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.

>> good morning. today is wednesday, november 16, 2011. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll-call. commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner murphy? >> present. >> commissioner walker? >> here. >> is presidenvice president mas

excused. >> good morning. vulcan to the november meeting. here over a few items we want to make mention of. a new state law took effect on november 1 and require that dbi obtain copies of any and all soil reports. while we obtain a copy and received a report, we bus also transmit an electronic copy to the state. details of the requirement are on our new web site. please visit to see the new in learn more about our professional services. along with that, i would also like to mention the mayor's response to supervisor melia cohen's enforcement.

dbi has set up a link to the mayor's office. this provides loans who may need further funding for outstanding violations, and the details are at the new web site modified with www.sfdbi.org. earlier this month, neil friedman and i attended the annual code meeting and provided updates on not only what is happening at dbi but some of the features provided within the next few months for the new pts system and pilot testing for chromat q-matic, and a press ree for the new features being provided to the public.

and also, representing dbi on channel 7 was built strong where he talked about the public affairs program on november 10 and played -- explained our role in enforcing the new state law enforcing carbon monoxide alarms to residents with fuel-burning devices, especially with the oncoming demand of heating. these alarms prevent injury and death from carbon monoxide, which is odorless and invisible and can only be monitored with technology, so please take a look at that. another item is to express my appreciation to james [inaudible]

i want to extend my appreciation that james is representing the public and to the public of the category of service. happy thanksgiving to all, especially to the debbi family and their friends. that is all. >> is there any public comment on the president's announcement? cnseeing none, if it will take public comment on matters that are not within this jurisdiction. -- that are not part of this agenda. >> commissioners, a deputy sweeney, i would like to discuss

three things this morning. one is the failure to collect than nine times multiplier on cases brought to the city, and the second thing is the process for notices of violation, and the third thing is the open notices of violation in the city. the first thing i would like to mention is this building at 4801 3rd street, the city lost $7,000 worth of revenue -- i believe they lost $7,000 worth of revenue because they did not collect nine times multiplier when the city came to the attorney's office. the owner of the building representative came in and brought in a check for 765, which is the legal fee. the penalty was dismissed, and essentially they bought themselves another year of doing nothing.

this has been here for about eight years vacant. i believe they were speaking about this building in general. the second thing is, the process is broken. we do not have any court nation within the three departments that handle dpw and dbi. no one knows what everyone is doing. this is the corner of thomas and third, right next to the children's association center. the blighted buildings are dbi. the weeds, grass, trash, the department of public works. this building has been on your radar for 15 years. the third thing is i have gotten information from mr. strawn with

all of the open notices of violation in the city. i started in bayview because i wanted to know how many buildings were on there. these dated back to the year 2000. i was surprised about that, because i thought open notice of violation, you get a notice, and you take care of it. and you have 30-60 days or the penalties start to kick in. to compare it to the bayview numbers, i asked for a number for all of the city to see how we stood, and i was surprised to see that there were nearly 5800 open notices of violation in the city, some dating back to 1994. you have to wonder what the process and how can we fix this? what i would like to also ask is to have this as an agenda item.

i think there is enough going on than it needs to be looked at. thank you. >> any further public comment? item number four, discussion and possible action to approve and swear in members of the board of examiners. reappointment or appointments recommended by denominations sub-committee are michael casheion, high-rise sprinkler- building owner. commissioner lee, would you like to give a review? commissioner lee: we met last week, and we reviewed the

applications for the seat of the high-rise sprinkler building owner sweet, and we found that michael cashion was very well qualified. he currently manages a high-rise building in downtown san francisco, so he definitely fits the category. it was sort of a process of elimination. there was one candidates that did not live in the city. there was another can of it that did not seem to have of the experience -- candidate that did not have the experience for high-rise building owner. we narrowed it down to two, and decided michael would have the best experience. we're recommending we appoint michael cahsioshion to that.

>> frank, you might next time need to talk closer to the microphone. commissioners come any questions? -- commissioners, any questions? >> was he told that he needed to come to get sworn in? >> i did mention the meeting was going to be held today, and he had the opportunity to come if his schedule allowed, or he could be sworn in as the later date of the apartment. >> it would be a category of questions -- >> the commissioners can still discussed and decided they are in agreement with the appointment. the appointment can go forward today. >> for further discussion? >> for further discussion? >> or further discussion.