>> we have to come up with solutions here and i can see that would be a good solution for all parties involved and for the commission, i think that's the way we should take this. >> commissioner mar. >> i'd be amenable to that solution. here's the thing that's a stickler for me as to time because while i'm sympathetic to the homeowner, but it's been a long time and we have to solve it. i would support mr. mccarthy's proposal but give it a time certain thing. you have to pull p the permit for the stairs, finish in a certain amount of months. i'm open to spread, whether we say three months, six months or whatever, but it has to be done. it has to be finished and expected and signed off on.

it may not be as nice as you want it, but it's got to be done. >> are you suggested that the homeowner put in any type of stairs that is up to code, but it doesn't have to match what they intended to do? >> it wouldn't be a planning issue, it will be just a simple -- okay commissioner sweeney is going to stop me there. >> this is visible from the street, definitely has to go to planning. >> it has to go to planning so -- that's a time issue. you could still get stairs that would work and do it in a cost efficient manner. would that be an over-the-counter permit? >> definitely. if he renews it, he has a set

of plans, he might have to modify that, i don't know how fancy his plans are. he could stick with the plan or he could modify the plan. >> let me ask this. can he do this, put in a set of plans for a temporary stairs now. that's kind of generic, whatever, just to get the violation out of the way, but then he resubmit his expired permit for the stairs in full like where he designed it? can redo that? he would have to call it a temporary set of stairs. >> we're talking about clearing the abatement order, giving them four to six months to complete, however they want to comply with the novs and if they want to go through the big

process they can do it, if they want to simplify, they can do that. then we'll reduce the fees to whatever figure, $100 or something. that's the technical part of what we'd propose here; is that correct? >> that is what -- i agree, that is what we're proposing, but i think there's an acknowledge m that it may not be able to be come completed because of the planning review. >> we'd like to clarify something. we don't live on that level. we don't use that level. we have access to the level we live on and there's access through the rear backyard. >> we don't know that because nobody's been in the building so i mean, here's what i would like to propose is that we up hold the order of abatement, that we give him six months to complete any permitting and building that he needs to do

that, that we reduce the fees by half, which is consistent with what we've done in the past and that, you know, he's allowed to move forward fixing these problems. >> i do acknowledge that, you know, if a property owner is doing work on the wrong house and had problems arise, that is a really difficult situation. it brings in financial problems, it brings in difficulty to complete work timely.

having said that, the permits are expired from the easiest [inaudible]. and, you know, the discussion being had, i think most recent one of up holding the order of abatement for six months and reducing the fees to half, i think that's fairly reasonable. it gives them more time and allows them to, you know -- with the financial amount reduced it gives them that latitude also so i would be agreeable to that. thank you. >> thank you. the appellant. >> i'm stated by case, the gentleman from the department expressed some concern about someone carrying that piece of plywood up and falling down. that's a shield. on the inside of that piece of plywood is bolted a 3/4 inch

piece of plywood and you need a chain saw to get through that so we're not worried about someone getting in through there. >> does anyone want to make a motion? >> if the commissioners are still open -- i still think because of the financial hardship that we could go down to the $100 because i'd rather see that money spent on trying to get the temporary or not as nice stairs in there and use that money for that. i'm wondering if commissioner walker would be opening to amending this to the $100 fee rather than half? >> on what groubdz r ground. ground.

>> commissioner melgar. >> to me that's the distinction. i feel like, you know, we could do in terms of policies, you know, a little more to support, particularly older homeowners who are retired and trying to stay in place and i -- you know, i would be for reducing

the fee and giving a little more time. >> you think six months is appropriate? >> i do. yeah. >> i can go along with that, that makes sense. >> commissioner mccarthy do you want to repeat the motion or -- >> what's on the table then is reducing the fee to $100 and -- >> up hold the order of abatement. >> and giving them six months for completion the project. , completing the new stairs. thank you. >> i would suggest you get down to the planning department and discuss with them what could be an acceptable alternative to the or nate stairs and get something quickly from them. >> i'd like to ask commissioner mccarthy what you mean by complete in six months. i'm hearing it may be difficult

