out there and looked. it has to hold all of the porch as for the building. that is all that i have to say. i think this is a slam dunk and it is pathetic that i had to waste your time, my time, and everybody else's time. we are not out here making
7:58 am
minimum-wage. another 45 minutes and we could have been out of here. it is a waste. i have not done anything wrong. you will most likely be hearing from this person some time. you did say that you were in contact with him on this other project. my guess is that this person is probably going to show up at some point. i can assure you that i will find out what it is if i get that information from you for slandering me. it is unsatisfactory and it is disgusting. >> anything further? >> thank you. i do not think i have received the appellant's materials here. i did receive a photograph from last year. it clearly shows that there is
7:59 am
a structure in the back. this is the subject property. it appears that this is the porch at the rear. looking at the map, the subject property is highlighted. you can see an obstruction in the rear. i am not quite clear what the issue is here. it may have been existing. it is within the area. it would not require a variance. >> thank you. >> commissioners, comments? >> you had your opportunity. >> please do not