begin turn off okay. >> good morning today is wednesday, january 18, 2017, this is the regular meeting the abatement appeals board i would like to remind people to turn off electronic devices first on the agenda is roll call. >> commissioner clinch

commissioner walker commissioner gilman commissioner konstin commissioner mccarthy commissioner warshell. >> commissioner lee is expected and we have quorum the next item item b the oath will all parties giving testimony please stand and raise your hand do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> yes. >> thank you you may be seated item c approval of the minutes discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for the meeting held on june 15, 2016. >> is there a motion? >> move to approve. >> is there a second. >> i'll second. >> any any public comment on the minutes all commissioners in favor. >> i. >> opposed?

okay. the minutes are approved also wanted to announce for the members of the public here that one of our agenda items - it is - what number is that. >> case 2, item number 2 case hill street a request for a continuance and that continuance has been granted is there any members of the public here to speak on that. >> okay. seeing none is there on to new appeals order of abatement case - 6th street honor of record, llc appellant henry the agent action requested by appellant to modify the order of abatement to allow for time to address the pending

application through the building department. >> good morning henry for it. >> i'm sorry the staff has to present for the record the staff has 7 minutes to address their case and the appellants have 3 minutes and public comment. >> rosemary bosque, chief housing inspector. is a role call vote with 19 gift rooms a legal use and two dwelling units in the december of 2014 based on complachlts from occupants the housing inspected the building a conversion without a permit from the 19 residential gifts rooms to thirty guests room a notice of violation was issued in 2014 substantially in january of 2015 the appellants when ahead and filed a building permit to

convert the building back to the last leg use as 19 residential guests rooms and two dwelling units that permit was issued and no work outdoor on that through at least two years and then in december this last december a permit was filed to legalize the thirty 0 guest rooms now in looking at the permit history what staff found was that the additional guest rooms came from the conversion of the two dwelling units and some storage rooms it didn't appear from our review that the original 19 residential guests romance were infected, however, we're going on year 3 of this open case filed based on occupant concerns we do feel that since the permit to legalize was filed and now

going through the process and it is a form permit to legalize the thirty guest rooms this was filed for a cost of $25,000 and it was filed on december 23, 2016, at about the time the previous permit was before to expire i imagine so our concern is one of time and the other issue if we end up with thirty guests rooms instead of 19 dwelling units these will be residential in nature and objective that is something that planning will look at it and review the loss of dwelling units per their policies as well so for us one of a timing issue that the permits out there and want to go ahead and legalize it should

have come sooner that's why we're recommending to get the pertaining to follow-up one one way or another and get this process addressed commissioner walker. >> yes. thank you for the presentation and the question i have is what is your sense of the timing through planning. >> oh, because a thank you, commissioner because they are proposed to reduce two dwelling units i'm not sure that makes it more complicated because there is a policy regarding the loss of twblz. >> the dwelling units as opposed to the between is the bathrooms and kitchens what is. >> the dwelling units will be self-contained and perhaps my colleague can give you more

information we do find that's a great question usually when we are talking about a between defined by the housing it is a self-contained unit has a kitchen and bathroom not up to planning code the existence is absent different with that said, sometimes those dwelling units change over a period of time that are managers united within residential hotels where maybe some of the rooms with independent assess from the halfway we felt the considerations that can change over a period this is think one of timing and those become residential guests rooms we've lost the two dwelling units that's the issue for us krnl we have a excess of use that is 19 residential guests rooms and obviously donna what happens with an ultimate building permit.

>> is the permit that was taken out to legalize residential hotel rooms what is the permit legalizing and the definition i apologize. i have it if you like to see it for the record the where i mean to applications number 2 zero one six plus - it was filed december 23rd it is still ♪ take and it says i'll read it complies with the notice of violations case - convert two residential dwelling units and 19 guest rooms residential hotels to a thirty guest rooms to residential hotel >> so it is not clear from that would be something i couldn't approve watt u without

tlook that it comes down to housing we'll look at that and planning will have discussions with dbi regarding the issue of the loss of dwelling units first is the residential guest rooms that policy is something we'll be concerned about. >> great. >> commissioner gilman. >> my questions are the current units are different currently opted out. >> i'm not sure. >> people are living there - >> i believe the building is fully opted out but let the folks talk about that. >> i'm surprised what are gender storage closets do we have an accident square footage. >> we did look at the initial set of plans that's formally this particular permit to legalize has not officially come

to the housing division we'll look to make sure they have a the minimum square footage under the housing plan and those are storage areas they have to have the proper light and ventilation but one of the financier we look at in this situation like this the original residential guest rooms have they been diminished or effected we didn't find that to be the case as it was coming from the dwelling units and storage rooms this is different but definitely to get thirty residential guest rooms that are standard out of there are a couple of things to consider that is the bathrooms and also, because you're going from 19 residential guest romance to beyond 20 residential sprinkler ordinance will apply to this building that's another requirement they have to comply with that's in the staff report.