to complete the stairs as designed in six months, so are you saying complete resolving the situation in six months? i understand what the department is now saying. the department is saying since the permit's about to expire we can't go back to that point in time and say okay, that's a violation. we're treating it as a brand new violation so -- >> a stairs that meets code. >> it's not completing the project, but resolving the violation. >> it won't look anywhere like this beautiful drawing he has here, but it meets the code and gets us past this violation. >> great, second? >> could i just question or ask about whether we will also include the finance inspection for addition of stairs because that's violation that needs to be resolved so i want to make sure it's a package deal, that he'll also schedule that, get a permit for that and finish that

final inspection so all -- >> that's correct. >> six months for both. >> here's a motion to up hold the order of abatement and complete the work in six months and reduce the fee to $100. >> not complete the work. it's resolving the violations, right? >> somebody can word it however they want to word it. >> okay, all right then. not the project. >> any comment on the motion? seeing none, do a roll call vote? >> president clinch. >> yes. >> melgar. >> yes. >> mccarthy. >> yes. >> mar. >> yes. >> lee. >> yes. >> commissioner mcray. >> yes. >> commissioner walker. >> yes. >> motion carries unanimously.

owner of resident appellant mr. king, 641 48th avenue. action requested by a appellant to reverse order of abatement. >> this is also a single family dwelling and the violation relates to the vacant building ordinance. an order of abatement was issued on 3-18 of last yore. year. staff recommends to up hold the order of abatement and up hold assessment of costs due to the fact of not clear utilities received and also maintenance issues that are continuing with

the building. thank you. >> is the appellant here? would you mind coming up? >> i bought the home in september of 82 because i used to drive along the great highway and i always admire closeness to the ocean and i have continually lived at the same home in september of '82. so it was a total surprise that someone from the neighborhood filed a complaint that i wasn't

living there. our neighbor next door told us about the development of [inaudible] below our house so my wife and i went to the

planning department here in the '80s and also in the early '90s to save [inaudible] as open land. so we finally made it. we spent endless hours at the hearing of the planning committee and we also work with then commissioner sue [inaudible] and other people in the neighborhood. dean marcus was the director at that time and mr. john wood was the secretary of the planning committee. and with the help from above, from god, i say we finally were able to save parcel forever. our nightmare began because a trail was built at the west end of the property of my home.

then in 2013 there was a fire which was spread from the park tgnre land across the stairway to our backyard and burned six or seven of my cyprus trees. we were look lucky that there was no strong wind that morning and the fire happened at 4 o'clock that saturday morning and i was up half an hour before that working in my bedroom, faceing the street away from the west side and i didn't smell or hear anything until i heard a fire truck coming by. i thought he was coming for medical reasons in the neighborhood. you could tell -- then i went down stair and saw a sea of

fire in my back beyond a reasonable doubt so i called my neighbor two houses from mine and they were not aware of it so of course we ran outyard so i called my neighbor two houses from mine and they were not aware of it so of course we ran out. i have i have to thank the fire didn't for putting out the fire and the person who made the call. she happen to see the smoke coming from the fire of the ocean and call 9-1-1. i try to get her name from 9-1-1 and also the fire department in order to thank her in person, but i was not able to because they don't keep the record, at least i was told. and so after that i have to clean up the damage from the

fire and before that i had a compost with branches -- and i have to thank fire inspector steve gonzalez and also the building inspector, inspector [inaudible] who had helped me in the spring of 2013 giving me suggestions what to do to clean up from the fire. and i finally also -- if i could [inaudible] and then [inaudible] my good friend who retired from the department of public works a few years ago associate director. he was my [inaudible] at church . so to summarize, i submitted to you my utility bills and i have

continuous pge bill in september too. and i brought in the rest of my water bill and [inaudible] bill for the past. i also give those to the department of building inspection. >> thank you.

i have to cut you off. you'll have a chance for rebuttal and comment. >> commissioner lee. >> can i ask the department, what evidence did we use to determine that the building was vacant and abandoned? >> actually, how this really came on the radar, it was a newspaper article some years ago in the examiner around the time of the fire and at that time we had two properties -- we had 641, the problem before you today; the neighboring

property at 645 is also owned by the same owner and they're both very large and beautiful buildings, but unfortunately not as beautiful as they were due to lack of maintenance. we received a utility bills to substantiate whether the property is occupied or not and at different times both properties were scheduled for hearing and it took a little while actually to -- examiner kind of tied it together as well,, where we had to focus in on which building we were receiving utility bills for and eventually we had ordered of abatement issued for both properties. what happened is they might be assurances when 641 is scheduled for hearing, that that's occupied.

