wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco . >> good morning. today is wednesday, october 21, 2015. this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to ask everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president melgar, here. vice president clinch, here. vice president mccarthy, here. commissioner mccray, present. commissioner

walker, here. commissioner lee, here. we have a quorum and the next item is item b, the oat. will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. no one here. the next item is item c >> i think we're checking to see if any of the apellants are out in the corridor just in case so they don't lose their chance. >> just a moment, we're checking for the appellants.

item c, is approval of minutes, discussion and ps action it adopt the minutes for a meeting held on august 15, 2015. >> move to approve. >> second. >> the motion and second, any public comment? are all commissioners in favor? any opposed? minutes submitted are approved. and also wanted pars3 do we hear even if the apellants don't show up? do we hear or can we?

>> we have two cases. >> i think you could do either. i think you could make a decision because they had notice of the hearing. you could also continue it to another hearing and provide them note is again. >> if we do not act, does the abatement automatickally adhere? >> if you don't act? >> yes. >> i would have to look. i'm not sure. >> okay, we should probably find that out. >> excuse me, can i possibly make comment? the tradition, from what i understand, is if the apellant isn't here, we do a quick report and their absence is stating they don't dispute it. >> well, i do think we have to swear them in, right? >> right, right, we will, now

that they're --. >> i believe the apellant is here. we are going to go back to item b, the oath. will all parties giving testimony before this board today raise your right hand and be sworn in. are you going to testify today? do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? okay, thank you. you may be seated. and also for the record, item 6815 regarding 2246griddich street, they requested a continue answer and board secretary has granted that continuance so if anyone is present to speak to that for public comment, you

can do so now. >> could i ask the reason for the continuance or does it --. >> they told me they were out of town and they couldn't make the hearing and they asked if it could be put off for another 30 days. >> go on to item d, new appeal, case no. 6814, 247 sagimore street, owner of record action requested by apellant to reverse the order of abatement. >> we're going to hear from the department first and then from the apellant. >> yes, i'm sorry, to clarify the way the hearing works is each party has 7 minutes, the department has 7 minutes to present their case, then the apellant has 7 minutes to present their case and each

side has 3 minutes for rebuttal. >> good morning. >> good morning, john henson for the department. the address, 247sagimore street, this is a single family dwelling, the violation involves work in the basement rooms. there was a director's hearing on march 25 of last year and the result was an order of abatement issued. in 2009 a permit was issued that if that work was completed and signed off it would clear the violation. but unfortunately that permit expired on may 16 of 2010. therefore, staff recommends that you uphold the article of abatement and uphold assessment of costs. that concludes the report. >> thank you.

>> you may come up. >> good morning. >> good morning. my name is jennifer villia i am owner of house 247 sagimore street since 2007 when we bought this house, san francisco building inspection department provide documentation that everything is right and everything is okay and no violation. we have documentation sign it off the building inspection department and management.

we took microfilm of this house before purchasing it. no violation. i don't know what's happened, it was three owners before us in 2005 owner of this house going to (inaudible) to make some construction. we don't have any information about that. we first time received information from san francisco building inspection department about some violation in 2009, two years after our purchase. i provide you all the documentation on recommendation of the documentation. we have to believe that san francisco

building inspection department provide documentation in accordance with law to title company and to company who, real estate company who kept all documentation for us. this house change many owners only three years before our . purchase. our neighbor told us three years nobody lived in this house and as i read from inspection, 2005, 2006, this house was closed all time. then this house was sold few times and all time it was clear.

i go in to make some construction when i receive documentation from san francisco building inspection department. i did not want to have any problems because were many younger and three boards work and i order engineering company how can be built in accordance with today's code. this is very old household to 1928 here building and nobody knows what it was built and how it was building for about 80 years. i going to do it and i think

that this is, would be affordable, little bit of cosmetic construction and everything, all programs -- problems would be closed. morover i pay $2600 to san francisco building inspection for permit. but all construction company check house and they said the house too old and has joint wall with neighbor. this is impossible and any construction work result neighbor involved and morover, this is possible only to reconstruction this house. in 2009 it was $250,000. right

