tv Abatement Appeals Board 12016 SFGTV January 23, 2016 8:00am-9:21am PST
tuesday, september 22, 2015. this is the regular meeting of the san francisco health service board at this time, members of the public may address the commission the first item on the agenda is roll call commissioner mar commissioner clinch commissioner mccarthy sxhons o commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner mccray commissioner walker we have quorum the next item is item b the oath will all parties give testimony today please stand please raise your right hand you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give
will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? to the best of your knowledge 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 october 21st, 2015, and november 18, 2015, is there a motion? >> second. >> missouri. >> any public comment on the minutes okay. seeing none all commission in favor any opposed the minutes are approved item d new appeals for the directors decision case eureka street. >> commissioners president please be advised that mr. commissioner cranshaw has decided to withdraw her appeal
we'll not hear that today. >> okay. >> is there that by public hear to speak on that item? okay. thank you item e case 3876 over and over egg street owner of record and appellant hillary action requested by appellant the appellant claims no violation is there >> dbi staff. >> okay. >> come on up please. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> good morning. >> commissioners joe duffy
senior building inspector and acting chief in the absence of patrick rear done i want to present the the case here that is before you the appeal and it is regarding complaint number 20134011 we received a complaint and 18 of september 2013 for the rear use of the rear lot and the business can't use the common space area that was on 18 of september 2013 i'm showing a notice of violation issued been the 19 of september, 2013 that notice of violation a complaint regarding an unpermitted use at rear portion of lot two storage
sheriff's office snuffed at rear driveway and exit basement across go to the order of abatement all attached as part of approved application overwhelms cpu executive branch for egress slash ingress slash e degree and the emergency egress for the purposes and as for that purpose that was a filed permit within 14 years to obtain the permit and complete all work between 45 days of unpermit use of easement remove on and on urban permitted storage sheds on the second notice of
violation was issued it preceded then to a directors hearing order of abatement issued and it is brought us to this point at the abatement people's palace a position of department would be the notice of violation was properly investigated and the complaint was investigated on the notice of violation was properly issued that was based on the fact on the notice of violation it references a building permit and in fact, there reason 3 brimentsz for 3 buildings here and this the plans clearly showed if i could get the overhead hopefully, we'll, see this this area here behind the
buildings these are the buildings on the front the 1, 2, 3 up the rear it states driveway and exit easement the easement in my opinion and from reading the easements goes from 46 after the building at the corner of negotiating egg and the easement from 46 avenue to the property at 3824 norega. >> we'd like to see some photos here
overhead again, please. >> there it is just on the past plans it shows if 46 avenue towards the end of the easement two sheds that were placed that that's the reason we wrote the notice of violation the building permit at the time the buildings got issued the permits were issued they were approved and issued and constructed a cf c we signed off on the per the approved plans whether we get a complaint just like anything it changes to a building we previously approved we see something different from the approved plans we can issue a notice of violation and that's what we done in this case there were actually, it is a
condo with 3 residential unit a commercial unit on the ground floor at the time, we issued 4 notice of violations but with condo building not unusual sometimes, we do that those the 3 other notice of violations were substantially abated it was clear from the the case it the sheds belonged to the commercial occupant on the ground floor i believe it is a successful i went there myself i like it is protrude clear that is where the sheds belong too a building operation and filed
to document the placement of two shortage sheds and the impedes the status of easement to abate it that will building permit someone - sorry the dbi and applied for a before this time the briments i'd like to show you on the overhe can - this is the tracking system in dbi as you can see that we have the application number up here i highlighted a formulate it an over-the-counter permit application if you come into dbi and fill out a permit application you start the
process of going through the department to get our permit you have the application and the address and the dates here it is 4 then if you go down below you'll see at the 4 different stations the presented and other buildings so the permit bureau you'll finish up and pay for our permit be in this case this permit was gone through the fire department and it arrived on the first of november, 2013 that was approved by fire inspector and after that we have no action the permit applicant has the documents they leave dbi and maybe have something else to do that day and no further action on it
