kids. we are trying to sell personal property to help to sell -- fund these kids' educations. is frustrating to be here with legal fees when we could be paying for their education. this was personal property. none of it was attached. it was going to fall down. every church has a screw that screws the pew to the ground. this is getting ridiculous. this is true the personal property. i want to make it really clear on the windows. we did not remove the windows. the wood windows are still there. we took out the glass, which was personal property, donated to the church. in section 17 of the building code it says you are exempt from getting a permit if you repair

or replace glazing conformity with the code. i am a native. i have been developing in san francisco for 30 years. i understand glass and wood windows and the importance to the city. the wood window is still there. the glass was donated by benefactor and was put into another church. i am trying to get this for the ridiculous things solved. the corrective notice is impossible to solve, because i cannot bring back stuff that we do not own. how do we resolve this so that we are not wasting everyone's time? that is what i am trying to get resolved. >> we all know what a fixture in a church is, i understand that. what i would direct to director sweeney, are the windows still

there? >> right now, what you see right now is boarded up windows. what i was there, the stained glass was not -- gone. it is not a window anymore. it is an opening. i am asking them to get a permit to document this. >> i could ask the same question. are you willing to get a permit and have an inspector take a look at this thing? obviously not. >> well, the risk -- >> you are talking about not wasting time, but you are wasting our time. >> we are just asking questions right now. we both get to the debate later. -- we will get to the debate later. >> was there payment for the stained-glass?

>> yes, there was. >> so, there is not really a replacement issue here, because the material was sold as opposed to directly replacing something that needed repair? >> correct. the stained-glass was taken out of the windows. >> because of the sold, not for repair. >> -- because it was sold, not for repair. >> correct. >> public comment? a person's or a bottle? -- persons or rebuttal? let's go public comment. any public comment? no public comment. department rebuttal? >> there are numerous items that were referred to earlier. a lot of the items required a

permit. the issue with the windows, if they were doing them in the way that they referred to, they may be could have taken out the stained glass window on the same day, the same window casing. we would have no opportunity to report -- to question. once they took out a blazing in did not replace it with other glazing, boarded it up, made it an eyesore, because it is not entirely sealed. it is potentially allowing the elements into the building and caused dry rot. -- caused dry rot. it is absolutely, without question, something done without a permit. on that issue, there is no question.

if there was any good faith at all, they would try to work with us in some way to, to get a permit to deal with that window. that we might discuss the other elements and issues. but we cannot to beyond that. there was no effort of any kind to made to comply. >> -- of any kind made to comply. >> i understand beds pews -- i understand that pews were fixed to the floor? how do we know that any of those structures were fixed to the building? >> i was there twice. pews were bolted to the floor. tehe altar would be cemented in. >> like this? >> the same kind of permanence.

>> if the seats were fixed to the floor, it was assembly building occupancy a-one, is it not? >> yes. >> when we remove the seats, it changes the occupancy, correct? the pens, right? >> right now, it would -- it depends, right? >> right now, it would be. if they were get -- if they were to get a building permit to change it from a church -- >> but when you remove them, it changes all of the other emergency definitions. >> follow up -- a follow-up to that. how long was a vacant? -- was it vacant? >> it was vacant for years. there is a lot about buildings and a change of use, going from

vacant to anything. >> the vacancy was because it was umb and it was impossible to comply. the cost to fix is probably worth more than the property. >> they were not -- i understand. it was a close compliance issue that created the vacancy -- it was a close to compliance issue that created the vacancy? -- closed compliance issue that created the vacancy? >> yes. we had tried to use it for storage, but that was all before. may i respond to member murphy's question? if it is administrative procedure and we apply for a permit, and the permit is granted, of course, we would do

that in a heartbeat. it just puts us in a difficult, catch-22 situation. we do not want to weigh the arguments and exemptions. if it is an administrative matter, absolutely. >> our director said that it was as simple as getting a kitchen remodel permit. you are following the rules of the department by doing that, as is my understanding. >> ok. any other questions? >> i do not have a question. >> i would like to make a motion. >> are we finished with the bottle from both sides? >> is anyone going to speak for the rebuttal? >> i would like to make a motion that we continue this for 30 days by an order for you to get a permit, get this signed off.

if not done in 30 days, we will act the way that the department recommends. >> i am not going to second. i think that we should uphold the order of abatement and give them -- and give them 60 days to resolve the issue. >> whatever you want. >> is there a second? >> first, we have to take a vote on the first motion. and if that fails, we go with the second. >> what was it? >> get a permit, called the apartment, did it signed off in 30 days. >> there is a motion by commissioner murphy to continue this item for 30 days to allow

the appellant to get a permit and get it signed off. and inspected. otherwise the order of abatement will go forward. is there a second? >> second. >> any discussion? but i have discussion. -- >> i have discussion. in my mind -- >> this is to give 30 days and, without the required sign off, this motion is of held? >> it is a motion to uphold? i am trying to understand the motion and whether they are expected to come back if they cannot get a permit. >> we need them to come back in 30 days. >> it is not up holding anything? >> you are the one who is talking about of holding.

