apply for a permit and like i said this could take time because planning is backlogged right now but give them 90 or one hundred and 20 days and see where it takes. >> >> that makes sense it is very complicated. >> yeah. >> yeah. >> i think there's some more process to go through this morning do you have imagine before we have a rebuttal from the department. >> in terms of the moratorium the hardship my understanding is that there's no permit that gets filed that's something it is granted by the board and everything just status status quo if we want to go the legalization ritual that requires a permit i want to get clarity again we prefer to go to hardship moratorium route and

action on the boards part. >> commissioner walker i think that the issue we have is it the stove there and the whether it's right or not has to be permitted so whether it's allowed i think we need to check in with planning their did ones that gives us an okay to be able to do that i think the moratorium is once we take action more of a penalty phase we stop the action essentially but this is like we need to go to planning and go through the inspection process to determine the process for the stove and whatever else is involved that it so i'd like to

- >> clarify the moratorium allows the issue to - the board can approve a moratorium up to 10 years and allows the conditions to exist in order the board has to make specific finding no hazards at this point unites you have enough evidence. >> commissioner melgar. >> so back to you what the action we could take if we go to the moratorium route to be then say that we need to find out more about the safety send an inspector 0 out there it's not necessarily like a checking whether or not the secondary unit is legal in its entire it we're just cheth the safety of the kitchen and then up to 10 years we're going to say we'll

hold off on the enforcement. >> that's correct so the moratorium gets recorded. >> i see. >> correct. >> you can put conditions. >> that didn't happy in planning unless during the moratorium for whatever reason wanted to make it an illegal secondary unit. >> correct they'll have to do the moratorium. >> we won't have to act. >> because the board is enclosing it the board was impose certain conditions in terms of the process that's correct that the moratorium will be recorded and no action taken up to 10 years you have other conditions about it being used at a certain period so - >> commissioner lee.

>> i have been writing things down so let me see the appellant sooerm has two options there's either one to give the planning department the plans so the planning department legalize the thank you very much or the second unit at the house and as soon as they submit it the work of abatement is stayed considered stayed we don't take action it becomes whatever it becomes the permit action becomes whatever it becomes; right? the second action the appellant requests a moratorium the moratorium requires the board to make finding we'll have to send a staff member out to inspector the building and if there are problems through then the appellant needs to fix it

okay. >> basically if there are problems. >> before we grant a moratorium. >> correct say the inspectors comes back and there are serious hazards the board will be in a position we'll they'll not quality for the moratorium there will only be the other option. >> commissioner walker. >> i think that this is yeah. it's kind of i mean in my case we should continue it i'd like to see if we can get that code section sent to us so we can read and probably understand what is our threshold and the criteria for this is since we haven't done this before so - and maybe an ad investment from our city attorney before we actually vote on it.

>> so i think there's a lot of discussion here and inspector want to talk about maybe we should move on the process and include anything manage you want to add. >> online with what commissioner walker was saying appropriate for a turns to give us an opportunity to work with the city attorney and if we're eligible for the moratorium and come back and reconfirm if not start the process of legalization. >> we'll have the department have their say if that's okay john. >> something that occurred to me so if you were to do a continuance and during that time they could decide if they were to find a permit if they file a permit and come back we'll be advised to stop our process for

12 months if at the end of this 12 months they discovery they can't legalize and to the 6th of come back and request the moratorium position the reason i say that you know we always give great consideration for a family member living in the house that's an idea. >> good idea commissioner mar. >> i'm fine with the xundz or continuance during that point are we're going to schedule an inspector out through there so we'll know if there's another hurdle if live safety issues out there. >> drart if 33 they file a

permit that will roach that if they file a permit the process stops at the end they couldn't get the permit issued you could draw that route we'll go in there before the moratorium route. >> okay. >> commissioner lee. >> is there a form process for a request for more to your memory a formal request. >> basically cite the section. >> is there the appellant making that request now officially. >> we do in question that since the legalization came up and that's why the other option came up i think it will be worth the time. >> so the department is made we'll send an inspector with a court date. >> i'm hearing a continuance if that's - >> to allow for that.

