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 thank you. >> ma'am, there's a chance for you to speak another 6 minutes if you like. >> i'm hoping that the fee can be reduced because i mean the work was done by the tenant even though the owner you know the owner on the record has to be responsible the fact that she's really that old and the fact she can't have here attorney to representative her to stand here audio hope the board will be lenient on the fee you know. >> thank you

any public comment? seeing none, anyone want to make a motion >> commissioner walker i move to uphold the order and hold in abeyance for the permitting and work to be done. >> just to clarify since we have two matters. >> can i really up into one or do it twice. >> cleaner to do it twice. >> hold on. >> 6798 i move to uphold the order and hold in abeyance for 60 days to accommodate permitting and work to be done. >> i second that motion. >> what about. >> we have to move and vote and i'll do the next one. >> uphold the fees. >> yes. >> i vote on 6798 and move to

approve upheld the order of abatement and hold in abeyance for 60 days during which time the board needs to be permit and finished. >> i second that motion. >> there's a motion and second on 6798 and the roll call vote president chich. >> commissioner mar commissioner mccray commissioner mar commissioner lee commissioner mccray commissioner walker that motion carries unanimously 6798. >> i move on appeal number 6798 to uphold the order of abatement and hold in abeyance for 60 days and uphold fees and they will get a permit and do the work.

>> i second that motion. >> motion and second for case 6798 president commissioner clinch arrest commissioner melgar commissioner mccray commissioner mar commissioner lee commissioner mccray commissioner walker motion carries unanimously on to item f request for rehearing case no. 6795 originally heard on 2014 action requested by appellant request for rehearing and department the department will come up first. >> for the hearing. >> i think usually for rehearing for the appellant goes first. >> okay. you can come up

first. >> morning commissioners well, the reason i came is because of the hearing to say it is illegal error to request to goes abatement based on to demand work to be done in a period of time that's not possible to be done as was evidenced by the previous during the previous hearing. >> the report points out out for the code there needs to be new evidence so forth over and over a illegal error do you have any argument further about the illegal error. >> well it's the same as previous arguments during previous hearings just it is illegal i believe -

well, it's illegal mistake to demand the correction for repairs within the period of time that was demanded if me first place. >> and i can add that maybe i haven't stressed it enough during the previous hearing that had the department building inspection inspirations were properly done i won't probably have to be here in the first place during the intieksz the thing was signed off incorrectly for instance plumbing, electrical that the department

failed at that recognize shouldn't have been signed for instance close the walls i was out to sign off it was before fire sprinklers were installed as requested by the planned for instance so i doubt well - that's my argument today. >> what is your - how much time would you need to get the work done. >> well. >> if you had continuance. >> i'm in the process i already scheduled the previous hearing i already scheduled the neighbors meeting but the rest is i don't know how much the permitting take would take place i need to

do the major say for instance another major issue. >> commissioner walker. >> we're hearing on a rehearing we don't need to hear the facts unless there's new facts not present asking for more time is not appropriate at this point just because we haven't granted the new hearing. >> okay. >> so i can ask a question. >> please continue. >> okay thanks. >> you have 7 minutes. >> you asked me to how long it about take a it's a matter i already have the general contractor to do the work it requires permits and one of the major issues the redesign is

actually almost completed as well so permits i don't know how much minded would require to for planning and dbi to approve because there are quite a few of the issues 42 but i'm basically ready to. >> question for our attorney what's our role if he's claiming legal error what's the burden on us and them. >> you'll have to show that the boards decision previously was incorrect not necessarily outside our jurisdiction or or ran contrary to the law for instance if he presented you evidence that facts were not present. >> we haven't heard evidence of an illegal error. >> that's for the board to decide he's asking for

reconsideration reconsideration reconsideration as opposed to pointing out out illegal errors. >> well, the law can't impose finances or penalties for something that can't be done within the requested period of time i'm a layperson i don't know how to put the legal statement any better. >> through the chair correct me if i am wrong one the reasons you didn't perform the work awe you saw this site as some sort

of because it was in legislature or litigation we were instructed you couldn't precede forward that's your main testimony the last time you were here with regards to what happened in a month i remembered at the last testimony you were saying it was still ongoing. >> for the appeal. >> right so at this point what you didn't have the testimony you had new did you make testimony that last time. >> no, i don't. >> so the last time you're saying there's been drawings completed and new design you're ready to submit for permit correct. >> correct we've schedule on the 31st the neighbors meeting. >> i'm not sorry on the 31st. >> the neighbors meeting before

submittal it it requires neighbors hearing. >> so okay. are we to understand legally everything has been done and moving forward or you moving forward on your own. >> no, i'm moving in particularly i royals the permits needed to be done with time so i'm moving particularly to this. >> the litigation is ongoing. >> under appeal yes. >> so commissioner walker. >> yes. we have not voted to rehear this this is only reconsidering things from the previous one i don't see any new facts to allow for a rehearing. >> commissioner walker the commissioners is allowed to ask questions. >> i understand but this is reconsidering. >> we're not reconsidering only asking questions. >> those are facts that were

known at the beginning are we going to revisit every case where someone - >> commissioner melgar. >> b will it be appropriate to make a motion at this point, i make a motion we not grant the hearing. >> we need the public comment and commissioner mar was going to make a point and i wanted to clarify the focus the conversation on whether weeping we'll have a rehearing and also hear from the department because i think that's the process and then public comment. >> we'll have a question for the city attorney what's the process the appellants perpetrate it there rebuttal from the department or can we simply make a motion. >> ask the department if they want to make a rebuttal and make a redlks to grant the rehearing and move into the next phase

unless it's denied. >> we'll have the - is there anyone that has questioned or the department to add anything. >> the only comment i have is the appellant has not use up all his time is he relinquishing all his time. >> unfortunately, we had a lot of interruptions. >> there were questions asked. >> mr. burger you have 2 minutes and 30 seconds if you want to come back up. >> thank you anything else from the department. >> if you haven't decided i'm done. >> is the board making a motion. >> follow-up on public comment. >> seeing none. >> to restate the motion not

grant the rehearing. >> second. >> there's a motion and second to not grant the rehearing roll call vote president clinch. >> yes. >> commissioner melgar commissioner mccray commissioner mar commissioner lee president mccarthy commissioner walker. >> the motion carries unanimously unanimously. >> item general public comment is there any general public comment for item in the items not listed on the abatement board of appeals agenda seeing none adjournment is there a motion to adjourn. >> i move we adjourn. >> second okay all commissioners in favor.

>> i. >> we're now adjourned it's 10:25 a.m. we'll reconvene the