>> commissioner gilman i'm sorry - >> excuse me - >> a question. >> i'm not sure if this is our work or planning or the other other the two residential unit are they rent-controlled units. >> i don't know the reason the residential hotel ordinance asks property owners to provide daily logs to the guest rooms and not the united the residential unit sometimes we have allowed rooms to be - dwelling units to be converted into guest rooms that also be used by case management 3 may not be a building that is

a nonprofit they look at what helped as far as overall the uses and a provision within the field that allows lounges and certain types of open space type of amenities within the building that has to be used exclusive for the residents i don't believe that is proposed we have to type of proposal in the past i don't know exactly if this is opted out historically by the manager or tenants this is something the occupant can tell you. >> in your opinion do you find it unusual for residential hotel not to have a onsite manager. >> well, a, of this size this is a to have onsite management bans chapter 13 of the housing code with respect to that that

person didn't necessarily have to live in the between but, live in the guest room over a period of years you sometimes see the rooms morphing for us what we're trying to do to make sure that the rooms overall - part of the problem historical used to be called the other bay height in the 80s the inspector and ask for a plan we can't do a one by one comparison but to look at the forefront of the building to get a sense we can't tell one by one and sometimes, the buildings have suits you'll have a cluster of residential guest rooms sometimes you will we're basically looking to see where are the doors between the rooms if they open up and the doors to

the hallway what was the between and how - and what is the extent of the configuration of the floor plan and how it is used morphing towards an apartment building or a kitchen put in, etc. we found it to be the case more just the rooms and typically give that in some situations but looking to make sure the residential guest romance are preserved and in instances we have long term residential tenant we've done certain special restrictions and recorded some things in case to make sure that as the rooms became available they actually were the room count was brought back so the number of residential guest rooms chapter four 1 will be there >> thank you we'll hear from

the appellant now. >> hi for the - this was owned by a family and institution and been there also with thurman and so forth and he sold the building so, now those current, llc will change some of the rosemary said you get the suits with two rooms and this opening between the suit not unusual to see residential hotel with a bit of everything and get apartments and dwelling units 3 rooms into a between they've converted thirty residential rooms so the intention to legalize as residential to make the thirty room hotel that's what we're planning to do we

have to go through planning and commissioner said yesterday we'll have to a go through a conditional use to allow us to change the dwelling units into residential rooms for sro and again that is a mover for the city to have residential because we have a lack of we'll need time to do this and with planning and everything that goes to planning you're looking at 6 months assignment and we'll assess what the planning commission and so forth and like to set this aside the abatement for 6 to 9 months to have enough time to grow planning and get it done we're working on it. >> commissioner walker. >> yes. thank you sir, i have a couple of requests

when did the current owners purchase the building. >> two years ago. >> and they did all the converting themselves. >> i had that i don't think so if they did it or the rcs i wasn't involved i have a feeling this was the way to go and wait a minute we have an issue that came up. >> with this permit that is applied for the plans do they inclusive the upgrades necessary to accommodate thirty rooms with the sprinkles and open space all of that is included. >> correct. >> in the current plan. >> yes. >> okay. he think that's it for me right now. >> commissioner gilman. >> sir do you know from the rooms are cumber opt out or not opted out. >> i believe their opted out. >> just to follow the logic

the rooms are illegal opted out. >> i understand. >> your role i'm trying any concern we have folks living in a dangerous situation in the rooms are not permitted. >> i don't think interest is an issue otherwise would have had a complaint to look at those are rooms not standard living and vacate them i don't believe that condition exists. >> have the rooms been inspected for safety concerns. >> yes. we did when we did the notice of violation the inspectors went through the building we did not see an issue with short-term rentals more of a long term or more of a proximity type of rental not necessarily tairth the low income but that was not an issue

conversion from the - a questions are those residential rooms or tourist rooms. >> residential absolutely. >> getting clear. >> thank you. >> did the department want to use the rebuttal? >> just briefly again as far as the timeframe we believe that it is appropriate in this instance to get the order of abatement recorded to compel the pertaining to go through the process we're two years down the road and could a have a permit they had the one permit issued set out this for two years and now two years later want to do this that's fine with more residential guest rooms that's great but make sure they go through the process i have the

employment mechanism to get the order recorded. >> the issue with that so that causes a cloud on title so when it comes to funding to do the rest of this work it needs to be done that will impact it and make it tough to do that with that said, once a cloud it is hard to get funding to get the funding for the project so that's what we're stuck with not hope not to go through that. >> if i can ask a question about that, sir. >> so it is that the banks don't are less likely to lend money or charge a higher rate and they won't give you money