>> mr. sweeny has a comment. >> the boards wishes to send american people inspector and the property owner and their agent have no opposition to it i can arrange for someone to go out there. >> commissioner mar. >> from what i'm hearing from the owner it is their preference to go with the moratorium so i think we need to send an inspector out there and then we'll leave that legalization issue for them sometime in the future. >> well, i think we should have the appellant have their 3 minute rebuttal and have the discussion to i think we can have a motion anyone wants to make one oh, excuse me. any

public comment oh, rosemariey. >> rose mary as an individual that has been faces is with after complaints have been received by the department insuring a moratorium that's been grant maybe not when the abdomen an but previously going back a couple of things to consider if you go into the moratorium selection and that was one you have a set of plans delineate that area you refer to the exhibit a that delineate what the kitchen looks like that has an electrical awe penicillin if that's required where the bathroom is and the fix turdz and later on if we get a complaint to go in and see if you're moratorium is still being compliemd with properly the use has not expanded and also to condition the property owner

will have to novice you when the occupant no longer occupies that space as well so that we will know otherwise these things go on for 10 years and may or may not something else has occurred this is part of the moratorium process you don't have the permit review process within a hardship process you're only talking about a set of floor plans for that area it makes it easier for staff later if increase a complaint with the moratorium being compiled with. >> thank you anyone else want to make a motion commissioner walker. >> i'd like to move to continue this item during which time we respond to the request for more to your memory by sending an inspector out at the next meeting we hear from the project

sponsor as to the course of action. >> well done okay. >> second. >> yeah. >> well done. >> motion a a second any public comment on item the motion if not roll call vote. >> ma'am secretary i believe he has comments. >> how long is the continuance for . >> until the next meeting february. >> february. >> february 18th or. >> february 18th is that enough time to get an inspector out there thank you just thank you. >> come back and tells you like look at what we want to do. >> volt. >> commissioner clinch

president mccarthy commissioner lee commissioner mccray commissioner walker motion carries unanimously. >> item e new appeals order of abatement case 6797, 1254 mission street owner on record tom wong attorney is pamela chung to reserve the order of abatement and allow time to work with the tenant to gain access to the property to correct a violation and i'm karen aluminum i'm a nebraska of the property owners ms. wong. >> do we hear if the department first. >> sorry ma'am i'm sorry. >> the department has 7 minutes to present its case and you have 7 minutes the department goes

first. >> inspector. >> now you're aware we have two cascades for this address do we hear them separately or wish to deal with did board at the same time. >> what makes more sense. >> unless there's problems with time. >> let's do them together we'll give you 14 minutes and the appellant 14 minutes like in the past. >> so the first one is the appeal 6797 1054 mission street this is a two-story office building and the violation is really a living unit installed without plumbing permits that in that commercial building and an rfp was issued 2014

a building permit was filed that somewhat dealt with the violation the permit was withdrawn a plumbing permit was issued in 2013 to fill the complaint that permit expired and based on that staff recommends we uphold the abatement second case appeal 6798 for the same address for electrical wiring on the second floor installed without permit the abatement was issued september 10th of 2012 and the electrical permit was issued that would have cleared the violations but that is electrical permit not showing complete in front instead of

recommends we uphold the abatement that concludes my report. >> the reading of the report is the tenant living there or a commercial tenant? >> it's not clear but the electrical and plumbing was installed without permit and naturally there shouldn't be any kind of living accomodation within that building. >> commissioner walker. >> so did they install a stove. >> it's not specific on the type of plumbing involved. >> because one of them is the violation is adding a living unit so you're saying that whatever was duplicate done without permit and the suspicion a living unit that was added. >> yes. like normally if

there's a additional unit added a building code certification one is electrical and the other is mrunl they can't get into the you know the area of the unit so the mrunl can only deal with plumbing and the electrical electrical that's why it's a gray area. >> commissioner mar. >> so it was a little bit confusing about the residential unit that has the plumbing violation it seems like the owners contention we'll hear from her in a minute that illegal work was done by the tenant would legalized it. >> we don't get into that whatever violations in the building the owner is ultimately

held responsible we don't get into it our issue it was done in the building owned by somebody and that owner is responsible. >> when the notice of violation came up somebody tried to pull a permit to legalize it; is that correct. >> they let it expire without doing any work who pulled the permit did the owner try to fix it. >> someone else pulled it the owners are not pulling it there needs to be authorization from the owner to give authorization to whoever is pulling the permit so either the owner approved of it or complained they had authorization from the owner to pull it. >> commissioner walker. >> so i'm looking 6798 and did

photos show a bathroom and sink with a fwarg is that a garbage disposal under the sink. >> yes. >> okay and - >> so those photos were taken bits the pledge allegiance inspector at this time and their displaying the plumbing fixtures and the type of plumbing pipes use you know to give a good sense of how they're reaching the plumbing code in my case all of the work that is done has to be inspected and permitted. >> exactly. >> we need to go see if it is a residential occupancy which requires the planning review.

