>> good morning. today is wednesday, september 21, 2011. this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices.

the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum. the next item is the old spirit will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand? where is the other gentleman? ok. commissioner lee: we can do that later when he comes back.

>> i did not think will work first on the agenda. >> we are doing the oath of office. i am side, the testimony. will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand? do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? >> yes. >> thank you. this is an abatement appeals board meeting of the process of the department. the department has seven minutes. then the appellate has seven

minutes. each side is allowed three minutes for a bottle. item number c is new appeals. order of abatement. cases 6750, 619 diamond street. all our record lindsay chambers. action requested by appellate -- reversed the order of abatement due to active building, plumbing, and electrical permits on 619 demonstrate that correct the building violations caused by the previous owner in 2008 -- 619 diamond street. the communications and the perception in the building department or that the act permits took care of the nov's once completed.

commissioner lee: thank you. i guess we will hear from the department first. >> good morning, president, board members, active senior building inspector wrote code enforcement. the appeal number, the address, complaint 200840567. in your package, you will see the dates for the notice of violation. the particular violation in this case is removed all wall and ceiling finishes of the entire building interior without a permit. on march 24 of this year, a director's hearing took place and an order of abatement was issued with conditions including file for building permit for removal of interior

finishes and said it collected plans and finally 90 days to complete approval. there were two permits issued in 2008. one was to deal partially with a notice of violation, a separate case from the one we have today. shortly after that, there was a revision to that permit. both those permits expired. earlier this year, this permits were renewed, but they have had -- those permits were renewed, but they have not have final inspection yet. a permit was filed in september of this year, a revision to the original permit. the permit is still in filing status and has not been issued,

so take into consideration that no permits dealing with the violation was issued, inspected, and signed off before the hearing and has not happened to date. staff recommends to uphold the order of abatement and to impose assessment of cuts. that concludes our report. commissioner lee: any questions? commissioner murphy: i have just one question -- these walls that were removed -- are they all interior? >> yes. >> i understand the september permit application is for the extra work that was not included in the first two permits? >> it is for extra work of different types, but it does not refer to language in the violation which relates to removal of the interior wall finishes. still, there is no specific reference to the particular violation.

>> so the violation, the permit application for september -- that is all for violations? -- with that solve the violations? >> not completely, no. >> so it is different? >> yes. >> of these interior walls, were any of them structural and/or would have required to be upgraded to meet current structural requirements? >> whenever there is work done without a permit and any material is removed, until you get the permits and have inspection is going on, it is only then that you truly get a clear picture of exactly what went on. often a permit can be got, and then after the first inspection, when the inspector corresponds

between the violation and the description on the permit, they may discover that it does not entirely deal with all the issues, or they may discover other issues that were not apparent when the initial notice of violation was issued. that is what this whole process is. we need a permit that deals specifically with us and under the inspections with that permit, and the other issues. commissioner lee: thank you. and the other question, commissioners? ok, we will have the appellate, the homeowner. you have seven minutes. >> hi. i am the owner of the property. i guess the question i have is that i have a permit here from 2009 that says clear nov's with

a bid. it was a revision to the permit that was pulled by the previous owner. that is what i have. this is a printout from online. this is the actual permit. commissioner lee: thank you. yes, please continue. >> that would be it sounds to me like the main point of contention is that i do not have a permit that explicitly states that this permit is to clear the notice of violation, but that permit explicitly states that its intent is it is supposed to be able to clear what it has been idle, which we do not have a final because we have not completed construction, that the nov's will be cleared once the

permit is final. >> did they disclose you to you -- did they disclose this to you when they sold the property? >> i was aware there were nov's on the property. they said they cannot be cleared until the permit was finaled, but this revision permits, the particular one i have handed you is final, and they would be cleared. >> that has not been funneled -- finaled. i am with the prior owner is well known to the building department. he went through bankruptcy and left a number of these properties all in the same condition. a lot of notice of violation. it was a very complex case. the district attorney has a case

against the former owner. he must have had 20 of these properties throughout san francisco, and this is just another one that he had. you have investors now picking up the pieces to this property. they are getting permits. they are doing the right thing, but they are still being whacked as -- for past deeds for someone that owned the property prior to them. that is probably the best way to put it. >> let me ask you a question, mr. sweeney. what does this woman need to do to resolve this? >> i believe she is pretty close to finaling this. she probably needs a little more time. she would get cfc and that would clear all the violations. that is what she needs. >> my contractor said he should be done by november 1.

