recommendations that the budget analyst and not fund the new academy coming through, but the majority voted to actually fund the new police classes. so that is the extra funds that came in. and it was -- i think that was the purpose of this civilianization, instead of investing in new academy classes. i want to say we'll be having a hearing about incarceration and the cost of incarceration and i want you to come to that actually. and actually, you can meet with chelsea about that and what that agenda looks like. also, i wanted to say, yes, i know about our non-investment in public education in the state of california, which is the fifth largest economy in the world. and we see continually that public education is not funded. this is why i think we need to reform prop 13 and i hope that

is coming in 2020. and that will pass. because that is a little loophole also that allows corporations to get a tax break on their property tax that is meant for homeowners. we see large corporations benefitting from this, where more money should be coming for public education. i also wanted to say i agree with you about community colleges. that i think this is a solid investment. it is not only aligned, i think, with life long learning, but it is also a port of a solution to homelessness. that we are now facing the third industrial revolution here. and we don't have a safety net for these people. and people need to learn new trades or need to learn to up their skill level to compete. we're talking about people who

are maybe 40 years old. and this is the gift of free city college that they can go back and up the skill level, perhaps learn a new skill, to be actively involved in the job market. and as we know, that this is a very horrible time for people to be losing their jobs in san francisco because it is hard to re-enter the job market without extra training. i went to a city college myself. so did my husband. we went when it was free. so we both know the value of a free college education. and also, i want to say the city college, i was on the school board for eight years. it's a safety net for those we don't serve well in our k-12 system. it is -- so even more resources should be put to it, because it is the last safety net sometimes

for folks to actually get a college education. because our public school system has failed them. so, i know that we have been in touch. we will have a day of public comment. and we would suggest that you come back actually during that time. and i want to also say, i know this is a really long hearing and thank you so much for waiting and listening to everything. i believe we've probably lost a lot of the public comment. i apologize. we knew this was going to be a long one. and we're all here to blame a little bit, because we asked so many questions. but i want to invite you to come back and remind us that you were at the last of the list and had to wait and that should not happen again. so thank you very much. and i appreciate it.

and any comments or -- i think you agree also on city college here. thank you very much again. now let's open up for public comment. are there any members of the public that would like this comment on item number 5? michael, thank you for being so patient. i appreciate it. >> all of you, you just witnessed what it is like and got a sample of what it feels like to be a black man. and be racially profiled. i come in here today to speak up about the most vulnerable people who are not getting equal opportunity housing, and what it takes in order to take care of their problems and disabilities. i'm sitting there by myself, taking care of my business, waiting to speak. a black skin colored female comes in and starts yelling, asking for freedom back.

gascon is here, okay, and i don't like the way he disrespected stefani when she explains how their organization is pointing the finger back and forth and forth and back. so the sheriff come over and ask me to come out. so while i'm by the door, i'm surrounded by three people. i said what you should do is ask him how come he ain't prosecuting that hate crime that has been directed towards me and blacks skinned color females. i don't appreciate him talking to you like this stefani. i'm quick to react when females are disrespected. steve lloyd is making death threats toward me, i'll kill you

n igg er. i went to the restraining order, courted several times and got restraining orders against him and put him in jail. been going through this five and a half years. they tell him to prosecute him on a hate crime because that demonstrated that while he's making these slurs and making death threats, it's a terrorist threat and a hate prime -- [bell ringing] >> supervisor fewer: mr. wright, would you please put the microphone back on. i have a question for you. when you were escorted out of the room, i believe you wanted to address something with the district attorney. and i said you should address that during public comment time. so would you -- i understand the situation that happened to you. but right now, can you tell me what is it that you wanted to address the district attorney and to say. >> well, he was up here, i used

my legal expense, stefani, you're not the only one that is prosecuted up in here. i wanted to grill him and have you ask him, how come you not following that criminal courtroom judge's instruction to bring steve lloyd to trial for a hate crime because i documented everything that he did and the signatures who he arrest, females and harassing females in the elevator. he'll get in the elevator with a female and when the elevator door is closed, he'll say you fucking fingenigger. practicing law 20 years and state court and federal court. my legal expense is way far

beyond most people who has a degree. representing myself as my own attorney. i've been before numerous judges. i even been before judge dortman. that's why i say when i say it, when i was on my way out the door. >> thank you very much. >> when he sit up there and try to tell stefani that the world has changed since she was a prosecutor, he's a goddamned liar. she hit that on the head. i got a report where transgender is on the receiving end of hate crimes and they're not doing a goddamned thing about that either. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. wright. stephen lloyd. got it, thank you, mr. wright. thank you very much. okay, let's allow the other

