there was an aden dumb when the original -- adend dumb -- addendum rented it -- commissioner hechanova: was there a lease? >> yes. if the master tenant wants to sublet and the subtenant is viable, financially, etc., that you have to accept them. you can't unreasonably withhold consent. commissioner hechanova: thank you. >> again, all we're asking for is more time to work through the legal issues with the tenansy and do the construction and have it all legal. that's all we're asking for. president lee: commissioner clinch. no? anybody else? commissioner walker: rebuttal.

president lee: wait. wait. public comment? is there any public comment? commissioner walker: rebuttal and -- >> is there anybody for public comment? president lee: yes. >> public comment is three minutes. >> my name is elaine, i own the business below the unit in discussion now. i did not stand to be swrorn in so if you need -- sworn in so if you need to do that. >> do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? >> i do. >> ok. >> i really don't have much to add other than they are definitely people living there. they have been there since i bought the business in 2007. they were there before. i'm not aware that they're a business of any sort except to have these parties on the weekends. they are very disruptive to my business below. everything from threats to my employees to trash and broken

bottles to lots of noise disrupting my employees on a basis to fear of altercation of human feesies being placed at our front door which kind of started all this and brought the police into it and i have pictures here. they have been an ongoing problem for us. if it returns to commercial tenancy i would be delighted. president lee: thank you. any other public comment? >> well, my name is scott. i have no legally binding information so i don't think i need to be sworn in. i was originally going to sit and observe this but i noticed something in the police report which was interesting. in regards to this use i would imagine this is extensive sort of thing in the soma district that has gone on for decades. the artists have a long history. going back to the 1990's is something to be looked at.

i don't know the usage or the current ten aths. if they are going through the rent board and eviction process, even if you want to get them out you can't do it until you go to the rent board. i don't know the current relationship between the subtenants and the owners. if it is a process going to i would recommend them get more time because they would need it to peaceably resolve this. the city is well aware of the large number of illegal conversions to residencies from apartments to artist warehouses to large multigroup buildings. it has a large number of business owners living within them. if the owner was in there as a single occupant i believe there are a lot of laws that would allow that as a caretaker on the property. and basically in regards to the police report, it does look like the tenants have had an unfortunately negative interface with the people downstairs. i know one with the parties, the officer, larry bertrand, was under investigation.

if there are regards to his report i refer to others. thank you for your time. president lee: any other public comment? commissioner walker: now rebuttal. the department. you have three minutes. the department goes first. president lee: if you have nothing to add, that's ok. >> senior housing inspector. time was granted for compliance and we have been monitoring the case. the department recommendations still are the same, to uphold

the decision to impose and enforce abatement with estimated work performed and to comply with notice of violation. president lee: thank you. no questions. appellant. >> thank you. president lee: thank you. >> bob noelke representing the property at 557 howard street. once again, i make the request for an additional 0 days for the reasons outlined above and -- 90 days for the reasons outlined above. and i think when we have that time we can comply and have a code complying building with a handicapped accessibility to that second floor. so i think it's a win/win for us. thank you. >> i have a question. the question i have is you're asking for 90 days and before you said there was a period of 60 days before you had to evict the tenants so effectively you are asking for 30 days.

>> 30 days to do the work. >> is that possible? >> i don't think -- >> then why -- >> 90 days i thought was a reasonable thing. if we would extend it beyond 90, beyond it to have at least 60 days to do the work that would really -- we would really appreciate that. that would be -- commissioner, that would be very helpful to us. because we need electrical, plumbing, building signoffs. president lee: ok. thank you. >> i will concur we will need time. and, remember, i'm not going to lie to you. this gentleman spelled it out. if the tenants dig in, could take months. that's not under our control. thank you. president lee: commissioner walker and then murphy. commissioner walker: these issues where there's illegal

occupancy and it happens as mr. kiper talked about in this area artists have historically rented out space from folks to use as their studio and slept there. it was the dot trying to solve that was live/work. we are now talking about in many groups throughout the city about accessory use and adaptive reuse for these very purposes. and i at this point -- i mean, i feel for everybody in this. i hope that our department can engage with the process of moving forward, creative ways of adaptively reusing these great old buildings that we have. and i know this is an historic asset. i believe that the ground floor is. so i think that the issue for me in this is that tenants are