now it is even more. for this year what would have happened in our family, my husband, you see him, he has two stroke, after second stroke he is able since 2013 and such stroke was a stroke in kaiser hospital in beginning of this month. morover, i have my son, our son, and he has low parkinson syndrome, he is disabled too. he live with us and he has no to go ever. i think that, it was fraud,

permission to purchase our house or it was mistake but no mistake, we did not do anything for many years. i am simply teacher in middle school and i cannot afford any reconstruction. all neighbor that bought the same houses in our block, they make total rebuilding everything change. i cannot afford it and his payment for disability and my teacher wage, this is not enough to do any construction. much more that this is surprise of this house right now and i think that this is, if it was a

violation it should be reversed and if something has changed i don't know how, i don't know when it may be possible to reconstruct this house. right now we have live here and --. >> thank you very much, you have had 7 minutes. thank you. >> you are welcome. >> can we hear from the department, please? >> when your packet was being distributed somehow some documents got separated so i'll just give you additional for reference.

if you look at the case history on the bottom of the first page, you can see that there was a director's hearing scheduled for april 13 of 09. around that time, the permit to clear the violation was issued and in response to that action you can see the entry on the next page on june of 09 where the case was returned to staff. so what happened there was the hearing officer felt they were making progress with the permit and the case was put on hold to give them an opportunity to get the work done. but unfortunately we discovered at a later time that the work wasn't done, the permit expired, so we rescheduled a hearing on march of 2014 and then an order of abatement was

issued and that's the order that's before you today. >> yes, commissioner walker. >> thank you very much. so the zoning on this building is a single residential unit. >> single residential, yes. >> and when the apellant refers to documentation provided by the department that everything was fine, is that the 3r report? there's nothing else that we, we didn't inspect to determine that everything was up to code? >> no, the 3r report simply gives a history of the property. >> of the actual zoning and the legal use. >> yes. now, what can often happen is you could have a notice of violation and if it hadn't gone to a hearing and an order of abatement issued, that wouldn't show on title. >> so as this happened in 2005

there was a hearing? >> the notice of violation was issued in 2005, but it didn't go to hearing until after they took ownership. >> i see. >> and when they took ownership and they were notified then in good faith they did go ahead and get the per mitt. but unfortunately the permit expired. >> one more question about the permit and the condition. so the issue, it looks like that it could go through a process of legalizing but it is just a financial situation as the apell apblt --. >> unfortunately that's the case. >> commissioner mar. >> is the unit being rented now or just being used by the family for their own use? >> i am led to believe that there is a family member in the

downstairs and there may be health issues. so it's challenging. >> so it is being used by family, it's not being rented to outside tenants. >> that's what the apellant claims and i don't wish to dispute that. >> just a follow-up question. when we did the -- has it been a long time since we did the inspection? because i remember another similar case, illegal unit, we went through and we did the inspection and we really looked for life safety hazards in terms of legalization because it was being used in a similar situation, it was being used by in that situation an elderly parent. in this situation maybe a disabled child, but it was still the same situation, it was only being used by the family and we were mainly looking for life safety issues. so did we do that in this case? >> our policy doesn't allow us to do that just for no reason,

but since you have done this in the past, you know, that's something open to you. >> okay, commissioner walker. >> just a follow-up. so i think in that case there was the issue of the kitchen being taken out -- i mean we actually just made it an additional room rather than an additional unit so that there wasn't a full unit down there, it was just an extension of the rooms upstairs. very different -- well, if you have --. >> forgive me, i don't remember that. i remember we grandfathered in for a limited period of time and it was an elderly lady in the marina, as i remember. >> i don't know that there was a kitchen there. >> yeah, there was a kitchen there. >> the one difference in that situation, there was no permit to remove as in in this case the permit is ground floor interior remodel, abatement of

notice of violation, plumbing under separate permit and one new bedroom, one family room, one storage room and one half bath on the ground floor. >> i see. i'm sorry, and the permit that they filed, this was in 2007? they said that they were going to take out the kitchen? is that what --. >> you can see here may 21st of 2009 the permit was issued. so they, in this situation, made the decision to legalize the rooms downstairs, not clear the second kitchen. in the previous case that was before you there were no permits to do anything with the space and the new legislation had just about come through encouraging legalization of units. so it was in that time frame. so the fact that they got a permit in this situation it's almost hurting them in a way because

it's shown their hand. so that's the difference between this situation and the one you refer to. >> so the permit that is currently applied for and expired was to remove the kitchen and just make it an extension of the house? >> yes. >> just a minute. commissioners, anyone else have any questions? did you want to ask the apellant a question? >> yes, i would like to ask --. >> they have 3 minutes rebuttal time also. >> thank you. >> she has a 3-minute rebuttal. >> why don't you go ahead and then --. >> we did not do anything, any construction, since the day of purchase. this is only one kitchen and we have never had idea of second kitchen, no.

