Swinery update: Remodeling “surprises,” September opening likely

An update tonight on the conversion of 3207 California SW (formerly Muttley Crew Cuts, now in Admiral) to the future Swinery: Two weeks ago, we brought you WSB photojournalist Christopher Boffoli‘s report on Chef Gabriel Claycamp‘s project, including a look inside the space they’re remodeling (that’s one of Christopher’s July photos, at left). This afternoon, WSB’er Michelle, who lives nearby, e-mailed to say work on the space seemed to have abruptly halted, and that a “stop work” notice was posted. We first checked city records; they confirm that someone filed a land-use complaint last week, regarding the need for more permits in the remodeling process (though a permit application to convert the space from “residential” to “food processing” is shown as filed). Then we checked with Claycamp, who says, “Everything we have done so far is OK to do without a permit,” adding that he has a meeting with the city tomorrow to present plans, after which he expects the complaint will be resolved. (We left a message this afternoon for the city inspector who is handling the complaint, and will try again tomorrow.) Claycamp did say that he and his crew encountered a few surprises while working on the building, and that fixing those will push the Swinery’s West Seattle opening date into mid-September (they were hoping for this month, at one point).

JanS August 11, 2009 (8:09 pm)

what disturbs me about these land use complaints is that if they’re done online, it’s anonymous – you never know who complained. I recently had this done to me, all because of listing my address on my website, and another obscure website( it had been there for 4.5 years with no complaints). Seems that I can have a business in my home, put up a small sign, I just can’t put the address in print media/advertising. Who complained? well..the inspector said it could have been anyone – someone who disliked me, a competitor, anyone with a beef – and you never know who it is..probably someone just trying to make trouble for you.

I sympathize with Mr. Claycamp – it’s infuriating when you don’t know where it’s coming from, yet you have to put up with it, and jump through their hoops…and time is money, especially when it causes a delay as it has for Mr. Claycamp. I hope this is resolved quickly to his satisfaction. I look forward to having his business in my neighborhood.

Coffee August 11, 2009 (8:50 pm)

I have heard horror stories about this in the past too. I suggest that Mr. Claycamp contacts his city and county representatives for help. People are so mean. I hope you have a successful meeting and can get back on track.

Diana August 11, 2009 (9:26 pm)

Why does it matter that there is an anonymous complaint? If someone is remodeling, whether it be for a residence or a business, they need to be code compliant and it is their responsibilty to ensure that they are. The codes are for the benefit of all and should be enforced. Someone, who cares who, noted that Mr. Claycamp was in violation of something. He got caught, has the opportunity to fix the situation, and this is as it should be.

Jose August 11, 2009 (9:36 pm)

Would WSB please post the name of the Inspector? I would suggest we all place multiple calls to him in support of Mr. Claycamp, and demanding to know why he is still being targeted for reprisal by the city.

I’m sick of taxpayer-funded jobs and resources being misused to further vendettas by city officials. Nickels and his cronies have a lot to answer for; we should lawfully make sure they do.

celeste17 August 11, 2009 (9:43 pm)

At our night out party on our block I was talking about Swinery and how I had their bacon last winter and several people were excited to hear about this coming to WS. Good luck with all the ins and outs of remodeling and let us know if there is anything that we can do.

WSB August 11, 2009 (9:52 pm)

Re: Jose’s question, as always when we write about DPD cases/activities, they’re linked in the story. If you’re looking for a case # or inspector name, date of inspection/violation, etc., the information that’s publicly available, it is in that link. Any text that’s blue is linked – TR

Christopher Boffoli August 11, 2009 (10:09 pm)

