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. >> okay item. >> question. >> what do you mean about the abatement. >> what's that. >> what do you mean about reverseably the abatements. >> there's no fees. >> we should go ahead and say reverse it back that is not part of the motion but the department will get into contact with the appellant for a director's hearing via e-mail and a request for ab jurisdiction and appeal case number the appellant

requested that the ab over an appeal of directors order that appeal was filed after the 15 day appeal by the code extraordinary the ab may consider possible action to grant jurisdiction pursuant to the administrative code the department? >> for jurisdiction does the appellant go first. >> you want to clarify that. >> again, this is another matter that is a procedural issue because of the procedural jurisdiction so the appellant should go first and set forth

why the board should exercise its jurisdiction even though it was filed outside the 15 day work order. >> good morning reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the project sponsor appellant. >> the reason obviously the reason why we're here requesting jurisdiction even though it's a procedural request the land for my clients concerns with the way that this case has been processed the short story is that after a director's order that gave my client thirty days to abate the violations my client filed that building permit and when the permit is being signed off by planning

when it got back to dbi for a final check the person that reviewed the permit the permit was for i'm not really sure that's right my client asked dbi

for american people explanation why in san francisco building code or any sort of kinds law out there we'll find something saying that a shared foundation under what is a shared retaining wall only one party has to remove that foundation to put it into their property after my client received the request from dbi he immediately figured out or tried to figured out what we could do to appeal that discussion it turned out that was past the 15 days to appeal the directors order so within 3 days of finding out he needed to have a request for jurisdiction on file that was in late november so that's. >> can i ask a question to our

city attorney if a permit is amended does that change the date there were 15 days to file the appeal but instead of appealing the decision my client wanted to do what we could do to get the decision to go away he filed a permit but it didn't make sense asking for jurisdiction and while we're here to talk about the entire abatement process

it's still penned a foundational agreement about the enforcement of two foundation walls on two properties to move into one so. >> so that's part of a later hearing if we accept jurisdiction and we can continue it right now or that can be continued depending on how you rule on the jurisdiction issue. >> so we're clear that is important it shows good intent he files the permit to correct the issue. >> yes. >> that to me in 3 days. >> 3 days after he realized he the only way to get before i's you was ask for jurisdiction. >> if he hadn't of foiled that permit. >> we're talking about a month

and a half after the directors hearing occurred until he asked for a jurisdiction request it's not like we're talking about 40 months or a year. >> but part of jurisdiction request. >> yes. thank you before - no. >> department you have rebuttal. >> the building on 2015 and the appeal of the the appeal was then foiled for the request for jurisdiction was foiled on november 18 million dollarsth so it is well in expose of the department so what can happen in those

situations if there's a permit involved some people foil an appeal within the 15 days to collect and if there's a permit issued sometime later and then they'll not allow to exercise that appeal - on a case by case basis we refund the fee i guess that didn't happen here. >> does that appellant. >> i'll reiterate what i imitated my client tried to do know not having legal council trying to do the right thing and move on. >> you can speak if you like you have 3 minutes. >> still remainder of the 3 minutes. >> good morning yeah, i'm bert

actually, i'm the homeowner to the document prosecuting attorney to the permit applications before i do that i want to say the reason why i'm being abated or asked to produce the building permit looking at the initial stage of complaints and the citations it is really confusing so my first question is this the owner of property on the backside. >> this is purely on a jurisdictional so save our merits for that. >> sorry. >> one of the case is it pertains to a different

citations which the actual storage house and then the flooring is this thing from what of the being card charges on the 16 dot 1 the foundation has a different permit and the next one the storage shed has to have the next permit. >> excuse me. sir they have to decide on the jurisdiction then you'll make your case. >> is there any further commissioners comments before we go to public comment any public comment seeing none if you want to. >> you go. >> your turn. >> you go. >> i'd like to make a motion based on the fact that the building permit was foiled