that want this taken care of. we are driven by our code enforcement and our hearings on the order of abatements and obviously, with he have to go that, and we probably were being, and when someone is out there on the other side and i am pushing it as well. saying that dbi, you are not, and my permit was appealed and this guy got his way, and the other side is pushing us as well and so we are always in that position, and you have this and you are not planned to it, and that did happen in this case, probably. >> so you had a point? >> yeah, i would like to say that the biggest problem in plan check at the moment, was that the code has changed from what is a compliant stairway. and so, in 2000, to 2003, which this was built, you could get away with a 7 and a half inch tread. and now, you must be seven, and with planning and agreeing to abide by the variance, we can go

back and we can look at this, under the 2001, building code. and it is going to be much easier for us. and that really for the plan check that was the biggest problem was the stairs. that seemed to have gone away, yesterday evening when scott agreed to go by the variance. >> i understand. >> that is good news. >> any other questions for the department? >> okay. and we could hear a rebuttal from the appellant now. >> i am not sure that i am rebutting. first of all extremely good news with the late night discovery.

and i am sure who is tired of seeing me. but, of course, i am, and i want to keep my deck. and we want to keep our deck. and i mean, it was built and so it is very good news. and so the, the, the fact that the 2003 issue, you know, that it was perhaps issued in error by the department, well, are we being hung out to dry because the department is making errors. it seems that the department and i hate to point the fingers and the department has been helpful and nice and polite. i know that joe duffy works awfully hard and he is here on many different commissions and board and he has a huge work load, and every place is building in the city. and he has been generous with his time. but, i mean, we can't really, it is not fair to hold us responsible if the city tell us this is good. we have to go by the paperwork,

what other choice do we have? and i am saying and i asked and i asked joe, you know, stand by your work. if you agree to do somebody to somebody else, you are doing your job and you agree to do it. and you say i will do it, and you stand behind that. and we are just, we are asking the city to do the same thing. and it is extremely good news that the variance have been carried forward. that is the solution that mark wal lace of dbi suggested and there is one wrinkle in it and that is that we have not sued the neighbor but the neighbor has sued us and this has caused my wife and i extraordinary emotional harm and damage. now it is not your concern to worry about. we are being sued. but here is the point, they will stop at nothing. they have threatened president of the board of supervisors, with a lawsuit, with this permit going through. they will not let this permit go

through. so that is you know, even though it appears now that dcp is on our side and dcp is going to allow it, you are going to hear from mark turnoff of the firm, and i am sure that you have heard of zacson free man who are going to fight, tooth and nail. and that is just one wrinkle and i am saying if there is any way to allow these oversights of the department the permits were pulled, by why didn't they tell us at the time in 2007. hey guys, you forgot. you know you just didn't do, you missed this you skipped over planning. i am saying, our architect went in and said we missed this. and they showed them the plans and the dcp and shows it all abaited. now i know this is a lot to swallow. but i am saying hey, it looks like it was clean to us at the time.

scrutinizing it, with a bunch of lawyers you find holes. what i am saying, hey, we should not be held accountable, i am saying if there is any way, certainly we will follow through with the 2015, permit that we put in to complete the process. but we have a major problem, an emotional emotional burden to face. technical, and a financial burden to fight against this. because the lawsuit has been schedule and so i am just saying if there is anything that you can do, to go back retroactively to say, look, the department made mistakes, but, in good faith it was all signed off, everything was signed off. all of the paperwork here says that everything was good.

i would like to thank scott, and the rest of the staff. and i would like to thank tom, in this process. because the city is busy. >> we tried to follow the rules and that is what we strive for and what i teach my children and my students. >> i think that there are questions for you. >> commissioner lee. >> could you talk more about your 2015, application, and what was the reason behind applying for that. >> we filed, and i filed that actually, i personally went in

and filed that because it was directed to do that, it actually states that on the nov and filed the permit and then when it went to, i can't remember whatever stage it went to.

nechltd it will legalize the deck and stairs. >> okay, commissioner walker, question? >> so again, apologies for the confusion on this. and i am looking at this and our interest is in making sure that everything is done correctly. so we what nt toe encourage of working toward the end and i think that the filing of the permit does that, are you willing to engage in the department with our department, and what time frame do you think that it will take to safety the permit? you know, the application, and the inspections?

and working with our department to making sh you are that everything is safe? >> yes, we are working with the department now. we are working with them right now, because that is where the permit is. and yes, we are, as to how long it will take, i can't tell how long that it will take all of the time that we will take with the variance, they have requested and there was an e-mail last night, laying out what they had to do we have looked at it and ready to sign-off off it as soon as building says that it is legal to put it there. >> okay. >> you can get it over the counter from us. and at the same time, it is just a single inspection. the hold up will be planning. >> and they have work to do after they have decided to honor the variance? >> yes, i believe that they,

well, they sent a letter last night, outlining what they wanted. so there are documents that need to be filed. >> planned. >> and change of the plans and some what. >> okay. >> i couldn't tell you, i didn't look that deep in it other than their, and i was pretty happy when i saw that they were going to honor the 2001, because that was a stickler for us, the stairs. >> i got it. >> do you have a question or a comment? >> sure, just out to mr mr. sweeny's comment and the e-mail said that the notification and it has already been performed, however no record of such notification exists, given these facts you must pursue, section eleven, and notification, for the building application, and so that is going to trigger the appeal for that to planning. and but, you know, that is the game that we are in here, it is just going to be a long time,