involved. i'd like to support giving as much time as possible to allow their process with you and encourage a cooperative process in that. i am troubled that we're losing space that was probably occupied by artists in our community and hope that we can, you know, find solutions for that issue. so one of the other issues i'd like to bring up is the concern -- the big concern i have in this is the condition of these spaces and the habitability issues that are apparent in the photography. so health and safety issues are of utmost importance and in landlords want to know about or do know about it, the work that's done should be providing

health and safety space whatever's going on. so that's a big concern that in these illegal occupancies it's very unsafe. so i have those issues as we go forward. president lee: commissioner murphy. commissioner murphy: i'd like to make a motion and i agree with commissioner walker. i do think, you know, you have a task at hand to get the tenants to move out and you have a task at hand to bring the building back to its original. it is a beautiful building, landmark. my motion would be to give you -- i don't think you can do it in 60 days. i give you 90 days to get the tenants out and the 30 days to get the work done. that's my motion. >> so 120 days?

commissioner murphy: yes. president lee: maybe we can continue the matter and revisit this in 120 days and get an update. is that how we should do this? >> can't hear you. sorry. president lee: maybe we should continue this matter for 120 days and then revisit it at that time. and get an update from the project. can we do that? commissioner murphy: let's get some legal advice. >> it's up to the board how you want to proceed. commissioner murphy's pending motion would be a final decision today which is that the order of abatement would be stayed for 120 days. if all work is not completed by then then the order will automatically issue. president lee: ok. >> the alternative that commissioner lee is suggesting is get a status update and rendering a final decision. president lee: the question is whether the abatement is upheld and the abatement is filed what happens to the tenants?

>> nothing. it's just an abatement ordered and issued against the property. president lee: and leave it with commissioner murphy's motion. >> again, that motion is for 120 days. >> second. >> so 90 days. 90 days to get the permit. 30 days to get the work. do you want to specify? 90 days to get the -- commissioner murphy: 0 days to get the tenants out. -- 90 days to get the tenants out. >> i don't know 90 days to get the ten athants out. commissioner walker: 30 more to begin work on the permit that's already applied for. i think that's the case. >> ok. commissioner murphy: i don't any to begin but i'd say to complete. and if it's not complete -- 120 days to complete. >> and the assessment of costs

is upheld. president lee: so 120 days to complete the work and cost is upheld. >> all right. we will take a roll call vote. president lee. president lee: yes. vice president walker. commissioner walker: yes. commissioner murphy, commissioner mar and commissioner romero. we have ran unanimous decision. president lee: thank you. ok. next item, number -- number two. >> our next item is case number two, number 6746, 149 bohna vista terrace. the owner of record and appellant is billy w. ewing and

the action requested by the appellant is that the city and state have been slow in their assistance. we will first hear from the department. seven minutes. >> good morning, commissioners. i'm the chief plumbing inspector. we have 149 bohna vista terrace. we had a -- buena visa terrace. we had a complaint filed november 4, 2008. one of my inspectors went out to the premises, met with the owner and found that work was being performed without a permit at that time. posted the building for correction notice to make corrections to what was installed. it went through another visit on december 12, an office visit from george wilson who told us he would come down with the permits of worbling that was

performed. the permits he did was for work performed but not for the work performed inside the building. part of the work that was performed was a backwater valve that was installed to prevent any kind of water entering into the building and flooding out the i believe lower unit or bath radio. the work that was performed on it was for the house trap and i believe 10 to 15 feet of building sewer that was outside of the building. on december 16 we had a second posting for correction. and on december 18 we sent the second letter. we had no compliance. as of march 17, 2009, went to a director's hearing november 19 and recommendation was that a permit be obtained within 30 days and have the work corrected and a permit was

obtained and 2010, may 21, 2010, was work that was obtained to correct the -- i'll put down what it said. from 149 buena visa avenue, the wrong address was on the first. to 149 buena vista terrace. and to pw-167692 to add a backwater valve and reroute four-inch main sewer. no inspections were ever performed on that permit. that's why we sent the notice that they still did not comply and still was not completed. my understanding was that there was a lower unit. from what i spoke with the inspectors that there was a lower unit and a backwater valve was put in front of the bathroom or unit to prevent any backwater from entering in from

