built in communities. thank you. let's open this up for public comment. is there anyone from the public that would like to speak. please come forward. >> we have a representative from supervisor kim's office. thank you for being here. >> >> public speaker: hello, my name is casey moffat. i'm a personal friend of sarah and jamie. i'm in support of the liquor license. this area would benefit from having a wine and craft beer bar and for an area with so many office workers and increasing number of residents, this part of soma have a place for workers to have a drink and it would provide a neighborhood to enjoy a nice place of quality beer and

wine. sarah and -- they have a great friendship and now trying to create a solution. thank you for your time. >> thank you, next speaker? >> good evening commissioners. nor a rodgers. the vice-president of the mission bay neighborhood association and cochair of the retail task force of that association. i want to confirm the outreach that these wonderful women made and enthusiastically say that we support them. we are just thrilled to have an enthusiastic creative new small business enterprises finally acknowledging our area. so, we support them. thank you. >> thank you for your letter,

written letter and e-mailing it as well, ms. rodgers, thank you. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. can we have a motion on this item. motion to approve. we can do it without objection. >> thank you. mr. evans, please call the next item. >> there are no more items. >> very good. meeting adjourned. [ meeting is adjourned ] >> >> good morning. today is

wednesday july 15, 2015. this is a regular meeting of aidatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off electroning devices. the first item is

roll call. resident nel gar, here. vice [inaudible] commissioner mar, here. commissioner lee, here. commissioner mu cray, present. commissioner walker here. the next item is the oath. all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. >> is there a translator? >> yes there is. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated. next item is item c, approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for the meetings held may 20, 2015 and june 17, 2015. >> do we have a motion? >> move to approve >> second. >> motion and second. all

commissioners in favor? >> aye. public comment? any opposed? the minutes are approved. item b, continue appeal abatement. case number 6812, 938 [inaudible] working [inaudible] llc. attorney for the appellate zacksman freedman. the violation sited xhisted before the purchase of property and it is working to repair the conditions and necessary approval before proceeding further. appellates argue all work has been performed. >> i ask a question of the

city attorney? do we call both of the items on the ajunda together or take them separately? >> it is up to you. need to allot the time accordingly so the parties can present. they normally have 7 minutes so it is 14 minutes and then 6 minutes rebutal >> i think that is probably better in the interest of time. >> in addition we will also be hearing case number 6813 for 9308940 nob hampshire street [inaudible] attorney [inaudible] issuing order of abatement [inaudible] existed before the purchase of property and working to repair condition and waiting approval from dbi.

palt argues all work has been performed. for the record each site-side gets 7 minutes for a presentation but now get 14 minutes and. >> thank you members of the board. reez maer [inaudible] chief housing instreckt specter. we are looking at appeal item 6812 and 6813 regarding 938-940 hampshire street. this is a 2 unit building over a basement and this particular-these appeals before you are related to notices of violation issued early january of this year, specifically january 21 and 22 of this year. the first item contained in that is appeal

6812, contained appreciately 20 items that dealt with maintenance throughout the building. in your staff reports you see a series of photo's that show the condition of the building. as you will hear later on the commission, you will address related issuewise respect to the same property. these notices of violation have-first let me say the current property owner took the title to the property early in january of this year, approximately i think the deed was recorded in january 15 of this year. so, when we went to the directors hearing in april they did have notice. you will see on the documentation that shows the owner but when we sent the notice it did also sent to the existing owner of

record and in deed on or around february 10 of this year all outstanding notices of violation were hand delivered to the property owners representative at the site and a reinspection occurred on or about february 13 in which the district inspector went through the building and addressed the violations that are on the notice of violation issued, specifically the one with 20 items was through those and found at the time of the inspection only 2 of the items were partially corrected and everything else is still outstanding. in the package there is photographic evidence of thisism here is a time we took a photo at the site in may. here is a window that is broken so if it was fixed doesn't look like it so here is

a sich tuation with respect to the that [inaudible] supposed to be fixed but they rp removed. if they were in good shape i'm not sure why they were removed at that point in time. that is one thing, another thing they said they thought all imets were fixed. the strapping of the water heaters and this is the same for both there is no strapping on the other one. there was a stap at the top. just things like that. we can go back and forth as to whether they were fixed or not but come april 3rd of the year the building was in such bad shape the department of building inspection said the building had to be vacated. the building repairs were not commensurate for people to occupy this building. the one thing i want to convey is the

property owners made poor choizs with respect to the contractors involved in the case. there were a permit taken out that was lez for the need oaf the repairs. after the buildic was vacated >> what date was that? >> after the building was vacated april 3rd they tried to pull a permit for 20 or 30 thousand. mr. [inaudible] now that he is involved is very helpful. the permit filed now is for 300 thousand. the issues we were having ongoing issuewise the contractors associated with this doing the appropriate work. the other thing to be aware of it shows the bad decision making. sinss the building was vacated a contractor removered the front stairs so the stairway system at the building was removed.