and i feel that it is going to be a long time until we can sign-off that permit. based on the appeal opportunities for the neighbor and etc. and the one thing that i will say, if they get the permit over the counter, it gets issued and i personally will be happy to do the inspections and work with mr. ryan to get him to a good place and whatever we can do in the meantime with the violations, they are still open, and i would apoll guy as well. when you file an appeal to a notice of violation, and you get a letter saying that it is cleared, you must have thought that you won the lotto, that is not the right letter to get, that should have just said that you filed an appeal. and it will be heard. and i think that that is the crux in the 2003 case. but it is still open, the 2014, is still open, but there is a permit to file it. and where that permit was issued and when they get through the final inspection that is a good

question, and then the final inspection will sign-off and obviously clear the violations. i will tell them that they will get there, how long it takes? it is hard to say. >> so, there is another question and comments that we should have the public comment and then we will discuss and make a decision. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen, i was introduced earlier, my name is mark and i do represent one of actually two of the appellant's neighbors >> the ryans blame everyone except themselves, the contractor, and dbi and have blamed the fact that their project was not flagged. they have blamed the lack of inspection on the part of dbi

and blamed, the planning department for all of this going through, and i think what has happened so far and, i have brief hand out that summarizes some of my thoughts right here. what the ryans have been doing is confusing the board for almost, ten years, and trying to advance an illegal structure that they knew when it was constructed was being done illegally, the contractor told them this is questionable, you even heard them say, this is questionable. they blame the fact that dbi did not flag their questionable construction? the blame, falls entirely on them and i think that there are a couple of things that are significant that i want to point out before i get into the back details here that completely dispute their reported reliance on their contractor at the time. first of all, i had handed out a declaration yesterday, that you might have in front of you. if you look at exhibit d, which

is the actual permit. that is from may 4th, and it is for a quoted price of 11,400 and that is to remove the tar and the gravel and the roofing that they were talking about. and this is the alleged permit that they believed was going to be to build the tech. if you move forward to exhibit g that i provided, that is an exhibit from the appellant to standard roofing that says, at the end, the last paragraph, first of all, it says as discussed today, here is the contract for the roof and stairs for $11,400 which is consistent for the permit that was applied for, and the third thing says please quote us for a wood deck to place on top of the garage, so the garage was not going to be built to the contract that they had entered into, and not to the permit that had just been

applied for, they were negotiating the terms of building the deck. if you move forward to the exhibit that i have which is exhibit h. from july 9th, standard roofing again, at your request, i measured the deck over the garage, you are correct that is less than 800 skwa square feet, i will need shths 600 materials to install the decking enclosed is a new contract and date for construction. >> and now we are in july and they have not started the did he can yet, they are negotiating the determinterms of the deck, negotiating with the contractor for a deck that has not been built yet, pursuant to permits that have already been issued. >> that is three or six? >> three. >> you want six? >> only fair, since we are hearing both. >> and i will speed it up and then you have both of those permits are signed off on august

first of 2007. both of permits of the appellants argue were the ones that is dbi's fault that they didn't catch this deck. if you look at the next exhibit that i have. which is exhibit i, it is the actual contract to construct the deck and that whats not signed until august 13th. they did not sign the contract until the permits had already been signed off on and i spoke to the contractor, when they were there at his deposition, and the contractor said, i refused to build this deck with representations that everything was legal and permits made. and they specifically included in the contract it says, standard roofing company assumes no and they under underlined it, no responsibility for building code compliance of deck. a building inspector may require you to obtain separate permits to this deck. they tried to get that removed, not the decking contractor or a roofing contractor, was the only person that they could find to do this work said that i am not

taking that out. i will do the work for you, it is questionable. but you are on your own. they have been on their own for ten years. they have been confusing dbi all along, they have been blaming everybody and the architect and blaming the department of building inspection, my client has not even moved in yet and there are already problems with mr. ryan, you can see for 15 years, there is no less than ten complaints that have been filed against him, recently it is for september, when he merged his multiunity building into a single family residents. and that investigation was opened up in september. that has nothing to do with my client. that has nothing to do with anybody of the neighbors, that has to do ben illegal merger, and you can't merge things on your own, the history of complaints and violations by the ryans goes back ten years. my client has not moved in yet, and he has had the problems with them.

