and i really mean that. i am worried that you could give my kids nightmares if they see you, so i'm gonna have to block you. [sighs] so, that's it. oh, and tell the zombies they're blocked, too. morning. today is wednesday, may 18, 2016. this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. m everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is rollcall. >>[call of the roll] >> clerk: we have a quorum the next item is item lette b could the oath. please raise your right hand. thank you. you may be seated. next item, item b

[reading code]. i believe the department representatives will go first at the department and the appellant each other 7 min. to present their case and 3 min. of rebuttal time. >> staff: joe dr. dbi. just complaint number 201478091, the complaint was received by dbi

from the fire department for a fire building. that was on 9 june 2014. the were violation issues. the second notice of violation on july 9, 2014 and since that time it's gone through code enforcement. obviously after the second notice it went through the usual process. they ccontinuance is and-whether whenever the hearing would have allowed. it ended up in a on 4 may 2016, 80-sorry, the order of business was issued on the 12th of november 2014. so, were now doing with it may of 2016. it was fire damage to the link and this was actually the second fire for the building could do the fire in 2013. we

also have another case in 2008 for actually, illegal construction. at this time, we have one building permit that was 23rd to the notice of violation. no work has taken place on the permit yet. so, the department has followed all of its processes. we believe that the water is properly issued. we would ask the board to uphold our order. i'm available for any questions. >> >> president mccarthy: is the water of abatement recorded already? >> staff: the water of a vegan is issued but it doesn't say here that was recorded. >> president mccarthy: has

been recorded yet? >> staff: i imagine so, yes >> president mccarthy: is a reason why the appeal was made in november of 2014 and were getting it today? >> staff: the order of damon was issued in 2014. the appeal date isthe board application was filed on 11-25-2014 but i'm not sure it's taken until now. i don't have that information. >> commissioner walker: i think that's a long time. >> staff: yes, it is good those notes in the complaint tracking system where people are talking back and forth within apartments. the 20 way to those of violation was sent to the attorneys office and i noticed the owner or representative have had discussions with the city attorney, but i'm not clear why it's taken from 2014 until now.

maybe the representative from the property many could speak to that. >> commissioner walker: so this is not an appeal it's a request to reverse? >> staff: yes >> commissioner walker: i do of questions on our side why it was never filed in the last two years. >> commissioner melgar: was there residential unit was occupied? juno would happen to the tenant? >> staff: i don't have information on that. i'm not sure what the description was. it's a two-story residential over one-story commercial. a dry cleaner. to residential

over commercial. i imagine that this building if you had fires and we don't have any broken permits to fix it i would say the building is vacant. you might hear more from the representative of the owner on that. and what the plans are. there are notes that they're planning to demolish the building andmaybe they change their mind to fix the building can maybe build a mosque that >> commissioner melgar: there's no occupants in the units upstairs? >> staff: i don't know that for certain but we did have the earlier fire so that never got and it repaired wasn't taken to zero, taken out of apple we don't have inspection history on that. again, this is an appeal to reverse the order of abatement and provide more time to comply with the notice of

violation. so, but we don't we've had a lot of asking for time on different notices of violation dating back to 2008 but we don't have any physical banning onto the building at the start. that i can find. >> president mccarthy: okay. >> testifier: my name is bob milky representing the owner of the property. first of all, there were two fires. the body was occupied at the time of the first fire and the occupant left after that five. the second floor of the building was totally unusable. i've got some pictures here that could show the conditionthe question

was, at that point-the question at that point, do we make the repairs and comply with the notice of violation or demolish good we had engineers out to several engineers, dan barringer was out. they strongly recommended demolition on the building. it's way beyond 50% salvageable. not only was a fire damage it was a significant amount of termite damage and dry rot as well. the building is currently vacant and it's not being used by the business. it hasn't been occupied as residents. date it has been burned out. so, what our proposal is, we are now at the office of community investment infrastructure, oh cii the replacement of redevelopment because it's in a

what's called a triangle. this is a redevelopment area. were working at redevelopment on a project of which we hope we were to meet this month, the 17th, we will meet in june the fourth the approval of this proposal and the proposal is a seven unit over commercial building. some sick stories in height. i pictures here. this is the idea of the proposal. you can see it. the building next door, but building on innes and third was constructed just a couple years ago. new construction. so, what we are asking the board to do today is

if you could hold the order of abatement, or send it back, basically we like it sent back to staff for a period a better than six months and we are requesting the assessment be held as well. we are perfectly willing today administrative cost. that's not the point. but were in the process of building a brand-new building. we have been working part of the problem of outreach to the community and we work to the local community group and the supervisor in this district and so on. the project is pretty well along. we anticipate approval from oh cii for the site permit and then we'll go in with the demolition permits, and we hope we can do this within the next 3-4 months. anticipate will be hearing with the oh cii in june or july and at that point going for demolition permit. immediately.

