Commissioner clinch is excused. Will all parties giving testimony today please rise 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. Item c, approval of minutes. Discussion or possible action to adopt the meetings for the meeting held october 18, 2017. Is there a motion to approve the minutes . Move to approve. A second . Second. Theres a motion and second. Any Public Comment on the minutes . Are all commissioners in favor . Aye. Minutes are approved. Next item is item d continued appeals order of abatement, 6836, 221 11th street. Don ramon real estate llc. Leonila ramirez, reverse order of abatement. Just for the record, wanted to let everyone know the department will present its case first. The department has seven minutes, the apelant has seven minutes and then Public Comment for three minutes and each side has three minutes for rebuttal. Department, come forward. At this time well just do the order differently. Well have the apelant come forward if theyre ready. You can go ahead. Good morning commissioners, im the attorney representative for the owner don ramon real estate llc. Im here on the behalf of the apelant to ask the commission to consider modifying the order of abatement due to a dispute at the property. Prior to the last hearing in october, i submitted a document, its the lease. Didnt want to give the commission more to read but i think its incredibly important to recognize and acknowledge that the parties, the landlord, my client and tenant did have an agreement did have an agreement that the tentant could after following the proper procedures, and obtaining the permits, leave rooms as artist space and some residential use. That was after the tenant followed all the procedural pertaining permits. In this case what happened, the tenant did not obtain the permits, basically went ahead and started renting ahead space without my clients knowledge and consent and in violation of the lease. That has brought us here today to this order of abatement hearing. My client engaged me to try to resolve the matter and i have sent numerous to the tenant to try to work something out. The proper thing here would be for the tenant to remove the residential use and occupancy, comply with the notice of violation, seize all residential use at the premises because the tenant breached the lease. The tenant has not done that, but i hope to work something out with the tenant because theyre represented by council, we can work something out. For the commission and for my request here, if its not possible to reverse the order of abatement, this board still has the ability to modify the order under special circumstances and those circumstances are within the building code. Building code section 105 a subsection 282 states that this board has the authority and the ability to make a determination whether or not the violations are found to constitute serious and imminent hazards at the premises. If the board makes that finding, they are able to modify the order of abatement and there are specific rules for how long its given to parties to resolve it. Specifically it says the board for abatement, that the repair work be completed in less than 18 months. The notice of violation identifies the violations. It refers to the specific code sections at the premises and its my understanding that individually and combined, the violations are not of the type that constitute a serious imminent hazard and the tenants, despite the fact were asking them to cure the violations, the breach of lease are still using the premises for residential occupancy. It appears at this stage, there is a possibility to give the parties an additional time to work something out without having an order of abatement on title to the property, which ultimately has consequences for the owner. So what i would request is that the board consider my clients appeal, the violations, and if its not prepared to reverse the order, modify it by giving the parties 60 days to resolve it by obtaining permits to abate the violations and specifically requesting from the tenants, they remove the kitchen, obtain permits for doing so, theres a washer and dryer, obtain permits to legalize that and cease all residential use of the premises within 60 days. What would happen after that if we can reach an agreement, the lease is set to expire at the end of next year. My client at this point is not inclined to renew the lease, we would ask the tenant to vacate and my client would resolve the remaining issue on the notice of violation. I believe thats a proper way of resolving this matter, again because of the unique aspect of the dispute. I do want to reserve some time for questions but regarding the fines, if we can have those fines reversed against the property or if its possible to have the fines imposed on the tenant as the tenant was the one who did the illegal conversion of the premises. Do the commissioners have any questions at this point . Not yet. Well hear from the department and then Public Comment and on rebuttal well ask questions. Good morning dan lowry. The Property Owner information is don ramon real estate llc. Violation, notice of violation was given 8 20 2015. Second notice april 16, 2017. The violation was change of use without permit. Directors hearing, on june 20, 2017, for it would be order of abatement issue with compliance of notice of violation. Order of abatement was recommended. Pts system indicates no current application under the process. The nature of the violation was for back in december 21, 2016, was site inspection performed as result of a complaint regarding the legal change of use, commercial to residential third floor, legal use office, now used as residential without certificate. Used for sleeping, greater than allowable area, new partitions constructed in the upper area. Kitchen use gas stove. Recommendation was obtain Building Permit with approval and work performed with permit. Compliance, authorization installed without a