public speakers to come forward, because they've been waiting, too. >> supervisor fewer: i can't give him another two minutes. michael -- or drop on by my office, michael, also. thank you, mr. wright. next speaker, please. hi, caroline, staff at the youth commission. my fellow youth commissioners of the transformative justice committee wanted to communicate that we completely support the no jail coalition and based on last year's performance audit of the sfpd, the police department is one of the highly paid city employees, whereas the youth employment and youth services are not equitable to the current standards. so right now, we're investing on

youth rights as well as youth police training. and hoping that actually leads to more rehabilitation with families and youth. so we would highly like to endorse their budget asks and policy asks. thank you. >> good afternoon. the department on the status of women. i wanted to address a specific request around violence against women. our department staff family violence council, the mayor task force on human trafficking and we regularly com pile and develop recommendations to improve san francisco's response to these issues. i provided the highlights and recommendations from our most recent reports. they're over there. and i just wanted to really call out attention to one. which is the primary recommendation of the family violence council is to fund the sheriff department to implement

a program to remove guns from people who have restraining orders against them. domestic violence when there is a gun present, are five times more likely to be killed by a partner. the san matteo county sheriff department has a model where every restraining order is checked to make sure there are guns removed if present. currently the sheriff department is only using overtime hours to serve those 25% restraining orders and they could do more with more staffing. that is an important request. i want to draw the attention for the need for adequate staffing at the victims unit. they identified there should be 65 investigators at the special victims unit. our understanding is there is 51 straddled 11 different disciplines from elder violence,

internet crimes, juvenile, missing persons, human traffickers and financial crimes. they have a lot of work to do and we need them to take the work sears seriously. there have been 529 cases of human trafficking since the last report. there is a state law that mandates training for municipal transportation drivers. that will be coming forward. >> supervisor fewer: i just wanted to say quickly for the request about the firearms restraining program. i wanted to follow up with you and make sure you're tied into the restraining order implementation talks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi. i'm lynn and i've been interviewing instructor at city college for over three decades and i'm currently the vice

president of aft2121. you may or may not realize there is going to be an $8 million short fall for the fiscal year of 2019-2020, between what city college of san francisco puts out. probably w brought in tens of millions of dollars to the city coffers and it passed with the voters because they thought they were voting to fund free city. the money is there. why isn't it being used for what the voters voted for? >> thank you very much. any other public speakers? seeing none, public comment is closed. madame clerk, any other items before us today? >> madame chair, we need to take action on this item. would you like this file? >> we would like to file this, please. >> and there is no other business. >> supervisor fewer: we're adjourned.

>> good morning. today is wednesday, april 16, 2019. this is a regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. please turnoff electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. (roll call).

commissioner moss is excused. we have a quorum. next is item b. the oath. will all parties giving testimony today stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated. i want to announce for the audience. the department will present it goes case first. each side has seven minutes to present their case. then public comment and members have three minutes to speak and then there is three minutes rebuttal time. item c approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for a meeting held on march 20, 2019.

>> are there any corrections or comments on the minutes as posted? any public comment regarding the minutes? seeing none, i move they be accepted. >> second. >> all in favor. >> thank you. the minutes are approved. next item is item d. continued appeal case 6857 at 334 bowdoin street. the appellant has withdrawn this case. >> thank you. are there any members of the public here to speak on that item. it is withdrawn, not continued? >> yes, it is withdrawn. i believe the case was abated. >> thank you. next item is case

6,859,306,116th street. owner's representative. action requested to place in abeyance for nine months. would the staff like to come forward? >> good morning. i am the chief building inspector for code enforcement. for this case a complaint was filed february 12, the contractor was doing work without permits. there was a permit active for remodeling of units. the inspector visited the site and found there was work. a notice was issued february 20,

2015. over the course of this the owner failed to comply but the permit was never completed. even the original permit was not completed. there was only three inspections as we found on the permit history. the case was referred to code enforcement on april 10, 2017. a hearing was held 8, 21, 2018. the notice of abatement with 60 days for final inspection and approval. staff recommendation is to uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment costs. >> can you explain the what the

exceeding the scope was in what was that? >> the original permit to comply with complaints. there was numerous complaints before that. there was the original complaint. the permit was over-the-counter with no plans to replace cracked plaster with 5/8 drywall and add required doors. remodeling bathrooms in community kitchen. the inspector found they gutted the rooms where he asked for revision, and the revision was obtained with plans to do that. >> when was that last permit issued? >> that permit was issued in 4/29/2016. >> thank you.