you'll have to have money out of our pocket to do this. >> thank you. >> any public comment sierra president walker. >> i think this is one of the cases we can recognize that it might take a while to get approval from planning i move to uphold the order of abatement allow them time to complete the project and put a stake in the ground. >> any other comments from the commissioners sounds like a motion. >> oh, sorry commissioner gilman. >> if that's a motion i second the motion. >> it was a motion 0 there is a motion that has been seconded to uphold the order of abatement

and hole it in abeyance for 12 months a roll call vote. >> commissioner clinch commissioner walker commissioner gilman commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner mccarthy commissioner warshell. >> okay. the that item passes unanimously item 3 case santiago street owner of record phil daily. >> thank you, commissioners. >> responding daily action by appellant the order of abatement be reversed. >> staff present. >> good morning joe duffy dbi

this case is an appeal that is the complaint for property address an santiago street - the appellant is mr. r07bd daily the building description a two-story with a wood-frame building legal use a single-family dwelling this is the notice of violation was issued for failure to comply with the vacate building ordinance the violations are outstanding and life saved hazards and directors hearing with the 2016 the result was an order of abatement issued with conditions submit the vacant or abandoned building and pay all the associated fees and/or penalties and comply with the ordinance

the permanent activity are permit activity on this address the order of abatement number is - the case history on the violations like a timeline 326, 2016 first notice of violation posted, 4, 25 second notice of violation and 5, 29 a notice was made and 11 the directors hearing was posted a continuance granted on the 24 of may an order of abatement was issued been the 11 of july and the order of abatement was mailed and it was posted and then we had the abatement of appeals was fined and staff recommendation uphold the order of abatement and oppose the costs just by reading the brief i'm hearing

the project o property this is a vacant be building we received a complaint from a neighbor about the building and have an outstanding case for the same on 2015 this is an annual thing that is outstanding with the department and i've gone through code compliant and in 2014 and one abated so the property owner had it taken care of in 2015 or 2016 this case is wragd only the 2016 i have an assessment the annual fee is seven hundred plus when you multiple that by 9 the penalty fees will be the times and there are code enforcement costs i think about 12 hundred

plus so - seem available for any questions. >> commissioners, any questions. >> through the chair so i understand that 2014 was abatement. >> yes. i reviewed that morning and sometimes, i look at the complaint i like to see what is opened and closed in 2014 it appears we did actually write a notice of violation for that and it went through a second one and through the chair actually so - yeah, the 2014 case was abated and received application in check by mail process a check for 2014 on the order of restoration that went through a second notice i'm not sure what the fee waltz but the case was

abated. >> that was the first. >> 2014. >> so they reshld in 2016. >> looks like that, yes yes. >> commissioner warshell. >> do we know how long the owner had this property and how long it's been unoccupied. >> i don't know the answer to that question. >> thank you. >> if no future questions for the department will the appellant come up please. >> good morning my name is ronald daily i'm a partial owner the building and appellant ♪ matter >> - the main problem is i own

that building with my brother and for many years my brother wanted to sell the building and he wanted to renovate it and rent it on april or may of last year my brother agreed to sell his half of the building to a friend of mine they were trying to get a loan on the property but based on the condition of the property basically, the only thing wrong with the property is dry rot on the front of the building that shows up in the living room it is basically on that basis the building is urban inhabitable the lender would lend because of the condition we have gotten - we've been dealing with a mortgage broker

for quite sometime within the last month and a half or so he's come up with a hard moneylender that will lend money and in fact, they've been ready to fund any time i asked them to put it off to february 1st to clear up the matters and wait for the weather to improve in san francisco we don't get rain all the time like we've had in the last couple of months but i was waiting just to february to have the loan funded the lenders says they can't fund the loan unless the city subordinates their lien the lien was recorded on december 2nd it was the result of a november 4th hearing i attended directors hearing

at that hearing the director gave me thirty days to correct the problems and then they recorded the deed before - record the notice of abatement before the thirty days were up that notice of abatement is recorded and the lender wouldn't lend unless the city subordinates i talked wisamuel y he says it's out of his purview i spoke with mr. hinge and said i'll have to post dollars $10,000 i feel that is opening

for quite sometime if you read any presentation i offered as an amendment or addition to number 4 in my appeal it includes a definition by richard b sandra supreme court justice on the definition of property i understand the city's right and responsibility for hazards and public trust and things like that at one that that was earlier last year in april or may the city healthy contacted my brother to correct the over growth of foliage at the property and at the hearing on june 28th of last year, i - told mr. sweeney that he said the building has not been

maintained i tell him yes. that had been maintained and offered him the correction of the overgrowth of foliage which was abated and written off by the health department and tell me that i didn't have any evidence and he didn't have any evidence in the record that had took place their records are a little sketchy the department so they tell me i have letters that told me i was not present at the- it says the business owner didn't attend the hearing on may 24th of 2016 which i did attend and they said another that i didn't