when the architect was hired, to apply for the variance, and right after the variance was granted with the preliminary plans, it is not a licensed architect, and they got the variance she was discharged and let her go and left her paying a balance. she owed her money, and ignored her for months and months, and it was not until they paid the bill a year and a half ago when they needed her cooperation for this specific matter and she refused to cooperate, ten years later they paid the bill and the money that they owed her, but she refused to cooperate. and then they took the plans, knowing full well that hadded to be fun legally pursuant to the building permits and hired the architect and gave him the plans and said that i want you to build this for me, they hired a roofing contractor, and the roofing contractor says that i will reroof this. they built the two story tower,

and they raised the wall as well, this is not just a staircase and a deck. they had it raised three inches and a firewall to be compliant to the deck and built to the plans. could i make one more comment. >> no i am sorry. >> we have to be strict. >> we have blamed everybody xep --. >> we need to hear from the next public speaker, thank you. >> my name is pat and i will try to do it in 3, i am not going to speak about the 2003, permit, i think that there are a lot of issues with that, i want to talk about the 2007 deck, they got a variance and there is a language and it is a letter and two pages long, it is not third and it is straight forward and you need to get a building permit, you need

to submit plans and you need to do it 3-11 notice, and pretty clear and they hire a contractor, and a good contractor and a roofing contractor. they pull two permits neither of them with plans, one a roof membrane permit, and one a dry rot permit. and no plans. no 311. no signature on the drawings which you got to go, wait a second, something is wrong here, how are you doing this when planning said submit the drawings and do a 311 notice. the contractor does the work and building department does not climb up to look on roof they don't want to get hurt. so the building inspector signs off on the job and then they start the deck. after the inspector has left. and so that is not an accidental mistake, that was a pretty genius, i will not say what i think that what they did, but they got it signed off and then

they built the deck. with a dry rot and a roofing permit. 2014. they got caught. and for a year they went to the building department hearing and for the last eleven months they have fought the variance. and maybe it is good news that planning is going to use the old variance. there is a time line. but, i want to make sure that the commission is aware of a couple of things. not only did they do this roof deck with no permit, the back of the building where the stair tower is, there is another story underneath the garage. and the stairs start below that story. so they have a stair tower that is two and a half stories tall. nowhere in any permit is there any language to build something that big. so the idea of my contractor getting a roofing permit and everything was covered is ridiculous. and the contractor i have read what the information. he told them you don't have the right permit. you need to go and get another

permit. he was not going to do this job. so, the issue to you guys have is they obviously knew what they were doing, they got caught, planning has agreed to work with them. but if you abait this decision, there is no motivation for them to move forward. and when the last one got abaited in 2003, accidentally, they walked away. now i am not expert on that 2003 permit. but, they are saying that there is problems with it. and if you abait this, you are going to see them again? >> thank you, next speaker. >> seeing none. commissioners? >> commissioner walker? >> i have, and i mean that this is confusing. but the violations are not as confusings our communications are to me. i think that it i think that the

process that has been laid out by our staff of making sure that all of the violations under both notices are included in the permit that is going to ward. and they all need to be cured and including reviewing the plan for the original construction, of the deck and the stairs, because that has not been done. so, and the 311 notice and all that is required when you do this. it seems, that part seems clearer to me than our communication about it. i am leaning towards up holding the order of abatement and providing some unlimited time while the planning process works out. i think that we have to name a time. b

but i don't see any reason not to personally. >> mr. lee? >> i think that it is clear to me that the stairs were never permitted. and i still am i little confused on whether the plans that were submitted or if there are plans or application that was submitd for 2015, included a correcting those stairs. the question about the deck whether it was approved and permitted previously, i think there is a little bit of confusing to me. i am still not too clear on that. and so if the 2015, application, also corrects that or addresses that, i think that that would be a fair thing. but, i can't tell based on what the department has said, whether that application addresses those items. so that is what i am really hung up on, i would really like to know. >> the current application.

>> yeah, the permit, the with unthat is fwoeg through supposedly going through planning. >> when the applicant applied for the permit it said to comply with the 2014, notice of violation, it never referenced the 2003. so without no s plans being present, and looking at the violation and the plans you can't tell that. and that is really, you know, i don't have that information. >> sorry there are plans for the 2015, there would be, and you could not get the permit without the plans, for the permit to comply with the 2014, notice of violation, there are plans with that. >> and did they include the work for the 2003, permit. >> i don't know that. >> i don't know that. and i am not sure. >> commissioners? i have not looked at the plans but i know that there have been conversations between mark walls and the ryans, and planning concerning the stairs. so it is my opinion that the

stairs and the deck are both on the 2015 permit application. with plans. >> commissioner walker? >> i would think on some level in order to substantiate the variance going back to the old variance, it would probably behoove us to include that in mt solution i mean that the permit that they have under application includes referencing the earlier violation. >> and to have a code compliance during the deck. >> yes. >> based on whatever the variance. >> yes. >> it has agreed on between the vie anses and the planning. >> and yes, and that way, that is covers the planning's decision to do that and it also resolves the issue. >> let me ask you this question,

if the 2015, decisions somehow gets approved, or planning approves it, is there a way that the department can review it and make sure that that permit covered the violation from 2014, and 2004 before you issued the permit. and absolutely, let me just, i would say, even in the way of stopping at the minute to make sure that we get that include inned that one. >> when i was dealing with this initially, i didn't know that there was a 2003, case, there was only the 2014, case and i didn't know that there was a 3 case. my advice would be i am not sure, on it, and i have not seen them, but, there is talk of stairs, if there are two sets of stairs, let's get those stairs on there. >> there is only one set, then they are covered, we need to look into that.