therefore, we will request the could put a band on the order of abatement and so we can proceed, if there is an order on the title it makes it easier for lenders because were going to have to lend. this is a 3 million-3.2 5/4 million dollar project were looking at. thank you. any questions i'm here for. >> clerk: questions? rebuttal for each. >> staff: commissioners, i don't have too much to add. i did check with the planning to comment because i said earlier i could not find any-i did see

some conversation regarding this new building project with the planning department this morning. the only semblance of any movement from their pre-application a year ago on this address but nothing since. so i just want to add that as well. >> commissioner walker: did you check with oh cii also? >> staff: sorry, no i didn't. i would not access to that. we would normally check our own permit tracking system and sometimes will reach out to planning to see if there's anything in the pipeline in regards to that. >> commissioner walker: thank you. >> testifier: the case is in oh cii. not with city planning. normally it would go to city planning but it's because it's in a redevelopment area acres do a yahoo cii and by the way the building is vacant. the owner of the building is he runs a dry cleaning establishment had been there for 40 years. he was to build the building and go back into business. that's our plan. >> thank you. >> public comment on this item?

>> commissioner walker: thank you all for coming in and giving us information about this. i think it's been sitting around for too long. first of all, i'm not clear why something that has that order of abatement pending either wasn't filed or wasn't appealed at the time of the order of the recommendation of the department. though, having it in front of us now, with what was presented, i think that it is appropriate to consider upholding the order of abatement and putting a timeframe on it for a series of events. at some point a permit needs to be applied for, maybe

three months out. something needs to start by six months were the order attaches. this is lingered for two years and i'm sure there were not conversations all the time so i think we need to accelerate rebuilding this,, giving some support to the property owner as well as encouraging them to make this right. >> mayor lee: i would second the motion as well. i believe the fire damage we see seem to sit there and it is probably insurance and things like that. in the spirit of trying to see some progress met here, and understanding the process and funding for new application i would be in support. the problem work than i have though is three months is bubbling up in a be a enough. i don't know

how long were you thinking? >> commissioner walker: i was thinking three months to apply for a permit because at this point a lot of the delay is because of lack of doing anything. i'm convinced if there's nothing encouraging these things to be rebuilt and dealing with the violations then there's no-then they linger. it hurts the community and it just becomes an eyesore and affects everything around it. this is-this was house and it's not housing anymore. >> to the project sponsor, if i may, let me just erect a question first. commissioner walker's point you are always a good demo this building could be started the process of application for meeting the criteria? >> testifier: where at oh cii for what would be the site permit in the normal course of things it went to city planning and bs site permit. which is our proposal. if they approve we will take out we will pay

the fees. we will go will pay the fees and absolutely get a demolition permit as soon as we can. the building is dangerous. it's secured, but anybody going in there and it's vacant we want to take it down and take a permit out. >> so that would be a separate line. that would be a separate path. the demolition permits? >> you can only get the demolition permit us to get approval the site permit. >>: not going to be holding off on the demolition out but based on planning approval with you >> no. oh cii is the one that's approving. it's totally in there-just think of oh cci errors if they were city planning. strongly in the shop. that's why would like to delay the water. i fully concur that the time-and we are concerned

about the time, also. we want to move it along as fast as we can because we got people in place investors in place, to buy. everybody is anxious to move. if we can all be order, and will pay fees or whatever, just holding order for because i anticipate that in june or july we been pushed back several months i oh cii. we should get approval. we in test bite will get a primal right away, demo permit and move ahead in the prospect >> commissioner walker: my motion is to uphold the order of abatement, hold it in payments for three months pending for the application of a permit related to the project moving forward. if they don't issue it in three months, then we have the ability to modify it. same house, same call thank you commissioner

>> commissioner walker: am i correct, city attorney if they come back and asked for more time because the permit has [inaudible] >> city attorney: >> commissioner walker: my motion is that we uphold the order of abatement, hold it in abeyance, with a three-month clock for three months for them to secure a permit. if a permit doesn't get secured, in some way, then the case would be-the order >> city attorney: that it would be finalized that make sense. >> staff: commissioners, if you want to put the overhead on i have some photographs that have not shown you. this is the front of the building as you can see in pretty bad shape. i'm not sure they have a emergency demolition order

would you be a lot quicker. they say the demolished this building we've had two fires has been vacant. might be something that we would consider for that and i'm not sure if they've got down a path which is a lot quicker and that then removes the all the violations as well actually if the building is come. if it qualifies obviously have to meet the criteria for that but something that's available if they wish to pursue that. maybe mr. milky has done that already. i'm not aware of that. >> clerk: thank you. >> i would remind the board again if the board finds the life safety hazard the property that extend the time per not to correct them, the order must say that work to correct each hazard commences in 30 days be completed within 90 days of the water and that's if you find life safety issues.