what this demonstrates and want this to demonstrate is the fact that poor chases are made and this is what we have been dealing with. they say something is fixed and it isn't fix squd the building is inl such bad shape it has to be vacated. this stairway system, this was taken this morning and the stairway is gone and sited in june by the building inspector. the stairway is gone. this is the type of thing dbi has had to deal with. here is another photograph. the stairs are gone. this is what we deal with, they say things are fixed and they are not fixed. when you look that's check list of the inspector only a couple things were addressed. there was one item with respect tohad broken windows and a lock, but everything else on the notice of violation issued on the 21, of the 20 items they were essentially not repaired. we

do believe based on this history it is crucial that this order be recorded so that when the exstense v remodel or repair is conducted, that check list is sital out there that who ever the contractor is at the time looks at that and make the repairs needed and insure those thingerize fixed. if there was ever a argument to be made a fr a order being issued so that is on there for all to see as a recorded instrument this is the case. that is sth first order, let's talk about the second. there are flee items on it. the property owner taking over in january having conversation in early february did have ability to take care of these. mr. [inaudible] and their attorney has been involved i want to commend them for some of the things they have doing foohelp advice the property owner. that had to do with the

exterior garbage, loft and sanitation and believe those itemerize taken care of. as far as issuing the order there, we don't believe it is necessary but have about 2 thousand dollars for each case for assessment of cost because we had to spend a lot of time to compel clients and believe that should be instituted. we are not as concerned about the second item because it was a few item squz believe it is taken, the first 20 items we believe should be issued based on the information and summary i have given you. >> yes. >> so i have a question about the stairs. was that a violation? i don't see that as being- >> no that was not part of the

notice of violation that is before you in the first item there appeal, 6812. i'm just talking about the fact that this is what we are dealing with. problems and poor decision on the part of who ever the agents are that are selected by the property owner to perform work. this is the type of thing we are dealing with as far as repairs and reinspection. they say things are done and they are not done and then you have permits taken out that are not commensurate with the amount of work to be done and you have this done after we had had a meeting with the representatives of the property owner and this happens after that. there are these instances where it is just a problem as far as decisions that are made on the property own rbs part >> and it means those units are uninhabitable? >> yes >> at this point >> the order to haveicate is still in force and it is my

understanding the build sg not currently acpied >> commissioners anyone have further questions? i just have one question. at the directors hearing for the first item, was it the new owner who or their representative who came to the hearing? >> yes i believe mr. bus cuvch was representing them. >> okay, thank you. we'll hear from the appellate. >> good morning commissioners. >> good morning >> um, i note mrs. [inaudible] on the address of orders of abatement and not relocation appeal >> that is separate >> i'll reserve that separately >> for the next meeting >> very good. first i wanted

to comment on the inaccuracy in the brief and i do apologize for those. i think the examples that mr. bosky demonstrated are relatively minor in the grand schemef things. a broken window and water heater that isn't strapped is not the type of issues we are here for this morning. i apologize for those. all i can see are there are miscommunications to us that made it to the office. what i do think is more important to focus on is theerts made by this property owner taking title to the property in midjan. at this point in time the property owner doesn't have a permit and has been working to get a permit to address the issues. we have the classic catch 22 who has come into a difficult

situation and can't get a permit to do the burke to correct these issues. start with the basic premise, which is the building we had the benefit, it isn't necessarily a benefit but the benefit for the situation that the units are note occupied so we can remove that concern from the evaluation of the situation. i think the commission should do that in evaluating this. the finding that exists in the staff report the owner had sufficient time to abate the haserdize conditions is incorrect. in mid-january this property owner took over, attempted to locate a contractor who would touch the building which isn't a easy tarfck, obtained a permit in mid-march before [inaudible] issued the emergency vacate order. the permit was issued in mid-march and relocation

issued in early april. by the end of march the owner noticed the tenants to relocate for repair squz the tenants responded by filing a lawsuit which they are entitled to do but complicated matters for the owner to move forward. april third, the department issued the order and further notice of evaluation shortly there after which begins or efforts and mr. nob efforts at getting the building fixed. may 8 the department issued further correction notice so it is something of a moving target for this propt owner to try to figure out what needs to be done and get permits for fixing them. i think in the grand scheme of things and how long these issued persisted is a

short period of time. i realize 5 or 6 months isn't a short period of time but if you look at the record on the property you see a complaint issued in 1994 for walls and ceiling surfaces that are damaged. kitchen or plaster damage. egress removed. bathroom damage, worn floors rear passage obstructed. these issued existed in 1994 so this isn't something that can be fixed in 5 or 6 months and apparently not something the department has been able to address in 20 years time and don't mean that to be critical of the de#35r789s, i mean to demonstrate the severity of the issues here. that complaint resulted in a directors hearing in 1995 and what became of that i don't know, but what i can say is there have been several

