public broadband thank you. >> broadband authority. >> okay seeing no other member of the public here we'll close public comment and before jurnd i want to thank sfgovtv bill smith and dillon. >> thank you very much we're adjourned we're ready to begin

good morning today is wednesday april 15, 2015, this is the regular meet of abatement appeals board i'd like to remind everyone to please turn off electronic device p&z roll call. >> commissioner clinch commissioner mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner walker commissioner mccray commissioner lee is compassed and supervisor scott wiener that expected we have quorum the next is the oath will all parties giving testimony please stand and raise your right hand do you swear the testimony is the truth is it the best of your knowledge thank you. please be seated the next item item c election of officers. >> if it's okay i'd like to

move this item to later in the agenda with commissioner melberger is here. >> item d approval of minutes discussion to adopt the minutes for trev february $18 million and march $18 million 2015. >> i move we do you want the minutes. >> is there a second. >> second there is a motion and a second is there any public comment on item the minutes okay. seeing none all commissioners in favor. >> i. >> opposed? the minutes are approved the order of abatement ellis street the trust attorney for the appellate is mr. kelly action by appellant at the november 19th the ab held

the abatement and awe abstinence provided the following positions are satisfied. >> good morning chief how's inspection the package is essentially the letter that the board evident to the property owner has 6 items this information as recent as yesterday a page before that the inspectors observations regarding each of the 8 items before i get into those are you want explain the rest of the package photos that are taken of the site with exception of the front of building as you can see that shows the america international hostile sign you you'll refresh your recollection regarding the front. >> you're referring to a packet

i don't think i have in 19 ellis sorry. >> you guys should have it i'll go get it. >> is it its own package. >> it is short with updated information as of yesterday that's why it was not included the photos are from yesterday so i apologize we'll go through that again, it has our letter from november and the inspectors observations that directly correlate to those 8 items and photos of the site yesterday with exception of the front of the building that's an earlier photo from december of last year, we included this for refreshing our recognize of the front of the building we've recorded to you in december of last year the american international hostile sign was

removed and continues to be removed the rest of the photos in our package the color photos were taken yesterday so you can see the state of the building is supplies to be able to use this as a hostile remain within the building that's it that's been the observations of the inspections since december of last year that did building has not been reoccupied for residential use you'll see the summary yesterday from the inspections the rest of the packages include the online advertising we printed that was online as of yesterday which indicates that the building is closed for remodeling and reopen in spring of 2015 this is problematic for us i'll get into that in a minute one of the concerns it is easily to be able to rent rooms by placing these

things online as you can see from all the extensive testimony if the previous haersz this was never a legal use and there are permits to deal with the legality if and when it ever becomes legal it will be appropriate at this point to advertise it is not appropriate at least staffs recommendations not appropriate to have this kind of advertising right now so the advertising as of yesterday an itemized bill as of yesterday and the information excuse me. on the permit there are two proprieties that were filed currently within the review of planning you have those reports and the last thing accident itemized billion the property owner has seen this is just late yesterday to give the most updated information it basically says we're another about 36

hundred conflict of interests in assessment of costs to be able to perform the inspections of the violations at the site so go back back to items 1 through 8 as i said they've taken the sign down but there is an online advertising you have that item 2 they stopped the auto repair not reinsulted but regarding item 3 the fire extinguishers and fire alarms and smoke detectors they've filed permits to address the notice of violation although i don't know necessarily if the permits are on file are expensive to have the planning will have to consider with respect to item 4 they did terminate has we've recorded back in december the transient

residential use not been as we've eaten is through numerous inspections we've instituted the long term residential occupancy stopped as well we recorded that in december as well in december so we did the spishgdz inspections that's where we are at this point so i'll be happy to answer any questions but perhaps you might want to hear from the property owner with his plans for this location. >> is the property owner here the appellant would you like to come up and anything else. >> there is no advertising i'm not sure where this is we don't

have fund to reopen right now. >> your name for the record. >> so there was something that was said but advertising i'm not aware we don't have any plans to reopen so and then i'm not sure is there you have questions about commissioner walker. >> yes. thank you for working through this 0 w with us. >> thank you. >> and i appreciate the work you've done to respond to our notice of violation but it seems to me like the furniture is in place waiting so my question to you if you're not going to be putting into that use of legal listing why is the furniture in the same locations.