>> good morning, henry representing the owners of the property. history. it is a history neglected for many years. in a sketchy area where it is located. the owners' intent was to remodel the property with the tenants living there. that didn't work out. when you come to lath and plaster, you get cracks. the only way to do it is to go ahead and tear that out and start brand-new. they started doing this and they should have gotten permits. they did withdraw. they are now putting in bathrooms in every room. this was a residential hotel with a common bathroom with no community kitchen. this was done withdrawings. it took a month to get the

drawings done to get the permit. the 10nants were -- tenants were to vacate the building. we had inspections on plumbing, electrical, building, we need to finish off the rest of the work. we also had a permit for soft story. that is the other one that came up. that was issued and completed on 5/25/2018. again, this is a major renovation, not just a simple putting chewing gum on it to make it look pretty. with that being said they are close to being finished off. there is a matter of funding the project. it is not cheap today. we know that. it is not $10 an hour stuff it is finding the contractors to do

the work. at the end of the day it is vacant. we hope to get inspections shortly, but we are waiting for more money to finish the project. we are asking for nine months. it is not going to take nine months. i don't want to get stuck for whatever reason down the road and what do we do after that? it is a good effort to create a good place for your low income housing and eventually what these folks are doing is leasing it back to the city. the city benefits from this. they are investing in the property. we will all benefit from it. could you please approve. >> commissioner walker. >> this was originally a motel. >> a residential hotel. >> residential hotel? >> yes. >> it went through the planning

process to convert it to something else? >> no, no. we just didn't have the bathrooms in it. the residential hotels have a community bathroom. >> they are also because of that cheaper. i am curious how you went from, i guess not probably part of this discussion, but i think that the exceeding the scope was the one where you were tearing out the drywall. is that the case where it was meant for just a straight remodel of what existed then they added bathrooms without permits? it is just an issue because of the economics of it so the intention here is to lease it back to the city? >> that is what they are looking

for towards, yes. they have new programs they are putting out that i'm working on with the city for leasing these hotels. in the past you would only lease hotels of 50 rooms or more. now they are accepting the smaller hotels, too. >> that is great. is the requirement for those partnerships that each unit have its own bathroom? >> no, that isn't. again, this is what they decided they wanted to do. it would be a better quality of life. >> it is interesting. there is conversations in the community that actually are asking for more cooperative type housing because it keeps the cost down. you know, there are two sides to this. i am concerned when this happens because you have the most

expensive or most inexpensive housing u upgraded exceeding the scope of permit. i don't know how planning weighed in on this or if they did. doesn't it seem like a change of use? >> probably not, but anybody from the department able to speak whether it is a change of use? it seems not to be to me. >> maybe the city attorney. the issue is residential hotel ordinance. >> i think inspector reardon may have thoughts. >> from what i see it is interior work within the shell of an existing building so in cases like that, planning generally don't get involved because they don't have anything of substance to look at. there is no change of use or occupancy. >> the issues of the difference

between the residential hotel and the apartment house are not in the building code? >> the only thing i see here first they talked about remodeling bathrooms. now, i hear they are adding bathrooms. i don't know that that would be anything that planning would look at for change of use or occupancy. i don't see anything in the documents that would suggest that planning would be reviewing this for what it is. >> were there any change in number of units? >> no, no. >> same number of units now instead of community bathrooms they are individual bathrooms and there is a community kitchen? >> it was signed off by planning. it was application to construct the community kitchen and add 25 bathrooms to the residential hotel.

>> just checking to see how we look at that. >> we want to go by the book at this stage of the game, of course. >> what happens to the tenants? >> they vacated eventually. again, it is hard to work around when you have tenants living in the place because you have dust, discomfort. i am not sure if a lot of them just moved out. >> do they have first right of return in that situation? >> i am not sure. i wasn't involved in that. i know that there were agreements made with the tenants to vacate the property so they could do the major remodel. >> i just want to make sure we followed the rules around that. maybe we could check with housing to make sure, you know. thank you. >> commissioners, any other

questions? rebuttal? >> public comment first. any public comment on this item? seeing none, department's rebuttal. >> so the reason it went through planning process, there was re-write planning. the only concern is if you look at the complaint data sheet, we did provide enough time for the owner to complete the work. the scope of the work is actually interior work. the evaluation of the work is $393,000. we are not talking about a $2 million worth of work that is going to take three or five years. if you look at the whole track history of the complaint. the complaint started in 2015. the order was issued in 2018.

