areas that could one day be connecting the buildings. it would be typically of what happened in 19 hundred. the departments position is that this unit was an accessory one time to the unit downstairs but the evidence is the separate unit was never connected in any means. we ask the board to receiver the order finding it was an accessory unit and an illegal unit. upon that took place i want to emphasis that the parties were on the one the brink of the - it

recognize that the parties met at the project and i'll show one of the pages from the record of the department. i'll show you a record from a year ago >> could you pause for one minute please. we're out of order - >> is it codified we go in a certainty order? the department is supposed to get the - >> i apologize i should have been stopped sooner.

>> thank you members the board chief housing inspector. are we going to be taking items one and 2 at the same time from section a? we could to save time >> so just briefly since this is a request for jurisdiction on assessment of costs so the question is whether or not you want to get into the merits of this case. let me tell you on the issue of this apartment the position is not the departments that was an accessory commercial use the property owner hired this

structural engineer to research the fact there wasn't a previous building permit to legallize this unit. so he then the property owner filed a permit and it's in your staff report. he doesn't follow-up on legalizing this permit for the purposes of a stand alone unit. it shows no record so his agent actually assisted him but the property owner aborted the process. we had a meeting with the property owner on may 23, 2012, to discuss the various open cases for the two properties.

at the meeting was myself and senior inspector andy cars and district inspector and mr. thomas and his agent at the time was an structural engineer. we talked about all the costs involved. as a good faith gesture i indicated to him at that time that the assessment of costs that was associated with that particular tracking number i believe it's 401 which had an amount of $2,100 we would set that aside because he was being assisted through all the other

numerous violations. we didn't place that on the loins. but looking at all the various line items we didn't feel that anything else could be taken off. so the issue of the illegal unit is not a issue of any merit because we signed off on a permit that he aborted and this is no permit issue there was any stand alone permit. even his agent did the research and this is what he proposed so that's not an issue. we decided to set aside all the other assessment of of costs we feel are valid. so i want you to understand that. so whether you take

jurisdictions or not those are facts to be aware of. >> commissioner lee - >> and we're looking at besides the $2,200 we're looking at 22 thousand assessments in costs because of the time it's - like i said in a good faith gesture we still have all this others we, weigh. >> can i enter reject and building code says the

commission may grant jurisdiction for an appeal period only by the showing of the appellant was due to miss recommendation or mistake or error by city. >> i'm going to want first case 6774. that the one there's currently four units kind of commercial space the fourth unit we consider installed without a permit that's the violation? we have since put an abatement order on that and the abatement period has past and the appellant is annoy excusing to

take jurisdiction because the time has passed; is that correct >> he aborted the building permit we did sign off. >> i understand that but has an order of abatement been placed on the property? okay one last question this 4 units permit by zoning code in. >> i don't know here's the kitchen and this area was actually this area you can see the type of wall here that was originally not there. if it was a dwelling unit at all. we'll willing to give them >> can i continue?

>> on the other pillow case the one with the two properties what's the violation there? >> it's assorted type of things. >> so it's not related to the fourth unit. >> no. >> on that second case so order of abatement has been placed on both properties? >> yes. i believe all - and. >> time has passed and now - >> yes. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry, i may have misunderstood your answer there was an order of abatement. >> right base he's not appealing

the orders of abatement he's way beyond the costs the days for that. >> i wanted to mayor, i understood that. >> the appellant could ream early presentation. >> yes, thank you how much time do i have. >> i don't know what you're normal practice is he's going to speak to both appeals he gets fourteen minutes? >> do you want to speak to both appeals? >> i - again, it's up to you guys kind of in a consolidated

appeal. >> i think our staff - >> on the complaint tracking number that's associated with the illegal units that we wave the fees on when the gentleman filed that permit we didn't schedule that so that one doesn't have an order. the problem is that the filing of that building permit was aborted so we have an open case. we set aside the statement of costs and the order of abatement is not being appealed here its the assessment of costs so it's a different kind of appeal >> thank you. i hear two different messages

from the board is one the unit is illegal and not illegal >> the owner has attempted to correct - he says he never aborted a permit that was issued it was only that he required to fix. and yet in emphasis file i don't see in his file he adopted aborted - . the board of representatives discussed i really think it was a global representation of everything. the record states after refusing

documents chief approved the removal of the application request and it was approved. i believe we have a moondz the owner did want to fix the violations and was attempting to comply with all the violations. so what we would like to have confirmation from this panel that that i dlangsz pretty well by the board be reversed.

i'm happy to answer questions otherwise i've made my presentation >> rosemary showed you part of the wail and it's render for $1,800 a month for the last 5 years to 3 different tenants that are subsidizeed by hud section 8 and i have proof today showing the inspections have been made every year. it's got high ceilings.

