Testimony before this board today please stand and raise your right hand . We need you to stand. Thank you so much. We need you to stand. [oath is given] thank you, you may be seated. Item c, approval of minutes. Discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for meeting held on november 15, 2017. Is there a motion to approve the minutes . Motion to approve. Second. Motion and a second. Any Public Comment . Ok. Seeing none, all commissioners in favor . Aye. Opposed . Ok, minutes are approved. Item d, new appeals or abatement. Case number 6839, 132 apollo street, owner of record and appellant, chow ko sang, and informational for the members here, the staff presents their case first and has seven minutes. Then the appealant has seven minutes, and Public Comment for three minutes each and each side has three minutes for rebuttal. Would the Department Like to present . Good morning, all. Senior building inspector. So, issued the notice in february of this year. It was for fire damage. We were called out for fire damage. When we went out there, we encountered that the fire has actually damaged the whole back of the building also substantial smoke and water damage throughout the building. And converted from a singlefamily home to three dwelling units. So, all the tenants have to be basically relocated. The owner was given enough time to actually deal with the fire damage and provide assessment report. There was no evidence of providing any assessment report so therefore we had to send it to Code Enforcement. We requested the owner to shut off all utilities, contact the Building Department. Once the report was obtained and provide the assessment to verify all the fire conditions, and all the structural items that were affected by the fire. So, all the windows in the front were supposed to be covered, they were all broken from the firefighting. Also like i said substantial damage to the structure, integrity of the whole back of the property. So, we advised the owner to actually get assessment report and shut off all utilities. All right. Yes. Thank you so much. So the tenants are out at this point, or what is the status . The reason the case was forwarded to Code Enforcement, the owner was never in contact with Building Department in that regards. We dont know . Even though it was a singlefamily home, it was actually converted to three units, and we actually wrote up a separate notice for that as well. And do you know if they are still in the house or no . Looks like they are probably not. Probably not. The house was pretty bad. We have pictures as well. And there has been no activity as to a permit to resolve this . We found the owner actually did obtain Building Permits after the fact. But once again, no assessment report given to us for the damage. So, we would like to uphold the order of abatement and impose the assessment costs of this case. Thank you. Do we know when the fire occurred . Yeah, occurred february 16th of this year. The same day . We were called out the same day, went out the same day, posted a notice and explained to the homeowner what he needed to do to correct the situation. Any other questions . Thank you, inspector. Appellant . Im the designer, expediter for the project, and this is the owner. On february 16th, fire damage, the next day the tenant was vacant and left the property. So, since that, the day of the fire, all the tenant left. So actually vacant since that day. So on, on may 30th, there was a permit pulled to repair the damage for the sheetrock, to try to repair some of the damage and hired during the process in late march, draft plans and measurement and design to work with the Planning Department to get a plan submitted and june there was a permit submitted by us to comply to the notice of violation. Early july there was a hearing, i was there with the owners. The case was continued. Was never heard, it was continued for 30 days and since then ive been working with the Planning Department to provide photos of the site, assessment of the site to make sure that there were no tenants involved in the the tenant was left and then the sites, all the stucco, exterior of the property, three units converted back to one unit, and that was approved by the Planning Department. Then we are working with the Building Department for the structural comments issued for the fire damage and for about for about four weeks i was working with the city engineers, she would require us to draft a report for the structural report. That were submitted back in august and in Early September the permits were approved and it was the permit was pulled. The owners actually pulled the owners Building Permit and hes working on it by himself. He actually is pulling to call for inspection very soon but hes by himself and he actually had some experience in building but hes by himself, so its its, going to take him 5, 6 months, maybe seven months to complete the process and he is doing the work to abate the notice of violation. Thank you. We are going to ask you some questions. Commissioner walker first. Commissioner walker i need to clarify. So you went through the planning process because there were actually how many units, how many tenants were actually living in there . There there were indication of three separate units in the property because third floor was locked off by a door, it was locked. Second floor and the ground floor. And that case we have to convert it back by removing the walls, reconfigure the layout on the first and second floor for interior connections between all three floors and then thats part of the commissioner walker trying to assess if it went through the process required by the new legislation that the city actually prioritizes not taking these off the market. So, my question is, was that evaluated and thats what was done at the Planning Department . Yes, maam. Commissioner, any other questions . Ok. Thank you so much. Thank you. You said 5 to 6 months to do the work . Yeah. Public comment . Any member no Public Comment on this case . Ok. Rebuttal