>> okay, let me clarify. >> did you want to add more to your testimony or is it okay if we ask you questions now? >> you can ask me all question, i answer true and everything that i know. >> okay, commissioner walker. >> so our understanding is the permit was basically to remove the kitchen that's there and to just use your basement as an extension of your house with rooms and a bathroom and a storage room. that was the permits that were taken out, it was to remove the kitchen. >> i have never seen any kitchen downstairs, never. >> no kitchen? >> since the day of purchase. we have only one, only one upstairs and that's all. morover, this is to -- he has

problems of the stroke and i turn off all gas, even upstairs. >> there's no kitchen downstairs? >> no, and i don't know about many -- i need to worry but i have never seen it. i never seen it since 2007. >> okay, thank you very much. inspector, is it possible that the prior owner removed the kitchen without the permit prior to the sale? have we been bk to see it since? >> so when a notice of violation is issued in this case the notice of violation says, site inspection of above property revealed a kitchen, bathroom, two bedrooms and living room. no building permit exists for these 3

rooms. so that was the violation issued in february of 06. the new ownership came on board in 2007 and in response to this violation they acknowledged all of this being correct by getting a permit to legalize all the conditions downstairs as described. naturally they didn't make reference to the kitchen because that would be removed. now, that kitchen could have been removed when they took ownership, it's possible, but all we're asking for is that the permit that they got issued, the existing orders, that they would simply renew that permit as is customary and get it signed off. that's all we're asking for. >> yes. >> so --. >> may i ask question to inspector? you said, you said 2006. but this owner left the

house to county wide bank and then different people bought this house from county wide bank then -- and we don't know who did and what. we have never seen any kitchen. and as inspector said, two bedroom and living, this is -- i don't know how and who built it in small place. >> okay, i think we're going to try to get to the point where we can see the easiest way to get you to a resolution, not necessarily who did what. you know, we're not blaming you for taking out the permits or not taking out the permits, we just want to get to a resolution that complies with the law. so did you have another question, commissioner walker? >> so just let me clarify the

ownership. so like in 2005 or so it was taken over by a bank or some other owner and then you bought it so there was --. >> yes, it was sold three times for this permit. >> thank you. >> yes, commissioner mar. >> so i was wondering if i can make a proposal and check with the city attorney to see if this is appropriate. first of all i would like to put this in abeyance with the caveat that -- okay, public comment. >> you may be seated, ma'am. you may sit down. >> i guess we need public comment before i --. >> is there public comment on this item? >> thank you, commissioner walker. procedure. i would like to ask actually our department to go back out there and do a re-inspection, an up to date inspection, to see the downstairs unit to make sure that there is no kitchen,

regardless of who removed it and check other maybe life safety situations. and then, you know, come back here. i mean the apellant said a magic word to me, which is country wide. as someone who fought foreclosures in the city during this period of time, they were not the most up and coming people to deal with. so i feel like we should at least do that. so she may have applied for this permit not knowing to resolve the nov, not knowing what this would do. so i would -- but i think we should go out there just to look at whether it is an illegal unit. it may not even be an illegal unit, it may just be rooms downstairs being used by her family and that would trigger a different set of rules. >> commissioner walker. >> i tend to agree. i'd like to know what the facts on the ground are and what we're

dealing with and they can know what they're dealing with when it comes to legalizing, whether there's one set of things they could do just to legalize it as an extension of the upper unit, versus a separate unit, and what the health safety issues are. i think that would be helpful to us. >> could the apell ant possibly verify with us that they are open to giving us access, would that be fair? >> will you commit to an inspection to that so we can figure out what we're dealing with. >> i don't know about --. >> will you agree to have our people come out right now -- not right now, but make an appointment. >> in schedule, yes, of course. >> okay, perfect. >> so is that a motion, commissioner mar, did you make