>> that is just a matter of how much time the planning would need. >> yes, as much time as you can. >> do you have an estimate. >> i think that we are limited, aren't we? the city attorney by how we can, and i think that it is. >> and i blelieve that the longest that you can give is 18 months. >> okay. >> that is sufficient. i think. if we did a 6 month? we see this all of the time, and also in this particular case, the 2015, is kind of addressed in that. >> to my knowledge, because there has been conversations. >> that is what we are going to

verify. and so i think that it is important that the public understand that we get this all of the time. what senior important to me, if the likes of me with an experienced builder, >> the standard has been around. >> i would not ask them to be building stairs for me. but to the point, they are an extremely, and i would use them myself, they are a credible company. >> i don't want to buy me means here, but that said, these are the only owners and the contracting business is a difficult way to maneuver who can do what. i am okay with that. but to that point, i am willing to give a pass to this family,

on that. because i really, i don't see them building, all over the place. so that is something to do. the other part of this thing, there was an appeal, and we had mr. duif. fy, there is an appeal on the exemption right? >> there is an appeal in place for the exemption here of this project; is that correct? ? >> from the planning department? ? noechlt no no, from free man, and from the law firm. >> no, mr. patterson has filed. >> who is that appeal to? >> to the planning; is that correct? >> yeah, i think that they are going to avail of every opportunity, to appeal where they are allowed to, i am not sure that there is one going on. >> there will be other appeal,

and there may be an an appeal in place. >> if we are going to do the good work here and straighten things out i want to put our cards on the table. >> i just want to clarify the question about the appeal. >> the appeal has been filed it is item eight and i didn't put the whole thing in there, but it is for the board of supervisors.

>> what i can say is that when the ryans tried to prevent my client's project from going forward for almost two years, everything was approved, but he dragged everything. and he had an opportunity to explore the history of the ryans. and was able to dig beep into this and i have more of a knowledge of this than the board does but there are a lot of questionable things. we are seeing that the ryans are held to the same standard and they are not getting a pass because they are able to confuse people and blame people.

>> i understand this whole pound of flesh kind v thing. i got it, a victim of pound of flesh, and now, the reason that you would not have been able to file this on this, if there was not, if the permit was finalized; is that correct? ? >> i think so, because we got appealed three years after the project was approved and the project was not finalized because we are waiting for the certificate of occupancy for someone to come out of nowhere and do that i thought was extreme. i am just confused as to why we are taking the sledge hammer something that we can sort here

>> it is not the lack of the permit, it is the fact that none of the rules were followed when this deck was built, nothing was followed when this deck was built and it was an intentional act and there has been confusion, presented by the ryans all along i don't know, but if it was not for mr. ryan being proactive, we would not have this hearing today. >> and i understand it, and we kind of discussed it and i get it and you have done a great presentation, and i just wanted to make that plea to you, that this has nothing to do with what we are dealing with here. and to take it all the way to the board of supervisors so that you can be told that there is no grounds here to

>> i if i could make one comment, i will close out the lecture, i want to compliment you on the presentation, you had a difficult job and demonstrate where we had made an error in regard to paperwork. you know my feeling, we have talked about this off record, what good is the paperwork if we can't stand behind it, i think that this family has demonstrated that they had every right here to believe and demonstrate what they did here

today because of the paperwork. now we have to undo it and so i am for the electric r recommendations and i am concerned about the fact that we don't have those drawings and i don't know if the commissioners are open to this, to continue to see the drawings or a motion, that you are happy. >> i would be in agreement. and we, i have done a few of these cases bringing drawings, i don't know that i have brought drawings. but if it helps to bring the drawings and for us to do the more investigation. and to make sure that all of the issues on both of the violations are addressed on the 2015, permit and that would be a benefit for everyone in the end, and it will get it on the permit.

>> we are are put in every hour of the day, whether you are in inspections regarding the sites between the neighbors and if someone can, and has the money to hire an attorney and go after them and these things are and they do drag out and they do take a long time, because as you heard the attorneys say and they are going to avoil themselves of every opportunity to fight this, and needlessly, probably and there you go, that is where, and the dbi staff, and we are dealt with, if he is not there in the morning, it is someone else, and they want to know why it is just that i want to make the statement, we try and i appreciate the complements but, it is not just me as well.

there are other people down there, >> once we makes a mistake, we own it. >> when i saw that letter i said what is this. anybody would ask that question. >> commissioner walker? >> i, kon cer, and but the violations are violations and i would consider a fee reduction, but the violations exist, and

this is not all out of the blue, and i think that, and i don't think that we look, and i am not in a position to look at plans, i think that the motion that i would make would be to up hold the orders of abasement and require the building permit being applied for and applied for and include fixing all of the violation and require the drawingings to that effect and so that we can move forward. >> even p given how confusing this, and i am willing to continue this to make sure that the 2015, permit application

addresses all of the issues or what is missing and come back before us and tell us, so that we are comfortable so that we have the oversight, and i mean to make sure that this issue will be resolved some day. okay. i am okay with that. so continue to the next meeting. >> you are proposing that. >> i am okay with that. >> okay. >> commissioner walker? >> we have to do it on each case? >> i guess you are hearing it. and we heard both cases together. so we can vote on the motion together. >> i move to continue appeal 6823, and 6824, to the next meeting of our abatement appeals, in november and that we review, an updated file from staff. and including assessment of plans, and what needs to be