from the department . Yes. The permit that the owner got to repair the fire damage was overthecounter permit which did not actually comply with the notice of violation that we issued. It was just for sheetrock replacement and to verify work conditions. We advised the owner that he needed to get a structural report to us and we gave him enough time to actually comply. We gave him from the day that we issued notice, we gave him approximately three months plus or minus some days. So, it was enough time for us to be given any report or provide any details. Certainly. Im a little confused. I thought the permit and i think the appellant mentioned it was filed in june. What what was is that the one you are referring to that did not comply with the complaint . The one in june is just to comply with the illegal conversion. The one that we are talking about, it was an overthecounter permit for dry wall repair due to the fire damage or to remove dry wall, it was not listed on the notice of violation so, there was i see on this permit detail report, comply with complaint 201762871, and 201763031. Yes, but there was no assessment report provided. We wanted to verify the conditions of the building before they submitted permit. There was no report, there was nothing. Thats still outstanding. Ok. Thank you. Could i ask, im sorry. Of the inspector, im sorry. Can you come back up . Commissioner walker. Commissioner walker yes, there was a time frame suggested of 5 to 6 months. So, assuming they came in and got a permit for what wasnt addressed with the existing permit, is that a sufficient amount of time for doing the work . I mean, what is your assessment . For the fire damage, they would have actually came back to us and said hey, this is the assessment, this is what happened, what needs to be done. We would have given them an overthecounter permit to remove all the fire damage, secure the building, and then we would have worked with them to actually comply with either the legalization of the three dwelling units or change it back to what it was approved under a 2009 permit, i believe. I see. Thank you, inspector. Appellant would like to come up for rebuttal. As he stated, he was in the process of hiring an architect and engineer to conduct plans. Inexperienced owner in the property and this is his first time doing work, especially with the fire damaged property, and he hires, in the process of hiring somebody and at the end and he there was a dark horse hearing that was scheduled. While we were there, its actually continued, it was a continued case, it got continued, im sorry, and i thought that was sufficient enough for us to say hey, we are contacting the department and they know whats going on so we dont have to make this addition or make another contact with the inspector and say we are doing work. I thought that was the indication that the Building Department know that we were doing work. So, in that case, then, we did not contact the inspector. But the owner was in the process of hiring us to do the work, and i dont know how long he took before he gets to us and hire us, but prior to that, he was doing searching and he was on his own, actually, all this time. I have a question for you. So, what we heard from the inspectors, part of the reason the notice of violation, there has never been a formal assessment report thats been filed. Do you understand that . Do you understand that we need that . Yes. Well, i do understand that part of it, but i when we were hired, i thought that was that was done because there were notice of violation. So, and given that the dark horse hearing was actually continued, i thought we were doing work and assessment and thats why the case was continued and our part, i did not make addition contact with the Building Department as well. Do you have that assessment report now . Yes, i can get that turned in. We have that structural report that was yeah. Ok. Commissioner walker. I show that there was a directors hearing. There was, there was one. You said it was continued. It was continued. And it happened. It did happen, it was there, but continued case. It was never heard. Hmm, thats not what our notes say. We were there. Well, its actually on the schedule of the day, and we were there, it was put and continued case, we never got heard. So i need to clarify. Clarify that in a second. Other questions for the appellant . Thank you. Thank you. Just want to clarify with the staff. Yes. Can somebody clarify right now. Dan lowry, Deputy Director. In a directors hearing, if they seek for continuance, they go up to Code Enforcement prior to hearing and they talk to the hearing, they talk to the supervisor there and then if they grant a continuance they allow the continuance put on the schedule and if they dont hear the continued case, allow another 30 days for the continued case. Thank you so much. Commissioner walker. Because on our notes it says that it was held and it resulted in an order of abatement issued with the following conditions. So, we am i looking at the wrong i dont know what do you want to see this . Inspector hernandez took my sheet. Ok. According to this case history here, an order of abatement issued september 5, 2017. And 9 8 17, order of abatement was mailed on 9 12, it was posted on the building, and on 9 28, the abatement appeals board was filed. So the appeal for this case was filed on 9 28, when i was on the notes here. An order of abatement issued. Ok. So i mean thats for discussion, i guess. Yeah, ok. Ok. Commissioners. Discussion. Warshell. There are many things that concern me in this case. That there was initially an illegal conversion is troubling. That three families were exposed to, or three households were exposed to a dangerous situation and you know, we at this point dont know if the tenants received all of the support that they should have following it. Thats not necessarily an issue we will cover today, but its a concern. Some of the comments that these proceedings have gone on a bit longer because the Property Owner