patio. >> so we're stand in our guardian. >> the photograph of the front of the house i can direct you from there. >> you can put that on the overhead. >> oh, i can. >> put that right there. >> okay. >> 2 hundred. >> let's just - >> this is 214. >> yeah. >> 214 okay. a single - >> yeah. we're good only the front so if you could go to the black and white photography. >> this is the front. >> okay. >> so this is facing from delores electricity often this left hand the collin residence the near dental building this is 2 hundred delores which was a 3

story flat building falling apart rat infested during the work this picture was taken i can't decided concern from the black and white building this is the fondle that is a wheelchair ramp that covers the ground floor it is completely dark the retaining wall on the right and on the left-hand side of the house is the stairway it was something we converted so you're looking at 9 top and the bottom is below market rate so this is the sloping. >> if i may i'll close i appreciate you walked me through as i look at the one with the white piece of furniture on the table i'm standing in 214

looking at 2 hundred. >> i don't know where that is, i was there yesterday, i can't figure out i've seen the fence on the left-hand side that separates us from the cowen building it can't right because the perpendicular part of the fence has me confused. >> as well as the shrubbery none of that is there i'm sure it is a picture of something i think the person thinks is germane. >> you're not familiar. >> you think of this may be the rear of some of the buildings on 15th street or at least that fence. >> i appreciate that thank you. >> he appreciate someone meeting me there. >> i'd like to knows from our staff who took this picture?

>> i don't know. >> was it us was it. >> or it could be provided by neighbors the best thing to focus on the notice of violation that was issued on april 18th or 2012 the language says a complaint was received by this dependent on the construction of 2 hundred delores caused the situation to the neighboring building that may have caused it to be unsafe and the instructions to the property owner at 214 delores providing an evaluation is needed within twenty-four hours whatever the condition that it was unsafe they've got to get a notice within twenty-four hours as to the district of the building once that is the evaluation done

by the engineer then they were to obtain a building permit within thirty days. >> those are our responses that happened the one twenty-four hours we were told by the building inspector that he would get back to us within 7 days with a problem no one did we should respond within twenty-four hours because there was something urgent without give a sense about safety issue in my estimation why they go about business third we're an nonprofit organization housing people that have no resources and received less than assistance in any aspect of this case we've tried to respond to our department on two occasions

and have received calls from our department saying this is not a serious issue await further follow-up that case has been going on for 3 years for 3 years i don't know how exactly urgent this is we're at a hearing 3 years later. >> so commissioner mar. >> so yeah i'm a little bit perplexed but i guess i have a question for the department because the violation itself that you read to me seems a little bit overly broad even a nonprofit organization even me as a private landlord if you sent me something and said your building is unsafe you don't tell me what is thinking safe not a backstair you don't say it's the gas

people you don't say it's the main electrical panel only your building is urban safe and euyou have to go out address hire an engineer and tells you why you're building is not urban safe what did you want me to do. >> when an inspector sees an unsafe condition the inspector didn't have the credentials to absolutely go from the begin regarding what needs to be done only issue a notifications it is unsafe and get an engineer to do an evaluation and an appropriate permit will be obtained the inspector can't, it directly on an unsafe condition and the engineer adhered by the property

owner bewill do the evaluation and on the permit. >> commissioner walker and commissioner mar. >> i think that would be helpful in the future if i mean it is appropriate to do noticed on those kinds of urban safe buildings but if they'll indicate where it is. >> i'll agree. >> i feel like we're sitting here not knowing what we're looking at because i don't know where this is i'm assuming what we're looking at the land underneath 214 but again, if we don't know it is a problem just here now the issue is i think what they're requesting they didn't receive the notice or look at the notice in a timely fashion they were not expecting

is it out of town so it small scale it seems to me we can go round and roll up but send it back to a directors hearing to try to resolve this situation because we - they're here because they have their appealing the notice they're saying that they if not get a notice in a timely fashion the remedy to ask the department to go through the process that is one i'm saying. >> their testimony size they're in contact with the department their ware. >> but the department is saying there's no imminent worry about it and the in connection. >> i'm not saying we're wrong we have all of this stuff to

assess in terms of. >> the way the appellant saw this they didn't appear at the directors hearing generally the way the appeal comes up there are sectors their appealing they made a board argument not a notice to appear so they will be remanding and having those issues vetted out. >> commissioner melgar and we should send it back i've got to say by consequence i'm familiar with these properties been there dozens of times i didn't recognize that it worries me maybe another hearing i don't