>> what is the current fees on this? that john would be better off on that. >> if anyone have any questions for me. otherwise, i do not have any testimony. thank you. commissioner lee: ok, do we have public comment? no? ok, rebuttal. >> in response to that question, the initial fee at this time as $1,326. commissioner murphy: has electrical sign off or plumbing? >> i am not aware of that.

the history of that seems to be of not getting permits signed off. there was reference made to other permits issued. there can be permits issued, but the goal is to get the permits signed off. in doing so, we can verify that the permits of the violations, and then we can close the case. commissioner murphy: i just wonder why this ended up here in front of us. >> as the secretary mentioned, there was a change of ownership, and it is difficult when a new owner comes in because they are not familiar with exactly what went down, so they depend on their own research and any help we can give them. i do acknowledge that is difficult. commissioner walker: the $1,326 represents fees only, no penalties? >> that is the cost we incurred

in handling the case at this point. commissioner lee: anything else? thank you. homeowner rebuttal? >> this is in response to whether there are active electrical and plumbing contracts on the property. we have asked the plumbing and electrician to boulder on permits. i apologize. i lay have what i pulled off the online web site, but there was the midpoint inspection this year for plumbing and electrical as well as the insertion of a fireplace. but they have not been a final -- they have not been finaled because the house has not yet been inspected. we have not have final inspection. thank you.

>> commissioners, it would appear all the rough inspections have been done on the property and we are awaiting final. commissioner lee: ok. any more questions? ok. >> it is always troubling to me when, you know, in the midst of a house selling that had previous problems those issues have not been shared with the new purchaser. i think that is an ongoing problem. however, it does not deal with the fact of the violations here, which is what we are asked to look at. it looks to me like the department recommendation is an accurate one. and that i would recommend or suggest or make a motion that we forward the staff approval that we adopted, recommendation of the staff, but give time to the

owner to complete the work. maybe 30 to 60 days, two months. i pulled the staff recommendation and give the homeowner two months to complete the work. commissioner murphy: i would like to add to that. i would like the owner to least get 90 days. >> ok. i'm fine with that. commissioner lee: i think i agree with 90 days. i think the homeowner said something about november. >> i'm happy to amend my motion. >> is there a second? >> second. commissioner lee: any other comments, commissioners? >> i do. i think as a result of some of the condition of sale on some of

this distressed property that we always will and most likely should at least be aware of what these properties have by virtue of their -- they are essentially a land mine for those that purchased it. somehow, the realtors are just in their to sell the property without the recognition that the impact on the buyer does have some repercussions. do we have and should we take into account that these properties are -- and put the new order at risk? >> in the case of how this particular former owner had bankruptcy problems and legal problems, he really did leave behind a mess. i have met with many people buying his properties, and all

having the same problems as ms. chambers. it is very complex. when you buy it from bankruptcy, you buy from a bag. the disclosures are not as much as you would have on a regular sale. the buyer as the buyer is at a lot more disadvantaged. you need to be very sophisticated to buy property out of bankruptcy, especially one in bankruptcy that has been torn apart and has notices of violation. >> you mentioned something interesting. did you meet with the property owners or the new owners before they owned the property or after? >> unfortunately, i usually meet with them after. a couple of them i have met with prior to buying, and i tell them as soon as i hear this particular name, i said, "watch yourself. you will probably discover all kinds of unpleasant things." >> when you take on one of these

projects, the properties are usually discounted. you take that into effect. you also take into effect that you take the baggage when you sign on the dotted line. whatever is on there, you are responsible for. i think the buyer in this case has shown very good faith in coming forward and getting permits and doing all she can to legalize it. we have given her time. so that is where we are at. >> ok. if there are no more comments, we will take a vote. >> on the motion to uphold the staff decision with the amendment to give the owner an additional 90 days to complete the work, president lee? commissioner lee: yes. commissioner walker: yes.

commissioner clinch: yes. commissioner hechanova: yes. commissioner mar: yes. commissioner romero: yes. commissioner murphy: yes. >> the motion passes unanimously. commissioner lee: thank you. next case, please. >> added two, case 6751, 250 kearny street. owner of record and a palette, henry karnilowics. a year is requested. it has not been signed off yet because there's notification regarding planning it number 173705. 173705. for some of this is for the