attend the hearing on 6 slashing 28 i a recorded of hearing and they also said the business owner didn't attend the november 4th hearing or the october 4th - i don't know which one but i was there on november 4th and they said i didn't attend that hearing either we have a problem a little bit of - the dbis requirements the main issue is as i see that correction to the problem we or willfully now and able my brother is willing to sell his half a lender that is willing to lend if they did city will subordinate the loan i'll get the permits to do the work immediately. >> no further comment we'll go

you have time but you'll have a chance to do rebuttal. >> fine okay. >> any questions from the commissions before we go on. >> is the department ready to make their rebuttal? >> commissioners not a word of any efforts on that subordination that would have been done by code enforcement i did what i did not involved with dbi on that process but i know folks are available i'm sorry it will be worked out i have photographs from the property can i have the overhead, please? this is a photography saw an earlier photograph we cleaned up

on the front let me put it the other way maybe easier - nope so as you can see it is boarded up this area previously was all weeds and stuff and cleaned up the windows are boarded up this is pretty vacant building and some photographs. >> let me get clear they've not filled the vacant building ordinance requirement. >> not yet no. >> for 14, 15 and 16. >> 15 and 16 their outstanding the 2015 cases have moved the code enforcement maybe to the next step that would be the city attorney litigation that's the next one. >> the outstanding fees are just a little bit over seven hundred before we 9 times it. >> right 711 and cause for code

enforcement. >> it is 13 hundred. >> i have on the folder that i have. >> okay. thank you. >> more pictures. >> commissioner konstin. >> is that the lien amount. >> no. >> what's the lien amount. >> the lien amount i don't have that. >> it's there was confusion over the 15 cases i don't have that. >> the 2015 case was resolved by the order of abatement which then liens against the property not that case. >> yes. the 2016 case that's still outstanding according to the records other than the gentleman mentioned there was an error on one of the letters he was not presented at the hearing that's correct. he was present and error and it was corrected by the order of abatement the order of abatement states that the

owner was represented that was corrected at a later time this was an error and a letter sent to the property owner he was at the hearing. >> and a follow-up he mentioned something about the order of abatement was issued before the thirty day limit do you know anything about that. >> i don't have that i've got everything i have the folders it has all the recordings and posts and registered everything to it seems to me from reading on the complaint that i've reviewing the file from code enforcement that everything was done in in accordance with the procedures and that stalls everything the appeal so nothing done with the order in pending - >> commissioner mccarthy. >> i'm kind of more direction

but a more questions commissioners any testimony for this is that a loounl i'm the fact in 2014 that was mitigated we're dealing with 16 and 14 and 15 as well; right? 0 i'm on one hand to any fellow commissioners an opportunity based on the fact that a lot will happen in february or late february and understanding i want to know about the testimony kind of rings real - if mr. daily will be open to or the commissioners open to a reduction in fees to make that doable contingent with

something happens in february or march with regards it looks like he has the ownership started i'm wondering if any suggestions as to what our perimeters are there and reduction of fees here make this for doable for mr. daily. >> vice president walker. >> i was looking at that eliminating the 9 times fee if there's a willingness to pay the actual costs we've incurred to submit the necessary application and fees for the two years ago of vacant building ordinance requirements that's what i would say is fair and as long as that happens then the department can do what needs to happen to facilitate in moving forward with permits to do what they

want i mean ultimately to restore this building to use i mean, i think that is a fair resolution of covering our costs and . >> we'll have to honor the kind of the policy which is - >> yeah. for the two years. >> for the two years. >> and i don't know - the department was contacted by neighborhoods to obviously there are people living around that and tired of the problem. >> it is a policy that you know took a long time and it works sometimes, i think that is misunderstood on the consequences of that. >> i think that is working very well on the ordinance we handed this and most people comply with the fee it is what it is. >> if we could do some math and compose that as a resolution i'll be for that.

>> i suspect mr. lourey. >> good morning dan lourey and recommend the building be properly secured we have vagrant and complaint from the supervisors. >> okay. thank you. >> so as there's commissioner warshell. >> i think he has a - >> please. rebuttal for 3 minutes. >> question this last gentleman that spoke asked the building be secured the building is secured in fact, he secured it before the december 2nd filing of t filing order of abatement was filed premove to approve before the 11, 4, 16 hearing i was a

little bit confused and still am i'm not sure you people have it clear as to when the matter of the registration the registration was paid by my brother in 14 owe won't have paid the registration based on the definition of property that richard b sandra of the supreme court came up with a vacant building didn't necessarily become a nuisance because it's vacant a nuisance in the direction didn't come under vacant building that building was a nuisance because of people were entering that squatters and that's why i secured the building i felt that was made

sure to skewer the building at one time the police said it needed to be secured i felt that was right to be asked you that is totally secured and no problems with squatters for quite sometime i'm in the process of attempting to purchase the building from the lender will lend from the city will subordinate their lien i will get the money and pay my brother and get the permits and do the work i mean we don't have too much of a except - i have a friend that lives in arizona and moves to washington if he lived