included to cure both violations. >> i will second that. >> we will do a roll call vote. >> clinch. >> yes. >> constine. >> yes. >> lee. >> mccarthy. >> yes. >> walker. >> yes. >> commissioner warsho. >> yes, and the motion, carries unanimo unanimously. >> okay, the case number, 6825, 1040-1044, folsom street, action requested by appellant and time to have the permit issues in nine months and application, and bpa, 201504294945 has been filed

and comply and at city planning and has not yet assigned a planner. the department? >> good morning, members of the board, the chief, housing inspector. welcome commissioner. this particular property is a 48-unit res hotel, with the rooms on the second and the third floor of the building. we wrote a notice of violation in late, december 2014, in which we had discovered that the 48, legal guest rooms had been converted into 51, and so we had three additional guest room, two on one more and one on another. they are occupied and installed without a per snit. >> and so here is a picture of the hotel, and the guest rooms are on the second and third

floor. the notice was written in december, and to file a building permit to legalize or remove the illegal use, and the permit was not filed until february of 2015, and that is four months later. and then i want to show you the path of that particular permit, because there has been 15 months, where we have not had activity and that is why, the case went to a director's hearing, were required by code to send the case there, when we are not getting substantial compliance that we can document, and so as you can see from this, the permit was filed in 2015 and the notice of violation, in 2014, and we want through the process, and at the bureau it stopped and sat there for about a year and that is because we were waiting for additional

information and this is before it went to the planning department and since it has been there in april. and that may be the case and we are trying to confirm that. and we have is 5 months here, and we have the occupied space and we do have an operator that we have had the experience with that those tend to do the work without the permit for the people in the units and then we are working backwards to get that stuff complied. so we didn't send this to a director's hearing until july of this year. we were trying to work with the property owner, and the operator. again, this is legalizing three units. i take it that they are probably going to be tourist units. because the make-up of 48 rooms, and 38 ten tourist and this will probably add three to the tourist side of the equation.

so the real issue is that they are asking for additional nine months and we have got, probably 1300 dollars in assessment of costs and those are real, and costs that we have had to try to get compliance and quite frankly standing here before you. i don't necessarily have a problem giving them more time, especially if planning is not in a position to hire the planner to go forward. but we do have already a 15 month delay and this is better if it was filed sooner, and something would have happened between april of 2015, to april of 2016, my previous colleague, is here, and prab he woo give us more information without any questions that is my presentation. >> thank you. >> my name is bob, and i am representing the owner, and it is operator of the hotel.

i agree, this permit has been on hold, we are just waiting for city planning to on sign this, and i think that it has been assigned to a planner, rich, and i have been in touch to rich through telephone messages we want to get this going as quickly as possible. and it is a residential hotel, there is liabilities here. we want to work where happy to work with the staff here, cfc was issued on the building, two months before the complaint was, the building had been fire damaged and the cfc was issued for the whole building. two months before the complaint was filed, what took so long on intake? i am not so sure. and the only thing that i can say intake was where it was held up for a year before being assigned to city planning. and what took so long, i don't know. and it is something that does require intake. we would love to see it over the counter. but, it does require intake, therefore, what we are

requesting is more time, the order of abatement if issued really is not going to help this property, i mean that it isn't, we know that we have to do this, and we have got the permit and the plans and everything and we are ready to do it and it is a question of getting this permit issued. and we just need lalts bit more time to work with city planning. >> the problem is that i can't tell you at this point, you know, 30 days, a month or two months sounds good, but i can't tell you when the city planners are going to get to the case. i just don't str an indication. but i do know that we are happy to work with the staff. >> commissioner walker has a question. >> i do have a question, and it may be to both the issue that i am concerned with is the fire resistant construction, that seems to be the safety issue and has that been inspected. >> part of the permit process, the issue is that we now have a

space within both floors of the residential otell that are occupied that previously weren't. so we have asked that whatever was built there is built, you know, appropriately, and they do have a set of plans, spelling some revisions, there are other alterations that they are making and they previously made to the preexisting floor plan as well. >> so, i am just my question is there a way to inspect for the safety issues immediately, that is my concern. and then we could allow the time for the rest of the permit to go through planning and come back to us. but i just want to make sure that we are looking at potential life safety issues. we have it observed other than the fact that there is work without a permit and the people that are living in a space that was not previously approved. we don't see anything that neefd

mitigation, having said that we don't know about the construction, and that is why they are filing a set of plans to demonstrate that and that is the issue, and that is why i had said, we are not particularly that strong on not getting them more time, but a lot of time has gone on and we do have a history with this operator, of doing things and after the fact, getting it legalized. and that is the concern. >> i get that. and i am just trying to see if we can inspect for the life safety potential. >> and may i make a suggestion, if the commission would like to give them additional time, what i would say, since this has to be approved by planning, that any requirements by the planning department for a notice of incomplete permit, and any additional plan checking is required by the dbi or fire or planning that they submit that within say 15 days. because they have had enough time to know what the issues are, right? and because this permit has been

language distinguishilangishing. if you can do that and i think that will be constructive. >> speaking for the client we don't have problems. we want to get it going, but we need more time, and we don't and i can't say when planning is going to get to this. i am sorry to say. >> does the department have a rebuttal or anything else that you would like to say. >> i think that tech recommendation that i made is our rebuttal. the other other thing that i would like to say, recording an order of abasement is not a bad things, it lets the people know what is going on with the property, someone that might want to buy the property or get involved in the property. so it is not necessarily a bad thing, and when we get to the next case i will talk about that more. >> then i have a question based