we have worked with the owner in relation to complete the work. >> are they actively engaged now? >> the last inspection that i have was a reinspection required back in 2017. >> that is the last information i have on the file for that revision. that is the last inspection i have. >> okay. thank you. >> any other rebuttal? >> i just want to repeat.

this is a very expensive project at the end of the day. we did have a funding issue to finish everything off. we are at the point now to hopefully finish off soon, but that is going to be the hold up. we didn't expect to get into the major renovation. they are upgrading the property to provide better quality of life and it will be a win-win for everyone. i urge you to please allow this. >> commissioner walker. >> are you actively involved in the work being done right now? >> yes, commissioner, i was there the other day. we will go over to get inspections rolling again in a matter of the next week or so and start winding it all up. >> you have looked at the status currently and nine months is

your wish. what do you need, really? >> i would hope that we are finished in 60 to 90 days. wwe might not find people to coe to do the work to finish off what we need finished off, small things. >> you aren't actually involved in doing the work right now if you are still looking for people to do the work? >> we are trying to get folks to finish off loose ends. we are calling for inspections to get that done. >> i am very interested in what you said about leaseback to the city. where are you in terms of that negotiation? >> at this stage until we get together with the city to find out the time when this will be finished off and be able to negotiate with them on the new program that just started so i have to follow back with them to see where they are at. that is what we are looking at right now.

it is a fairly new program. >> it is your intent to do that. >> yes. >> thank you. any other comment? yes, commissioner walker. >> are we talking about it now rather than asking questions? >> yes, we can move to discussion. i assume you could like to start. >> i have a question because it has been entered as evidence that there is a, you know, this might become part of our affordable housing inventory. is that now a condition of this approval? i guess i'm asking the city attorney how much weight we can give that or condition we can make that. >> city attorney's office, that is not part of what is before you today. you are hearing an appeal of an abatement order.

you can't make it a condition of the abatement order that they enter a lease with the city for the lease of the building. >> i had a similar concern, the intent is obviously good and that would be a great outcome for this. if there is no way to condition it, that is one thing. the other issue was being sure the right of return for the former residence is being properly administered. is there any ability to, you know, if not condition, emphasize that full examination of right of return be done through the housing? >> that is also not before the board on this abatement order appeal. i mean, you could express a

desire that they comply to the extent they are required to do so. we don't know what happened to the tenants, whether they were evicted or if they have a right of return or if they have some sort of buyout. we don't know. they are under an obligation to comply with whatever law is applicable to the way the tenants were removed from the building. >> they can be recommendations, they cannot be anything enforceable. >> any other comments or discussion? all right. i will start off. i mean asez this i -- i share commissioner walker's concern about affordability. you know, we love the idea that properties are upgraded. here we have seismic, enhancement with bathrooms and

common kitchen. these are all desirable things in terms of quality of life residents of the building will have. it obviously comes at a cost so it has got to be paid, and the affordability issue, of course, will present itself. i see no way to get around that. the owner has made these investments. i find it disturbing that this has been going on for so long and so many violations have occurred, but it appears we are sort of in the final phases of what is generally a favorable outcome, and at least to my mind, granting some extra time even though the department's citations are all correct could

be in the general good. i would like my colleagues' opinions. >> thank you, commissioner. one of the things this brings up is an issue that we dealt with with some of the smaller buildings that the owners were in a situation where they couldn't afford doing the work, and it really isn't what we deal with here. we did create a program, fund a program through d.b.i. i think it is the mayor's office of housing and community development that administrators it to offer low interest loans, but i think it is restricted one to four units. it is smaller. it was a million a year and that goes quickly in this kind of project, but i know it is not

part of our discussion, but it is something we should think about as we look at these things. there are situations that are coming up with a.d.u.s and a lot of stuff we see where the landlord is put in a bind and we have created programs to help and we might want to look at that to see how it is working and talk about how we can help in these situations. it is a restrictive thing. you can't -- money doesn't grow on trees. anyway, i think that it's good we are creating more housing. i have the same concerns about afford ability. i hope you listen to those concerns. if we are having them, other people are. i have always said the most affordable housing is the housing that exists. the more we change that as we

reoccupy it. we find to find ways of stabilizing that. that being said, i agree with your concerns. i probably would make a motion to uphold the order of abatement and hold in abeyance for 90 days, uphold costs. we have had a lot of time here for the owner to deal with it, and there is a need for more time clearly, but nine months is a long time. it seems like what is left is doable within a 90 day time frame. that would be my motion. >> is there a second? >> i would second. >> a motion and second. >> would commissioner walker like to provide a basis for the motion perhaps that the order was properly issued?