sorry overhead again that building permit the information if our system was that it was the permit application was filed by the owner and then it was hillary i hope i pronounce that right an address and a phone number, etc. this is typical for someone applied for a permit but explicit follow-up that permit issued and signed off will abate the notice of violation so i probable have more to say at this point if any of the commissioners have any questions i'll try to answer i'm not a legal expert but the city attorney is here we met point city attorney yesterday not bradley but he reviewed it as well yesterday to i'll try to answer the questions answers to what i got yesterday and may
defer to you our city attorney. >> commission. >> clarification and we will direct most of questions the permit that was issued did it give any description for the easement requirement for the building permit the original building permit. >> i actually have done thirty pages of the plan on the back pages the easement is on the drawings did easement all the time is on the drawings a document potential four or five pages i read it a couple of times and read it again lastly it has 1, 2, 3, 4, 4, 6, 7 maybe about 9 pages that is typical for the easement agreement those - i'll imagine on the 30 sets of plans didn't print that but
printed want easement agreement is on the back of drawings the easement says spencer sam nonetheless and stacey stuttering samously and tom dbi the division manager that was done it happened around 3 slash 12 and 2002 and finally the city deputy attorney so i can put that on the overhead commissioner mccarthy so we have all the signatures again a lot of language in there about the easement and what that means from the city attorney yesterday just one part of it here if i
bear with me so this is one of the late pages in the easement agreement it referenced a hatched area as the easement agreement this again going back to the previous paragraphs and the 3 plans that hatched area is the driveway that goes to 46 avenue to 33824 the document referenced the hatched area he read it not an attorney but imagine that is what it means the sheds appear to be located at the rear portion of that and again, it is i'm sure the sheds were put there for the valid reason no spaces inside the san francisco
we deal with property lines they're not enough room to do things maybe that's why it was put there it changes what was previously approved when they issued a permit at dbi and as i said it off that requires a modifications to change another building permit to include an easement all the time has to be modified and modifying and changing it it runs with the land as well the easement again, i got an education in easements i can tell you. >> commissioner walker. >> you answered one of my questions partially will the process necessary to amend the easement i think that it has to go through that process for any use contrary to what is in the language as required
so that has not been done i understand in our last reading of this the last hearing we asked that all parties because there was an issue of who put each the shacks they have we properly issued a notice of violations to all parties responsible for both sheriff's office one shed is the restaurant and something else have we resolved that issue. >> i believe the nov referenced the two sheds and then the owner who i believe is the person here today appealing this the bakery applied to be the building permit if something else owns that shed i'm not sure. i don't know to be honest did you when we write up condo buildings if you come home and
live in a condo and wrote up for 4 noirgsz a post 4 ethics commission for two sheds those sheds are not going to do what you've said you'll come to dbi and say this is not me i don't know if that happened i presume because the permit was applied for for the two sheds i assume this will be representative of the building application. >> there was an issue we brought that specifically to make sure everything was - everyone that needs to be notified would be notified so i want to know from someone that happened. >> and in regards to. >> from the testimony at the last hearing the bakery owner stated that one shed was theirs the other holding the garbage
was for the condo that's my recollection of what we're addressing to so we wanted to make sure that everyone involved that the sheds have been notified a notice of violation issued to whoever needs needs to get. >> i'll answer that by saying the person on the barky applied for the building permit to legalize those two sheds. >> okay. now maybe small business something changed after that we issued 4 notice of violations to each of the owners in that building substantially they were abated 3 were abated so you know. >> only because we determined they're not responsible or - >> i believe that was the case that maybe the wrong address once we zoned in i thought that was 64 the notice of violation
did apply to that as i said sometimes, we do the condo buildings the front of the buildings are tough if you work with a common area so we have to try to get a lot for a common area and maybe just an easement but we use our discretion when we're dealing with those things when i looked at this i did see notice of violation issued for two sheds. >> right. >> clear it is the bakery business and the owner came in and filed a building permit. >> we'll get clarification from them. >> exactly, exactly and if we found someone write someone else our the r up are for the shed that is i mean whenever the building inspector was out there he does his investigation. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioner konstin did you have something.