on that comment. poo em that are occupying that space now, how they they know if that is not a permitted space. >> well, when we post a notice of violation, we are saying that that is the case. but you are right, having it recorded is the completely different thing, and it is not a bad thing, because it helps prod, the prompt owner forward and again it was just like what you just heard from the staff previously. it creates an incentive to make sure that we move forward in a more timely way and in this particular case, that has not been the history. as far as the response, with he have not gotten the response we needed. >> do you have any rebuttal? >> not really, rebuttal, and just to go along with the staff here, we are happy to, we want to get this done, we want to get it over with. what we would like more time. an order of abatement will

create trouble on the title, and if somebody goes in for expenses. yes, it does give notice, but usually it works against the property. >> we definitely want to move as fast as we can on this. thank you. >> and if you continuance would be a tremendous help. >> thank you. >> any motions? >> commissioner walker? >> excuse me. >> public comment? >> seeing none. >> commissioner walker. >> i would move to up hold the order and allow for six months and the condition would be as described by housing inspector bosky. >> that they have if i have tien days to respond to the information on the plan. >> thank you.

could the order be held off. >> that is what it does, it is held in six months. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. do a roll call vote. >> clinch? >> yes. >> konstin. >> yes. >> lee. in eyes. >> mccarthy. >> yes. >> walker. >> yes. >> warshell. >> yes. in eand the motion carries y unanimo unanimously. item four, 6826, 747, 32nd avenue, the action and request by appellant and the notice of director's hearing was addressed to deceased and need more time to perform repairs that require a building permit application due to the insurance claim and lack of building permit.

>> members of the board, this particular case is a little more disturbing. it is a single family dwelling, as you can see from the photo. and now i am going to orient you to the back of the building. >> we are going to talk about the north side stairway and landings and then we are going to talk about the south side deck. >> this came to the department in june of this year through the occupant, there was a tenant in this building in which there was annual gages that individual was injured by falling through an area of the deck and if you look at your colored photographs, specifically those on the south side of the building you will see, why that may have been the case. we wrote the notice of violation in june of this year, and sent it to a hearing and in august, and the property owners

representative, i believe that the building is in probate, and i think that the grandson may be addressing this particular property. is indicated that they need more time. they also have a submittal in your package showing some information regarding the trust and it is incomplete and a building permit as of yesterday has not been filed in the system. and let's look at those photos. because they are disturbing. >> so, here is the stairway on the north side. and again, if we are looking at the side. as you can see it is the part of the landing it is still the same way since yun, and we are here? october. noechlt now look at the south side of the property. there is a long shot of where the deck is located. again, here shows you are

looking at an area here where you have got some significant damage. so let's cut to the chase here. our concern is while this has been going on, even though it has been in probate, or at least is going in the probate, nothing has been done to mitigate this, somebody could have come in here and shored this up and put in the plywood to at least mitigate potential of hazard. that is our concern. we can't, and they are talking about if you look at the back of your package, looking at about 2000 in design, and about, 1500 in doing the actual work, the permit has not been filed and nothing to mitigate this, this is what i was talking about earlier this is bhie we have an order of abatement, it needs to righteously be put on this record especially if it is going to through probailout becaus

not sure if there is a representative of the owner here, but we wnt this order of abatement to be upheld, because of the dangerous conditions. >> is there someone from the appellant? >> yes, it looks like it. >> seven minutes. i would like just a little buit more time. >> i am jason, and the grandson, my grandma she died last year. and during this time it is has

been my brother who has been taking care of the property. but he went to hong kong due to a medical reasons. so, so around end the june is when i got the notice that hey, i got to fix this. and we actually attempt to get a builder permit on june 12th. i think, it is part of packet to fwet this fixed. and we got to the point where everything is signed and they said, okay this title on the name is not what who is requesting it. and so, basically we got rejected. and so the violations have a number of things that need, to be fixed. the top two was what she had mentioned. and but the other ones like the water leaks and the fire alarms and the door latch, we went and

fixed that in july 20th. and so during this time, there is also ongoing insurance claim. based on the accident that the tenant had. so, in -- based on the violation i was told to call the inspector before july 27th. to give her an up date. i gave her what i told you right now. she said, that is understandable. and so, i thought what i needed to do was just give her the next

up date. but there was apparently a director's order immediately that was sent to my father's address. and i did not know about this. so i missed the director's hearing and there was a whole abatement order that i didn't know about. but when i did check the mail, i saw this notice i immediately called her, the inspector, again to see what is the exactly is the issue. and she said, you have got to fix this right away, or else. so this whole abatement order was sent. and so, i immediately tried to find general contractors to look at this property. but i realized that the abatement order is in effect. and i called like 20

contractors, and all of them either thinks that this is a much bigger issue, which requires you know, permits, process and all of that. so those did not want to work on it. and so, it is only, until recently, september, where i found a general contractor who was willing to do this through a family friend. and i signed the contract. which is part of in one of the the packet. >> this is the design work. >> correct. >> because he told me that the stairs, the height of the stairs is no longer up to code. and all of that. so, the whole thing needs to be rebuilt with plans. so it is going to be longer than