a motion? >> sure. >> did you second it? hold it in baipbs. >> continuing it. what we need to do is continue this and request that an inspection be made by the department. >> and have the staff report back. >> second. >> so 30 days, next meeting? >> next meeting. second. >> there's a motion and a second to continue this item to the next meeting, along with having the department do an inspection. >> yes, commissioner. >> so maybe we can make a date at this point or change information. >> okay, great. >> thank you. >> i'll do a roll call vote on the motion. let me state something, what i think is going to happen. i'd

like the apellant to be sure because when our inspectors go out there, i think the inspector is going to see what has been completed and what haus pbt been completed, right? that's the whole idea that we are sending an inspector out there. so the inspector is going to look at what has been completed, what hasn't been completed, and if there's something that has been completed is it a life safety hazard, then afterwards the apellant, the property owner, would still have to fix those things. i just want to make sure everybody understand that, right? >> yes. >> i understand it as they have an expired permit and we are giving the courtesy of a free inspection on that expired permit. they would resolve it --. >> the permit --. >> need to renew it and get it signed up.

>> my understanding of also the inspection, what she pulled the permit for was to try to legalize an illegal unit and what we're saying is there may be no illegal unit. if there's no kitchen, isn't it an extension of the house? so basically we're going downstairs to inspect two bedrooms and a bath and a storage room, if that is what exists. and so --. >> it still requires a permit. >> yes, it may require a permit, but it's a much different standard than to legalize a unit. and we want to focus on the life safety issues of those, you know, whatever the requirements are for a bedroom and bath, egress, that type of thing. but other than that, we're not looking for the requirement that a permit be issued to legalize a second unit. >> correct. >> but the permit that they have already got issued that

expired was not to legalize the unit, it was to legalize the rooms down. the standard permit to legalize rooms down, no kitchen, connected to the floor above. it's a very straightforward permit that simply expired and all we want is renewed. >> through the chair, to commissioner lee's point there, really that's what we're going out there for, just that. >> to get a free inspection. thanks to you. >> yeah, we're not trying to -- they're a little bit skeptical about looking at other stuff. i think we're trying to, this is the mandate of the inspector on this permit. and whoever you send out, you be very clear on the mandate, john. >> i think additional inspector would do out and do his normal inspection and we just tell him they are not paying you, we're doing it as a courtesy thanks to the board. >> thank you.

commissioner. >> mr. hinchon, when we met again next month can you bring the file of this complaint, the nov there must be pictures, i want to see the permit that was issued. >> you have the permit in your packet. >> i don't see any drawings. >> it wouldn't be normal to provide drawings, the permit is in the packet, it's to legalize one bedroom --. >> when you offer a permit you fill out a form, you sign it. i want to see that. >> okay, okay. >> and i want to see any pictures from 2005. that's not it. >> we wouldn't have pictures from 2005. >> they didn't take a picture of the kitchen? >> that policy only came in thanks to your encouragement only about 6 months ago. >> with the dates on it, john. >> with the dates on it, yes.

>> thank you. >> i don't know, commissioners, how you feel about it, i'm probably a little bit off here, but do, looking at -- it's probably very difficult for the apell apblt to get here. if it becomes favorable that everything is as the permit is, does the apellant have to come all the way back down here for the hearing? >> she should. >> it seems, you know. >> are we ready to vote on this motion? >> do the roll call vote. president melgar, yes. vice president clinch, yes. commissioner mack car think,ie. commissioner mar, yes. commissioner mccray, yes. commissioner walker, yes. commissioner lee, yes. the motion carries unanimously. >> see you next month. >> item e, general public comment, is there any general public comment for items that are not on the abatement

appeals board agenda? seeing none, item f, adjournment. we have a motion to adjourn. >> before we adjourn, isn't there normally on the agenda a chance for us to bring matters to staff or ask questions or is that more for the bic >> it's more for the bic >> i'll do it on the bic, thanks. >> are all commissioners in favor of adjournment? >> aye, aye, . >> any opposed? we are now adjourned, it is 9.44 am and we will reconvene as the building inspection commission at 10:00 am. (meeting adjourned). . >> good morning, today is wednesday, october 21, 2015. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. wo