>> yes, the order was properly issued and all evidence supports that. >> again, we are urging that the option with the city and full investigation of rights of return be investigated. >> thank you. roll call vote on the motion. (roll call). >> the motion carries unanimously. our next item is item e general public comment. is there any general public comment for items not on the agenda? the next item is f adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? we are now adjourned at 9:39 a.m.

we will reconvene promptly at 10:00 a.m. for the building 10:00 a.m. for the building >> sfgov tv ready to begin. good morning today is wednesday april 17, 2019. this is regular meeting of the building inspection commission. please turn off all electronic devices. first item is roll call. [roll call]

we have a quorum. our next item is president's announcements. >> president mccarthy: good morning welcome to the april meeting of 2019 b.i.c. i have some announcements to read into record. please forgive me if i mispronounce any names. tomorrow is the 113th anniversary of the 1906 greater quake and fire. city department of emergency and management are conducting the citywide test of its alert notification system. this is something that we can add to your smartphone and it's worth having. go to d.m. website, it's s sf72.org. speaking of steps to get ready

for the big one, director hui reminds that the safety fair will be on june 11th at 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. mark your calendars and plan to attend. there will be five free inform tv -- informative workshops to improve the seismic safety of tall buildings. the new requirement about to take legal effect on owners responsibility to register and maintain vacant storefront. another workshop entrance program to ensure they are offering goods and services to customer providing successful entrances. another workshop on successful dwelling units with steps to d.b.i. planning. fire and others are taking into expedite reviews and approval. final workshop on home remodels

and permit process. we'll also be offering earthquake safety a -- to enable you and your family to experience an 8point earthquake in a safe and controlled environment. thanks goes to tom sessler. we want to -- he went on to say that tom was professional, fair, practical and efficient. i want to alert you to the upcoming may 21st delinquent property hearing at the board of supervisors when the board will vote on this year's final list.

d.b.i. staff with about 700 properties with outstanding assessment costs. we're down to 300 owners who paid and achieved and compliant. we'll have update from staff when we expect the final numbers to drop again. finally, please join me in congratulating nicole rossini and housing inspection permit technician on our selection as d.b.i.'s employee in 2019. nicole was selected in recognition going over and beyond her classification taking customer service initiatives and finding helpful solutions to customer's issues. please come forward and nicole please come forward. thank you. commissioner lee will meet you

do and do the formality. congratulations. [applause] nicole if you want to say few words you're welcome and talk about the great bosses you have and so on. [laughter]. >> you like to thank the commission and my supervisor. it's a pleasure to work as d.b.i. and work in the housing division and work with such

diverse people. it's a challenge and it's fun to come to work everyday. >> president mccarthy: thank you for your service. that concludes my announcement. >> any public comment on the president's announcements? seeing none. item 3, general public comment. b.i.c. are take public comment on matters within the jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> good afternoon commissioners. i wanted to talk about couple of seismic issues coming your way. you want to thank the building department what i consider an outstanding job on the salisbury program. it's a huge success about preserving affordable housing and we do seem to fire risk collapsed buildings. i want to point out robert chung and the staff has done a great job. i want to make suggestion that

we clarify the engineer's role or structure observation. i think some of the engineers don't understand their responsibility on structural observation requirement which is part of the requirement for this code. clarifying his role would improve the service. because of this discussion, you want to point out this ordinance coming your way, should be aware of that. it will be helpful to get report on s.a.c. they are doing a fantastic job on that program. there is a discussion of another program. that's coming from th the boardf supervisors. it's looking for cracked wells and in earthquake buildings. this issue is being discussed.