is trying to do things on his own and hes not as experienced as he might be with doing these sorts of projects. And so far just a minor overthecounter permit has been issued. All give me great concern. I share the question that my colleague commissioner walker raised about going back to a singlefamily versus maintaining the housing of three units. Once it had been established, even though illegally. So there are just so many things in this that i find very troubling. That, you know, i see no reason to do anything but uphold the department and if anything, you know, when we see a history like this, you know, my my concern that we get a good resolution, if anything, would suggest that there should be very heightened awareness of the history through the department so that the scrutiny over this ensures that if the owner continues to want to do the job himself, that hes using people who are as licensed and skilled and talented as is necessary to see that this property is restored to usefulness in a safe and legal manner. So, i personally see no reason to do anything but support the department in this matter. I concur. And i also want to clarify, it did concern me that there might have been miss interpretation of what happened, but it seems like there was a directors hearing with appropriate noticing and followup noticing as required. So i do have concerns, its clear that when folks change the use of their buildings as much as we need housing, if they do it without the benefit of permit, this often results in things like fires and its really important to underline that thats not appropriate or ok. So, i concur, and i would move to uphold the order of abatement with all fees. And i would second that. Ok. There is a motion and a second to uphold the order of abatement and include the assessment of costs. Ok. Do a roll call vote on the item. [roll call vote taken] notion carries unanimously. Just one direction to staff, make sure we meet with this Property Owner and derek so they truly understand what happened at this hearing, since i was there was a misunderstanding about what happened at the directors hearing. So, if we could have staff meet with them, make sure they clarify after this hearing that they understand what the action was, i would appreciate that. Ok. Yes, we will, commissioner. Ill advise them of the Code Enforcement to explain the process to them. Thank you. Ok. Case number, item two, case number 6840, 158 howth street, owner of record and appellant, yusuke seki, 206 summit way. Would the Department Like to come present its case . Hello again. On november 28th the Building Department got a complaint. It was investigated by karl malchew, complaint investigation team. We have no entry and we can you talk more into the mic . On november 28th we got a complaint regarding a possible multiple illegal units in garage, large unpermitted building in the rear. The in inspector went to the site, not able to get access. The tenant called, gave us information from the owner. We call the owner, requested an inspection. And january 31, 2017, we got access, investigated the property. Based on that, we wrote up a notice same day on january 31st for singlefamily home being converted to, im sorry, six dwelling units of 5, 4 dwelling units in the garage and a structure 25 feet by 20 feet in the back. And also the second floor of the main singlefamily home used as a separate dwelling as well. Multiple life safety issues the inspector observed. There was no Carbon Monoxide or smog detectors on the lower area. Fire suppression and also it was improperly built. There was also electrical that was not approved and plumbing that was not approved. The owner got a notice of violation for 30 days to comply with obtaining a Building Permit to legalize all the dwelling units and also the addition. There was also given a penalty fee for work without permit. The notice was sent to Code Enforcement based on no action was taken by the owner. It was sent on may 12, 2017. Im sorry, april, april. It was sent, it was given enough time to comply, given more than 30 days to file a Building Permit. Commissioner. How many kitchen . Total of overall six kitchens. Each unit, and none of the rooms approximately under 70 square feet, so it was a small room with a kitchen. So, a lot of bathroom, a lot of life safety conditions we observed. Thank you. How many, have we ever had complaints on this building before . Not to my knowledge. I think this is the first one. It was brought up by a tenant. Do we have any idea how long it has been going on with the six units . No. We dont know when, you know, it was built. I do know based on my conversation with the district inspector and the complaint investigator, it was it was an ongoing construction. It was an ongoing construction, meaning that when he got there, there was some part that was actually built at that time and there was some part that was not built at that time. This is the actual only complaint we have got on it . Never a complaint on this building . To my knowledge, the first one. Thank you, inspector. Appellant come forward. My name is yuske, the owner of 158 howth street. December 2015 we purchased the house, me and my family and we inherited construction in the garage and in the back with a tenant in there. We are currently doing everything we can to fix the problem. I have my architect and my construction constructors and i am talking to my lawyer about the litigation of the tenants. The reason it got all this time was because the tenant at that called the city was there and he would not let me go close to the house and resulted with my lawyer. It took about 5 to 6 months but hes evicted, or relocated. So, now we can focus on fixing. Sorry, sir. Thanks. You say you purchased in 2015, correct . Yes. Ok. And was it on the market . Was it it was, yes, sir, it was on the market. And yes, it was on the market. It was on the market. So in that Purchase Agreement it was clearly pointed out all the legal work existed. It did say unwarranted units downstairs,