in san francisco he would have to buy a vacant building registration permit for the 6 months he went to arizona but it is just - it is not comprehensible how i mean the city has a responsibility and i understand the issues mayor ed lee and my right to own a building and not have that be a nuisance or breeding ground for raccoons and rats and mice it's not that's where i stand on this. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. daily. >> can i ask you who the gentleman that gentleman i like to know his nail from dbi. >> mr. duffy. >> mr. duffy. >> thank you. >> my name is joe duffy dbi

and i believe that mr. daily has a problem i'm joe duffy dbi senior building inspector in the belief you couldn't understand mr. hinge at the hearing - okay. >> it is i think commissioner warshell has a comment or question. >> just a comment i've lived near buildings that are not opt out for a long time and i'll familiar with the effect on the desire neighborhood when supervisors and police are constantly called in this security a breached and occupied by squatters that

present safety risk one might say that is even devalues the surrounding properties and the quality of life of all of his neighbors so while i respect individual people's property rights i certainly understand that we live in communities and have standards by which we have to conform to be civil to the neighbors of our community i think that is primarily what this registration is about so that when property isn't occupied it registered with the city so it can be evaluated if it is security and condition do not impose undue hardship on the entire community

it certainly appears this is an example of a building that has done that and while i appreciate the comments that revolving the issues to move forward and solve the problem and create a condition whereby the owner is able to secure the financing to do the buy out and improvements that's our goal having an occupiab occupiable housing unit i disagree when a property has been in neglect and knowingly because of an owner

interpretation of law so disagrees with our law he chooses not to follow it i think that is precisely why penalty are there and i more one disagree this penalty shouldn't be assessed seems like a poster child why you would i think we have to send a message to property owners who choose to do this should this property owner appeal the law he was recourse through the court if he feels this is illegal but as the law stands as i understand this is exactly the circumstance under which this should be applied.

>> what's the fee for registering a have a doubt building. >> $711 annual fee. >> if 23 if that are paid we wouldn't be here i need to say i agree with any fellow commissioner i don't feel comfortable waving the increase do we have the right to lower it does that have to be 9 times. >> commissioner walker we have the economy to work with the fees we'll recognize 2015-2016 and we'll recognize that that seven hundred and 10 accrued fees. >> 13 hundred. >> that will stay in place we wouldn't do is charge the 9 times. >> 9 times the 7, 11.

>> that's. >> only if they had the work. >> only if they do the work what resonates is the concentration it was paid in 2014 with the brother and then i think there was a bit of separation i think this has been sort of out now so i can see a situation where they ignored not smartly but understanding the complications of someone and trying to doing the right thing that's the fairest option up to the commission. >> as a chief builder inspector he's here and how the fees are made up if you or willfully to listen to that. >> perfect. >> commissioner gilman do you want to say anything first. >> i had further questions. >> good morning commissioner

patrick reardon talking about a 2016 case before you there are fees associated with that we have the fee as 7, 11 for the registration the penalty is 9 times, we have about $1,240 in assessment fees think this case in 2016 case and we're also discussing a case that is from 2030 that already has an order of abatement so i building those i don't know exactly with the assessments are we didn't prepare that case we're dealing with different one today, we know there are 9 times on the 7, 11 and assessment that will at least be 1240 plus additional monuments required for the order of abatement that is already in place on that case so. >> so to clarify we're only

here to look at 2016 this is 9 times that is seven hundred not 14 hundred. >> correct the case is for the 2016 case. >> thank you. >> vice president walker. >> the order of abatement on the 2015 is the order that is lien; is that correct. >> correct. >> and none are captured that's why we need because that abatement or order activated. >> that is an annual requirement. >> yes. >> the 2016 case. >> i i get it but the 2016 an order of abatement issued anticipate a lien was put on the property because of lack of filing and payment and all of that we're in 2016 with the same set of issues - that are separate from but in addition to.

>> commissioner gilman. >> sorry do we have the authority to the require from the appellant we roach the lien if we're only hearing 2016 we not in a position to remove that. >> i don't know that's something. >> that's what we're here to talk about the 2016 on. >> we have the ability to negotiate the fee. >> only the 2016 case. >> i'll make the argument on 2016 that obviously the same argument what go made for the 2030 a i don't think. >> the attorney. >> that order of abatement is issued. >> water if under the bridge. >> okay. >> the 2016 is the cased before us. >> it's not calendared i think it is also a sunshine issue we'll not delusively into that

this is only 2016. >> right. >> i was in receipt of phone calls for the security of the building in october and i was provided with some picture evidence of some nefarious activity one the building i have to say a neighbor i'll be concerned if i was aware of what was going on with the building the pd was involved and the supervisor was contacted we were scheduled inform a task force inspection in november which we attended and didn't get assess he believe another task force inspection is for the 25 so my concern is the security of building in regards to the safety of the neighbors. >> thank you. >> i think unless mr. duffy has something -

