it's a great idea to work with your neighbors and have ideas, put your energy into a dialogue in which you're not just criticized but you also participate in solutions. there's a -- work with them. for example, in the studies and how we need certain jaggedy edges are in conflict there, that's where compromise lies. that's where the roof could be shaved or balconies could be pulled back. i'm not even interested in that but i want to find those points of where there are tools to really talk to each other and that doesn't mean that in the end this new building for the family is a totally traditional looking building but it's one which understands taking the existing elements and bringing

them forward in perhaps a modern event ac lar, in the modern building expression but not to the extent that it's jarring and that's what we have at the moment. that's as far as i would want to verbalize my own encouragement for using the tools, communicating with each other, even when you are coming from different ends in architecture. president olague: maybe there's some clarification. >> i understand style and so we could talk about style in regards to modifying the building in that respect. but what i'm trying to understand is the massing of the building and i think that actually needs to be addressed here. because there have been suggestions from the d.r. applicants that we remove a whole floor. and, you know, as i mentioned in my testimony that we have an eight-foot ceiling, we have tried to, we went through two mediation sessions. president olague: i didn't hear

-- yeah -- yeah. >> a little bit of clarification. i think that's very critical to understanding -- president olague: that mikes sense. didn't hear -- that makes sense. i didn't hear anyone up here saying anything about removing a floor. or going underneath, clearly. but the massing, you're right there should be some more clarification on a piece of that. commissioner moore: you might have to to pull in the floor and not have it extend all the wayed to the tot outside. you might have to shape the roof, you might have to shape how that top floor sits on top of the extensive massing of the building. you're basically squaring out a block and you might have to pull that in in some form or another. it doesn't look that way. so that is where the challenge lies. it still looks very much bulked out. commissioner antonini: i would agree with i think what the other commissioners are saying. we're not necessarily saying to take a floor off but by scupting

the upper floor, perhaps making it more in harmony with the rest rather than just a setback, you can take some clues, actually the building to the north or the uphill side which is the craftsmen house and actually they did a good job with the two garages, i'm not quite sure, the one little garage stands by itself, even in the new plan and i'm not sure if there's any way you can use any of that to tie that into the house. i know would you have to go higher on that and that might be a problem but not all the way up, but it just seems like a little orphan garage down there and i'm not quite sure if we can do anything above that or in that area. >> i just wanted to clarify that the garage shown is of the adjacent neighborhood, not of the subject property. commissioner antonini: ok, we're not looking at that. that garage belongs to the house next door. ok, got it. all right. that being said, you do have

some limitations in the amount, the number of feet you have as frontage. i didn't look at it, is it 25 feet? so we're fairly limited there. so that's a challenge. but whatever you can do to try wherever possible to let us much light in by redesigning and changing the appearance a little bit at the same time letting light in, just by perhaps the gable or something like that on the upper floor, that might make it a lot -- you accomplish all the square footage you had before but it's shaped a little different direction. commissioner sugaya: again, i don't want to redesign the building here. but some considerations might be that the front base, you know, extend all the way up to the top without a cap of some kind, i'm not talking about a cornice but that might be something to look at as a more detailed design.

consideration. i'd also encourage project sponsor to see if they can't lower the building a little bit. we're not talking about a full floor, i don't think. i suppose once you start excavating you might as well go lower. but if you could take a look at that and see how that might affect it, might not affect the tree and what that does to your bottom line, i think the commission would with appreciate at least taking a look at that and getting back to us at the next hearing. if it can be accomplished, i think it would help. i don't know if it will appease the d.r. requesters that it only go down a little bit instead of a full floor but it might help and in terms of massing in scale, there's the whole issue of how much square footage you have and some consideration there also combined with massing and what not might also be something to take a look at, especially on the upper level.

we just knocked a whole half a floor off of a previous design. so we're not adverse to taking some action like that. i'm not suggesting that you do that here but if you sat through , was it pleasant street? we did take half of a square footage away on the upper level. >> thank you. i think we've gotten some fairly good direction of areas that we can work and study with the architect concerning the areas of massing in the rear, cosmetic work in the front, studying how low they can conceivably excavate without necessarily damaging the tree roots. looking at a design that's perhaps a little bit more in conformity with the neighborhood and a little bit more modest. these are the terms that i've been taking notes of from your

dialogue. i think with this direction we can work with the architect as well as our own in-house staff to hopefully come up with some other options before, to bring back to the commission. president olague: great. so all the question. >> what date? president olague: july 28. >> the motion on the floor is for continuance of this item until july 28. you've given direction to the project sponsor and staff on what to work on. public hear willing remain open because you have asked for change. on that motion. commissioner antonini: aye. commissioner borden: aye. commissioner fong: aye. commissioner moore: aye. commissioner sugaya: aye. vice president miguel: no. president olague: aye. >> motion passes 6-1 with commissioner miguel voting against. commissioners, i'm assuming that is for all three --