and the commercial space next door i bought the building 37 years ago. i want to save the church. which i distributed to you now is pictures i've taken of the other side of the wall. the wall that they say had an opening, in fact, it may have had a case opening but it was never used and we know that because if we look at the bottom first look at the stairs that group to the toilet room of all things but the city is saying oh, no, because the stairs go up here and off to the right i'll

bet you that they were connected at one time and that's what we're going to decide. but they don't talk about the pipe the pipe water supply pipe goes 35 from the churches kitchen to a toilet and a sink. and one of the documents that you have in your pact is a writing from the current reverend of the church and i've been through 3 reverend's of the church and they said we've had no contact with anybody or anything that's been in the units that's alleged to be next door but it's three or four feet

higher than than the commercial feet. plus looking at those pictures we see way back to the 19 hundreds this was a toilet room. you can see a little handrail that the church made a modest room here. and that's the total the whole time for the commercial space and now their suggesting and whatever their unwillingness to give this is this as a stand alone unit is because of the false wall it's 2 foot he 7 never meant to have a door there.

its way too low of a casing to have there. so we have documentation from the assessor office that clearly shows - is there a way i can below this up? >> they're taking care of of it. >> what we see here - can you move it down? >> it's okay. the packages are available to everyone you can just state what you want to state but everyone has the packages. >> 37 years ago - here it talks

about and it says right here one flat, 3 apartments, 4 units. so the flat is this unit right here. the two units are 3562. the third unit is 165. it's on the backside of the building and david will explain to you that the backside of the building was the same level of san bernardino avenue years ago. what happened the city decided they were going to raise the height of the street to make it

higher and that took the backside of the building >> put that back to the mick please to get it into the record. >> - required that the height of the street basically up about 9 feet higher and it made the entrance to the building t you have to go down 5 or 6 stairs to get to that level and two fleeths. and this packet we distributed to the building department basically has photographs of this beautiful building now you should have them now and on the backside. there's the backside it's to

germany radical avenue. they kit away two stories by putting up this wall. this is what you walk down those steps to get to the entrance of the unit. there's nothing wrong with that in the 20s and 30s and they say it was built with stuff they had laying around and here's the streets. it's relatively normal but it's to the federal code. and they never said it was two two too narrow.

part of that wall fell down years ago and the city built the wall and it fell on me and my tenant. that he temporarily shored it so the tenant didn't have to leave. i put the tenant up in a hotel. the tenant went right through that and for too nafz it cost that he $20,000 to fix the city's wall. i just don't want to lose my unit. the last page shows on the far right-hand side approximately 18 foot repairs of the wall with new concrete and a brand new retaining wall.

we were able to make is a little larger and the tenant is very, very happy. i'm unhappy when someone says i aborted something but i'm trying to do what rose mary did and - we're only saying the fact that someone said it was an accessory unit which it's not. i have the names of all the tenants and none of them were associated with the bicycle shop that was there before the church

and a wielding shop and the church took over. it's been a great congregation. and so far as the business is concerned they've waved the 9 fees and i want to wave the 9 times fees on this and all the times i've been having a problem getting permits >> that was the combined time? >> yes. >> rebuttal? >> 6 minutes. >> first of all, let me just say the document that you have that you looked at that on the frame it's the card from the assessors office we use it to get a history.

this is not established legal used by gives information. again, we of the situation that the building permit does not reflect this. his agent arrested that that is a stand alone permit. the previous history does not show a previous building permit. to - what happens it the housing division approved it and he aborted the permit. as i said we're not going to charge him certain fees >> by he's appealing the assessment of costs of all the

other opening case like heat and hot water and we're saying no, this was time spent by the city he should be charged for. he talks about that particular wall he didn't file it right it wasn't the city's fault. from that standpoint the issue of this illegal unit it's a red herring it's everything else. i'd be happy to send him a letter and explain we're not assessing the costs up to this time but he needs to follow through with the process of the building permit.

he indicated he had occupants in those units that's why we're saying we don't believe we're looking at the line item he should have other items excused. he needs to - it would be incredible to wave everything i mean, it won't be appropriate. so the building permit is not the issue but we have sent him forward in that process based on on the record. we have a lot of time of the building permit this recent an

observation made by the assessors at the time. if you look at everything from the assessors they have stamped that and they said we're going to charge i. so we have data and we were able to approve the permit the issue is the assessment of costs and we're saying he's not exposes to certain things but he awe - >> 20117 - is it 4001 that's

the notice of violation. >> so that's appeal 6774. >> that's - any questions? >> has any work or permits been pulled on the other violations? >> i'm going to introduce senior housing inspectors to give you more details he's been to the site. >> and also could you clarify the life-threatening issues. >> in regards to this appeal this is the one with the unit in question. there is no order of abatement on this order as chief explained

the assessment codes have been set aside. in regards to this unit it commitments the other violations. it has the reporter of windows which he has pulled a window this is a combination of hot water heaters he has permits for that. there are other violations that require correction the solar the heating issues have been taken care of and those other violations like rod dents. >> so the case that has the