and meanwhile, the other property would not be, and vice versa. the bottom-line here is we're at the stage now where we don't really want to get into the utility bills. we want to focus on the maintenance of the property. there's broken glass at the front, the rear, there's a porch that's ready to fall down and -- now, i do acknowledge when this pathway was built on the public land adjacent to the property, that's been difficult for the property owner because there is a lot of traffic at the rear of the property coming along the side and there is graffiti, but further more on that, there's fence supports going right out into the public right of way and the fence is supposed to stand of its own accord with posts. you know, there's a lot of

issues with the property outside of the utility issues. >> commissioner walker. >> the violation that we are looking at is for an abandoned build. ing. >> yes. >> we don't have any notices of violation for all those items you just mentioned, correct? >> there are other violations on the property also. >> those are -- i'm trying to look at that list -- >> required to maintain the property in a safe manner,

[inaudible] combustibles. >> the point i guess i'm making is that we're being asked to look at it as habited building as opposed to a vacant building, which has different violations attached to it so then -- >> but we're not being asked to decide on the other violations. >> yes. >> that's what i'm looking at. >> yes, that's exactly -- >> we have received -- one of them was for $5 so when we looked at the general type of utility bills that we received for various properties, it's clear to us that neither of these buildings is continuously occupied. there seems to be back and forth, but, like, neither -- with the utility bills alone, we cannot comfortably assess that the building is

continuously occupied on a daily weekly basis, but since that's a gray area we don't have to go there. we can just look alone at the maintenance of the property. the more important part of the vacant building problem is the occupancy is a trigger. then from there on is the maintenance of the property. we want the building, it is pleasant from the outside, the neighbors are not calling us every minute. >> are the cures for the violation the same whether it's abandoned or occupied? i guess that's what i want to know. >> whatever came up with this program, there was not enough to describe it, vacant/abandoned. the va vacant part, if they substantiate that with utility bills, we can accept that, but

then they have to deal with the abandoned part, the maintenance part, and that's where it gets more challenging. >> if they're living in the building or if they're -- if the building is being lived in or if the building is abandoned and vacant, are the cures for the violation the same? >> for the addendum portion the cure is the same. they need to get any necessary permits to make repairs to the exterior and also need to maintain the interior. the vacant part then, if they can substantiate by utility bills that it's occupied, that portion is taken care of, but before we can close the case, we have to deal with the maintenance issues. in this case the utility bills do not indicate the property is

occupied. that part is outstanding a the maintenance issues are very much outstanding. >> i was wondering if you could tell us from the record when the last time either one of these properties applied for a permit for any work. >> long time ago. >> 2008. >> at the front of

the building there's a broken window, they'd need to repair that. the trim around the windows is totally peeling off. they'd need a reasonable paint job there. at the rear there's a porch at the rear. it's totally dilapidated, ready to fall and it's a very long lot so there's fencing the whole length of the property that's being supported by 2 by 4s migrating right out into the public right of way.

they'd need to repair that fence. there's graffiti all along it, they'd need to remove that. there's a side entrance that has plywood about 2 feet from the surface of that entryway and that's also built on the public right of way. that would be need to be removed and that entrance maintained. there's a lot of issues. >> and those would have to happen even if somebody was living in that? >> yes. >> and what additional things would flow -- what additional violations would need to be fixed if somebody was living in it? fshlths if this building was not on the vacant building, if it was completely occupied and neighbors could call in complaints for the broken windows at the front, the peeling paint, a fence at the front totally dilapidated, the 2 by 4s migrating on to public

property and the graffiti. there could be separate complaints for all those. >> but it would be the same list of complaints either way sounds like. >> yes. >> if there's no further discussion, we could have the department's rebuttal. >> i lead my time, thank you. >> three minutes for the appellant for rebuttal. >> thank you for the opportunity [inaudible]. first of all, i think all my utility bill for 641 documents that there is continuous occupancy. i $641 documents that there is continuous occupancy. i don't see anywhere for $5 [inaudible]. that may be for the power next door, 645 becau