other related complaints and noitss of violations and orders of abatement and those remain in the record that re today remain a record putting aside the 2 we are here to address today, these are ongoing issues that are not easy to deal with. if you compare the existing orders of abatement with the list of items you deal with today you find overlap and i did find overlap and don't think it is praept to penalize the samitems. it was related to general nuisance and, paint and plumbing issue. the is inappropriate to further penalize the property owners for the prior abatement that had the exact effect. in terms

of deal wg orders of abatement, we believe we are diligent. mr. bus covich will talk about obtaining a permit which i understand it very close to happen. we agree the property needs to be fixed and would very much like to fix it. the property owner made more than diligent efforts. there are missteps along with the way but it is the difficulty he has had to deal with as anything else and don't think it is appropriate to penalize him for that. we would ask that the order of abatement either be resended or not be issued. >> thank you. how are we doing with time? >> 8 minutes >> we have 6 minutes if mr. bus cuvich has anything to add. >> [inaudible] >> okay >> i'll be brief. i was hired

3 days before the april hearing. the conditions out there are not acceptable. the only reason i'm working on this case is because i think i can help t. may sound corny but i think i can help. the department is very helpful to do this but it is complex issue. there was a 95 permit issued to comply with the 94 complaint that wasn't finaled. the back stairs are not usable. the building can't be occupied with those back stairs. the building departments assisted in getting the plans from 95 and i met from planning and plannings response is you can't rebuild the back stairs unless you prove the 95 plans were completed. i had to go back and get that 95 plan, file a permit to renew the 95 plans

and then get those plans finaled and now i'm submitting these drawings which show the 95 plans so i can build back to that. that is a complication for the last couple months dealing with the back stairs. everyone is helpful trying to move it along. the back stairs are now permitted per 95 so i'm allowed to rebuild them to the 95 drawings without getting a variance. we had to bring in a structural engineer for the back stairs, so we are moving as fast as we can to get this back to be vack pieable but the key problem i got-the other issues are not satisfactory but the back stairs are a hold up. [inaudible] we want you to remove sheet rock and that is one or two days worth of work. we have a lot more work in

there. the stairs in the back is holding up the permit for inside because they want a master permit and on the front stairs, there was a complaint about the condition of the front stairs. i saw them, they were not safe. that complaint got superseded by another complaint and that second complaint didn't mention the stairs, but a permit to comply with the complaint is not grounds to rebuild the front stairs. that was clearly a mistake to do that work. if you have any questions i'm happy to answer >> commissioner walker and then- >> thank you for coming and speaking to us about this. what do you estimate assuming you can submit the plans and things go- >> they are submitted. >> to do this project and comply with the notice of viivation what is a timeframe?

>> the permit should be issued assuming planning doesn't change their minds since i talked to them and did what they asked me to do, we should get the permit some time next week, should. the construction cost, somewhere a couple hundred thousand dollars so it is probably 3 to 5 months worth of work and it needs 3 to 5 months worth of work. >> commissioner mar. >> when you said planning requires there to be one master permit- >> if you enlarge stairs in the rear yard--if you have existing stairs you repair the state housing act says the city and planning can not prohibited you from repairing but you can't repair something that doesn't have a permit unless it expired in 95. >> does that permit to rebuild

the back stairs which you submitted now, did hold up the other work that needs to be done? >> it is all tied together. i have the permit filed and fs with plang yesterday and will go back to see planning today. i have a appointment and think i satisfied planning concern i'm moving in the right direction. the intent was that 94 complaint had plans. that is what the building department wants us to build to. it includes all the rooms because there are more rooms than there are supposed to be and the back stairs. >> my question is, until you get the permit from planning which is hopefully next week you can't do anything in there now? >> accept removing sheet hp walk and the contractor is concerned about stepping into this project without having the real permit and there are

issues with the tenants that i'm not dealing with, that is them, i'm trying to get the permit and get it fixed. there are belongs in rooms that are somewhat of a issue too but that is their issue. >> commissioner nob [inaudible] >> so the tenants have been removered per our order. when was the building built? >> probably 1908. >> so the intention is to bring at least the occupants back who can legally be there, is that the-i know it isn't our jurisdiction but i am trying to figure out- >> i'm rebuilding the building back to the 94 plans that shows 2 units. >> okay so that would be something that has to be worked out but that is a issue for us.

i want to just say that we have-we routinely consider the fact that this is peoples homes as we try and accommodate the work to be done as well as-that is a consideration. >> people have rights. absolutely >> commissioner >> i would like clarification because it says in attachment 2 of what the appellate gave to us , it says some permits were obtained to perform works, plumbing and electric >> there is a building permit that says comply with 7 notices to violation. you cannot rebuild back stairs that says comply with nlv. the building department said we don't want you to do anything under that