>> in the end, if it is not, if they have not met those conditions, it is to come back here in 30 days. >> discussion? >> motion. >> 30 days? >> my feeling is that this is a violation and it needs a permit. the department has acted accordingly by issuing an order of abatement. even if they get a permit, the violation brought us here. i will be of holding it even if it is now or when it comes -- i will be up holding it even if it is now or it comes back to us. it has to come back to us

anyway, even if we are not continuing it. continuing it and having it disappear is not something that we can do. am i right, attorney? because continue and have it rescinded without -- we cannot continue and have it rescinded without -- >> that is right. the gist of the motion would seem to be that if they said they did the things and did them, the order of abatement would not be upheld. is that the intention? >> we have not usually just overturned the abatement because someone is willing. usually, we have hold the abatement. that's your argument for not upholding the action ends -- and

giving the project sponsor time to affect the resolution. >> from what i hear, we are not making a motion to overturn the abatement at this time, just a motion to overturn the item in 30 days and hear what is happening in 30 days. >> thank you, commissioner. >> i am ok with extending this for another 30 days. >> your first meeting after 30 days? >> first meeting in december. our regular meeting in december. >> on this motion -- >> any public comments? >> could i add one more? essentially, for meat, as a compliance issue this allows for additional time for which the appellants is willing to pursue

the mediation and resolution to achieve what we have identified already. just a little boat -- the bit more time would bring compliance. >> any public comment? >> i do not feel that i can vote for this either. primarily because there have been many people over the years that have wanted to comply. this is a situation where there is obvious noncompliance by the parties. they have very directly told us that they do not understand what the department is talking about. it is clear to us. i am not convinced that the department was unclear. i am convinced that there was a resistance to apply with -- comply with of the building code at all. i do not feel that it is fair

to grant a continuance to a party that, from the beginning, did not want to deal with the department. i do not feel that they have actually offered -- that we have all for that kind of leniency to others that have come before us. >> ok. commissioner? >> given not only the limited resources of an academy and the conversion of a building that has, for many years, needed the attention to help move things forward, in support of what their needs to be. good faith efforts within the next 30 days to reach a resolution. to meet both sides. that is my category. this is a situation where we

have to have that category of understanding what is more important. finding out what is resolved as opposed to generalizing. >> the department has been trying to resolve this issue. the resolution for the project sponsor is to try to appeal the notice and abatement action. we usually of hold those kinds of orders and give them time to resolve the issue. it is why i am voting against the continuance and making the motion to that effect. of holding the appeal in the abatement action. >> do we have a motion to

continue? >> i think so. >> public comment? >> we are going to take a roll call vote. president lee? >> yes. >> vice president walker? >> no. >> commissioner hechanova? >> yes. >> commissioner murphy? >> yes. >> commissioner romero. >> no. >> the motion fails because there are five commissioners here and we need four. >> i moved to uphold the department's recommendation to give the appellant 50 days to resolve the permitting requirement issue. >> is there a second for this motion? this motion is to uphold the order of abatement costs?

>> 60 days. >> to resolve. >> [inaudible] we have a quorum. >> you can conduct business [inaudible] >> the rules are the chicken hold a meeting if you have a quorum on the majority of physicians that constitute a commission. but you have a majority of commissioners present, but to take action do have to have a majority of the seats. >> so, we need a majority of seven? >> you would need four votes to support a motion. >> can i make a motion for

continuance until we have the complete commission? >> under roberts' rule, a motion to continue takes precedence. >> we have a motion on the floor. commissioner walker's motion to hold the baby and give the appellant 60 days. if it is not resolved, the abatement is upheld. >> did we not already vote on continuance? can we continue to vote on continuance? >> and the debate on this one? >> on mine? >> we will take a vote on this motion as well. >> any comment? >> one question. if there is a quorum and four votes out of the members

present, does that not constitute a decision? >> catherine, can you please explain that? >> basically, 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