Diana: There is a principle which exists in law in which someone who is accused of a crime has a constitutional right to confront their accuser. Actually, I think it is built into the Sixth Amendment. Though a complaint to the DPD is more of an administrative action as opposed to a criminal complaint, I think it only fair that a person who accuses another of wrongdoing should be responsible for their accusation.
.
As JanS adroitly points out above, by keeping the complaints anonymous the system is vulnerable to abuse. I agree with you that code compliance is important and that codes should be obeyed and enforced, the system is less than transparent when anyone (including business competitors) can submit a spurious complaint with impunity.
.
It is not quite fair nor is it accurate to suggest that Mr. Claycamp did something wrong and “got caught.” According to him, the nature of the work he has been doing is completely within the bounds of what can be done without permits. He says the situation was simply a matter of needing to communicate with City inspectors which his architect was actively engaged in when the WSB contacted him to discuss the situation earlier today. It seems to me that the City thought it prudent to pause the ongoing work until they could determine the exact nature of the work happening at the site. And the official presentation of his plans to the City tomorrow should get things back on track.
.
It is worth noting that all small business owners (especially those which deal with food) must navigate a sometimes byzantine system of codes and regulations that span different agencies. I believe him when he says he is committed to following the letter of the law.
.
I’m personally hoping to see Mr. Claycamp succeed both because of the delicious bacon that Celeste mentioned, but also because this new business will create new jobs in West Seattle… not to mention the way it will continue to attract attention to the vibrant and creative food scene in our neighborhood as well.

eileen August 11, 2009 (10:21 pm)

I followed the link to the DPD permits web site – it shows that the project has only bee through addressing and has not had a permit formalized in application, review or approval. While it is true that there are many items that can be accomplished without requiring a permit, there are others that clearly require them – even if it is only over the counter. It looks like a complaint was filed, and inspector showed up and a violation was posted. From the story written above it sounds like there were additional requirements that needed permits and the Owner is proceeding with taking care of them. It sounds like although it will cause a delay, its the process as its supposed to work and not necessarily an unfair victimization.

Although codes and requirements can seem daunting they are there to protect public safety. There are many resources online to help.

http://web1.seattle.gov/DPD/CAMs/CamList.aspx?cs=300

Eileen

grr August 11, 2009 (10:42 pm)

I think people would be stunned to know how much construction (business and ‘homeowner’) gets done, sans permit..

just wondering..how many people, say….put up a fence…remodel a bathroom…knock out a non-load bearing wall to ‘open up their living room to the kitchen in a 1950’s warbox WS house….move a pipe in a kitchen to put the sink somewhere else….

you’d be stunned to know how many average ‘home improvement’ project actually require a permit.

JanS August 11, 2009 (10:46 pm)

OK…in my case the inspector never came here, nor talked with me…they simply went to my website and said…”Oh, yeah, can’t have her do that”, and I subsequently got a notice in the mail that if I din’t comply with what they wished by a certain date, then I could be fined anywhere from $150-$500/day until it was fixed. What if that notice was lost in the mail. Next thing you know I opwe the city a huge amount of money.

Now, for Mr. Claycamp, either the complaint came from someone who is working on the project, or it came from someone who assumed that he was doing work unlawfully, since it’s a closed place, public can’t walk through. How about a disgruntled neighbor that doesn’t want the business to go there. How would someone even know what he was or wasn’t doing? That’s my question.

I feel that if I am going to get serious and complain about something like this online, then I should be required to give my name and contact, so the inspector could at least contact me and find out if it’s bogus or not. Obviously, Mr. Claycamp has learned from past experience on Beacon Hill about cutting corners. I have no doubt that he will be above board on this project, and, while I have no proof, I would bet the complaint came from someone who has a bone to pick with the gentleman personally…I suspect mine was, too….

Diana August 11, 2009 (11:00 pm)

Christopher and Eileen, I appreciate your comments and the discourse. Mine should have been better worded. I have been on both sides of this issue. In most cases when a complaint is filed with the DPD it is not done so as an accusation of wrong doing but rather as a concern that a code has not been adhered to and a request for an investigation. If it is deemed spurious then no violation is noted and that is the end of it. In this case a violation was noted. The point I was trying to make, and clearly did not, was that this could have been avoided by ensuring the codes were complied with at the beginning. I wish this business well and hope that all of the issues will be resolved and things will move forward. As Eileen noted, the information is readily available to owners, architects, and contractors.

homesweethome August 12, 2009 (7:03 am)

First of all – building permit violations are hardly crimes and no part of the constitution protects you. The building permit process, though cumbersome, is there for your protection and should not be taken lightly by business or homeowner alike. As far as getting a building conversion going, like this one which is a large undertaking, stop work orders are common – this is for not only the safety of the public, but the workers, the owners, etc. Guaranteed – if the inspector misses something and a guest/customer visits the property this blog will be full of “how could this happen” posts.

