>> good morning. today is wednesday, january 18, 2012. this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board. np to turn off the electronic devices. the first item is roll call. [roll call] commissioner romero is excused. we have a quorum. the next item is the oath. all part is giving testimony today, please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is to to the best of your knowledge? thank you.

you may be seated. the next item is item c, approval of minutes, discussion and action for the meeting held on november 17, 2010, december 15, 2010, and april 20, 2011. commissioner lee: are we able to take all three at the same time? commissioner murphy: motion. >> all in favor? >> aye. >> the minutes are approved. we're going to begin with the appeals. president lee, would you like to explain the allotted time? ouacommissioner lee: let's do te continued appeals first. is there a special process for

continuing appeals? let's get an update from the department first on what is happening, and then we will hear -- is it the other way around? commissioner murphy: maybe we could let the appellate go first, if they have their request? commissioner lee: the first item is 1117 gary boulevard. >> each has seven minutes for the presentation, three minutes for each side for their rebuttal. >> i am the attorney for the appellant. i am here to request another continuance of this matter consistent with an agreement that my client, the appellant, has with the department. we were here in november, requested a continuance to allow the processing of the permit application that have been filed by my client. application has been approved

by the historic preservation. the permit was released by planning in the last week or so. it is now with dbi in a structural plan check review. my anticipation is the permit will be through in the next couple of weeks hopefully. at that point, once the permit is issued, it is clients intention to withdraw the appeal. i would hope the board would look at this as an opportunity to move this casey2ñiv÷ along, i would request a continuance. commissioner murphy: how much of a continuance? >> i think 60 days should be sufficient. commissioner lee: does the department have anything to say? commissioner murphy: we agree with your decision. let's make it 90 days. commissioner lee: any public comment? >> e

this item for 90 days. i need to do a roll-call vote. [roll call] the motion passes unanimously. commissioner lee: ok, let's go 554 fell more strict -- filmore street. xópx#q>> acting senior building inspector for the department. appeal number is 6753, address 554 filmore street.

evaluation description, work includes removal of finishes, also to stained glass windows. an order of a bit with conditions, 10 days to respond, filing herman for notice of the evaluation period 60 days to obtain inspection approval. staff recommendation is to uphold the order of abatement and impose a suspension. comy filed for the permit? >> they have filed for the permit.

the last entry was november 28, 2011. commissioner murphy: the permit they filed for, does that cover on, this would clear the violations. commissioner lee: no question with the appellant. no? >> i have nothing to report other than we filed for the permit a couple days after this hearing in november. commissioner murphy: so isn't planning now? you did not receive the permit? >> yes, we received the permit. commissioner walker: do you want a continuation? >> yes, until we get the permit. commissioner murphy: does anyone

know how long this would take? >> we could consider treating both cases similarly, if that is ok with you. commissioner walker: 90 days? commissioner murphy: i am not sure if that is enough, talking about planning. commissioner walker: maybe they could come back in 90 days to let us know. commissioner murphy: second. >> roll-call vote. is the public comment on this item? thank you. we can continue with the vote on the motion. [roll call]

the motion carried unanimously. item e. new appeals to orders and abatement. 6755, 336 pear street. seven minutes for the department to speak, seven minutes from the appellant. rebuttal then public comments. >> members of the board, good morning. chief housing inspector representing the department of building inspection in this matter. this is a case that is before you in which property owner has appealed the order of abatement issues by the director's representative, they are asking

for more time to address the structure that is at the rear of the lot of record in this case. glñ is an eight-unit apt building at the front of the structure. i will be showing some photographs. here is the front of the subject building. this location is, in addition to being a parking area, drives through to the middle of the a lot. all of this is going to be germane with respect to the blighted conditions that have existed for some time. here is a real photograph. here is the apartment building. then there is a space here where the driveway comes through the bottom of the building. the structure in question is here. this is at the end of the lot line.