>> commissioner walker: regarding the emergency demolition? >> no. if you find there's life safety issues on the property. >> commissioner walker: i got it >> >> commissioner konstin: do have to go to planning which are approved? >> testifier: no. oh cii will approve in place the planning and then ill go through building structure. >> commissioner konstin: how long has it been in oh cii >> testifier: it's been going on a year. also, we are not-i'm not familiar with the emergency demolition. will be happy to go deleting it is believed one down we be happy to do it. >> commissioner walker: i mean, to that and it could be a caveat in our motion that under inspection. because i want to provide some options for the you all. if there is, if the

facts on the ground support and emergency demolition, if their life safety issues, i do think that we have to speed up the time frame to comply with the walls, which means-let's talk about this. it gets complicated in a motion. >> clerk: go ahead commissioner >> can i asked mr. david to come back up your and answer something good it sounded like the department did not know that the property owner or applicant was going to a redevelopment process >> staff: right yes. i researched the case. i look in the tracking system that's what i look at. but i check with planning this morning >> not let me ask you now that you know that perhaps spell is going to the process, what would the department have done before it reached here? what

that would be done at that hearing >> staff: nothing. i think we followed are positive our code enforcement processes in place and that's always there. you know come i don't see anything in the notes about oh cii to be honest with you. that's the first i've heard of it as well. code enforcement, you always have the option of getting a case returned to staff or whatever. because we do work with people all the time. but we did not see any movement as such on that. oh cii, that's great. that's good news for everyone that they're going to move but how long is it going to take. i see notes in the file going back that they were securing permits four years ago to repair the building, to do this. maybe something will happen again and things will fall back to the wayside. it seems like a lot of talking over the last 7-8 years but we

still have a building that is a legal construction and part of that illegal construction has two fires did it was a dry cleaning business built without a permit so you would wonder with the mechanical system building properly because the fires? this building is a hazard and honestly, turning it down and rebuilding is great but we have not seen i can actions speak louder than words. but it's great if they're going to that process. if you want to give them time to do that, but on the third notice of violation you. >> commissioner lee: if the appellant submitted this to the planning from and what were the planning to come and have done? sees that no different. i mean, it depends on the process. a demolition permit going to planning on record process without using the emergency demolition, i don't have to tell any people but the commissioners i think it's through a few rear process. you

see these things taking 3-4 years from start to finish just to get to a process where you can actually build. but i mean, i'm not even sure personally where i look at oh cii action. that would be great if mr. milky had something here to present to us to show us back and forth meetings with the application, whatever process that is with oh cii. i have not seen it. his tone is that and that's great good it's good news but i don't have-there's no documents in my file to show me that. which is always better when you're standing here trying to speak to these things >> mr. duffy, having been out to the building do think there are life and safety issues at that the link? is it possible there might be a third fire and affect the buildings next door? >> staff: i'm not sure what

caused the first part but the first fire happened in the building was a business and 30 sure that. i'm not sure that business was there on the side. i don't think was because [inaudible] but anytime you have a building setting for several years in this condition, i would say, yes, it is that hazard. there's deftly a life safety issue. it's honestly sitting on the street and this is a photograph i have in the file. >> actually, i'm going to suggest we at amendment the motion. >> commissioner walker: i think deputy director wanted to talk about the process. >> optic happy to call oh cii. i don't doubt they have a year sounds reasonable. according to the project sponsor is can it get he will know one way or the other whether we'll get approval for that we turn down in the next two months. once they have approval for a new building the demolition we could probably issue within a

few days. the problem is, we cannot issue it until the new building is approved by oh cii. they come in as a package. >> commissioner walker: so, what if the oh cii-what if they linger in their decision and we still are faced with this building. this process? towards the motion i want to make, i want to give an option to do this separate. >> director: as a new building that they're going to be structurally architectural mechanical just from dbi alone. fire has to look at it. it also has to go to dpw, puc, good it will go up to maybe 13 stations. each with its backlog, each with its workload. they could be in our department the next three emma