>> can i ask a question on that? if between now and then they come to some resolution -- president olague: we have to see it because it's a mandatory d.r. because of the demolition. so we do have to see it. ok, commissioners. >> you are now at general public comment. president olague: we should have voted for the demolition right now. why don't we do that? we'd have to rescind our votes. >> we can't. president olague: ok. that's fine. thank you, linda. general public comment. is there any general public

comment on items that were not on today's agenda? seeing none, general public comment is closed. and the meeting is adjourned. >> good morning. today is wednesday, may 18, 2011. this is the meeting of the abatement appeals board.

i like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we are expecting commissioner murphy. commissioner romero and commissioner hechanova are excused. we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda is the oath. will all those who will be giving testimony today please rise and raise your right hands? this is for the abatement of pills. do you swear that the testimony you are about to give us the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. we can move on to item number c, which is new appeals. order of abatement case 1, case number 6748 1429 hyde street.

the act it -- the action requested by the appellant is assessment of costs and fees imposed by the order abatement be waived. we will hear from the department first for seven minutes and then the appellant. then we will have discussion, and then there is a three-minute rebuttal for each side. if we could hear from the department representative first. >> good morning, commissioners. i work for the department of building inspection as a plumbing and mechanical and specter. -- inspector. the original notice of violation was written by myself based on an actual physical inspection of the premises on 4/19/04.

at which time, we observed several code violations, which are delineated on the report. we issued letters, followed procedure, and some of these code violations are pretty significant violations with back flow protection and boiler certification inspection and safety items on the book. the owner of the property has had a significant amount of time to contact us. we have sent letters explaining what he needs to do, how to go about getting a precontracted to help -- appropriate contractors to help with the work, and today, we have had no inspections, no response. our recommendation is to uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment of costs. thank you.

>> this is a significant amount of time, going on seven years. i mean, i guess i would ask how, it has taken so long to get to this point. >> i can only give you my response, which is beyond the scope of my expertise, other than if you look at the case history, we sent the code enforcement from one department somewhere in may. i cannot speak to what takes place up there and how come it took so long. >> ok, thank you. >> has anybody gone back to visit the property since 2004? >> no, we have a response that says there were plumbing permits which were required cold, but it's coming from and in its description and scoke mentions nothing about the removal of the boiler, for which we require a permit an

inspection, and that particular permit has no case history of any inspections being done. >> so it is enacted? >> it is long since expired. >> what led to the 2004 inspection? >> probably the city had some records either from the apartment, from the health club apartment, or we had records t indicate there was a boiler on the premises, and it did not have a valid or current permit to operate. at which time, when i was first hired on, that is primarily what i did. go out and inspect various boiler rooms to see if they complied. >> are there usually routine inspections of boilers? >> the actual requirement to have a routine inspection and a permit to operate is the responsibility of the property owner, and it is up to them to

hire a licensed contractor. they do the physical inspections, submit the report to our department, and we issue the permits to operate. but as far as enforcement goes, then that falls on our shoulders to do enforcement. >> no questions? ok, to the comment. >> [inaudible] >> seven minutes. >> i am the son of the owner, and a lot has transpired. in 2004, when we get the notice -- i think it was late 2004 or 2005 -- the apartment caught fire, so there was fire damage, and everyone was out of the building for several years. at that time, when we remodeled

or had to rebuild the whole thing, when we were examining the fire damage and everything else, the demote the boiler as well. i told one inspector when we first got the notice that it is not operational right now. i cannot give a permit inspection because the building is not occupied. no one is using it. there was no usage of the boiler at all. since then, my dad was in charge and passed away, and my brother has passed away, so a lot has transpired since then. we just got the building back online. but the boiler was removed back in 2005. i talked to the inspector, i called, and he said to send an

e-mail, and i did and did not hear a response, so when i got the first reviewed the court thing -- the first court thing, and said that the boiler was not there, and i talked to the inspector, and he said i just had to send in information saying the thing was gone, so i assumed i did not have to show up for this one. the boiler is not there. nobody bothered to call me up to get an inspection to see if it was there or not. it has not been there for fiber six years. -- five or six years. i do not have a boiler left. there is nothing to abate. commissioner walker: but our department does not have any record that there was any inspection of whatever the permits for the funding was at

that time. my question is, you have done a rebuild after the fire. what is the current heating source? >> it is a water heater. commissioner walker: ok. commissioner lee: any other questions, commissioner? commissioner murphy: director sweeney, explain to me what is going on. commissioner lee: we will go to the appellant first and then talk to the department again. any other questions for the appellant? i have a question. my understanding is that there was a fire and you rebuild the building, changed the heating system.

>> there was fire damage before, and it for part of our roof off. the place was vacated. commissioner lee: you must have had permits to -- >> we had a demo permit and everything. commissioner walker: what is the current heating system? electric? >> yes. commissioner lee: that was indicated in your construction project? commissioner walker: that is permitted? >> i think so. >> a similar question, was the wood for domestic hot water supply or heat as well? -- was the boiler for domestic hot water supply or heat as well? >> it was both. since that was the case, when we had the fire, we just demo the whole thing.