>> well, the building is empty we're using it for storage not nor millennial. >> i hear you but do you understand tomorrow you could put all the mattresses on the beds in the same location and we're waiting for the permits it takes long to be issued. >> and the permits are for - >> there is one, two permits with only to legalize and the other to make changes like the removal of walls and things i'm not sure where it is right now. >> to legalize what you mean by removing the residential use or legalize the residential use. >> we're trying to change the use from what is it to do the residential but until the approval not going to do anything. >> you are going to legalize

the residential or intend to. >> yes. sometime down the road. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> the reason mr. gladstone is not represent you. >> i don't think it is necessary. >> and in regards to the advisement it says our opening up in 2015 a not going to open we don't have no plans until it is approved by the planning. >> so basically this advisement we intend to open up as a residential if we get planning approval? okay >> any other questions. >> if you're finished we'll hear from the department one last time anything else ms.

rosemary. >> what is it you want us to do. >> i want to have this abatement either removed or pit on hold you know the abatement of the building. >> okay. let's talk about it. >> what - >> what are the options here i need to hear from the city attorney and as of right now the order of abatement will be held in abeyance so you'll continue to hold it if awe abstinence or order it be issued. >> any comments from the commissioners commissioner walker. >> yeah. i understand that there is frustration with this process at the planning department but this is not what we're

dealing with we're deal with an abatement on this property i'm getting mixed messages about the interest in doing it if they've submitted enough to do a residential and if we generally don't hold things indefinite in this limbo i'd like to very specific with what we do this time i don't know what it is yet i want to here from other commissioners. >> commissioner mar i'm synonym pacific but what the request is realistic i agree with commissioner walker i don't want to hold something in and i abstinence that is the case if you ask for something in planning that is impossible. >> they'll hold it forever and

we'll force us to hold it forever i want to try a figure out what our resources are and maybe also you know get some guidance from the department because i feel like this kind of stuff happens a lot when they said we're in planning what do you mean we're trying to get a permit to do something that is almost an impossibility so you're talking about turning a garage what was a garage into residential i you know this is not going to happen in june 5th forgot that one but not seeing it happen in years i don't know how. >> if i understand correctly they've come applied with

expectation of the ambiguity but compiled with our items it is not time to close this order or hold it or. >> we've voted to uphold is it we're hold it in abeyance we only need to set a date. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> one item that seems not acquit compiled with is the advisement with respect to that as the staffs concern would be that be pulled down and what time if they get this approved at some point i'd like to calling your attention to the permits in our packet those are the only permits that are filed recently those clearly are not permits to legalize the amount of work necessarily to change the use we've provided that information to get a sense 0 so.

>> so to answer your question one for we'll removal is that what i understood. >> it appears that both of those this is a limit amount of description this is deal with the legal outlet so a permit to legalize it didn't appear that is really addressing the extensive amount of information on a permit to legalize. >> there's nothing illegal vw have we inspected the walls walls went up without. >> that's what we're addressing petitions put in without the walls this is what it is adding and we can ask on that pretty quickly either they - do we get out and inspect to see if their

appropriate or make sure they're removed. >> that's part the building permit process he's currently under right now. >> and that part is done within a week correct. >> depending on if and when the planning finishes their review and whether or not the planning department is asking for additional information they may or may not been provided. >> the we'll construction is our code can't we go with our part of it. >> once the appropriate building permit is foiled. >> okay. >> so he's in process to do that. >> after planning tells him involved with what essentially. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> through the chair this is a fair topic i was wishing mr. gladstone was here do we have a

record of registration everything is in slow motion based on the planning approval do we have an application on file. >> those particular permits they seem to be addressing more of the legal use it clearly says on one a spirit permit for the legal outlet i can't tell what the planning department impression are you, definitely talk with them and report back. >> you know what we're trying to get with the commissioners we are trying to gage with the commissioners point we have have it for quite a while. >> it appears that the use is not there's no longer there and has been for a period of time

i'll say if at the takes the online advertising off and do perspective inspections in the future that at that particular at this point he pace the assessment of costs and no other violations everything else is corrected you can move forward. >> commissioner walker. >> so my thoughts on this that i would like for us to resolve our notice of violation and estop the use i think that i would like to see the building code issues resolve with a permit to take the walls out or whatever right now and the advertising stops and move forward you can do whatever you want

from here i mean, if we wanted to go through planning. >> if he is mark farrell doing that and not complicating the issue that should be able to go forward hose complicating it to remove and legalize get the one thing done that's the issue who the likelihood of getting this approved. >> mr. sweeney you have a question. >> the application has been approved by planning that was for the removal of residential rooms and not a valid permit and to restore it back to automobile use and to remove the illegal

dwelling both are $6,000 not enough minor permits. >> for the building code issues. >> removing the use. >> so this is easy for us to - >> the other part is. >> yeah. >> i think you've had our rebuttal we didn't formerly call this do you have any last words before we ask public comment and vote? >> the advertising i'm not sure it was there and if is there we want to remove it with the permit we'll have to wait for the issue we're godfather not going to do anything else so basically waiting. >> is there any public comment?