>> the 2015 case had not been referred to the city attorney's office. >> any any public comment? seeing none, any commissioners want to make a motion. >> (inaudible). >> i'm sorry mr. daily it is over. >> wait a minute, wait a minute i gave any rebuttal. >> exactly. >> you're bringing people back up here they say things that gentleman said things i didn't is a chance to comment on what he said. >> i'm sorry mr. daily that's the way the process is set up each party has 7 minutes and 3 minutes and 3 minutes. >> wait a minute no, no i got it 7, 7, 3 and 3 after mr. duffy spoke i spoke that was my 3 and bring up 3

more witnesses. >> we have questions about the fees accrued and process questions we needed to know we can make our decision. >> yeah. but half of what they said didn't have too much value willed. >> it goes to the court. >> the court thank you. >> thank you. >> any motion like to be offered sir, i'm sorry. >> i want the minutes for this meeting. >> they'll be published. >> they'll be published and this is also on video recorded sfgovtv on video so will be in the website thank you. >> (inaudible). >> you'll receive them it will take time but you'll be able to

get the minutes. >> thank you. >> do you have a card. >> yes. >> while sonya is looking commissioner warshell. >> i move the $711 and fees plus 9 times penalty be enforced. >> is there oscar pistorius rebuttal. >> may i clarify including the 13 hundred - >> yes. assessment costs. >> thank you for the clarification. >> i tend to think that all of the evidence that has been submitted supports that motion. >> there is been disregard for the rules your department has gone out of its way to work with this business owner and i think that it is clear no interest in

complying so i agree i think this this year inform folks that infrastructure grantly disregard the rules all the community suffers. >> i'll offer a different motion i don't know the protocol but on the first one it is up to the commission. >> i believe if we want resolution it about likely not occur if we apply if so we'll move on i would make a motions to uphold the order of abatement to assess the fees minus the 9 multipleer. >> second. >> what do we do now. >> call the first one and second one and vice president walker. >> i think that the second one

only make sense it is not complied with the times the fee applied. >> maybe give thirty days or 60 days for the person to pay the fines that are applicable to the case and work through the resolution and if they don't we add a 9 times fee. >> commissioner gilman. >> and i apologize is this the only resolution paying off the lien i know - >> so i said that but i guess i don't understand i'm asking a question i apologize for any ignorance i don't see how he can get financing and buying his brother out wears sort of saying he is has as major roadblock we're not discussing today we building that having faith he'll be able to buy his brother out

and he is complying with 2015 it is ill logic. >> it may not be feasible. >> i don't see how we can move forward with the lease it is predicted on financing. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> so your that the commissioner gilman i was under the impression we can do 2015 we cannot because of mitigation so that's going to send fees a cloud will stay there that is absent opportunity to reduce the fees and ask him to pay the rate for which is $711 and the 13 hundreds dollars that's what we're negotiating to a fair resolution for the 2016 with the caveat this is not you know give one chance to fee that's the

chief administrative officer y09 not honored whatever then we'll go back to the 9 times. >> can you indulge me. >> it is didn't change the financing it is resolved by him mitigating the fines that's the only way it will be done. >> i guess i appreciate why do we do that back in 2016 this was received to the city attorney's office the gentleman as disregard assembly $700 my understanding is the filing fees for the elevated single-family home why would we come in - we have a cloud if we didn't have the 2016 that makes sense to move forward and river the situation no way for him to do

that all we're doing a banking on receiving a payment of 13 hundred in fees and the filing fee and we're saying basically - beyond our generosity in this situation. >> commissioner gilman we're done down to the individual commission it is well articulated why would we do that i'm speaking for myself after listening to the presentation and understanding the dynamics of the situation there is an issue of him not fully understanding the applications by ignoring it i'm convinced of that and i think at many levels he wants to do the right thing and mr. daily has shown frustration with the dbi and the policies and i think i'm willing to recognize that and kind of give

him one more opportunity to do the right thing on the 2016 versus 15 but i keep on stressing we have basis over the years we shouldn't and i think the testimony and the further testimony with the partnership with his brother he's trying to get the money together and with the caveat if they didn't honor the 2016 back to us and policies are 9 times so - >> giving him a little bit of grace on this first one but the second one no. >> i'd like to call the two questions sonya if you could do that two motions. >> i don't exactly know what they are. >> if commissioner warshell desire both on the motion or withdraw. >> i request to vote on it.

>> sonya repeat it. >> your motion is basically to uphold the order of abatement. >> uphold the order of abatement and as commissioner walker mentioned the 12 hundred and plus assessment fees. >> and delivery 9 times the multiplier. >> to uphold the original order of abatement including all assessment costs and fees so i'll reenforcement. >> commissioner clinch. >> no president walker yes. >> commissioner gilman. >> commissioner konstin commissioner lee no commissioner mccarthy. >> no commissioner warshell.

