a weak legislation making it more attractive to legalize other unit. >> through the chair commissioner mccray. >> there's some a tenant lives in this unit now. >> my understanding is that it's a family member. >> yeah, it's relation and in fairness that when it's a family member it's - and less controversial than when it's allowed but authenticity not really from a code perspective. >> commissioner lee. >> what would it take to make that unit or that space area a legal unit is it possible? one of the major issues could be headroom but if no issues where

headroom it's likely it may not be that difficult but >> we will hear in the appellant shortly it's not a separate unit only another room within the building the house with the kitchen so we'll hear from the appellant but that's the part that is city of chicago in my brain it's giving me well, let's hear from the appellant through the chair. >> so the original complaint you don't know where it came from. >> i'm assuming a neighbor. >> a neighbor and there been any other complaints since this one. >> no. >> deputy just as a point of order would be in a case like this i think we're all trying to come to the same conclusion

could it be okay to send someone out. >> we'll recommend a inspector to survey the unit i have seen a couple of permits in my time in the department where they allowed for someone who was immovable to have a union others ground floor that's what the section discuses. >> it's a temporary thing. >> and also i think we're getting cover with the new legislation the commissioner was saying it gives us that opportunity to give a little bit here and give it is an opportunity to legalize it. >> this deadly with the temporary use of a building i believe is not allowed with the senior inspector is talking

about the new legislation passed by consulting to have a single-family unit in different buildings. >> this is my comment. >> commissioner walker thank you. >> and isn't interest a process that brings in outside advisors with the secondary unit isn't. >> for a secondary unit you'll have a designer to draw a floor ban planning but the leg shin of a floor plan. >> but the same process so we don't get involved if there are issues then we know about. >> the couple i've seen the planning house was granted this temporary use if you show cause someone is not feeling well and the stairs is a problem for them to navigate i've seen it not

often but a cough. >> i guess the other thing it is safe to occupy if it's current fashion. >> i think that's a good idea to send an inspector anti. >> through the chair we've only had one issue here the kitchen there isn't more issues safety wise that's another concern i'll concur if to the acceptable to all parties that's the road to go that route. >> commissioner mar. >> before we continue this discussion hear from the chair. >> so is the appellant here? >> good afternoon, commissioners john i'm with the law firm with rubbing benefit and rose with the property owner we appreciate the turns that was granted last month how far how

this unit it was created in the early 1990s at the time an ill relative of a previous owner since then or extended family since then mr. phillips moved into the building the downstairs harassed been 0u79d by itself 75-year-old grandmother for seven years basically, their trying to safeguard that space what's happened between the time we filled the appeal commissioner president wu's legalization legislation passed this officers one routed numerous of how to deal what the unit prior to that we were going to speak about the moratorium allowed for in the building code a situation when you have a disabled or elderly folks in the room

we since the continuance last month we've engaged an architect and working on the analysis for the legalization of the unit it looks like a good candidate and has several of you mentioned it's not ann a unit that was created outside a dwelling unit only that a kitchen has been installed into so should the commission like us to go in the directions of legal listing the unit we'll hope to be granted a continuance today and be able to get the application on file and at this point the legalization ordinance puts the appeals process on hold until the completion of that and assuming we continue to the end the appeal gets dropped we're on to the commission if it was felt the moratorium was more appropriate it is a zoning

district that typically allows one unit but because of the ordinance we can increase it to two this unit was in existence prior to 2013 we want to get this resolved in a way that keeps mrs. williams mother in a space downstairs and defer to the commission which way they prefer we go. >> commissioner walker. >> thank you. i think that at this junk you are which way you want to go. >> that's not our position your telling us which way to approach it. >> the leg shin process is interesting there's been a number of applications it's not been really a planning issue with those cases but planning recognizes if it's been in

existence since 2013 what happens the building code getting the unit consist with the building code in many cases can be challenging for mr. phillips prospective the moratorium would be better it keeps the united in place like 20 years and again it's outline one existing unit just a kitchen was instead of in the basement level we'll stick with the moratorium and revisit that when the moratorium ends so that will be your preference. >> commissioner mar do you have a question. >> no, i was going to echo the previous commissioners that it is really up to the property owner to decide this way to go your main concern we'll be on to extending the time whichever way you go precede by getting the

permits and getting them legalize for the handicap or the elderly family member for a separate unit that's totally up to the prove or disprove so in the application the plan get a designer and the state decides do it this way our concerns w you precede if we can justify it if we hold ♪ awe abstinence >> commiserates. >> this is to our city attorney what's the process for allowing a moratorium i'm familiar with that. >> the appellant as requested a moratorium pursuant to the hard of hearing that's 105.3 so you have to make the findings no series of hazards that goes to having an inspector go out there

and looking at the status you have to make the specific finding those conditions do not exist and based on those finding you can grant the moratorium that's what the provision is. >> it would be when we take an action out in the abatement itself and we vote a moratorium on that. >> commissioner melgar. >> just a followup question do we have this signed by a financial hardship as well. >> the other purviews goes to displacement in the appellant wants to move pursuant to that one there's more clear material the financial hardship. >> i have to say that you know we have to uphold the code that being said i hate being put

in this position i feel like our planning code is lacking in a lot of the way that people live today and being if a cultural where we have our elderly folks live with us like many many folks in san francisco of you know latino and african-american it is terrible that our code and allow for something like this so there is you know a way to make sure that it is safe without having to legalize the entire unit we don't have a way right now so i guess you have to choose which way you want to chose i want that on the record people have all sorts of family structures and there is different ways that people live and can be safe. >> president mccarthy. >> through the chair this is

more the city attorney i kind of concur with the commissioner which is the best path the new legislation gives us the cover we need to kind of put this violation on hold; right? and there's no more believable of fees and so on so they can take the path of legalizing the path; right? rather than the hardship legislation >> once they start that process it puts a stay in terms of the owners of violation. >> that kind of gives us legally we can say okay. this we can put things on hold awhile i take that route if we take the hardship roanoke, virginia route we'll- would that be correct as far as putting it on hold would that be; correct. >> assuming they go forward

with the process it puts a stay on this process. >> yeah. >> but then up to the board to call the case again to get a status and decide for example that didn't workout you have a notice i have violation to address. >> yeah. but a awe cutting-edge the fees are awe including. >> i'm not sure. >> commissioner walker let me get clear having a room in the basement is not the problem it's the stove in the room downstairs. >> i believe they're all in the room downstairs according to the speaker but they put a kitchen down there. >> is it not legal to have two kitchens in a house when if i have a barbecue in the back. >> well, it's not illegal you can put a second kitchen if you

put a kitchen downstairs and there is a sleeping room and bathroom that make ups a second dwelling unit that is the catch like i said section 105 they can go to planning 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 the