i thought. so, that is why i am here, asking for a little more time to do get this done. basically. >> commissioner walker? >> yeah, just in the meantime, it proposes a threat to anyone standing on that. >> well, okay so the slide, there is a sliding door that goes out to where she allegedly fell, through that hole. we boarded it off immediately when we got the violation. >> so. >> there is no access any more. >> right. >> so it was boarded off. >> and the stairs had a door to it, and so, i mean, the tenant knows that there was an issue with the stairs. so, i am not sure what she meant by i didn't do anything to address this. and so, yeah, so i tried to do

what i could, and in the time that i was given. and i am just here asking for a little more time to get this. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> if we could hear the department's rebuttal? and i have a question for you too. the rebuttal is, i am going to pose a question, they are waiting for some insurance money, and the clerk does need to see that there is an order on the property. we still have holes on the landing and on the deck that nobody has bothered to go in and try to cover those up.

and even if you had everything barricaded so no one could get to that from the building, itself, you could still get it from the backyard, what if there is a fire in this building and first responders try to go up those stairs and it is dark and smokey and they can't see it, that is exactly the kind of provision the housing code is trying to prevent and what an order of abatement is for. in fact this is the poster child for the order of abatement to be ep held, that is my rebuttal. >> question for you or secretary, i understood something from the appellant that they were not able to get a permit because the name on the title different than the name on the permit application. >> the general contractor come to pick up a permit. >> it has nothing to do with anything. >> or on engineer could pick it up. >> could i ask a question too. >> but to deter, sorry. in fairness now, as someone who has had to pick permits up.

if you are the owner, you have to horize them to pick the permit up, correct? >> that is true. >> if you are the confused about who the owner is. >> it is difficult if you do not have a general contractor's license or you are not --. >> but if you are tho authorize the owner nip shaz to authority the contractor to pick up the permit. in ebut that is back to the problem, the problem was that he could not demonstrate who the ownership was. >> not to put you on the stop, about you in fairness to him. >> we have situations like that, and when it is explained to us, it has come to me, and i have gone up there and i could override that. >> and i mean if i am going in for a permit, and nobody is there tutoring me on that. >> no. >> no. >> you wouldn't. >> so it is difficult, i just want to point out that it is not easy for a home owner to navigate the system that is all. i do get what you are saying. >> you can navigate it though. >> so, is it that the reason why

the permit has not been issued, or not picked up? >> >> i think that what you have is an issue that -- and i want to congratulate the individual who just came up here, he has inherited something that you are are the trusty. >> and that the problem. >> your father. >> okay and you see, and is he able to be here? >> okay. >> so that is the problem this is what we are having, we still have these holes and that is why in order will then, you know, and it just goes through the probate, there is no excuse, it is on the record. so that as the trustee moves through this, the court has this in front of them and so that is my concern, because we deal with this and commissioner i completely punderstand what you are saying, but here we have, you know, aneglect as far as

taking this out, still have holes and the potential of somebody else getting seriously injured here and i need to get a resolution and that is why we strongly advise that to be up hold as the hearing officer has indicated. thank you. >> i don't disagree with anything that you said. but i am curious about the permit that was mentioned earlier and i think that it is in the packet. >> it is not filed. >> it has not been filed. >> no. >> the contract for design work. >> it is include inned your packet, it is no the in the system. >> could we have someone assist the appellant with filing the permit. >> since the day of the notice of violation, there has been continuous contact, and why hasn't the plywood been screwed didn in those locations where the holes exist. >> that is my concern. >> understood. the appellant you have three minutes for rebuttal if you

would like. so if it is neglect and i would not take days off to come up to the city, i have a full time job, and i take the kaz off to come up here to talk to you guys, to go to the department to explain my situation. and you also the covering of the plywood was never written anywhere, and so i did what i could and i said i barricaded the system, and so like, i am put nobody told me to say that this is how putting the mrood wood on top of it is the way to do it. right? i put a board on the door so that no one could gain entry. and i did what i could. and, so, well, yeah, so i guess that the permit is not in the

system yet. i signed the contract october tenth, because as i told you, there are not a lot of contract --. >> you know, maybe, to assist you here that the contract you signed is with the engineer not with the contractor. >> that is the contractor. >> yeah and the contractor is patrick law. >> and the structural engineer, doing the design. >> for the contractor. >> okay. okay. >> which is on the it. >> and we can have that. >> we don't have that. >> this permit is i believe it is going to be a form a. and there is no plans attached. >> right. >> i would say that some of the problems that he is going to run into is that based on the pictures, this is going to be a lot more than 1500. >> that was sorry. that was the july, 12 permit

that was rejected. the one that you are are looking at right now, the one from the 12th. >> still not adequate. >> i think that we will move on to public comment. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen, i am gregory jason and my wife and i occupy, 4747, and my heart goes out to him in the fact that he believes that he is doing all that he can. however, i was a landlord once as well. and there are tremendous responsibilities that go along with that. and i found that i couldn't do