>> thank you. when you did the rebuild, the heating system was installed and a domestic hot water supply system was installed. >> that was part of the building permit. >> at the time, there was no reminder of an outstanding violation? >> no, because there was no violation. i told one of the inspectors back then that the boiler was put down. i did not realize that i had a violation at that time. there was no violation because the boiler is not there anymore. how do you get fined for something that the trouble is not there? i mean, the boiler is gone. >> because the apartment building was vacant after the fire and because it was reoccupied, was there an

inspection, and that was passed before it took place? it is not occupied now? >> i have finals coming up pretty soon. >> the construction is still going on? >> yes. had a lot of family issues when my father passed away and my brother passed away. >> it has been vacant since 2005? >> yes. commissioner lee: so the construction permit has not been completed yet? >> no, i still have the permit out on it. commissioner lee: no more questions, commissioner? ok, thank you. public comment first. any public comment? ok, no public comment. could we have the department

back up for rebuttal? >> certainly. i understand the appellate's frustration. it was a simple matter, and we made this clear through our communication. you can remove a boiler, but you need a permit to remove the boiler. we will do the physical inspection to make sure the cross connection has been eliminated and the gas lines are secure, and we will update the complaint. simple as that. going beyond that, to install a new source of heat, particularly gas heaters and water heaters, we need additional permits for the new equipment. as of date, i have no permit indicating that they are installing any of those acquitted. i have no inspection history of any physical inspection for any plumbing or heating devices. all i have is a permit would says replaced damages from fire.

that permit is long since expired. >> so if i go to the online side and look at the history, there will be no permit for either a new heating system or a removal of the old one? >> based on the staff report given to me that i have in front of you here today, that is my understanding. there is no history of any permits for any of this work. there may be some misunderstanding. the appellate might have been under the belief that his job card covered this work, but it is clearly indicated that separate plumbing permits are required. commissioner walker: thank you.

commissioner lee: did you have anything else to add? >> i did not mean it like that, but i had to go up to the building department and renew my existing building permit to get the parking passes that i had. i know i did that, and i paid them something, so i do not know what that is. they looked up the files and said that they updated the permits, and i paid the fees on it to get my parking permit and everything. i do not know what i can say. if i need to pull some more permits our, then i will have to do that.

>> [inaudible] >> i thought that was included. i thought that was in the original building permit. commissioner murphy: are you a general contractor? >> yes, i am. commissioner murphy: i think a general contractor should note to pull separate permits. >> i am an electrical contractor. i have a general license. i do not act as a general very often. i am not a general general contractor. i have the license, but i do not utilize it as my source of income. i am more of an electrical contractor. i thought it was included since they pulled the permit for the whole building. that was pulled by them. commissioner walker: do you have

a contractor on this job? >> no, i am just doing it myself. commissioner mar: i i think he answered the questions from the two previous commissioners. thank you. commissioner lee: thank you. commissioners? commissioner walker: it seems pretty clear from the presentation back -- that the permits necessary for the work done were not drawn. i understand the frustration, but i think that's -- it is our job to actually support the proper process of getting permits, and when the does not happen, that is why we get here. i feel like maybe what we could do is figure out the time necessary for actually taking the permits out and doing the work. i support the staff

recommendation in this, so maybe we could figure out a time frame -- timeframe of implementing it like we do sometimes. do you have a sense of what it would take to implement and correct this problem? >> i think at this point, at the very least, we need to get the appropriate permits polled, and we probably need to do a cursory initial inspection to see to what extent the work has proceeded without a permit. we do not know how much work has been done up to this point without permits. as an electrical contractor, he is clearly aware that electrical permits are separate from job cuts, so there could be a significant amount of work that has already been done that has not been seen, that has not been permitted. he could pull a permit on line in a day.

i would not give him more than 15 days to pull a permit and get us out there to see what is going on. commissioner walker: the notice of violation in front of you right now pertains to the previous boiler. to update that violation, what he needs to do is pull a permit for the removal of the boiler that has already occurred -- to update that violation -- to abate that violation. commissioner murphy: they would need to pull a permit for that particular boiler only. >> yes. commissioner murphy: and get that abated. >> the removal of the boiler which already occurred without a permit. commissioner walker: i would move that we are told the staff recommendation, uphold, i guess -- of hold the -- uphold teh

abatement and give him 30 days to resolve this issue. commissioner murphy: i will second that motion. >> 30-day advisement to abate this violation. if it is not completed within 30 days, the order will be recorded. ok. >> well said. commissioner lee: do we have a second? i guess commissioner murphy second. >> roll call vote. president lee? commissioner lee: yes. commissioner mar: yes. commissioner murphy: yes. commissioner lee: you have one month to get your permit and get it resolved. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner