there needs to be a majority for that motion to pass. >> than the motion would fail. i think that is a straight motion to continue. >> what happens if there is no motion passed? >> if you are not able to take action, it is the practice of this board to continue. but i would suggest that you have a motion, just to make the record. >> finaall right, commissioner walker's motion? >> discussion. >> discussion? >> i wanted to comment on the fact that commissioner hechanova said that this was an academy with limited resources. again, i have to go back to issues of the past where they

have had to do repairs on their houses and have not been in the best financial position. i do not feel as though we have been as lenient. these people were able to uphold the building codes. we have tried to work with them that way this is not one of those situations. i know that there is a question here as to the decision makers. i feel that there has to be some responsibility given over to the folks who are making decisions not to follow the building codes. i feel that if we do this, we actually, to avoid unfair treatment, we have to avoid -- offer the same level of leniency to other parties before us. i do not know that we can actually just disregard the fact that people were told that they were violating the city's building code.

again, i am not convinced the people did not understand. i just do not think that they wanted to comply. i do believe that the department is not being unduly hard or harsh against the academy. i feel that they were given ample warning. the bottom line is that they did not want to comply with the code. i do not think a supervisor walker's -- >> commissioner. [laughter] >> that was last year. >> actually, it was not last year. >> commissioner walker's motion is not unreasonable. if we are giving them enough time and opportunity to uphold the building code as our inspectors have said that they must, it is just not an unreasonable request. i believe that the motion is fair. >> let me ask, i have a feeling that sometimes when we make a motion to uphold abatement at

the appellant time, we do not want to see the matter before us again and we are just trying to cut the time of having the appellant before us in the department. in this case, i think what is being said is let's continue the item and have the apartment and appellant -- have the department and appellant reappear in one month and see what is going on. just let's see what is going on in a month. i do not see anything wrong. >> did is not clear to me what is going to change between now and next month that changes the building code requirement. i also do not understand why this project sponsor is being treated differently.

maybe one of the commissioners can answer that. usually when we uphold -- if there is a clear violation, it is a clear violation. windows were removed. the boards were there. if you or i got permits to do -- or were replacing windows and did this, we would be violated as well. we sit in litigation committee, week after week, looking at buildings that left. kermit and building work that is done without a permit. we take legal action. this one is pretty cut and dried. i am not certain what the difference would be between one month from now and now. as to whether a permit was required. >> i am not going to take up too much television time.

i do not have to rationalize what i did to you, commissioner walker. >> you did not do anything to me. >> the way that i see it, they moved some furniture, statues, whenever. maybe they were bolted. maybe they were not. they removed class from the windows. the frames are still there. -they could put glass in the windows, get a permit, get it signed off, and move on. i would say the same thing if it was some kitchen remodel. if someone did not understand and did not quite know what was going on. that is a historic building. it is a long time ago since i painted glass in windows. i had no idea that i needed a permit. that was a long time ago.

i think i am giving them the benefit of the doubt. that is just my opinion. >> ok. commissioner hechanova? >> we have to use good judgment in the category of not necessarily putting single- family homes and their replacement of windows and a violation and, say, the violation of a building where the benefit to the community was, of course, operations at the school that would basically meet a greater need of students and families. i believe that leniency is in place that allows for resolution to happen without spending both additional money and time where all of this could be resolved with the department and with project sponsors.

without having to come back. that is how to move this project forward. >> this is going to come back. no matter what. the issue is, are we going to require a permit or not? if you think that there is a permit required, that is why you uphold this. get a permit and it comes away -- goes away. the abatement is removed and they are fine for the time because they have been offered the resolution of getting a permit from the time of the issuance of violation. that is why we are here, because they did not do it. >> you have a motion? >> absolutely. >> we have a motion by commissioner walker. >> is there any public comment

on the stem -- on this? >> he is not public. >> i just want to reiterate -- >> can you speak for about one minute? you have about one minute left. >> we have been trying to solve this, which is why we have been going from one appeal to another and another. the way that the language came back to us, it was not solvable. we cannot bring back personal property. we have been trying to solve this, ok? so, that is why we came to day to find out the solution. the solution is that i do not have to go find st. joseph in kansas city and bring him back from the tab -- from the tabernacle. good for us to hear that. i do not want the record to show that we have not been trying.