here is more detail -- commissioner murphy: are these eight units occupied? >> no, it is dilapidated. the front building, the apartment building, as we put in our staff report, is a fully occupied eight-unit building, with the dilapidated building in the back. that building is approximately here. i am going to show you a photograph of what the structure looks like. this is in your staff report. you cannot see all the structure, but the front portion has been collapsed, there has been some shoring. we had been at this since may 2010, and as of this morning, there is not a building permit application to address serious blighted conditions. albeit, this is not the front of the,!ñr18

this building and adjacent properties have to deal with this. the property owner's representative will address this, i am sure, but the concern is whether or not they can legalize this. if they want to work with planning, that is totally up to them, but too much time has gone on. we spoke with the planning department yesterday, one of the team leaders. the maps clearly show, in 1919, this was a stable. later on, this was for a garage. we cannot find any building permit application that shows it çt used legally for a dwelling unit, on the site inspections show there was some residential use going on at some time. while that mayy the property owner, staff does not have a problem with that, but we believe no continuance

should be given. an order of debate and should be upheld because this is a serious blighted condition. because we have this ordinance, looking at things more carefully, we want to make sure we are consistent. that is our recommendation based on the findings we have. if there are any questions, i have more exhibits. i think you would want to hear from the property owner. commissioner murphy: i have one question. commissioner hechanova: -- commissioner hechanova: i have one question. were these taken from the rear side of the property? >> this was taken in their rear yard. the inspector is standing somewhere under these trees looking in this direction. commissioner hechanova: thank you. commissioner walker: it seems to me -- i had heard there was a

fire? it is not just falling apart, it looks like it burned. >> what we saw when we were out there, there was a collapse of the front portion of the structure. 7uu+k8 inspections for them to short it. today, 20 months later, there is no permits. -- shore it. there was concern from individuals in the edges apartment buildings, use the area. there is also parking back there. one of the things the planning department told us is the apartment building is already legally nonconforming. the buildout under present zoning would be four units. unless there was substantial evidence that there was ever a

residential use back there, what they would be looking at would be to repair or demolish the structure, restore the parking. that would be the only thing planning would be looking at. because of the rear yard, it is unlikely that they would approve any such use for residential. the problem is, the property owner should apart -- started that process months ago. commissioner murphy: 7 decide that is against the property, the neighboring property on the back, we do not have a picture of that? >> there is so much vegetation, it is hard to take pictures. the property line ends approximately here. as you can see, it was hard to get pictures with the

vegetation. perhaps the property owner could give you more. perhaps they have other pictures they were able to take. commissioner hechanova: was there evidence of occupancy by animals or birds, by virtue of being opened? >> yes, it is open to the elements. the other concern we have is, over a period of time, the building descender goods further. in the last 20 months, there has probably been more damage. -- deteriorates further. the building needs to be either repaired, or in this case, probably demolished. >> i am representing the levenson family, the owners of the property. this is a photograph of the building.

this has been removed so far. we have a seriously dilapidated building on this site. we no time has gone on. this is 20 months. the property owner has not stood still in this time period. the building is held in trust by two families. it took a great deal of effort for the various owners to agree as to what course of action to follow. city planning staff. they are willing to entertain the use of this building as a single-family apartment over a broad -- garage. we are ready to permit -- submit the permit application this week. i have copies, if you

wish to look at them. they include floor plans -- this is all in preparation of a site plan. in addition, the property owners capped the gas, electric, and water lines. the building is vacant. >> so there is plumbing fixtures -- commissioner murphy: so there are plumbing fixtures in there? >> yes, and as you can see from this picture, there was residential use. i should probably leave it right there. we had to deal with problems of legality. when the notice of violation was issued in may of 2010, the owners were aware of the problem, and we are seeking financing to complete the rehab this property. they received some bids.

those that we have received are to the $20,000. this is a major rehab project. -- $220,000. financing is critical. we know it has taken time for us to get here, but it has not been completely wasted time. we have worked with planning staff, we have a set of plans. we had to pare that before we could get contract bids out. if the order of abatement is issued, it would create a cloud on the title, which would work against us, because it would be more difficult to get financing to÷6ñndmx rehab this project. what we want to do is make this building -- is already secured. we want to complete the upgrade its structure. in order to do that, we need financing. the old order of abatement -- the order of abatement would

impede the process. the owners were looking for money to do the project in 2010, but they ran up against a brick wall. we are asking that the order of abatement be held in abeyance, for a period of time, maybe four months, so we can get our financing. at that time, we will have the bubuildi issued and ready to go. it is the intention of the owner to rebuild a beautiful structure. that is our contention and our concern. we would strongly recommend that the order be held -- commissioner lee: you mentioned the building is secure. what do you b