today is wednesday, january, 15, 2020. this is a regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item is roll call. vice president lee here. alexander-tut here. clinch here. jacobo here. mccarthy here. moss here. tam here. >> we have a quorum. >> before we go further, i'd like to begin by welcoming three new commissioners.

president mccarthy, we'll do a more formal welcoming when we convene as the building inspection commission. we also sit as the abatement appeals board where we hear appeals to the department's decision on issuing orders of abatement. and we hold this prior to the meeting. okay, so back to you, sonya. >> okay. our next item is item b. the oath. all parties giving testimony before the board today, please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge. thank you. you may be seated.

our next item, item c, approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for meeting held on november 20, 2019. >> vice president lee: motion to approve? second? okay. >> we have a motion, is there a second? thank you. any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? any opposed? approved. our next item, item d, case number 6871, 3033 alemany boulevard. owner of record, kung kay chin. additional time to obtain a permit to resolve the violations. for the record, the way that the appeals work, the department presents their case first.

they have seven minutes and then the appellant presents their case. there will be public comment for three minutes each and then the department will have three minutes rebuttal and then the appellant. if you have any questions, please feel free to ask the fellow commissioners or city attorneys. department, come forward. >> good morning. i'm chief building inspector for code enforcement. the subject property on 3033 alemany boulevard is a two-story building with a single story level of garage. the use is single-family dwelling. on february 7, 2018, a complaint was filed with dbi concerning work without permit, illegal change of use and kitchen and bathroom remodel.

on february 8, it was assigned to complaint investigation team for vaerification. a note was left and the owners contacted the inspector to set up appointment. on february 13, inspector visited the site. the work was done, remodel of the kitchen on the second floor and installation of a kitchen on the ground floor. notice of violation was issued for the owner to obtain two permits. one for the remodel on the second floor. and for the kitchen on the ground floor pursuant to ordinance 43. on june 22, a permit was performed and found that the owner had partially complied with the notice, obtaining one of the notice, but there was no

inspection history for the permit. so the case was referred to code enforcement and hearing set up. on november 9, 2018, the case was put on hold for the process, so we gave time for the owner to go through the process. so on june 12, 2019, almost a year later, we reviewed the case and found that the notice of violation was still outstanding as the permit has not been issued yet. on july 16, an order of abatement was issued for the

hearing officer. 60 days to obtain a final permit. final inspection for both permits. and established condition to uphold the order of abatement. throughout the process, dbi has worked with the owner and given him enough time to correct the violations, including holding the case for almost a year based on that ordinance. >> so we're saying there hasn't been a final inspection? >> there hasn't been one inspection. no inspection. >> vice president lee: no inspection on item permits. has the permits expired? >> no, not yet. >> maybe i misunderstood, but reading the applicant's form, it sounds like they haven't received a permit because it's held up in planning.

>> actually the permit was issued and it was issued back in september of 2019. >> okay. so they have a permit -- >> they have two permits, one for the remodel on the second floor and one or the process. that gave them two options, remove the kitchen or legalize it. at this point, they haven't had any inspection at all on both permits. >> okay. thank you. >> the appellant, you can come forward. also, i need to submit the oath of office for you before you speak. >> prior to you speaking, i'm going to -- hello. hi. >> hi.

i'm -- >> excuse me, i don't want to interrupt you, do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge. >> yes. >> i'm can you think kay chin representing mary wong the owner. i want to make two points today for my appeal. first of all, the owner is not the one who did all those work. and secondly, we followed the instruction 2018 to resolve the problem. i asked the owner to -- they bought the house at 202 18 years ago and this was the announcement, the advertisement on the rental property that

there is a down stair. bathroom, things like that. that is not a major problem. the issue... i give you two copies. i have three copies. >> okay. >> the owner received the complaint so in 2018, may, we filed a permit. and on -- starting from the second sheet, i colored it yellow, so you can tell, on august 5, 2019, that's four months ago.

and i follow up with the planning. they have not even start doing it. >> if you would like, you can use our overhead. you can put it right here. just put it -- if you want to show something, put it right here. >> okay. >> then people can see it. >> yeah, okay. that was showing the advertisement at 2002 when they bought the property. this one tells about four months ago planning haven't even started the filing 2018. okay? so i followed up with them. and worked with them. and then the owner by that time is kind of tired, so they just

say, let's remove it, the kitchen down stairs. so on the same day, august 13, i revise the plan. so it shows revision, okay? so we just simply not going to legalize the unit, just remove the kitchen. and so that permit was taken out on september 23rd. and since then, we look for contractor to removing it. because in the san francisco construction business, red hot right now. hot for people. but we finally found them. and the work is continue on. and this is the job that shows work is progress and have been inspected and the inspector sign on the job card.

now we feel that all this time that the owner should not be fined, because she is doing what they tell you. 2018, we filed the permit, but the city is not moving on that. until four months ago when we receive notice, then i follow up and find out what happened. planning say they probably misplace or something. so i think it's not her fault to get the fine. okay. i think i finished my presentation. >> vice president lee: any questions. >> any public comment on this item? no public comment with the department like to do a rebuttal?