we have been trying for one year. [beep] >> any other public comment? >> i do have a question about the resolution. it is my understanding that you may have to get a permit for the window replacement? >> they can get a permit for the window replacement. they can say that we have removed the stained-glass window. we are going to put different last in and we have removed the pictures. that is the end of the permit. that is one way to resolve this. the building department is not asking them to bring back the pictures. or ask them to get a permit to document removal. >> and no other public comment? one more? >> if the appellant was able to consolidate the issue over the next few days, they would get a

permit for the windows and the other items. it would be agreeable to have to go ahead with the discontinuance. >> we can represent that. what i am hearing, i want to make sure that i am listening to you in this regard, if we apply for a permit, we will be exempt from sequel review, bogging us down for a long time? >> comeback for 30 days and let us know what is going on. >> we have taken steps to apply for a permit for the things referenced today. >> ok. public comment? >> a roll-call vote. president lee? >> no. >> vice president walker?

>> yes. >> commissioner hechanova? >> no. >> commissioner murphy? >> no. >> commissioner romero? >> yes. >> the motion fails. we would need another motion to continue. but so, we can revisit the notion -- motion to continue? >> yes. >> because it is a motion to continue. >> it would be the cleanest record if you had a motion to continue whenever meeting you were trying to continue to. >> we would need a first and second. >> i make the motion that we continue to the december meeting. >> second. >> on this motion, is there any public comment? >> seeing none, president lee? >> yes. >> vice-president walker? >> no. >> commissioner hechanova?

>> yes. >> commissioner murphy? >> yes. >> commissioner primero. >> no. >> the matter is continued until the december meeting. >> case number 6754,. 536 a laidley street. notice by appellant to waive the notice of violation. >> appealed #607 number 6754. this is a single-family dwelling and the violation relates to kitchen and bathroom installed without permits.

that is a plumbing permit. september 1 of this year. it was issued within conditions to obtain a plumbing permit to legalize or remove kitchen or bathroom at ground floor. the staff recommends to uphold the auto abatement. >> is there appellant? >> thank you. >> my name is ian hedlo. have you been provided with exhibits for reference? i am the owner of the property. it is a residential property

consisting of two houses, and the subject house is the rear house, which was -- i became the owner in february 2003, four months later a fire spread it from the adjacent property, and damage to the rear building. the adjacent house was beside my rear of building. the subject kitchen and bathroom are at the bottom level of the building. that level was damaged only by water. the builder i subsequently hired to repair the building only in that portion of the building change the wallboard and the electrical junction, which is for the entire building.

the subject kitchen and bathroom were unchanged. the first exhibit i have provided ouare 3r reports indicating there are separate buildings, separate reports, and they were built with permits. i will momentarily show permits. the subject house was built in 1952 according to the report. the exhibit i am presenting is evidence of concern about the violation august 30, 2000 -- 2006. i come out with the help of my age -- i, with the help of my

age antnt sent a message to the inspector. a companccompanying it were the documents. a second violation was issued a few days prior to august 30. exhibit c is a request for permit, which describes our rumpus room, and the building 12 feet high, and the date of that document is may 1952. i am not an expert. the building is on the slope, and when measured from the front, it is approximately 24 feet high.

it measured at the rear, only 12 feet high. i did not know how the measuring is done. my interpretation is that the owner of that time initially asked for approval to erect a one-story building, and that was built to the approval. e is dated 1955, and it describes a two-story building war rather one story above a basement. seemingly, as i interpret the documents, while the one story building was being built, the owner at that time asked for approval and was granted approval to build a second

story. f is the sfdbi approval. exhibit g is a covenant that was created between san francisco and the owner at that time, which describes the building as being linked to the front house and never separable. i am bringing that to your attention in part because i have another copy of that covenant with a different date, a state of several years later. the date is on the second page. the date here is may 1952.