>> i want to know who the other shed belongs to. >> i'm confused my recollection of the last time we saw this case was slightly different which was i understood the contention the planning code allows for one shed for one structure less than one hundred square feet not two i understood that was the departments position so if we have only the one shed that belongs upstairs it was the bakery shed that was the second structure but also, because that was what the problem was to the neighbors so did i get that wrong. >> there's the issue it's on the easement. >> yeah. yeah, of course. >> i was asked the question the last meeting of the two sheds and i took the building code allows one shed.
>> 10 by 10, however, this was placed on an easement and depending on the building inspection the easement states no use other than egress and . >> as well as that my interpretation of that code section exempts not applying to the commercial occupants regarding ada stuff like this our plans anything done we need the proper travel and details so i'm not saying people don't do it but if you come down to dbi you have work to do we'll recur instruct you to get and set of drawings that's first in my mind. >> thank you. >> we will here. >> we'll hear from the
appellant now. >> good morning good morning. >> hi. >> okay so that gentleman said that the building is that they came out and investigated the compliment we're here because of the notice of violation of the easement that's where we are we're issued a notice of violation on the easement claims that was investigated one shed san francisco mind i'm certain mile neighbors that started this ball rolling said this was not well, very good the document the brimd didn't read the notice of violation for the document they've never read i came to city hall and saw the documents i gave them to the building inspection after 3 notices were issued they have my handwritten
notes this was not investigated they especially\find out i was issued a violation for something they hadn't read one of the sheds is mine and one holds the bakery garbage i think that i understand my neighbors are unhappy about the sheds i don't think this violates the easement fighting during the process the sheds don't violate the easement, however, i think that maybe this is not the right venue needs some sort of it seems to me some sort of global resolution you know the health department said i can't keep them inside the building inspection said i can't keep them inside i
understand why you know is it so differentiation i should slowing close a business with 20 local employees with a community business i have no where to put my garbage cans i don't know if this commission it the right authority we end up here because of the global issues we're limited to arguing that was not well researched and fundamental problems that gentleman said a lot of language ann that's an understatement the thick legal document that was poorly written and easy for me in supreme court to argue how it is written not a well written document i actually asked the people to be here hoping they can give a global
overview i don't know if this venue is the right solution and quite frankly going to the department of building inspection they said, if any. i violate an easement they can't give me a permit in order to change it signatures of everyone in the 12 unit and when i was at building inspection they said we can't give you a permit of dbi gives a permit for my shed is okay. that's not why we're here it's for an easement so i guess. i don't know what anyone can do but the planning department staff was brought up with the signature and none wants to going to court we had a meeting with with the neighbors their line was you know the sheds go and that's it
so we didn't have much wiggle room there i don't know what to do i guess so i don't have any place to pit u puts my garbage i don't believe i'm violating the easement. >> commissioner walker. >> so just to clarify because it was brought up about the ownership 0 that you have one shed. >> one of the two the residential unit share another and the neighbors are complaining are the same. >> just - any other questions? does the did not have a
>> you wouldn't have been able to build the buildings without the easement those sheds are clearly in that area it is clear what we with the the ownership of the sheds again, i would go back to the permit that was filed it was filed for both of them the owner of the business represented that i don't know who is maybe hyde that owns the shed we wrote it up for the two sheds and the business owner they applied for the permit. >> commissioner walker. >> yes. i mean, i don't mean to you know keep harding park but it seems there a problem around the ownership of the other one i feel in issues of the retaining wall where we have
to notify everyone i mean he feel that i mean, i feel liquor the easement is there i agree with the department on this but i have a concern we're taking on action against one person that is not responsible for both of the sheds so i think that i know there was brought up at the last meeting we need to make sure that everyone that is responsible is here i feel like there is a process for amending the easement and that since both parties use it, it is the opportunity to bring them together i mean, if the one shed is for the people living there that have exclaimed about 9
second she had the problem we don't have everyone involved in the process here i mean, i know your shrugging but we did this last time. >> sxhaushgs egress is an important part of code and those two sheds are in the easement you've been here for 3 years i simple emphasize with the owners. >> why we didn't seem to do the necessary investigation to see who put that other than there she said she didn't do it is hard to take an action if both parties are not here. >> i don't know why the parties are not here there are 4 condos. >> we didn't issue the notice of violation on the first thing so that's y what we talked at the last hearing and okay.