the main sewer in the right location but was never inspected. the problem happened again so somebody went out and put in another backwater valve in the front of the building right before it exited the building. the problem with that is we have the rain water leerts that are coming off the -- leerts that are coming off the roof, the bathroom and the kitchen. if there's any kind of stop abbling until the h in the main -- it's an open and close -- always supposed to be in the open. if it closes because of back pressure, what will happen is any rain, any sewage would hit that location and actually start to back up into the building. now, we can all turn off the water to our houses but we can't turn off the rain. so that's why we in san francisco here because we have a combined system make it where the backwater valve has to be located just for lower fixtures only, nothing for rain water that's above. so it can be controlled. at this time when our inspector

went out he found this location and he posted it and that's where we're at today. president lee: what is the -- what's the remedy? different location for that backwater valve? >> the remedy -- there's two things. one is the main backwater valve has to be maintained by the owner of the property because if something gets inside it can cause a problem. so as a matter of fact, one of the inspectors went out there and asked that the lid be removed and the top would be removed and found there was something that was wrapped around the check which kept it open. that was one of the reasons there might have been a failure prior. i have no idea. the remedy for this would be that the actual fixtures that require the backwater protection that that valve is put in a proper location and if there's any other fixtures that are located on that system that that would have backwater protection as well. also to find out if the main

rain water liters or any drainage would have the right proper protection or located or rerouted to the proper location. president lee: so it's going to require some digging and identifying of lines? >> correct. well, from what i understand and from what i've been told, there is a backwater valve for that lower unit or the bottom area for that bathroom and there is a backwater valve there. so that backwater valve is protecting that. from what i understand is there is laundry that's down there that's not on that system. my suggestion would be a backwater valve that would be just for that laundry and then you have everything that's in that lower area protected. the other thing that i brought to my attention from other people and contractors in the area, we have areas that tends to flood. there is a backup from the main

sewer, that there is a release. i am willing to show anybody that design. it's my own design on how to relieve it. it might be the easiest way to correct the problem. at least give you some kind of -- but i don't do designs. that's not my job. i could just give an -- commissioner murphy: what about if they remedy the washing machine, back flow or backwater valve that you call it, if they do that, will that take care of this problem? >> if they put a backwater valve on that washing machine and the backwater valve for that lower bathroom and everything is in the correct location -- i haven't seen it. i don't know. if everything is in the correct location that should stop any future backups into that location as long as that's maintained and that's correct regularly. you can't control what's flushed down the toilet from a tenant unless you're the only person there and you're the only one that knows what's going on. ifyou did not check on a regular

basis, like rainy season and what not. i also have a letter that was submitted. commissioner lee: before you go, can i ask, just to clarify -- i know you and commissioner murphy have been going back and forth. is the violation specifically saying that the location of the bath water valve is in the wrong location? is that the issue? >> that is the issue. commissioner lee: the way i understand it, there is one near the property line to catch the rain water and sewage that should not be there. you are saying it should be on the other side so that even water can flow into the sewer. >> it should just be for everything below the fresh air. commissioner lee: i think commissioner murphy also asked if there are other that flow for

ventures. >> there is two total. one is for the lower unit there on the bottom, and one is after that that goes to the main -- commissioner lee: so the back one is not the issue. the one in front is. >> correct. commissioner lee: thank you. >> can we hear from the appellant? commissioner lee: you have seven minutes. >> good morning. i was not sworn in. >> ok, would you please raise your right hand? do you swear that the testimony you are about to give us the truth to the best of your knowledge? >> i did. >> thank you. you may begin. >> i have prepared a statement for the purpose of explaining our side of the dispute. i understand why the will of violation has been issued to me, and violation of an

improperly displayed back water valve. my tenants affected by the problem and i are here before you this morning to state for the record that the violation is in place theory the violation was founded my partner and myself, once again calling the puc after having a flood of sewage water backing up into our home. we then, that november 4, 2008, were incredulous that after calling the pc yet again at each event, we were being cited by the agency we had looked to for answers throughout this ordeal. the level of this belief was heightened by an employee telling me that afternoon that the main -- the city main pipe in front of our home was undersized according to city mapping. he then added that work we have paid our contractor to do in the street should have been done by the city. the statements were not solicited from him but rather volunteered. armed with this information, i made an appointment with our