know where this is it should go back all the issues should be vetoed it didn't have a date maybe 2012 and typed in i don't know so anyhow. >> to corral the what grounds here we have heard from the initial it is now time for e rebuttal from the departments 3 minutes and we'll have 3 minutes for the appellants rebuttal and do public comment john if you could come up. >> no rebuttal i think there is different things to look at you'll leave it to you. >> appellant rebuttal 3 minutes. >> different places operates 10 licensing programs providing

services to san franciscans some are complex and all of them involve building and fire and having to meet all kinds of explicit state and local and in some cases federal requirements this is not a little thing to us we didn't treat this in a way that was lacking a response or for that matter if you just look at this piece of paper it appears as though we were urban responsive we were a community-based organization that relies on our reputation for services our continued funding so we don't took those matters lightly we're concerned about it thank you. >> i'd like to add that this

building was completely rehabbed in 2000, 20001 i was part of the construction of this building it was literally falling off it's foundation full of rats it cost a trermg mouchl money it is very novice but from the very beginning the only thing i've pursueed to get an evaluation between twenty-four hours i thought good luck with that this is the first phone call if you don't hear back from us in 7 days i came away first come, first serve this is a boilerplate thing one of the neighbors on 15th street complained they have things staples 0 their door it happened

twice on the dye i received it i was told it was probably nothing at no point did anything make a fault with the building i have nothing to go on nothing. >> thank you is there any public comment? seeing none, anyone want to make a motion >> commissioner walker you're on a role. >> i move to grant the request to have this sent back to the department for a director's hearing. >> second. >> there's a there is a motion and a second do a roll call vote. >> commissioner clinch commissioner melgar commissioner mccarthy commissioner mar

sxhaef commissioner walker motion carries unanimously case next union street honor of record action requested by appellants that the a organization reverse the order of abatement and didn't come to the hearing because confusion. >> the address 2068 union street this is an o a vacant lot the violation reads i believe to an susan u unstable inside an order of abatement was issued on may of last year no permits to deal with the violation therefore staff recommends hold the order of abatement and

uphold the costs that concludes my report. >> is the appellant here. >> yes. >> good morning my name is susan. this is a little complicated issue it goes back to 2006 when the original notice of violation was issued it was issued to 5 homeowners it is a bril big hillside as you can see from the photograph one of the owner is the city and that probably made that a little bit more calibrated when we got the origin notice of violation we went to the building inspection and said this is the situation there are 4 of us including the city of san francisco is not something to address with individuals so we spoke with a man named mr. 59

i didn't i don't know if he is still there anyway, he said you're right we should all get together and decide what to do i said okay. and then he never heard anything that was 2006 our house which is anothers 212 union street you'll see in the photograph at the top of the hill at that time was under construction and we had issues with planning department it had been covered in 2005 with plastic it had a sling wrapped we were another a stall mate with planning and the stalemate lasted for 4 years with that said, there were lots of rains in the december of 2005

and rock fell down from the hides i believe that mr. sweeney came down and look at the property i can't remember entirely but i had my krooshth put gutters along the house we put it into the sewer because water would not contribute to the hillside that's all we could do we were waiting to hear back for a meeting to work with the unstable hillside >> i never heard anything until 2013 and then i get a notice of violation which i was the notice

of violation went to three or four different neighbors there was a lot of confusion in the interim we sold one of our lots to a neighbor he didn't understand what was going on because all that happened before he bought the property anyway it was we said we don't know what you're talking about the building came back with a continuance you was speaking with the inspector we got another dates for the hearing my notice said the 13th and my neighbors notice the 18th and the 18 million dollarsth was a sunday so my neighbor called keith and questioned it and keith said oh, there was a mistake blah, blah 8 and 3 looks

at alike there was a typo we'll we e reschedule everyone fine i didn't show up for the 18th meeting prior to that, i sent keith two e-mails saying i'm out of town should i show up is it happening i never got a response morning of the meeting on the 13th or $18 million wherever it was i sent him an overwhelm saying i'm still out of town i'm no napa valley i can come back if necessary no erroneous i didn't show up i then got the letter of abatement i'm appealing the application of abatement as well as the foes to the fees are not as important to me at this point, i'll tell you

there is a survey being done on the hillside by the property owner on 2 hundred and 202 and 204 union street to basically, the lots coming out from the area i have no idea where we stands i don't know where we stand with his permitting i know that he was contracted with our folks we are going to share in the costs with the contractors with the firm named insureer we're in the middle after a good lovely mapping. >> so work is being done but in the meanwhile the confusion surrounding our property and the abatement i

don't think was just. >> any commissioner questions. >> excuse me. ma'am. >> is there any estimation of the time necessary to complete this project. >> you know i don't know. i spoke with the project manager from insureer cotton and he said tested e he was in the middle i gave him the information on our prospective in 2003 we gave that to him we were coming down from our property i know their working on that. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> thank you for your presentation commissioners we had another hearing on that i'm trying to recall we were satisfied that the extent to the work that had to be done was being done. >> what is it risking would do.