that is indication of confusing records, mistakes and records possibly. i contacted the water department's and was provided with several documents. h indicates that water has been supplied to the building. evidently the 1 story structure was blond and water has been provided to the building since 1953. i, which is a two-page

document, includes account of the fixtures, and according -- it is dated 1971. there is another date installed, 1960. in reviewing this document, i have counted that total number of fixtures, toilet, etc. = those and the entire building -- equal in the entire building. j is another county. k is a recollection from the neighbor of the building being -- having existed since the 1960's. the owner at that time contacting the neighbors and

requesting their approval. >> you can finish your thought, and you will have three minutes for rebuttal. >> l is a disclosure of my financial situation. the fire occurred four months after the building, i acquired the building. subsequently the builder i engaged swindled multiple thousands of dollars from me, and eventually from other people while i pursued him for 10 years. he declared bankruptcy. i held the building by converting equity to cash to pay for it. i exhausted all the equity. i have not paid for mortgage for three years my tenants regarded foreclosure as a foregone

conclusion. i would love for my tenants to remain. i did not want to create homelessness for somebody else. they have not paid for three years, according to my account. now if loan modification is an option, i wish to address this situation, but i do not know how to in my financial situation. there are other violations. >> thank you. any other questions? >> you can have a seat, and we will let you know when the rebuttal time is. >> i would like to hear once again from the inspector exactly what is in front of us today. i have the paperwork, but i look like to hear it one more time,

and i would like to know if the department had a chance to review this. >> the violation leads to work that was cited in 2006. it is related to kitchen and bathroom. as the appellant stated, there may be documents going back to years, but what -- we are not entirely concerned whether there was a kitchen or bathroom there or not. you can bring in documents to guide to remodel the kitchen or bath, if the documents were an adequate, it would mean the firm it would be for a new kitchen and bathroom. there are two buildings. in there is a front building and careerbuilder in. that has been challenging as well. there are permits through the years for the front and rear

building. it is always a challenge to find out which building is it for, and how many units are in the building. and either way, we have not been presented with of plumbing permits or anything related to the kitchen and bathroom model or for a new kitchen and bath. there are some electrical permits related to other work, but this violation of only related to the plumbing. pecos' so the plumbing and the kitchen is what is before us today? >> yes. >> the front building or the rear building? >> the rear building. >> ok. any other questions? ok. public comment? no public comment. rebuttal?

rebuttal? to >> did you have anything elso add? to go commissioners? >> this seems pretty clear, and i would like to make a motion to uphold the department action and to give it to the appellate a reasonable time to get the permits in that whenever we think is 60 or 90 days to get the permits and do the work, whenever that is. >> i think 60 days would be sufficient to do this work. the appellant if he thinks he can get a permit to do the work in 60 days. take of 90 days. let's do 90 days. that is my motion.

>> is that to get permits and complete the work? take a yes. >> i am ok with that. i will second of that. any public comment on the motion? to g>> the top of the rear builg is presently reached by stairs outside. there are stairs inside, but they have been enclosed by a former owner. the only means to reach the top story is true that outside stairs, which are becoming dilapidated. they were recently inspected. >> we are serving you with 90 days. >> we're not dealing with that right now.

>> ok, thank you. and no other public comment? then we will take a boat. >> a motion by commissioner walker to impose the department's action and give the appellate time to get permits within 90 days, and a second, commissioner murphy, four or roll-call vote. president lee. >> yes. >> vice president walker? ." >> yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. >> ok. item e, general public comment. this is of the abatement appeals board. item f, a german.

djournment. >> i would like to get a staff report on 1350 camin el camino l mar. >> you just want an update? >> yes. >> motion to adjourn? >> second. >> the abatement appeals board is now adjourned. it is 10:15. we will have a 10 minute recess as we change to the building inspection commission. thank you.