>> anyone else have anything commissioner mccarthy. >> just a president of the clarification are we're going to hear if the homeowners. >> during public comment. >> so we will revisit and come back. >> i think so. >> i'll be interested in kind of with commissioner walker to the bottom of second shed. >> not literally. >> as and remember it you know again my recollection maybe iconic wrote i remember not the neighbors directly above the bakery that second shed belongs to but the folks in the two buildings that have an easement who if i remember complained but know the smell of the garbage so we'll hear from them i do have a question for the i'm sorry this is for the city
attorney i know you met with her before the meeting you referenced during our testimony that the easement the position of the department the easement needs to be changed before a permit can be issued i'm wondering who has the authority to if you also said the easement runs with the land a prerequisite so how can the easement to be changed who's the authority back to court or run through the loaned would that will the planning department. >> i met with the city attorney to change the terms of easement it is legal process i imagine and language in hear about that and modification or revocation this may not be terminated without the written content of the owners of the lot and the modification revocation
or termination shall not be effective until the director gives content for the written notice from the orientals of each lot and each revocation or termination executed sth shall be recorded in the official records of city the folks are the dbi so. >> i understand so then correct me if i am wrong what that says one of the department is taking the responsibility for an easement agreement that was entered in by private parties making it one with the land. >> my understanding of the easement that it was required in conjunction with the issuance the building permit and the city is the beneficiary of that all the time and signed off and that section that was read section 7 is the modification of
revocation section. >> i'll say in any experience if this is regarding the egress that is a possibility that the sheds i'll get the egress a mention of a 0 driveway and ingress but not a building code certainly the egress was there and the firefighters and stuff like this as well but if you modify it i'm sure you can modify it and requires a building easement balls dbi was involved loads of easements we have no involvement in the easements all the time it is a lot on new buildings i find because the property line you wouldn't be able to build the first couple of buildings you obviously to egress the 20 two, that are up there you have to go
over someone's property line. >> yes. and mr. duffy. >> so the easement changing of the easement would that involve all the condo owners on all 3 lots. >> city attorney i'm sorry i don't know. >> the modification section references that all the signatures will be required to sign again so the parcels and condo owners i believe. >> more than the signers. >> 12 parties and that would have to be approved on all 12 before the brichlt signatures. >> you have not yielded researched that but reading the language it appears that would be required. >> we're not part of drafting staff for the modification part are we.
>> the city attorney's office would. >> if it is signed by the department director the original easement agreement was signed by the department director i'm sorry commissioner walker. >> it probable would have to go to the process and come back to us with an amended easement that will allow for this permit to be. >> correct. >> to be applied for . >> at the time when the first easement was created the same owner built the 3 buildings sam. >> and the dbi were involved and the city attorney's office so those 3 parties i imagine will be involved in the changing the easement >> what you're saying - at least approve it. >> yes. >> we comply with the requirement and then what is attached with the department look at it an application for the shed they have the ability to process it.
>> like regular read into the record for the easement and on the approved plans so on all 3 plans the same except modify it show a couple of sheds so is it fair to say that the permit applicant is the one to issue the changes. >> there was comments no, not the abatement board but 9 process and appeal to some other planning commission arrest maybe others other entities involved you could i mean nothing anyone if have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the but she was told at dbi she couldn't nothing in the details that may have happened and the conversation but at that point your permit will be denied and then an appeal of denial and stuff maybe because mainly about
an easement probably a legal part but you certainly when anyone that politics for a building permit we say you can't have it you can get a denial and ask for that for you know denial of perusal from the planning department and maybe i see that all the time that's an avenue because it is tough for the abatement appeals board to simply obvious why the sheds are there it's a business and people are working maybe that is better served with a building permit application for an appeal to the commission maybe the board of appeals maybe or something the planning commission. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> reliable for the - and rebuttal for the appellant?
>> again my argument is that i'm not in violation of the easement i agree the easement exists, however, we didn't have time to read the document but attached in the if you have time - you might want to look at it it says the easement is for ingress and egress we're not in violation i think the easement over our rear yard even should i be wrong in that we're not violating the easement polk only for egress and ingress you saw in the photos several times sheds don't get in anyone else's way and the eastbound can exit and going get into their garage thank you.