Meghan August 12, 2009 (7:44 am)

The problem with the anonymous complaint system is that they are a great way to harass someone. They are often without any merit, but they can delay a project and cause a new business owner or someone building a house big headaches and (often expensive) delays. And there are no consequences if the complaint is found to be completely groundless. At least if there was a public record of who filed a complaint, it wouldn’t be such a good forum for harassment. I do understand the argument against that though too (i.e. people would be too intimidated to file a real complaint). I guess the only solution is that the city must investigate immediately.

onceachef August 12, 2009 (10:19 am)

It seems that no matter what the news is (good or bad) Gabriel gets a lot of publicity…you know what they say, “There’s no such thing as bad publicity”. Amen

D August 12, 2009 (12:49 pm)

I understand that the location would need to be permitted as food preparation now but I’m confused by the fact that it was previously residential. Is it just a case of it being improperly permitted for years and no one caring until now?

Christopher Boffoli August 12, 2009 (3:29 pm)

homesweethome: It wasn’t my intention to apply the 6th Amendment to the DPD complaint. My point was simply that the spirit of this basic right seems a reasonable protection anytime you have someone leveling a complaint against you to the government. Though one can make a convincing case for the value of anonymity in some instances, I think certain systems are vulnerable to abuse when anyone can say or report anything they like with impunity.

JanS August 12, 2009 (4:14 pm)

Christopher, I wholeheartedly agree.

JohnAka August 12, 2009 (5:24 pm)

As the designer, please allow me to address a few issues. We have been talking to the city for two months and this is well documented by officials. The work underway is exempt from permit, and meets all code and land use per SBC 106 and SMC. The inspector did not come inside, and though he could see work being done, did not see the scope, and red tagged the bldg. We are meeting with him Thursday to walk him through it, and hope to have it resolved by EOD. In the meantime, the crew is taking a well-deserved break.
Thanks for your support!

M S August 12, 2009 (7:03 pm)

I am a small business owner and recently someone filed an unfounded complaint against my business (this person accused me of opening a different business than the one was opening and claimed I needed permit for this and that, etc.) I came to the DPD in person and clarify the issue. I asked the staff who had filed the complaint and they said “this person wants to remain anonymous” but when the lady was not looking I peeked at her screen and saw who it was. To be honest with you I can only feel sorry for someone that does not have anything better to do with his time than try to hurt others on a personal vendetta.
At the end everything was OK, our opening was not delayed at all and now we are able to serve our beloved West Seattle community with great pride.
Yes, good will always prevail.

JanS August 12, 2009 (9:10 pm)

MS…so sorry this happened to you…and that’s exactly why it should NOT be anonymous. How much time and money is wasted by the city chasing after things that aren’t true. The city should be able to contact the complaining person and discuss what they’re complaining about before inspectors are sent out. It’s your tax dollars, people, remember that…

Jose August 12, 2009 (9:40 pm)

The system for reporting code/permit violations should *not* be anonymous. People with an axe to grind have nothing to lose, even if they are making a frivolous or malicious complaint.
Hey, there’s a guy out there swinging a five-foot metal pipe at people and their dogs – quite UN-anonymously! Imagine what a grand time a nut like that could have with this system.

JohnAka August 13, 2009 (12:56 pm)

The Stop Work order was removed this morning after the inspector viewed the work being performed, and saw no violation of 2006 Seattle Building Code. His only comment: he’s glad it’s us and not he cleaning up three decades of dog.

Be sure to check out the construction blog coming soon.