Correspondence Albert Shield-s-1 Demo permit 11775 SW Warner Page 1
� U� O27 oa 37 to
From: Albert Shields
To: Debbie Adamski
Date: 11/6/00 10:51 AM
Subject: Demo permit 11775 SW Warner
Debbie, this confirms my phone comments about the demo permit(s) for 11775 Warner. I'll put a copy of
this in the property file.
Fees of $110.40 were paid on BUP2000 -00376 but the permit was never issued or picked up because the
contractor's bond had lapsed and his license (CCB #60282) showed up as being "inactive." The demolition
work was begun anyway and we posted a Stop Work Order on 10/11. We have since charged $145.00 in
investigation /inspection fees against that permit. Accordingly, there is no refund due or available on that
permit.
A Dale Britton (CCB #32030) should be in later today to apply for a new and separate demolition permit for
that work at that address. New fees are to be charged for this new permit, independent of the fees paid
for the prior permit.
If anyone has any questions or objection to this, please direct them to me or to Hap and we will explain
that the alternatives involve our taking further enforcement action, such as issuing a Summons to a court
hearing and seeking penalties of up to $250 per day for the period subsequent to my posting a Stop Work
Order on 10/11. As of toda • : - • - - W•1 • • -
We reserve - right to commence just such actions even if a new permit is now issued, unless, be , re the
end oft week, the new permit is paid for and picked up and the work site either cleaned up and filled or
secur: y fenced so as to pose no hazard to the public.
Backg sund:
The permit applied for by Robert "Skipp" Andrews on 9/7, BUP2000 -00376 was not issued. File notes
show that Mr. Andrews was phoned on 9/7 and told that his contractor's license was "inactive" and that the
permit could not be issued to him. (His bond had lapsed.)
Andrews told me this morning that he had had a permit and that he had picked it up the first week of
September. When I reminded him of the question of his "inactive" license, he told me that he received that
message, that he had had a conversation with someone at the City in which he had explained that Dale
Britton, an excavation contractor, would be doing the work and would do so under his own CCB number,
and that he thought that that was all that was needed to have the permit issued. I explained to him that he
was in error, that we would have needed to have the new contractor apply for the permit under a valid
license number, that the permit was in fact never issued or picked up, and that the work had therefore
been done without a permit. I further pointed out that the demolition had been left incomplete with a five
foot deep pit partially filled with concrete rubble a few yards off of a major street. Not only was the work
done without a permit, it was done is such a way as to leave a serious public hazard, without fencing or
protection of any sort, and left that .y some weeks prior to our posting the Stop Work.
I advised Mr. Andr s that we •uld r- quire a new application from Mr. Britton for a new permit and
payment for fees r this i i t e • -r •• .
Albert Shiel
CC: Hap Wat