four, five months provided it's a good set of plans, provided a respond to comments given in a quick manner. we could probably get them out of the department in three-five months. >> commissioner walker: once the plan comes to us that approved by oh cii, are we able to approve the demolition so that we resolve the outstanding issues >> director: we are. were not allowed to issue it because the new building-it's part and parcel. planning calls it a missing tooth. they don't want a missing tooth in the middle of the block. things happen. things don't get built and then you're stuck with this gap in the block. >> commissioner walker: we are to have a rating of two. >> our city attorney just the opposite. i'm sorry, isn't that what you just said that we could act on emergency demolition? >> commissioner walker: that's different. that process would

be separate >> director: will be happy to look into that but the fact of the matter is the building stood for two years and has been no attempt, i would say yes, the building is in bad shape. the emergency demolition processes a good process, but we only get maybe 2-3 a year out. for very good reason. >> i think it's been answered for me. if we try this on here said for one month we would give them to apply for the emergency demolition and then see if that could be passed to get this done. it does need the criteria demo ischemia should >> director: really, all were talking about is an abatement. it's not the end of the world see you ghetto an order of an abatement it doesn't stop you from getting building permit >> commissioner walker: so, i think i would say that-i would say that i am probably willing to go about three months to

have some things started. whether it is the fall on thing or an emergency demolition to deal with the violations. >> this is a rare occasion, commissioner walker will all vote different than you because i don't like any of this. i think that i think that this is a terrible thing for the community. several for the neighbors. i also, i'm not happy with our process frankly at dbi. i think it's not the appellant's responsibility to tell us about the process of another city agency did is our responsibility. so, i don't think that it is a random thing that the building just fall under oh cii jurisdiction. we should have that now. and that should be built into our system. whenever there is a

violation within that our staff should already know that. i realize it's a fairly new agency, but i think as were building our system and putting together the system there should be a tab that takes you to oh cii consider planning because that is the city's department. so, i would beg that we have that system in place and i also think that if this project is important to oh cii, which is firmly within their mission and jurisdiction, they may also need to step up and there is it our responsibility to have that block be safe to my those buildings be safe and so we-i feel like we need to do what we need to do an oh cii you to step up to the plate and if it means to hurry along the process or to provide greater investment into this one building to make up for whatever fees are accrued so be it did because they let it linger for this time.. i would suggest a family amendment. three months and then commissioner mccarthy was

saying about having to be one month or 30 days, for the emergency demolition order. >> commissioner walker: i except the amendment. so, it's a two-pronged motion. one month within one month, file for an emergency demolition. within three months, file for a permit for the, what would remain. we aren't really looking at the rebuilding. that's not part of this abatement. the emergency demolition we cure the violation. the >> director: we could look in to the emergency demolition by the end of next week. >> our city attorneys looking puzzled? >> city attorney: i'm not clear what the immersion is. is a motion to uphold the order of abatement for three months? >> commissioner walker: for 30

days. >> city attorney: they need to file and it took a permit for an in what happens within three months? bets were not clear on. do they do the demolition? >> commissioner walker: here's the thing. if the emergency order is not granted then they would have three months to establish the path forward and file a permit for the building. the regular demolition and it's about filing a permit. granted, it's got take a while to get to our system. >> essentially, were giving the appellant of two options. one, file for emergency demolition within 30 days and if they don't do that then we need them to summit a permit within 90 days. >> if they don't do that or [inaudible] b walker is accurate? >> city attorney: i can make sense of it.

>> commissioner walker: file for a permit, yes. >> city attorney: the motion is i think i understand it. the motion is to hold the order of abatement and hold it in advance for up to 90 days. with two options. the first being, the appellant shall file for a permit for emergency demolition for 30 days. if the permit is not granted, then they must file a permit in 90 days to correct the violation. >> commissioner walker: yes. >> clerk: we have the motion. second? >> moved and seconded. >> clerk: i will do a roll call vote. melgar

>>[roll call vote]. >> clerk: the motion carried unanimously. case number 6822. [reading code]i believe there was a request for continuance for this case about mr. sweeney address that. >> staff: commissioners, ed sweeney secretary of the board. on may 5, i got a letter from

the appellant, kamal urkel, with the court interpreter and he travels around the state and today he happens to be in monterey county in business and according to 1058.26 of the san francisco building code, for good cause shown continuance of that repo [reading code] so i grant that. >> commissioner walker: no life is the life safety issues? >> director: none that i know. >> clerk: anyone here for public comment on this item? seeing none,, item the general public comments. items not listed on the agenda. seeing none, item e adjournments. motion to adjourn