Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 23, 2015 5:00pm-5:31pm PST

5:00 pm
n conditions were met but not fwru i want to restate the mayors derivative that didn't apply to this building where a discretionary review and the planning department reviewed the permit and said it is issued appropriately and calling for public comment seeing none rebuttal, sir. >> thank you the position taken by deploying is of concern to me because of point raised on page 5 of any brief right at the bottom it talks footnote of the case quote
5:01 pm
healthy and safety section 980 subsection c to has having the following requirements in deciding whether to require the vacation of the building or repair the endorsement agency shall give preference to the repair of the building whatever feasible to do so without having to repair more than 75 percent of the dwelling again, if we have an illegal unit and i don't think that is contested and if it is required by state law that certain vblthd w be made before being destroyed and user lock too involved an illegal unit then where was that determination made?
5:02 pm
in terms if dbi is to make it says the law requires such a vblthd where is it i didn't see it in the reference earlier to the july 28th notice of violation that doesn't appear there either and this is part of the request for the judicial notice so if such a finding is required again where is the tenants opportunity to contest or ask or to bring in an expert i royals that didn't need to be done but if state law at least on the face of this requires it why isn't it being done? normally you'll think that local
5:03 pm
procedures must follow stating if they're in conflict their preempted thank you. >> council letter you indicated there's no brief. >> it was the garage there's no heat and kitchen sink in it. >> my question is, are there other issues related to life safety besides the quoted wiring there were a number of those have been taken care of of they have paint can understand on one side of the halfway adjacent to where mr. henry live will and double cylinder lock at emphasis boarding he didn't have the key
5:04 pm
in this case a fire at the front of garage he wouldn't have been able to capitalize the windows wouldn't allow egress that lock was taken out that concern was taken care of this you are talking about was such not red-tagged the imminent dangers or danger to tenant was not present but such a condition it amounted to column like conditions slum likeconditions. >> mr. duffy. >> i just want to respond to the comments from the gentleman about the dbis policy over the
5:05 pm
years the written notice of violation if there's. >> state law on the housing part of things i know from the department of building inspection point of view we don't are a record you have the choice to legalize or remove it in this case someone wanted to remove it so that building permit was written he'll and maybe that needs to be or go to the city attorney but i don't think anything has been done illegal and disrespect permits done and obviously with the housing short term and the mayor's office directive and permits to legal lies a dwelling
5:06 pm
unit they're given a a choice i think you all know that the classroom was filed by the tenant and at the time saying unsafe conditions in the garage another notice of violation is maybe he'll be losing his home it seems like inironic but this i thought i'd add about the state law i'm not versed but i don't see anything wrong from the dbi point of view at this point. >> actually i'd like to ask tour city attorney to comment not being an attorney i guess the appellants attorney stayed versus state law and local law. >> i'll not pretend to be an
5:07 pm
expert i'll need more time and yet looking at the law i'm not convinced that the state law applies to this situation on its face at least because the provisions that the attorneys are referring to refers to the vacation or demolition of the building and the law itself is actually talks about other places but not unit in terms of the demolition of a vacation it seem like effective alteration permit to take care of conditions in. >> building go is not a demolition permit in this calling for a demolition of a residential building the case that the earlier case talks about the relationship
5:08 pm
between the landlord and tenant makes it clear the red tagging of a residential unit does not make the right on the least that is an issue between the landlord and tenant not the issues of a permit to correct the situations relating to that unit i'm convinced the state housing law permits the issuance of a permit. >> okay sorry commissioners there is one more point i think that it's strange that the permit holder is not here based on the fact the permit is to comply with the notice of violation they need the permit didn't they don't comply with the notice of violation it will continue on the enforcement process as an order of abatement on the property or end up at the city
5:09 pm
attorney's office but they're not here to defend that they need to comply with the notice of violation that is strange i'm noting that. >> and commissioners you should know this case was originally heard to be scheduled in october you had to cancel the meeting and the discussion about when the item would return did include the permit holder he was involved in resetting this date matter is now submitted. >> commissioners. >> well, the i can see where the permit was probably properly issued question here was it completely fair in the sent that the property owner created a situation where they had a deal
5:10 pm