>> public comment on members of the public you have 3 minutes for. >> may i have the overhead. >> we're going to talk about a few documents the easement exits. >> i'm sorry. i'll introduce myself i own one of the condo units i don't have that 80 want that to go on any 3 minutes the dbi existed in order to grant the entitlements they should include you know those are the easements and down here is the description of what those documents the easement are simple lot 43 request access to 44 and 45 why is that why 43 needs a access they're by the street no. much
thing as their lot and our lot it is owned by all 3 associations it is shared says that the common area, no much thing as this shed sits on our land it is not the process the process is if you wanted to change the decker i this is the restrictions on the easement then there's a process you call a meeting for all 12 owners you present something and have the dbi and have the dbi agree with it you're good to go that's not the process that was followed only have a truck dump the two sheds we don't know who owns them if you're you're going to take away one keyword the recreation the easements don't have restrictions and this is where here's the verbiage from the decker i brings the exacts
same terminology and one for 43044 lot 54 and move on to 45 the same terminal that is where the sheds are to all 3 parcels each one is egress and ingress is image purposes matt haney that not purposes n - hatched area we've seen that this diagram is interesting it is exhibit e it says this is purposing for the purpose of showing you what we're talking about this not the easement itself don't use the diagram of the easement it only
descriptions this and oh, any 3 minutes. >> thirty sakes there's a lot all of it comes to the same thing you can't singularly answer that if we take away something in the meeting not our area and land not my space is it so not blocking no one that's not relevant so if we take something uaw let's focus on all the parties coming together and change the agreement the deck as required but not the single land to accept the presence of the sheds. >> hold on do you have a question commissioner mccarthy. >> it's your testimony you don't know who owns others
second shed. >> you don't know i don't need to know who owns the second shed i see it in 0 the common space doesn't need to be there. >> do you know who in the homeowners association occupies the second shed we're under oath. >> i know that is the homeowners association of lot 55 i don't know need to know the specific - the owners of the association is the association that covers that so would individual can't speak for themselves they're the representative if someone uses that shed. >> you don't y i think you're done a good job of laying out the easement i'll want to know you don't know who owns or uses that shed and i've observed folks assessing and people
employees of the barky don't live in that location let's not talk about the secondary shed i may have seen folks assessing do you know you're asking me what i know, i know that the owners association. >> not not in this case and the land is owned by the association. >> it you just it is what the commission a few of the commissioners are asking who owns that but obviously a straight answer you know who owns it but not going to reveal. >> i don't know who owns right door versus left door on your comments. >> any public comment? >> come on up please get in line and whoever wants to
share. >> anyone can come to the promenade you have 3 minutes. >> good morning. >> whaurm i'm an owner of the 38 marie street i am concerned about the sheds and there are two sheds and the sheds that use not for tools not for anything just for garbage that is shoring garbage and taking garbage away it creates a lot problems for all of us the sheds is too close to the
building just the distance between shed and the building is 3 feet and 6 inches as the porch is 4 inches - 4 inches this is you can see on the pictures part of shed is on the approach those this sheds didn't in the case of earthquake can collapse and if collapse they you can get in and out of the building there is a door and i believe that the sheds is located in the irrigation of the building in case of fire you can
be trapped over there the i do my homework he found that if general if you have two sheds the distance should be 10 feet those two sheds no distance at all they're built around the wall and the distance between walls and fence just two feet and should be 3 or more feet the rear of the sheds is tied to the next building and i see in the case of fire i will be concerned about fire resistance of those plastic sheds the sheds overloaded smells
traps the animals and i have video of one unit i, show you what is going on with the sheds the sheds don't connect to the sewer system and while the sheriff's office are a waste of water to our driveway. >> okay. thank you very much. >> this can be a source of infection. >> thank you, thank you. >> okay i think your time is up. >> thank you very much. >> you've already used up the time loaded thanallotted thank
>> yeah. >> good morning good morning hi my name is cigarette butt sam. >> i was involved in the development of all that buildings i own one of the buildings so i'm speaking for all lot 43 >> lot 43. >> yes. >>5 >> 4 43. >> yes.5 >> 43. >> yes.5 >> so. >> a recuse she's known that i've communicated she wanted to represent any commercial space thank you where you provided with a
definition of list we made for my definitions up for you, we know what we're talking about the fanned was explained easements that provided for ingress and egress whatever you want with no restrictions the owners didn't restrict the department of building inspection in order to get the entitlements required restrictions to the easements of those 17 restrictions number 11 specifically denied any use for the rear yards which were to the residential unit only they wanted actually not to have the xherlt spaces planning wanted the commercial space to residential units need the rear