-- would the department like to do a rebuttal? >> so dbi understands the concerns and the process with legalize process and that's why we gave two options. and we also broke down the complaining to multiple violations, including one for the remodel upstairs, which we even work with the owner to pull a permit over the counter for the remodel upstairs. and in good faith, the owner could have showed they were doing the work upstairs and then we can hold the case as much as we've done so far. and flying to comply with the -- trying to comply with the legalization process and understand it's a lengthy process. we broke it down into multiple items, saying get a permit for upstairs and we'll work with you on the legalize process.

it's taken almost two years to do one inspection, plumbing inspection. >> so the order of abatement is for both upstairs and down stairs combined into one order? >> yes. >> the downstairs, so it sounds like the property owner is no longer proceeding to legalize the downstairs, is that correct? is that your understanding, they pulled the permit to just remove the kitchen? >> yes. yes. and like i said, the way we wrote the notice of violation, we did permit research and we understand the rooms are legal. the bathroom. we have a 1977 permit. that's why we focused on the kitchen itself. >> does removing the kitchen downstairs require planning's review? >> yes.

>> it does? >> yes. >> through the chair, so we acknowledge that they can't remove the kitchen -- did the planning approve the removal of the kitchen? >> yes. >> they did. okay, so why are we still then equating the violation on the lower level and asking for fees? >> because it would have been unfair to where two notices of violation and have two orders of abatement. we felt one notice of violation, giving them the opportunity to pull two permits, one for upstairs and the other legalizing it as a unit. >> or removing it? >> yeah. >> they made every effort to legalize it? okay.

and then rather than slow the process down further they took the step of saying, okay, we're not going through this, let's remove it and get the permit issued, right? >> yeah. >> that seems to be compliant, right? >> i'm still having -- >> i know. >> i'm having trouble why this is in front of us. i understand the top half. i do get that part. but if you -- if it's in front of us as one, we're trying to be fair about this, because there -- we asked for why you didn't perform. and they've given us pretty much what we've been hearing a lot, we've done everything we can, but because of certain departments having to take different time frames, they don't gel. so why -- why? >> we understand that, the problem is even going back to

2018, in good faith we worked with the owner to pull an over-the-counter permit for the kitchen remodel. we expected the owner to get inspections for that remodel that happened without a permit. we couldn't find any inspections on the upstairs. instead of the owner saying it's taking a long time to legalize or go through the process with planning, yet this was issued in 2018 for a complaint. which we have to follow our protocol and process, and say we're going to help you -- >> but inspector, you're making the assumption that, you know, there is going to be two different jobs. they're going to have to get two different contractors, break the job up. why -- why? >> not at all, it's the same contractor can correct the work. >> you start one job, i get that. and you're trying do it all in one job. you have a right to do that.

and for us to make the assumption, well we'd like you to split the job up because it's convenient for us, that's not fair. >> commissioner, we never told them to split it up. we allowed them if they wanted to do that. we've been here for 19 months. it's a simple job to legalize the kitchen upstairs that was remodelled without a permit. we could do that easily in a few days. downstairs they've elected to remove the kitchen, which is a small simple job. we waited for 19 months. >> agreed, but if i'm approaching this job -- >> and they have the permits to do it >> i'm not arguing that point, deputy director, but i'm trying to put myself in the stakeholder's -- if i'm going to do the job, i'm going to do it one time. unfortunately, we're part of the permit process here that has other departments that have to weigh in on it. >> not anymore. >> not anymore, i agree.

but -- >> since september 23rd, they've had a permit to do both jobs. >> and they are working on it. it's in motion. the kitchen is being removed. whether he think it's slow or fast, but it is being done. i'm having trouble why, you know, we're here on this one. i really do. the boxes to tick for me, are they being progressive and working and trying to do what they're supposed to be doing. i get it took 18 months, but, unfortunately, unfortunately, planning department didn't get back to them. >> we did understand that process and that's why if you look at the whole description, this goes back to 2018. we gave 12 months for them to go through that process, to legalize the unit, but at the same time we allowed them -- we gave them the opportunity to say you want to break it down into two projects, remodel, show start worked on inspections,