my full time job and maintain the responsibilities of a landlord as well. and having said that, it is not he is not cap able of doing that. and as a result of this, i was severely injured. over a year ago, i requested that they had repaired the staircase and the deck due to the fact that they were faulty. and they cited that the fact that the rainy season was coming and they were not able to do it. and subsequently, i went out on to the deck and fell through it and i was injured, and as a result of this, aside from the fact that i am a disabled veteran, i have to face another surgery on my shoulder, for complete reconstruction and two more surgeries to deal with my spine, additionally, the house is now has mold issues throughout it, and one of the bathrooms is completely unusable and it is actually taped up, my wife is asthma and we have pets as well and they are impacted by

the mold as well. so this for me, transcends both welfare, and economic and health issues. there has not been a day since june 12th, that i have not been heavily sedated with some form of narcotics since my accident. it is very difficult for me to do nigh work, professionally, and i am an investment, and i do math all day, which is impossible if you understand the ramifications of my work verses the see dags that is required on a daily basis, and my wife has health issues with her being as mat ma it creates an undue burden, i could go out on the staircase now and that could have the same impact and even further our situation, and you know, severely impact us as well. and as the she has said, we definitely haven issue with egress in the house because that

is the backyard. that is pretty much it. >> thank you. >> any other public comment? >> seeing none, commissioner mccarthy. >> yeah, i mean, i think that this is just pretty much, where we are clear of the commission of the zero tolerance for life safety issues and the building of the both that will reflect that and i think that it is a perfect example of property ownership and not understanding the important of what you have to do once you are a property owner. and i would point out the fact that some times i wish that we could do a better job when the people come in and try to take out the permits and fall through the cracks i apologize, that you

went through what you went through, and otherwise from that, i think that it is a no brainer here on this. >> commissioner walker? >> i do have a question. i don't see it in the packet about the mold and i wonder if we need to do an inspection, that we capture, and it is not part of the packet, and so we can't look at that but i would like that to be a condition of to make sure that >> thank you for the questions, i was focusing on the stairs, but the notice of violation that was issued on june, it 3rd of

this year, does address the deteration and the water in that area. and so it is the subject of the notice of violation. if we could out reach to this gentleman, and maybe resolve this owner nip issue. so the permit could be pulled immediately. and based on the policies that you say are in place when you do find somebody who can implement them. >> i will give them my card. president. >> and thank you. director. >> is there anybody that wants to make a motion? do you want to approve the order of abasement? >> and all fees associated? >> second. >> okay, if there is a motion and a second, to up hold the order of abatement and include the fees or the assessment of cost snz we will do a roll call

vote. >> vice president clinch? >> yes. >> commissioner konstin. >> yes. >> lee. >> mccarthy? >> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> and commissioner warshell? >> yes. and the motion carries unanimously. >> and so we will need to return back to item c. and election of officers. president and vice president. >> it is up to me to start the discussion? >> i believe so. >> or somebody. >> anybody. >> but i in the absence of having a full commission we could continue. or we could nominate and vote now. it makes no difference to me. >> mr. walker? >> i would like to nominate

kevin clinch for president of the abatement appeals. >> i will second that. >> no objection. >> you have to see if he accepts first. >> do you accept? >> sure. >> okay. is there a public comment. >> i spent a lot of time thinking about this. >> public comment on the motion? >> okay. seeing none. do we do a roll vote on this one? >> the motion for commissioner clinch to be president. clinch nyes. >> konstin. in eyes. >> lee. >> mccarthy. >> yes. >> walker. >> yes. >> warshell. >> yes. >> motion carries. so we need a motion for a vice

president. >> i would like to nominate commissioner walker for vice chair. >> and i will second that. >> and the motion and the second. >> do you accept? >> i accept. >> okay. is there a public comment? >> okay. >> seeing none, we will do a roll call vote on the motion for commissioner walker as vice president? >> president clinch? >> yes. >> commissioner konstin. >> yes. >> lee. >> yes. >> mccarthy. >> big yes. >> walker. >> yes. >> warshell. >> yes. >> the motion carries. congratulations you both. item f, general public comment, is there any general public comment for the items that are not on the agenda? ? seeing, none, item g, and the motion to adjourn. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> and all in favor? >> aye. >> we are now adjourned, it is 11:14, a.m. and we will take a

five to ten minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection commission. >> perfect. today is wednesday, october, 19, 2016, the regular meeting of the building inspection commission, i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices, the first item on the agenda is roll call. >> mccarthy. >> here. clinch. >> here. konstinshths. >> here. >> lee. >> present. >> walker. >> here ewarshell. >> here. >> and we have a quorum, and item two, president's announcements. >> good morning, everybody and

welcome to the bic meeting october shths 19, 2016, i have quite a little bit to read into the public record, before i start out, i would like to welcome commissioner warshell to his seat and i mreefsh that it is the general public seat that he is sitting, so a big responsibility. and i had a chance to sit down with him for an hour, and we had a chat and introduction to get to know each other, and he is a well seasoned veteran of the community and knows a lot about this great city, and so welcome and we look forward to you working here. >> thank you, i look forward for working with you all. >> thank you, and with that, i will go straight into my announcements. and this is regarding the tower. and i have been working with the director and the taf to understand the unfolding story of the tower, issue, at 301, mission street. and it is implementations for the current and future building, design review.