permit. Staff recommendations was uphold the order of abatement. Commissioner walker. So my question, this situation is covered under the legislation of going before the Planning Commission, correct . Even to do what they want to accomplish, what they have stated here to remove the existing residential units. Yes. Even though they are legal. Is it possible to legalize this . They would have to fill out the compliance form and go through the Planning Department on that. I understand that, but as far as a review. We have looked at this building, it might be one of those able to be legalized but has to go through the process. Yes. What are the fines involved . Notice of violation. Okay. It shows nine times penalty for 2,000 of work notice of violation. Nine times 2,000. Nine times 2,000. Commissioner mccarthy. I dont think Deputy Director you can answer the question, a question was brought up about the fines being on the burden of the owner, the landlord, right . What is policy procedure if they are trying to do the right thing and correct the violation about moving the violations, the fees to the violator . When they obtain the permit, when theyre trying to find compliance, the supervisor could reduce it under the current application. Yes. Hang on just that will be determined whoever picks up the permit. Whoever is legalizing the unit will be responsible for paying the fines. You dont pay 18,000. Its how much will a permit cost based on 18,000. The evaluation of notice of violation is at the time of inspection, its not for the scope of work. When we look at something and theres a violation that exists, theyre valuing the amount of construction at the time they see it. Okay. Through the chair is it possible to talk to Legal Council again . Im sorry, forgive me, i forget your name. Yes commissioner mccarthy. Would it be safe to say that the your tenant will not apply for the permit and to legalize this . I cant answer that question commissioner. At this point, we have, if i can call it a superseding legal issue. You have the agreement and the breach. At this point my client is not entitled to the tenancy beyond the lease date but she is inclined to work with the tenant to clear the majority of violations cited by the department. So on this, to the answer of deputy sweeney, if they were proactive we could probably say the fines could go to the tenant but also that happens, i dont see how we can get around it other than the reduction of the fines being paid. I wanted to point that out. Thank you. Commissioner walker. I was just going to say i think it has to flow with the person responsible. And i do have a question. I mean, is there an interest in securing this as art space and including residential if i mean, i just have to say here, im an artist and really interested in saving art spaces, as well as places where people live. My first choice would be to legalize it as an art space with accessory residential. Are you in discussions about the possibility of that . Not discussions to the extent where we have approved it and im not authorized to say yes or no here. I can understand the commissioners point, i also appreciate artist space. Im repeating myself, but you have the breach of lease, a burnt bridge where the tenant went ahead and did stuff he is not supposed to do that caused all these problems for my client. At this point shes not inclined to continue the lease but does want to see the problem resolved. I hear you. I just want to be really clear, when is the lease termination date . The end of 2018. December 31, 2018. The individuals who might be living in the space, using it residential, theyre in contract directly with your tenant who is in contract with you, theres no direct relationship between your client and these residents . Thats correct. Does your client own the building or a tenant with the subtenant . The llc owns the building. So yes. This is the only space rented to particular tenant. When you say the tenant is not expected to stay past next years lease, thats based on your clients lack of interest having them beyond the lease or was there any indication from the renter that they have no interest in staying beyond that time . Thats not a conversation weve had with the tenant, who i understand is here at the hearing, but from the owners perspective it comes from the fact that theres a breach of lease, lack of confidence and trust in the tenant not doing the right thing. Okay. Any other questions commissioners . For the apelant. Thank you, you can take a seat. Public comment . Good morning commissioners, im jeremy paul with a particular interest in art uses and preserving art spaces in San Francisco. Ive been doing this nearly 30 years. And i have been involved with this matter since before this tenant took occupancy in 2013. I visited the property with the tenant, with the Property Owners realtor and saw a place that was being lived in at the time. I saw a kitchen in place, such as it is now. I have considerable experience with the physical inspection procedures and i was evaluating it at that time in expectation of assuming legalization of it as a res art space with accessory residential use. A letter of authorization was granted to me by the Property Owner, im putting this on the overhead, signed by leonila ramirez, authorizing me to pursue conversion of the property. I filed that conditional use with the Planning Department. Heres our transaction receipt. The tenant paid the fees. That was in 2015 . Thats correct. I assisted the tenant, restoring residential occupancy to the dwelling university around the corner. Theres a long relationship of reliance on the tenant to solve the problems created by the Property Owner. Now, my time is running short, i have a lot of information i could provide you if you were at all interested, but i would say this in brief, the Housing Element to the general plan and arch element to the general plan requires the agency to do what they can to preserve