with the tenant to move him out of upper level and move him adopt into an illegal unit regardless of who filed the complaint, which triggered then the dbi's review and therefore the notice of violation the property owner has some responsibility and i would like to see two things can happen one is whether the dbi can issue a nov that's narrowly configured
5:11 pm
and i'd like call this to the call of the chair. >> i'll agree with the federal commissioners i'm not ready to uphold or deny the appeal there are other things that need to be looked prior to us making a decision and i believe commissioner fung's decision i'll agree with that. >> i mean, i'm ambient but not to the call of the chair where some sort of meeting of mind. >> no, i think we'll bind the tenant. >> this is strange that although the permit holder was involved in the rescheduling of this hearing they're not here
5:12 pm
nor a brief in our package this is the second case without a brief it makes it very difficult to make a decision. >> not sure with the indefinitely continuance i understand by the time given the non-performance, if you will with the permit holder tonight if we don't have it come back well, that's help or 4ir7bd the issue. >> if this is case is continued to the call of the chair but the life safety issues are addressed there's a period of tendency that can remain. >> okay. i think i understand where you're going. >> commissioner fung would you have any particular condition in
5:13 pm
mind at when point to return to the call of the chair which condition that will be continued. >> i better not get that far the appellant and his council could be aware this is not indefinitely but allows him to potentially make some reasonable plan. >> does the commissioner does your suggestion allow the property owner not to comply? to stall? >> no i believe he asked that life and safety issues be considered by the department of building inspection so there's a certain amount of compliance and hopeful that bridge will get a little bit closer. >> the other side is i'll probably not going to go towards
5:14 pm
the fact of legalization of the unit. >> oh, yes. >> inspector duffey. >> come to help us out >> you don't i have another question i don't know if i'm helping you out there of the more language on the notice of violation on this report the notice of violation is detailed good as one i've ever seen i'm not sure much more we can add there was language on the notice of violation i can put it on the overhead. >> overhead. >> just on the bottom of the notice of violation
5:15 pm
it the violations are as follows: those are monthly housing codes from the housing san francisco housing code improper occupancy at the fire materials and the lack of weather protection and life hazard and nuisance and inadequate exist and unthink proved wiring and separation of garage and egress pollution this is some of the things from the earlier notice of violation if we're happy to do another report at that future meeting but i want guidelines so i can get that back to housing inspection
5:16 pm
services the permit goes beyond the correction so what i'm trying to do is isolate those issues from the notice of violation that apply to life safety and allow that portions to continue. >> okay. we'll maybe be able to get more a better report on the actual conditions this person is living in if that would be something that will help you know - >> let's do that, too. >> just for my sake what are you envisioning the next step the burden on the dbi or the burden on the permit holder. >> the burden is on both but on the permit holder to go ahead and correct those things that we would allow to proceed as part
5:17 pm
of this permit he or she, of course can also can be and indicate their at the endcy if there's a girlish the permit holder can ask a case be removed from the to the call of the chair to put it on the docket. >> mr. duffy. >> sorry to interrupt you commissioners, i think that this gentleman may have information on what's happening with the building that may help us as well. >> please be brief. >> i learned this evening that the owner of the property may be trying to sell it that's the play go trying to sell the property he's given notice to the upstairs tenants they'll
5:18 pm
have to move out their till living with him and not subject to eviction they live in the same unit but that may explain why he's not here and why perhaps i don't know why he didn't give a brief. >> may i ask a question too everyone has a last name i assume they're related at this point. >> play go has testified in depositions their to the related. >> okay. thank you a pointed of clarification this permit is suspended no work allowed under that priority awhile it's at the to the call of the chair unless - you believe the department of building inspection can request that life safety issue be
5:19 pm
addressed. >> that's correct. >> through a new permit through to. >> they can allow a portion. >> a limited scope to allow public safety. >> you have something else to say. >> let's wait until the commissioner is back in the room. >> okay. go ahead mr. duffy. >> so i was just wanted to typically if their for example the property is for sale and new owner my experience the new owner will want to take care of of the violations on the property a lot of times this is
5:20 pm
overtaken by someone that point to do an edition but this is an extension of time probably the best to see what happens with the next because it may take care of itself. >> do you make a motion. >> okay. >> are we ready for another motion. >> i'll take a shot at it. >> all right. >> (laughter). i'm going to move that we continue this case to the call of the chair with the condition that the building inspection research further life safety issues and allow that portions of the work to continue based on their departmental authority
5:21 pm