>> yes. and or to take it out. >> or you can see a pipe there that is not appropriate in san francisco. >> okay. all right. >> okay. >> no other questions we'll have the appellant come up thank you. >> you have 14 minutes. >> hi commissioners i'm karen alumni i'm a family friends of family members actually family member of the project sponsor who is a old lady 85 years old and the tenant actually take a page of the fact that this old lady actually is my aunt she lives in stockton she's old and didn't know anything she's own this property for a long time

and the tenant has a at least and then she never visits even san francisco she hadn't been to san francisco like 10 years so she really didn't know what's going on with her belief and the next thing she finds out there were a bunch of tenants in this office floor and then there were violations one after another and then the tenant went to the old lady she lives in stockton they say we're going to correct the authorization why not authorize us to do that which she did and i believe the electrical permit was pulled the permit was pulled that it never depicting maybe the tenant the tenant just

want to get the money such as he or she could and nothing was done so order of abatement happened one after enough she hired an architect for relatives i know myself involved a little bit and we successfully get the permit but the approved plan to be given back to the original floor plan plus put into i believe 88 bathrooms so that it could be rented to their whoever you you know especially now you have the person's that want to be in the neighborhood so the permit is pulled and it's approved and the tenant speeding to move out the end of

this month so that's it there's no reason to stay there any longer i'm here to ask for you know the board to reverse this order of abatement and let her with my help and friends members help to correct it to knee with the code that's all and the plan is here if you like to take a look. >> commissioner mar. >> so you went through planning and they approved to avert to correct everything and readvert everything back to commercial use of both unit so what you're doing is the master tent e tenant everybody is mostly out. >> their supposed to move by

the end of this month. >> the master tenant not onlyful if there was a residential tenant and the commercial tenants are moving out as well. >> the tenant teaspoons their offer it was supposed to be an offense to start with and the lease what so long ago the or in find out there are only like 10 or 15 people in this space just you know when their violation happened and the owner abatement come in and she hired an attorney but at this point she's kind of like she's spent so much money on the planning and so on and so forth so i said why don't i help you i appear and ask for assistance from you know you

guys. >> commissioner walker. >> so this location it is one building but separated into - there isn't spark - there's two addresses so the next door is spark and this is the one the fwrv which what was a patient i think it was access of glove or something like that i know what is building is now so i'm - so essentially you want to legalize wednesday evening the permit and the existing tenant is being evicted? >> yeah. >> and it's a commercial- patient hang out essential is what it is. >> so there's a master tenant

and there's sub tenants or sub leases. >> we never had sub leases. >> so spark is our tenant. >> what. >> spark is not your tenant; right? >> i don't think i know there were tenant in the office floor that because of different petitions of the office floor that you would to rent out to whoever. >> yeah. this all apply to the second floor and - yeah. thank you. >> so a quick can i ask a quick question. >> commissioner mar >> deputy sweeny looking at

those plans those plans cover both of these addresses 1254 i mean this 1254 mission but there's also. >> yeah. it's right here sorry. >> this is spark. >> okay. on the ground floor. >> does it cover both unit? will it tale with both of these >> you're talking about the 2014 permit well, the address is 1254 mission arrest. >> well that's the address of the violations. >> yes. uh-huh. >> there's two unit in 1254. >> to comply with 3 notices of violation one is electrical and

to build two new handicap routinely restaurants so 3 permits or 3 violations that is taken care of. >> is there any outstanding violations that will not address. >> my understanding there's 3 notices of violation on this property so all issued in 2012. >> and it's all on the ground floor. >> no on the second floor i don't think there's violations on the ground floor. >> it's a two-story building with no basement. >> commissioner melgar. >> so it so you would the owners have done the right things going to planning beyond why we'll reverse the order because you know if she goes go ahead and pulls the permit that

stops the enforcement but making sure things keep moving i semiemphasis with the owner she's getting help but don't see why we reverse the order. >> she's asking for an additional thirty days for the order taking effect. >> commissioner walker. >> so how long will it take to do the work you're getting permits for . >> i minimal thirty to 60 days so if the tenantable to move out successfully evict her at the end of this month we're talking about february 28 days because of the chinese new year i hope that we can extend it to 60 days so the work will be done correctly without you know any

corner cut. >> commissioner mar. >> so can i ask the department what the cost are as of right now do you have that. >> the fees. >> fees. >> which are held in abeyance because the permits are pulled. >> there was an initiate fooedz fee of one thousand 20 and the those one thousand 28. >> so about 3 thousand. >> and sorry commissioner mar. >> i'd like to make a motion. >> we're not there yet we need public comment. >> we need the department to do their 06 minute rebuttal. >> no more comments