artist housing. This is an exceptional dance space. Prior to this enforcement action, i visited the property with a Senior Inspector from the Housing Department assuming legalization. And we were there inspecting the property as a dance rehearsal was going on and he was amazed and we concluded that this is a very legalizeble space. Theres very little work to push the limits in terms of turning it into a legal residential space with accessory. Commissioner walker. I would like to ask a question or two. What happened that that process was stopped . In 2016, the Property Owner informed the Planning Department they did not authorize the application, so the application was suspended. I spoke to the Planning Department about that and said if youre going to cite this as enforcement matter, youre going to require additional use authorization for removal of this as a dwelling unit and they agreed to require additional used to eliminate it. Theyre facing the process either way. We filed to correct the problem long before it was an enforcement matter. To the chair, could i see a copy where the application, the owner signed you to start the process . Yep. That would be helpful for everyone to look at. This is standard form i have been using for years to show i was authorized for these purposes. Commissioner walker. Just another question per the owners representative, the terms of the lease end next year, what is the likelihood there would be a resolution, i mean, a lot of this is a civil issue, not in front of us. The resident groups attorney is present, she can comment on that. This is not terminated at will. This is the way San Francisco works, we need to protect our art and tenant spaces. Do you have a role in the Current Situation and if you do, could you explain what youre doing . Im not actively pursuing the legalization without the authorization with the authorization rescinded but i am still the consultant for the Tenants Group who hired me originally to see it through on their behalf. On comment on the penalties and fees, i would rather see that money go into improvement to the space but i think the agency needs to be compensated. I have a follow up question. Do you see a resolution . Yes. Thank you. Commissioner mccarthy . Im trying to look down the road here. Im looking at the real estate lease agreement. Its a commercial lease. Can you talk about the residential guidelines . The tenants attorney is here and she might be a better one to respond to that concern. Giving an opinion based on the legislation and protection of art spaces. Sorry, go ahead. Just to that question, you can have a commercial lease and still have residential occupancy. Okay. Im just trying to figure for the space but theres a process you have to go through to get it approved for residential to get it approved for the it doesnt necessarily reflect in the lease, but ours does. You would know firsthand on that. Im trying to get to if theres going to be an agreement here, it seems everybody has to work together. Just a comment on Planning Commission procedure and been through this process with the Planning Commission, i dont see a possibility of this Planning Commission granting a conditional use authorization to remove the residential component there. Its not a practical possibility to make that happen. The sleeping rooms all have direct exits. They have the minimum standards of housing code covered. Its a real stretch to imagine the Planning Commissioners removing this. Understood. I just want to make from your perspective, would they need to im not doubting you, but for the record, they would need to go back to the Planning Department. I want to ask our City Attorney because hes our Legal Council. Is that your interpretation . I believe thats correct but not having the code before me right now and it not mentioned in the papers, i cant give a definitive answer but my understanding, if legal residential units if they want to go back to commercial have to go through a process. Im just thinking down the road a little further, if the Property Owner were to end their lease with current lease holder, the occupants or the residents of the unit would still have a legal standing they have residency in the units . I guess going to what commissioner mccarthy said about resolving it and getting along, maybe if the council for the residence is here, it would be interesting to speak to her. There are individuals living in the units is my understanding unless im getting it wrong and then someone who holds the lease and that person is the person who is leasing the property from the Property Owner. Or is it direct lease with the folks living there. Thats a question i have. Can you answer that . Just one second. Im trying to figure out if there are three parties involved or two parties involved in the action. Theres really only two. So theres a commercial lease between the owner and the tenant and that lease did contemplate some residential use. It wasnt exclusive residential, it mentioned Artist Studio space. This is akin to a lease between a landlord and tenant who provides short term housing for people going to rehab. Our rent board recognizing that thats a commercial lease. Its not residential, it does not fall under the recent ordinance. We really have two parties and if the lease terminates, it would release the obligation to continue renting the space. That wasnt my question give me one second. The folks that your client is renting to, are they the same individuals living in the space . No. We rent it to an entity. So that is our tenant and we have not engaged in any direct communication with anyone occupying the space, which i understand revolves constantly based on the foot traffic. Thats not actually my question. Thank you. I have a question. Commissioner walker before me. I think if the residents can prove they have been there a certain period of time, theyre called residents. It doesnt affect whether the space is legal or not.