>> okay. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to continue this matter to the call of the chair the boards indefinitely calendar the public hamburger has been held and this continuance to allow time force the dbi to examine life safety issues then deploying about allow that work as it relates to life safety to proceed from the suspended permit. >> okay. >> on that motion to to the call of the chair commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner honda commissioner wilson thank you
5:22 pm
the vote is 4 to zero this is continued to the call of the chair. >> thank you and with the presidents content item 8 we may find a similar situation one of the parties may not be in the room i'm going to call the appeal versus the department of building inspection the property at 3300 clay street protesting the issuance on october 2014 to original of american people alteration permit to comply with the don't guess of wall between the kitchen and living room area and the kitchen area to be part of the kitchen remodel of item six. >> i'm the permit holder. >> is there anyone here on better off of the appellant. >> of course not. >> so go ahead mr. henry. >> good evening, members the committee i guess this was a complaint by the form owner the
5:23 pm
knowledge or building it has a lot of issues losing his interest in the building i don't believe his complaint is has any merit i tried to outline in now short belief the work that was done in 23408 and in april 2014 there was another permit after that which is the subject of permit of this hearing and that permit was taken out in bans of caution we thought there was structural changes that effected the scope of the prior permits but after the building inspector came out with american people engineer i retained that was determined there's not a structure part of building effected structurally or low bearing walls
5:24 pm
so i tried to explain that in my brief brief. >> this. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. thank you mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe dewey dbi the building permit application under appeal foiled if 2014 with the issued with the contract on the 24th of 2014 it appears it is properly issued went to the mechanic and fire department plan check and got issued a revision for the other permits as you've heard it is a depiction of the wall between the kitchen and wall area and
5:25 pm
the chimney there was a couple of housing complaint that looked at has to do with maintenance issues and they - the description of complaint had to do with a tenant being harassed and stuff like this not dbi related issues when a housing inspector went out he noted inspectors issues but i i don't see anything wrong with the permit it is like some permits for working unit number 5 i'm assuming everything is in okay. from our end no building code issues so. >> actually, the appeal only talks about led paint and. >> yeah. and that could be dealt with when work is going on the folks can call the be number
5:26 pm
and we have the quality management for the asbestos owner. >> is the appellant living on that property. >> i don't know thank you is there any public comment? mr. san she is. >> commissioners the matter p is committed there's no air with issuance to the permit. >> you have a motion, sir. >> yeah. that was it deny the appeal on the basis the permits are co-compliant and issued properly. >> okay mr. pacheco. >> we have a motion from
5:27 pm
commissioner honda to uphold the permit on the basis it is code compliant and was issued properly. >> on that motion to uphold commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson thank you the vote is 4 to zero if it permit is upheld on that basis. >> we'll return to item 5 at 4121 that item has been called we'll start with mr. duffy begin to give a report back on his finding and this is the estrange it may we have not had this many non-parties show up i look at the caseload eetdz the amount of people in the audience i word does he come to the wrongs
5:28 pm
meeting. >> joe duffey the case at 2120 street it was directed that the permit holder look at the site no additional briefing we did that i've been out there there are issues with the permits i said that at the last hearing he saw a flurry of e-mails last week from both parties and the issued i believe the senior inspector bernie was out there he said they're working together since last week to resolve this at this point it maybe better to hear from both sides that maybe period of time and tyler definitely they need to get this figured out there were issues
5:29 pm
with the other property we did issue a notice of violation on december 22nd, 2014 the excavation at the basement and coupled with the soil has a structural failure and it is an unsafe condition and undermine the foundation under the direction of a geotech jerry as quickly as possible. >> there was some good movement (laughter). >> there was good movement maybe things stalled that's my feeling i think there was some progress made in the last week but certainly after the last hearing commissioner fung i've been concerned buyoutes evacuates in the garage you're
5:30 pm
right there were issues we did have the engineer was told that he needed to do better on the drawings there was an engineer on the from the neighbor and that was good but i believe that i think i'd like to hear from both sides and see where they are tonight. >> we'll start with the appellant 3 minutes. >> thank you so my name is tom i'm the neighbor on the uphill slide of the property the reason for the appeal it the excavation possessed to threat to the foundation of any house on the property line last friday 5 days ago any engineer monty was i


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on