then we have justification to hold the case as much as we can, because at the end, we have to understand this complaint is not triggered by the department, it's triggered by the public. so i have to -- we have to have some notice saying, yes, the owner is working on legalizing everything. the owner has obtained a permit and is going through the inspection for the kitchen model upstairs. >> there is no life safety issue here, is there? >> as a matter of fact, the kitchen remodel was done without any inspection. so gas inspection, electrical inspections, so i mean, we could -- prefer not to be here. myself, i would prefer not to be here, but you know, i understand he's got one inspection so far. this year. we want at least one inspection after he got the over-the-counter permit, to say, here's my contractor. it was 2018 when this whole matter started. one inspection, two inspections,

saying we're going to open up the walls, take a look at the electrical and then sign off and we have justification to hold off the case and not send it to director. >> isn't it correct the permits are still active? they haven't expired, right? do you know when they expire? >> this permit expires. >> september 23, 2020. >> so i mean, legally, they can wait still to get their inspection, right? i mean, because the permit hasn't expired yet. >> but under the notice of violation, you have requirement to comply with the notice within a certain month of town. in good faith we allowed the owner to work through the permit process, but you have to work with the time line of the notice of violation. >> you're telling us that the notice of violation requirements trump the permit?

>> the notice of violation precedes that permit in question, unless in good faith they're working with us and saying we're getting inspections every month, or every three months, then, yes, we can work with them without going through a hearing. >> the hang-up is the inspection? >> yeah. >> and they put down a piece of paper saying there wasn't inspection? >> there was an inspection this year, plumbing. a few weeks ago. >> are there tenants living in the building? >> when we do inspections for newer units we don't try to ask those type of questions. we know there is somebody living there, but we didn't ask if they're tenants or family members.

>> does the appellant have rebuttal? >> first of all, the lady don't speak english, so there may be some misunderstanding for her. that's one issue. two her, it's one problem. she's having contractor right now to do the work. so we found out it was upstairs problem, but we didn't have the same contractors handle both case. again, when she bought the building, those two upstairs and downstairs were like that already. and then she live in there. to her, they haven't done any work. so anyway, that's all i need to say.

but we're working to try to get the whole thing resolved. and we'll have the same contractor, plumber, look at upstairs, too, the kitchen upstairs, which she hasn't done any work on that one. okay? >> i have a question. i have a question. the issue with the department is the inspections. so how much -- i mean, you requested more time? so when do you think you can start scheduling the inspection with the department? >> well, judging the work right now, because they're not building, they're removing things. so maybe one month? >> how much? >> one month, four weeks? >> one month. >> and then probably we close up the whole case. >> one month.

okay. thank you. >> any more questions? commissioners, it's in our hands. >> motion to extend? i guess. >> yep, i would be supportive. >> i don't know how the other fellow commissioners feel to extend it out another month. i'm certainly not supportive of the fees that have been accrued to be collected. i feel i would deny that based on the history of this permit. >> i move a motion for that. >> please. >> this is for commissioner walker, she was so good at making motions. you've been duly appointed at the new motion-maker. [laughter] i make the motion to hold the order of abatement in abeyance for one month.

and waive all fees? >> in order to -- we're not talking about fees, we're talking about the assessment of the department's cost for investigation of this case. and that the board would need to find that the department committed substantial error in accruing those fees, which i think in the packet, they're $1300. is there evidence before the board that the department committed substantial error in the assessment of costs? >> their permits are still good until september, correct? >> yep. >> so... >> so what is in front of us is to waive the fee, but the city attorney is for us to deny collecting of the assessment of costs

costs, the department would have had to do something wrong. obviously, they've done nothing wrong, but at what point when you have a situation where it's clearly not the permit-holder's fault as to why that $1300 was accrued and based on the presentation here today, what options are then in resolving that? i'm not putting any blame on the department. they were doing their job. they have guidelines to follow. so what are the options there of releasing that fee, or the assessment of costs? >> the code provides that the board would need to find substantial error. the department may have the ability to waive the fees on its own? i'm not sure about that. >> for the sake of moving forward, i still move that we

postpone -- extend the abatement for a month. and ask the department to look into waiving the fees. >> second. uphold the order of abatement and hold in abeyance for 30 days and hold the assessment of cost. >> do a roll call vote on the vogues? -- motion? vice president lee yes. alexander-tut yes. clinch yes. jacobo yes. mccarthy yes. moss yes. tam yes. the motion carries unanimously. >> we're all in agreement. good start.

[laughter] how long is that going to last? >> okay. next item is item e, general public comment. is there any general public comment for the items that are not on the abatement appeals board agenda? seeing none, item f, adjournment. is there a motion? >> so moved. >> all commissioners in favor? okay, we are now adjourned. it is 9:39 a.m. we'll take a recess until 10 a.m. and then reconvene as the building inspection commission.

good morning. today is wednesday, january 15, 2020. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like it remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item, roll call. president here. alexander-tut here. clinch here. jacobo here. lee here. moss here. tam here.