>> i'm trying to recall i'm trying to see we pretty much have the same situation and the key was the necessary kind of surveying and engineering and reporting john can you talk to that or yoga memory on that one. >> yes. i'm glad you brought that up a neighboring property on 1225 sunset street an order of abatement on december 2012 and then they appealed it before you in march and you upheld the order ever abatement on second street we had a similar situation we'll hope you'll you would this one for the property owners and they're in a position to work together to resolve this inside problem. >> commissioner walker. >> do you went we upheld the

order of abatement and give them some time do you recall the framework. >> do you know what assumption with that property and other properties to come to a solution and help all of them. >> okay. >> is there no other commissioner questions we'll go into department rebuttal. >> no rebuttal just to say that we want to be fair to all so they all get an order of abatement and all work together. >> commissioner mar. >> the question i had for the department is it i guess this appeal might be a little bit similar to the last one they felt this was not clear when the directors hearing was so the problem was because we had

scheduled it there was a little bit mix up on the dates we'll reschedule it i don't know how that was handed so i'm not clear about whether you know- i understand the question in being fair and the hillside that is particular they were notified about the directors hearing. >> when the notice of hearing and the notice it mailed the question for a continuance comes in it is usually from the property owner there is a consummation and a notice in the mail that was done. >> because of confusion of the 13 or 19 all done on the 13 then you said.

>> yeah. we have the continuance of notice somewhere yeah, so we have the notice it was made on april 4th and mayor 13 2013, the notice was filed. >> i have a question for the city attorney similar to the last case what's before us specifically. >> again, the basis of the appeal a request to reverse the order of abatement based on the

confusion of the notice my only caution for the families that appear at the directors hearing and before the board and putting all the issues in front of you side stepping that initial process your duty as a at board to basically appeal of an order so again whether or not you think it needs to be remand to the other issues can be cited and taking the proper appeal as opposed to putting the entire matter in front of you. >> one option to decide we do on the last case take it back to the directors hearing. >> the appellant stated reasonable grounds there was reasonable grounds you'll remand it back. >> the board directors hearing.

>> thank you. >> any other commissioner questions or comments before we go to the appellant for renewal you have 3 minutes if you want to say anything else. >> i agree i came presented to rebut the issuance of the fees not the issue of the hillside so given i have e-mails ebuillence that is my resource for invitation between me and the inspector and in the absence of e-mails after i overwhelmed saying shall i come back into the city and no response from him so that's the basis of any appeal okay. >> so - thank you question. fellow commissioners or inspector i wasn't here in march when the case was heard was that

case about the remadeline as the attorney said or the merits of case merits of hazard >> the same hazard. >> we upheld it. >> we were hearing a different issue. >> we were hearing the actual appeal. >> thank you. >> so in terms of i'll just opine a little bit we're not talking to like to like in consistent we're hearing something separate that is about the directors hearing. >> yeah. this is not deciding on the merits of who to upheld the abatement but really about whether or not there was an appropriate process with the directors hearing with the person present at the directorshearing.

>> that's the caution for the board. >> public comment. >> sxhaishg. >> one thing excuse me. in those quiz fy to this staff when there's a situation where the it is being asked for us to send it back for a rehearing like this providing communication on both sides of the issue is helpful as far as evidence so we can counter it because anyone can say they didn't get a notice but there was confusion but overwhelm from both sides will help us commissioner mccarthy. >> i think commissioner walker said it also the fact we've heard this case and know it's been mitigated i think that is

obviously our biggest concern that's why i'm outlook with send it back procedurally and make that clear. >> any public comment seeing none i'd like to make a motion and that is, we - excuse me. city attorney for the proper language all to kick it back to the directors hearing if you could rephrase. >> kick it back is fine remand it. >> thank you. >> second. >> thoek to remand for the directors hearing roll call vote. >> commissioner clinch commissioner melgar commissioner mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner mccray commissioner walker okay. that motion carries unanimously. >>