yard furthermore not one of the owners can remove their kitchens that's against the law similarly they can't give a license to an owner of a commercial unit to use the rear yard without all 12 owners and the head of department of building inspection approving as an item whatever item it is in the declaration furthermore attorney draft all the cc&rs for all buildings based on that decker i so all the units all the ones have restrictions and number 55 is not changed their cc&rs they're in vision violation of our own
association with regards to your question it is my understanding from the person dribble the man nominated everett as hillary an attorney is the owner of the second shed. >> thank you, sam. >> >> >> commissioner walker. >> thank you since you were there in the beginning so the easeme easement. >> planning approved the plans without restriction to the easement we previously in february of 2002 granted deed of easements a
deed of easements means they want i'm on the western part in order to build the two lots neither the right to cross my lands i gave that to them i have rights to their lands that is recipient. >> commissioner mccarthy had another question. >> the - the people you 34e7kz who are the users of the second shed in questions are they living in the condominium. >> yes. >> what is that. >> 3868 is my belief because the previous person again, they don't have anything from over grant you must know given your position the o a owns the lands
the individuals own a percentage of the area and have no permission asked for it and not submitted it the o a as given to us no document. >> that's fine and thank you just are they here today those people that have the second shed that use the second shed. >> his name is i have that everett - i don't have his last name. >> chief administrative officer no way has he opposed with they're allowing with the other people in the hoa. >> he came to the meeting we have a letter talking about his problems and those arguments i'll submit that letter and give it to you that would be helpful we take it no position.
>> his position is that with an easement his idea is it is not reciprocal easement only for 46 avenue that is again, a superbus argument it is for egging regress and enregress restrictions only to the point they're not blocking the ingress and egress and a question is the easement the the feet as stated in the document is it just what we need for ingress and egress. >> i appreciate your comments thank you. >> thank you, mr. samuel's. >> i'll get it auto r out of the way i don't want to hold up
to this declaration and signed by the department of building inspection and the city has the authority to enforce it the declaration as stated created the condition to get the plans approved for the building and can't be changed and alternated without the approval of every owner not just hoa but every owner the condominium and have the approval of the city i can't speak to that process would involve it can - so the declaration as stated creates an easement a recipient easement for ingress and egress for no other purposes the declaration also explicitly prohibits commercial use of the easement this is in photographer
11 declaration it is clear not only they're in violation of the easement for its sole purpose of ingress and egress and solely for the barky for commercial use we can be simple authentic to the barkers not having anywhere to put their trash but not forced on the neighbors the neighbors shouldn't have to share th burn sxhaushgs raised the issue of whether or not this board can came back action i believe the board can take action on one shed there is a clear violation the barky owner buildings there
no at&t not a violation when we had the meeting everyone was present the easement stated clearly what is permitted the sheds are not permitted so the trash is not permitted i asked both barky owner and mr. cavnof to provide authority give me some support they haven't appraised anything if you do the legal research the easement is describes the entire area it is only purchase purpose for the city - and lastly the barkers said this is the wrong venue she'd like it elsewhere you know a global full time maybe something to deal with in the future but right now, we're hear here on the notice of violation so the board has to address it
we request the board accept the staff recommendation and uphold the abatement. >> thank you i'm sorry a question. >> are you the attorney. >> yes, sir. >> anyone else with public school testimony come on up please. good morning. >> my name is maggie and speak into the mike thank you my name is maggie i live in with any husband i want to respond to hillary's argument she didn't have any space for her place for garbage resaw from ecology a
flexible surface to remove the garbage i don't believe the sheds needs to be there i believe that the shed is their total response tato and no one else please come on up. >> good morning. >> good morning owner of 3878 marie street all to present everyone your risk in you're beautiful neighborhood and the as you can see this one i'll show on our vid
something to say okay. >> is there any additional public comment? >> public comment is closed. commissioners deliberations or you done. >> yes. commissioner walker. >> i feel like the law in this is pretty clear about the easement and the restrictions necessary and the process by which people are to see that i'm leon towards upholding the suggestions of staff and upholding this abatement i think that i mean, i live in an area we're right next door to different uses we have situations where people put their dumpsters on the sidewalk and all the smells and potential health hazards on the sidewalk
where people walk we we've tried to resolve that with other issues i think that nicole it is clear no space to put garbage storage and it there maybe other solutions we need encourage the process to be carried forward as it put in the lean? the easement language so, i mean i'll make a motion to uphold the recommendations of staff uphold the order of abatement remove the sheds and go forward with the process of getting local approval. >> to amend the easement and do whatever storage they require. >> okay. any commissioners? >> commissioner mccarthy.