>> that motion carries 4 toe 3 so that's it. >> to that's - >> that's it next case. >> next case items e-1 to e-2 shall be heard together one request a rehearing bay street originally heard and decided 2016 and item two possible rehearing of case the action requested by appellant should request for a rehearing. >> commissioners rosemary bosque, chief housing inspector. as you may recall in november in details vested the issue with the represent tallies at the

roof of 2185 bay street with a 24 unit building for your information i have two photographs the bottom and the upper what done in morning as you can see not much change in our view from the perspective that the appellants who is the tenants as you may recall has not supplied in any new information from a structural stand point that will necessitate a rehearing we believe that the rehearing shouldn't occur on the basis of that thank you. >> okay commissioners personally this will be a brief hearing from what you've been through this morning appreciate our patience that of those a correct summary where we were in

november i think you'll remember we talked about the interplay a relationship two the landlord/tenant it is and play between the city and property owner that not the one that causing the problems and the rights of tenant due to the this part of the his livelihood with the health diet and part of his teachers for others you voted to uphold and it is if we can come to resolution to the credit of both parties the landlord/tenant expressed an interest in doing so we hit a barrier immediately the barrier the land feels hamstrung by the last hearing he feels there is findings of the fact by this board that on the question of whether they are talking about a rooftop garden i

addressed that but didn't building any findings was made the finding is important because it changes the minimum structure load if 20 pound per square footage to one hundred pound per square feet the structural engineer report from the landowner assumed this is a roasted garden and with his ensure but assuming it hits the included it didn't meet the standard for one square feet pound per square feet members of the department of building inspection we've been speaking to think in question this is an unoccupied escape area not a rooftop garden not inviting people to change out but for access for regular maintenance for growing food

supplements for healthy lifestyle the base should apply with a rehearing briefing address that the fact from the international building code and other building code make a distinction between a rooftop garden and there are no local amendment that speak to this so the california and international blavd is binding and identical they anticipate the maintenance for this when they have the lower 20 the question of people going on the roof to change things that's not the issue it is anticipated as an unoccupied landscape area if this determination can be accomplished the safety question that was transit first by the notice of violation is not an issue the alternative what we've

asked for to hold the order of abatement in abeyance for 90 days and let us pursue a motion for the left hand and attendants everybody is willing to do that if we're hamstrung by on erroneous determination we're talking about a rooftop garden and have to meet the residents that shouldn't apply to what it this is an unoccupied landscape ear it is cost profitable we'll not come to a solution and further frustrated by the fact fees are assessed to the property owner when he hadn't violated anyone's concerns other than to honor the tenant agreement with this tenant if uniform indulge us i have copies of the international building code and california building code i think you said what the issue is here we would like to

address this situation to maintain the status quo we have ideas of using smaller bins no concern about the load exceeding something what it is now and concern about a lid coming off we'll chain them and satisfied with the satisfaction of the city but we need to be freed from this barrier that has been at least the landlords believes that is characters as a finding find fact by this board we're dealing with a rooftop garden. >> any questions for the appellant? >> thank you for your time. >> does the department anything to say. >> the charactertion shotgun what an erroneous findings we don't believe that is correct

and not just mayor ed lee ohio putting a chaining lid is a concern no sdmisht of we're told is personal use we have the overall concerns that he addressed before so on the basis we don't say additional information from the structural engineer we too building a rehearing is necessary or warranted. >> for rosemary see if you are recall what happened i think the reasons for holding the order of abatement was not because of a load issue are a weight factor

it was an unpermitted item about the roof wasn't it regardless of how heavy those bins were or how many they were unpermitted on the roof. >> i can't say you took the motion a total outlet of informs from the deputy director seeing none, with the report that talked about the load he obviously the total outlet of the testimony i would leave it to your office to characterize our action. >> commissioner gilman. >> my understanding is the same as commissioner lee we made that decision that was unpermit and unsafe we heard no fire exit and no fire escape with the rain and winds we'll have more concerns no change in the load

on the roof we've heard from staff concerns things rolling off the roof it is unusual with this weather pattern not changing any time soon and adds to any concerns we could be looking at more liability and risk to the citizens of the san francisco than before. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> just rosemary if i may because i had a lot of trouble i concur that note not designed but can you talk a little bit about one unoccupied landscape area. >> have you - do we have a code where we stand as the department and so on. >> i would defer to deputy director screening with the housing a permitted type of situati

situation. >> my take on the code a permit will having to be taken out to something other than a roof deck i seem to remember at the last hearing concerns about fire access that there was concerns about people going up through to tend the garden no guardrail to keep them on the roof and there would be some sort of a permit required to keep this situation the way it is and that has not been applied for . >> so what they're asking for today to kind of look at something like that come back to us with to make this. >> that is up- >> this is an application for rehearing. >> the 90 days the rehearing