before a vote? seeing none, would anybody like to make a motion commissioner walker >> we've voted to uphold the order of abatement and held it in abeyance i'd like to stepped that for thirty days to allow the owner to get a permit and resolve our notice of violation i second that. >> there's a there is a motion and a second what are we extending. >> the holding in abeyance the holding of the order of abatement we've voted on the order of abatement. >> roll call vote. >> commissioner clinch commissioner melgar i'm sorry you- i want to include

you for this. >> commissioner mccarthy pr commissioner mondejar commissioner mccray commissioner walker motion carries unanimously. >> i'd like to acknowledge that commissioner melgar has joined us. >> i'll go to item f commissioner clinch would you like me to go to item f new appeals and order of abatement rhode island street owner of record christine and action requested by appellant appellant requests the ab reverse the fees or modify the order of abatement for 5 slash 32 rhode island good morning first of all i'd like

to say i'm happen. >> oh, we'll hear from the department first. >> sorry about that. >> i've not been here before. >> no problem for everyone in the audience i apologize the order is to have the department speak for their you have 7 minutes and the appellant court has 7 minutes and each of side minutes for renewal. >> the item on 530 thank you very much. >> you're welcome 530 rhode island street to the owner of the building violation relates to concrete and retaining walls along the property line this is collapsed and urban save the it happened on may 20th of last year relating u resulting in an order of abatement and no permits

filed to deal with the violation we ask you uphold the order of abatement that concludes my report. >> is the retaining wall in the rear yard or front. >> rear yard. >> okay sorry any other questions for - >> we don't seem to have photos or - was that in the looked at in may already of the retaining wall in the packet. >> what. >> there's not photos of anything about the retaining wall. >> you have photos. >> in the front of the building but not the back. >> no there are no photos of the condition itself those reason for those photos are when we went by the building shortly before the evening and

there were never any photos taken of the condition itself. >> how come. >> sometimes they take them and sometimes they don't sometimes assess can be limited. >> okay. >> do we know 31 how this case came before us was it a routine inspection or a collapse or neighbor calling. >> two other properties that are effected by this condition as well they got orders of abatement and this one was appealed so if your honor, were to you would this all the properties affected will have ordered and included to work together to resolve it. >> when were those orders issued for the adjoining

property. >> 531 kansas street issued in july of last year and 432 rhode island an order issued in november of labor so if you uphold this one. >> sorry to keep digging but 432 and 4 thirty are the same properties different buildings. >> right. >> physical structure. >> is it a condo. >> 431 is neighboring building. >> 5 one kansas. >> so regarding the rear neighbor has it been assessed by the department of the property line issues like who's retaining

wall is it that is a question in contention. >> they don't get into that their issues that need to be litigated our job is to notify one or more property that have an unsafe condition effecting the properties it is best we don't get into the middle of that. >> so it's possible either or both of the property owners. >> yes. >> yep. like once orders is sited they go from there. >> so. >> okay. >> you said you mentioned something earlier about the order of abatement to the two properties one of the property is the same physical space as the property before us so that means that as you said you alluded to in the present year whether good or bad that

retaining wall is a common to those two not common in sharing but common to both the properties; right? >> that's more incumbent to treat them city council and we've done the other two this is the only one. >> that's clear. >> we would have photos of that one. >> commissioners i'm a visual person i'm a terrible reader it is hard for me especially, when it is ultimate 3 properties involved we don't have a record. >> secretary screening i believe it went out in 2013 since the commission has made that request known to us we definitely take pictures and bring them i believe that far back is before we told the

commission. >> commissioner walker do you have a comment. >> i agree it is helpful of we've seen it before to be reminded the situation is it so the case where we uphold the order of abatement on the other two parties involved that was just the remainder. >> so if there's another question. >> i'm uncomfortable answering all those questions without the appellant having their opportunity. >> we'll hear from them thank you. >> okay my turn are you done. >> go ahead. >> okay thanks and thank you actually because you asked questions that are important and let me see what i can clarify i have my ipod. >> your name and christine. >> which property. >> i live in