>> yes. i'm curious to i'll see what my fellow commissioners have to say i think that is obvious from the last testimony i will kind of lean towards hopefully commissioner walker mentioned the fact the hoa and everyone kind of somehow come together i felt strongly at the start and talked about with staff i thought that was a health matter and so and so, i wanted to point out i'm relieved that the mr. duffy is here to present this to us i know he does his research and experienced in those things he did is for the board of appeals this is a legal area that deals with those types of situations we have great recommendation from the department i'm getting clearer and clearer where i stand on this i'm supportive of the lady trying to figure this out i thought your comments were
honest and straightforward main this is not the right venue i'm not sure this is the right venue to go ahead a complete resolution i think that mr. duffy alluded to what your options are even though you can't go there no more than i can you have the planning and the board of appeals i think the body it is best to address this and see if there could be some adjustments made to carry out to our business and i seen many cases they have the power to do that what is clear now a legal problem we are tied into the easement i wasn't aware of that before but to commissioner walker's comments that is kind of the game ender for me i'll big deal be upholding the
departments decision i have a few quick questions we know mr. duffy you have to come up here again i think that and i'm - with regards to the second shed now with it is established who uses the second shed with the testimony i know that the permit was written for two sheds by the business owner does that change anything the fact he's snotd users it it and another notice have to be written for a second shed or make it worse i'm open to whatever. >> think the direction is there. >> obviously the more we look at this more finding out it is becoming clear what the department from the sheds are gone no permit required from the sheds are gone tomorrow we asked for a building permit for the easement or roach
the storage sheds in the sheds are gone the violation goes away to answer our question should we write other notice of violation if new evidence comes up we'll find it could and should the one thing i'll go back to i'll ask the owner of the barky that come into the department of building inspection and apply for the building permit for the go garbage sheds at that time, we're working together and i'll take care of i got a permit but at the time, we did ♪ 2013 we remember thinking that the sheds wlon belonged to the barky and got a permit from the owner the barky to legalize them at the time that was orientated were were not far wrong maybe we need to issue another notice of violation for the shed >> so but -
>> forgive me. >> i did the city attorney yesterday we were told the one notice of violation was sufficient so you know - >> so i do have given the testimony of mr. smooumz i have so the position of the neighbors is that the easement goes in and of itself belongs to all 3 properties and is recipient i see the logic it is exactly what the owner at the far end preventing something. >> along those lines wouldn't then the notice of violation be for all of the properties just judge the one that the sheds belongs two isn't it in violation to a party of all i've
seen a real acceptance of i think i imbalance of power if the other owners are not i know - there's no incentive for them to come to the table and negotiate with the owners it get rid of of the sheds or not i'm wondering is it correct he get it the two sheds need a ethics commission but i'm wondering if we shouldn't issue a notice of violation to all of the buildings. >> well, we sometimes do that but i certainly why go prosecute someone that explicit do anything wrong it is clear from this case it was one or probable 2 people but writing a notice of violation for something we know is it is on the other than if they didn't do anything wrong if
this goes to an order of abatement you know like notified and stuff like they've nothing to do with that i'll say that this is - i think that the land use attorneys or someone needed needs to get involved contact the city attorney's office it represents the city to change the easement if this all the time and obviously they're having their own meetings and talking about that it is good some people will be for it and some against maybe 24 may not have to go to life imprisonment to me no different than if you make a change to windows ever or are whatever the easement agreement goes indoor for that building permit for it building now a change to the rear of it that's why we wrote it up i up a
change a window or easement i think we have the right to write that notice. >> thank you mr. duffy commissioner walker. >> yes. to the issue of who sheds they are i would like to uphold the action the department took against both of the sheds if over the course of that action it is determined that someone else needs a notice of violation on the second one we should do that we are doing things fairly and brings in people to try and cooperate a little bit more hopefully, but other avenues people can take that was brought up about more garbage pickup this is not our job our job is to see that something was built in the area where it was not loud.