and 90 days contact to us. >> nothing submitted that was not submitted i mean. >> i want to be transparent as possible i want to understand this code they brought up at that stage i want to make sure we as a department are kind of up to speed and the correct is not correct to me that's new information been brought forward. >> if i can interject i'm familiar with the code. >> i'm not aware of that in the code the landscaping really - it really is not a building issue unless you bring it to a

roof we have green roof and drainage for the grand. >> nothing changes the way i see that roof not based on if look right not designed. >> the roof is not - >> (multiple voices). >> i want to be sure we're not missing something here. >> i don't believe we are the roof. >>was not if i remember right it is >> what will the 90 days give us what will be different other than the fact there is - >> we have to rehear it. >> i understand that but is - >> commissioners if i may we haven't heard this is for tenant we don't know from the property owner about do something like that perhaps. >> he's here can we bring up the pertaining to come up i believe he's present over here. >> can you come up so we can

ask you. >> questions. >> so question of order should we have the appellant give their rebuttal and ask for public comment perhaps includes the property owner is that the order of things so the appellant can please come up. >> the copy of the international building code section 1607 plus talks about the occupiable roofs and further down talk about landscape roofs and as you can see they talk about the rooftop gardens or general assembly inviting people to hang out on the rooftop one

hundred pound per square feet when you talk about a sclarptd roof they make a distinction and it is a 20 pound per square feet if you look at the notes flatter highlighted in yellow the words is covering it but it says i'll pull this up they consider in this load the ideas there will be conscionable people up there for maintenance all right. at the last hearing we submit in writing something from the planning department and there's no permit for an uncupidity landscape area a permit for a roof line garden we'll be held to a standard of one per square feet unites i that's not appropriate this is new information if people don't understand the california building codes i have a copy of

that as well that was given to us by tom lee it says this is an unoccupied landscape area and it says the uniformed load in an unoccupied landscape roofs shall be 20 that's why i'm asking this the result of the directors hearing the inability to convince the hearing officer of this definition didn't want to hear it now you're raising legitimacy concerns of safety about the wind and rain i have to you mention being a lawyer saying a due process in the in the notice of violation those things can be addressed if we work together with the left hand and city worked with planning a fan of the garden as it is and address

the other concerns but to hold this abatement will send us to superior court to show the leg shotgun for the the subject property and the concerns the the lids those were not in the notice of violation the notice of violation was stabbing this was a safe load the roof was save to handle the load on this that's been established by everybody what they're saying things can happen that can change that that's beyond the purview where we are today thank you. >> mr. sweeney. >> international building code and california building code on the you'll construct something a thirty gallons of soil up on a roof it is you'll have to build

the roof that roof was not built for this purchase purpose in an existing building the california building code is for the old buildings rather than chapter 34. >> thank you. >> it says if he could go to public comment perhaps any commissioners have any questions for the appellant. >> public comment. 3 minutes. >> or perhaps invite you up for of point of order sonya. >> the building isn't he part. >> he's the attorney. >> you were here. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> yes. >> thank you. >> i'm jonathan counsel for

the property owner actually after the. >> speak into the microphone please. after the last hearing excuse me - the next day we approached i sent an e-mail to counsel for the tenant you know saying we're interested in trying to resolve this and for a variety of reasons that has not happened like at this point any clients concern and has been throughout after the last hearing we asked the tenant to within a week to remove what is on the roof pending you know hopefully working a resolution he wouldn't do it and had a long hard talk with any client with liability issues and strurj there could be structural problems we're not aware of any and the garden it up there for awhile may be one or two months won't make a

difference he was willing to make that risk and with the weather he's concerned about the 90 days you know, i think eventually from everything i've heard from the tenants counsel is it if if it will be in supreme court and my inclination that he will - it will happen soornl any client has stooped from the violation many, many landowner would do so you know we've bent over backwards but concerns about another 90 days. >> thank you any other public comment. >> seeing none, commissioner walker. >> vice president walker.

>> i move to deny rehearing. >> second. >> okay there is a motion that has been seconded to deny the appeal for rehearing i'll take a roll call vote. >> no new information so - >> okay commissioner clinch vice president walker. >> commissioner gilman obtaining stain. >> yes or no. >> get me and come back. >> commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner mccarthy commissioner warshell. >> commissioner gilman. >> yes. >> that item passes

unanimously. >> item f general public comment is there any general public comment for items not on the abatement appeals board agenda and item g a motion to adjourn. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> all in favor, say i. >> i. >> we're not adjourned that is 10:31 a.m. we will take a 10 minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection eady to

begin. >> good morning today is wednesday, january 18, 2017, this is the regular meeting of the building department commission i'd like to remind everyone to turn off devices. >> roll call. >> commissioner president mccarthy president walker. >> commissioner gilman confine commissioner lee and commissioner warshell quorum. >> sorry