you guys should be ahead of that issue. then, do i want to compliment on the fact that they're doing a great job. whoever is working on this. thank you. eneed to get this resolved between the building department and planning department. thank you for your worken that program. >> president mccarthy: next speaker plaz please. >> there are no additional public financing comment. item 4a increase of staff. [agenda item read] >> vice president walker: i was talking earlier about our loan program that we have initiated through the mayor's office,

housing communities development. i wonder if we could put it on the agenda for update as to the effectiveness how it's been used and maybe begin discussions about taking recommendations on how we might expand it what are the other needs for helping move some of these priorities forward. a.d.u.s, seismic, we're providing funding for it might help. i like to do that in the future. >> any other commissioners? next item is 4b. [agenda item read]

>> president mccarthy: s how ave both those dates. 15th and 16th? >> i'm available. >> i may have a conflict on the 16th. 15th is open. >> timing on the joint meeting is in the morning. >> vice president walker: i have it down in the morning. 9:30. >> president mccarthy: i wasn't aware of the time. >> it supposed to be in the morning. i don't have a concrete time. >> vice president walker: morni.

>> we can discuss and finalize it before next month. >> president mccarthy: i guess for a particular time frame of the meeting will be allowed. one hour or two hours. >> i think they have their meeting starting at 1:00. >> any public comment on item 4a and b? seeing none. next item 5. [agenda item read] the next item

is a which is presentation by parties. they will have seven minutes to present their case. there will be public comment and then rebuttal three minutes each. department like to come forward? just a moment. you can stay there. i'll do the oath of office. all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you about to give is true and to the best of your knowledge?

>> good morning. i'm chiefly building inspector. we received a notification from the city agency regarding fire damage on this property. the concern was investigated. you can see on the package that i provided, we found out there was a property that had fire damage. the property was boarded up. we can see a portion of fire damage. inspector keene contacted the building department so we can provide proper assessment. there was no response from the owner or anybody at the property. in november 2017 there was

anonymous phone call. he contacted me and asked me if he can go and visit the site. i said yes. he noticed the building was demolished and there was a fence constructed the property. >> president mccarthy: you said demolished. there's nothing left? >> if you see in the package, there's a picture showing the time that we were there. 11/26/18. i have a couple of pictures where you can see it's empty. there's no more building. >> president mccarthy: okay. continue with your presentation. >> on january 24, 2018 the department building inspection

conducted conducted an inspection. where i submitted all my documentation. at that time, the ruling was it was considered unlawful demolition. which requires a 5-year moratorium or the owner to obtain a permit to put the building to its original condition. >> commissioner clinch: good presentation. it's helpful. in a situation like this where there's a fire, does the fire department reach out to the property owner or the tenants telling them what to do next? i don't know if you know that? >> no. usually when there's a fire, fire department will calls.

we have an emergency inspector on call. this time we didn't get notification from a fire. we got a response from city agency about displacement. somebody was living there. there was a fire. they sent us an email. they said there was somebody that was displaced. >> commissioner clinch: do you know how long after the fire you got that notice? >> it was couple of days. >> vice president walker: do we know if it was tenant or owner that was displaced? who was live if th -- living ine building? >> we did have contact with the person. he requested to be anonymous. >> vice president walker: it's not the owner? >> it wasn't the owner. i believe it was tenant. he requested to be anonymous. all responds was with emails and

phone calls. >> commissioner lee: on the rebuilding if there's a 5-year moratorium, does that mean no permit can be issued for any rebuilding or does it mean that they can only rebuild to the exact same size as was there? >> if you're not going to rebuild whatever was there, you will get 5-year moratorium on your lot. >> commissioner lee: you could rebuild what was there? you cannot build anything more than was there? >> yes. >> commissioner lee: thank you. >> president mccarthy: i think you should clarify that. >> there's no building permit what so ever for five years. >> that size of a home it could be any particular size.

lot different than what was on there before. that can go through the whole planning process. >> that lot would sit empty for five years. >> correct. >> that's the way the code is written and that is -- which is one of the debates we're having regarding the demolition policy. that's one thing we're looking at in the future. that is to the discretion of the director to make that call if he thinks it exceeded what was so. >> vice president walker: it's intended to be punitive. it's really to dissuade people. on some level if we don't -- >> president mccarthy: why don't we hear the case then we can get

into the details. do we have more questions for maurice? >> vice president walker: not at this point. >> president mccarthy: thank you. >> appellant like to come forward? >> president mccarthy: just for my fellow commissioners if we have questions regarding that you would like to see -- i guess the question here is, we're kind of on a very legal scenario. we're hearing a case and the appellant is asking us to reverse the decision made by the director. is that correct? >> i think we should hear what the appellant wants. they're contesting the 5-year moratorium. they are contesting the underlying