>> yes. >> wherever we go out there it is tough i think i heard 3868 noriega we can certainly open a complaint and dealt with the is that you as the previous responder. >> there is a motion and a second not been seconded. >> i want to before i make my agreement to the motion i'm holding my noticed by signing into this it is sad that there is so much offense talking to a shed to hire an attorney when we all have garbage in my opinion. >> dan deputy director dbi in response to our question at the time the complaint came back in 2013 there was 4 noigsdz that were issued for all properties after the fact it came in and 3
of them were abated i was not in on the conversation but at the time they determined the others 3 condos someone at that time the sheds don't belong and those cases were closed so 4 notice of violation went down to one and now there are two sheds. >> thank you. >> i'll second the motion. >> there's a there is a motion and a second i believe the commission has the abatement is left as is. >> i'm not sure if commissioner walker intended to modify the order in her statement. >> i think she did. >> i'd like to modify only on the caveat that we are upholding the order of abatement issued by the department and if this is determined there a different
owner on the second shed that i mean, i think - >> the second notice of violation. >> be issued and we'll go through the process with them. >> let's ask can i ask the department are reassuming both sheds belong to one owner. >> yes. >> we issued the ethics commission on both sheds. >> yes. >> there was a permit applied for at the department to next it for both of them by one person and so the notice of violation for both. >> the notice of violation 2013 on both shuts down. >> not get into the weeds someone out-of-towners and says you might get one shed. >> i think to the that will take care of we'll do that
tomorrow. >> if i see the city you're shacking your head we don't need to or write another violation just leave it as is. >> i'll advise the commissions to refrain from giving a statement directing the department to issue a notice of violation and also recommend that you include some factual information in our motion you find that this restrictions the use of this property and for that fact you've upholding the notice of violation. >> you want to restate. >> i move to uphold the departments order of abatement to remove the two sheds the evidence provided proves to me that there is an easement with restrictions that have been violated by the placement of
those two sheds. >> ii second that. >> thank you there is a motion and a second. >> we have a roll call vote. >> commissioner melgar commissioner clinch commissioner mccarthy per commissioner konstin commissioner lee commissioner mccray commissioner walker that item passes unanimously item f general public comment is there any general public comment for items not on the abatement appeals board agenda. >> oh, this is the abatement appeals board the bic is for the next meeting
a motion to adjourn. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> second. >> madam president could we agree on a time to be back we're running behind on a busy calendar on the next one. >> 5 minutes. >> okay we're adjourned as the abatement appeals board. >> redondo convene at. >> working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrate and dynamic city on sfroert of the art and social change we've been on the edge after all we're at the meeting of land and sea
world-class style it is the burn of blew jeans where the rock holds court over the harbor the city's information technology xoflz work on the rulers project for free wifi and developing projects and insuring patient state of at san francisco general hospital our it professionals make guilty or innocent available and support the house/senate regional wear-out system your our employees joy excessive salaries but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisc
today is tuesday, september 22, 2015. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection at this time, members of the public may address the commission did first item is roll call commissioner president mccarthy commissioner clinch commissioner lee commissioner konstin commissioner mccray commissioner melgar commissioner walker quorum and the next item is porments. >> good morning and welcome to the big meeting wednesday, january 20, 2016, madam secretary i have a few announcements reading congratulations to director huey that is invited to view the chinese american mission high school