then district 8 supervisor. at the meeting in december 2008, i had made to speak with mr. dufty, i was first made to meet with laura spanion of the puc. she acknowledged our many calls to the agency but acknowledge that they had nothing to do with the problem. her demeanor changed upon hearing what i have heard from one of our employees. we have asked for input on our problem of flooding and received a letter that was dated june 2, 2006, from the assistant chief of claims. his basic response, the property owner is completely responsible for the maintenance and repair of a private sewer. these words along with our engineering contractor george wilson cost us approximately $40,000. $40,000 is a large sum of money to be paid for sewer replacement on a three-unit building. george wilson replaced our

silver, and that is why i'm standing in front of you this morning. he replaced the store in 2006 without a backwater of all, only to install it with an additional cost after the system goes the first failure. we learned in 2010 that a bath water valve should have been installed at the time of replacement. this information along with puc responsibility beyond the curve was addressed in a survey inspection. this inspection was done on 4/26/2010, by the inspector of plumbing for the city of san francisco. my count here today is brief in comparison to the many months of disrupted the construction and reconstruction of our sewer. the years of 2006 through 2008, being in the dark as to the degree of fraud that had taken place. we had a sewer that was somehow done without the proper degree of oversight. we believe that not only was the permit for the bath water valve not obtained but the entire system had not been

installed and submitted. has been a long, arduous, and circuitous route, and yet, we are still without a solution. we had a onetime hired a lawyer, but that seemed to go nowhere. he gladly receive payments that got us nowhere. we are now awaiting arbitration hearing was perplexing -- help is george wilson able to install a complete sewer system without the proper oversight and city permits? we have been asking for the assistance of the city before, during, and after its installation in 2006, get it was our repeated calls to the puc that lead to finding this error in 2008. it is george wilson that we feel should be made to pay these fines and fees for violations that never should have taken place. >> i want to make a comment. it is unfortunate, but

sometimes, i think, the public realize on the city folks for all the answers for certain things, and unfortunately, in this situation, i do not think the city folks' advice to you should be the only advice that you see. you should seek your own professional consultant's advice on the matter. what i see is that when you said "lack of oversight," no, i do not think our department failed you in that sense. we do not tell you how you should solve the problem. we cannot tell you that. we do not study your building. we do not know the extent of your problem and say, "you need to install a backflow preventer." there could be a number of ways to do it. but you chose to install it. that is why it is now under our jurisdiction. because you installed it, and it was incorrect.

we cannot look at your plans and say that you are missing something here, unless it is obvious to us. it is not something we tell you that you need to install or something you and your engineers probably have to decide. but we as a department will look at your plan and say, "this is what you want to build." we would not know by looking at your plans that there is going to be a sewer problem. that is what i'm thinking has happened here. nevertheless, i think it is right that your backflow preventer are in the wrong place. if you want a second opinion, i would think you ought to find another professional out there that could study your building and let you know what they think. other than that, any other discussion? >> did you sue the contractor? >> did not suit him. we have an arbitration pending with the california state licensing board against him. we had contacted a lawyer to get to the bottom of all these

unanswered questions that were coming up. in response to mr. lee's comments, we only found out the city inspectors coming back to our home that and that flow valve should have installed at the time of so were replacement. we did not know when we paid to have the sioux were replaced. we were just told that the store was our responsibility, so we took it upon ourselves to replace the store, which we did. almost at the end of the installation of the sewer, mr. wilson came to me -- and this was after many months and many thousands of dollars spent already -- he said, "you know, you might want to consider putting in a back flow valve. at that point, we had spent so much time and money that we thought, why did we need this extra expense? we did not know at the time that

the fact flow valve actually should have been part of this installation. we did not know that. we depended on our engineer /contractor to do the job correctly. m sorry, you said the arbitration is still pending. when you see some type of resolution? >> the latest information i got, i think i contacted the california state licensing board. it was the end of 2009 or some part in the early part of 2010, and only now am i getting letters stating that they are choosing which are ready to give the case to. >> what is the remedy you are seeking? realistically, you know, commissioner lee is correct. i appreciate the fact that sometimes you get in contact with somebody who is less than capable of working on your property, and that is one of the reasons why you would look for an insured license