Thank you. You may be seated. How much time would you guys like . Normally they have seven minutes. But this is a continued case. Do you still want to do that . Commissioner gilman well do seven minutes. Secretary the department will present itself case first and then the appellant. Each side has seven minutes to present their case. There is Public Comment and each member of the public has three minutes to speak and rebuttal time of three minutes each for the department and the apel land. The next aye appellant. The next item is item c, approval of minutes. Discussion of possible action to adopt the minutes from meets held on december 20, 2017. Is there a motion . Move to approve. Second. There is a motion and a second. Any Public Comment . Seeing none. Awe commissioners in favor . [all aye] the minutes are approved. Case number 6836, 221, 11th street. Department would like to come forward . Public good morning, all. I name is maurice hernandez, building inspector. We got complaint about work done without a permit. Commercial space being divided for living space, stove, washer and dryer installed. The inspection complaint officer visited the site. He issued a notification for work without permit for the commercial residential on the third floor. Legal use is b. It was converted to residential without a certificate of occupancy. There was a sleeping area, the mezzanine was used for that. New partitions were constructed. Washer, dryer installed. The case was issued a notice on january 24, 2017. The case was seconded and referred to Code Enforcement. January 31st it was referred. On february 1st it was received by Code Enforcement and a hearing was set up april 10th. There was a director here on the 28th. It went to an order of abatement on july 24th. At this point we havent had any permits from anybody so the case is still ongoing. So, we would like to uphold all the all the abatement procedures. Any questions . Thank you so much, inspect hernandez. Secretary the appellant would like to come forward . Good morning commissioners. My name is francisco. Im the attorney for the appellant, don ramons real estate, llc. The managing member is also present. I was here back in november. If wed like to go over the case again, we can. As far as the violations and conditions of the building, the owners position as far as who did the work. However i would like to give the commissioners an update. We had a long discussion of what this board would like to see at the building. On behalf of the owner, iefb working i have been interviewing professionals to assist us. The challenging use for us is the conditional use authorization that this board has requested. I have interviewed attorneys. I dont handle land use issues. I have interviewed attorneys and other professionals in the area and we just found someone who can take on the project and assist us with that aspect obtaining the conditional use authorization and working with the Planning Department. As far as the matter of this hearing and the appeal, because we have found someone to work with, i would ask that this board give us another 60 days to get the permits on file for the conditional use authorization and also in connection with that, the permits to abate the housing Code Violations within the building. And those have to do with installation of industrialize kitchen range and also a washer and dryer. We can get thing moving much quicker. I wish i already had that in place here as i showed up. But im confident that we can get this rolling within the next 30 days. So, if we can move this hearing over to april, i think by then as the city pulls the permit history for the building, you will see that theres progress on this. I understand that the board is concerned with upholding the laws and the orders planning to see you. Would that prevent this action if we kept the order of abatement . I dont think so, no. Do you know . No, it would not. Just a matter of so, you could still proceed. We could uphold our order of abatement. You could still proceed with your council. It would not prohibit the action. Right. I understand it can be independent. My understanding from coming here the last time is that the board wanted to see that happen in connection with this appeal. My concern is that if the order of abatement is upheld, its recorded against title and there are penalties that are assessed. We are trying to hold that up. Because the underlike issue is a land underlying issue is a tenant land lord dispute. There was an issue once all the permits were retained. The tenant moved in and we are dealing with both a legal issue, landlord tenant issue and we are asking for the citys cooperation and understanding and giving us some more time to resolve at least the component thats at issue in this appeal, which is the order of abatement. So, i understand that we can follow the conditional use authorization process. But we would like to just have some more time to come back here and ask this board to uphold the appeal and withdraw the order of abatement and penalties. Commissioner warshell. Commissioner warshell i understand youre trying to do the process to do the corrections and, you know, clearly life safety issues are one of our biggest concerns in this case. But as i recall the discussion last time, the tenant has strong interests in staying and is the ultimate goal here for you to work with the tenant to get all the things resolved so that they can remain in this we also have had a major discussion that were conflicted because we aggressively would like to see organizations maintained in the city. So, we were sympathetic in that sense while understanding our responsibilities for life safety and proper permitting before works done. So, is your intention still to work with this tenant to resolve the differences so they can go forward as your tenant in corrected conditions . Well, commissioner warshell, the goal and the intent is to work with them to resolve the Code Violations within the unit as far as the washer and dryer and stove. But our position, which i expressed here the last time and it hasnt changed, is that because of the underlying land lord tenant dispute, there is no trust. As far as the tenant, they have a lease. But the owners intention is not to renew the lease at the expiration. Commissioner warshell thank you. I would like to hear Public Comment. Okay. There are no more questions. Secretary is there any Public Comment on this case . Public im lisa. I represent the tenants at the subject property. This is the first ive heard of the landlord planning on doing some kind of conditional use permit. We actually have had a person who came and spoke last time, jeremy paul, who is a permit expediter and expert in that area who did try and get conditional use permits. But the landlord rejected them after they pulled them their signature after agreeing to it. So, im not really sure whats going on in that aspect. You know, i Vice President heard anything from the i havent heard anything from the land lord or attorney since this last hearing, despite being told i would be hearing from them and trying to resolve something. Just from the tenants perspective, they have a lease that has an option to renew and i can say they are concerned about where theyre going to be six months from now. I think that if the landlord is serious about getting that conditional use permit, then they might actually want to try and collaborate with the tenants who have been working on that issue for years, have put money into it, have an expert on hand to help them with the process. So, in terms of removing the order of abatement while the landlord allegedly attempts to procure the necessary permits from the tenants perspective seems unnecessary. I suspect they will go on doing nothing as they have so far. Its been two months and they havent gotten the permits. So, on behalf of the tenants i would ask that the order of abatement stand until the landlord actually takes the necessary action to legalize the unit for residential use, which they have been renting it out for, for several years, even prior to my clients occupancy. They keep refer back to the washer, dryer and stove. Yes the tenants changed stove because the old one wasnt working right. But they moved in and there was a full sized operable stove in the unit at the time. And it was noted in the advertising for the unit, was having a full kitchen with a stove. And so far as i know accord to the Fire Department according to the Fire Department, there is no life safety hazards in the unit at this time. [bell [bell]. Im sorry. Your time is up. You can take a seat. I wanted to see if you had any questions. We normally dont ask questions at Public Comment. But thank you. We will call you back up if we do. Secretary is there any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, does the department have rebuttal . Public hello again. We understand theres a civil dispute going on, but the fact is theres more than a year this has gone on. And even if they actually come up to us and say we have gone to planning and they showed us proof they work with planning in the middle, even before we send the case to Code Enforcement, it would be something we could help them with and say okay, we will give you more time to take care of this. But we dont have power over a civil dispute. Its kind of difficult for us to say yeah, were going to hold this case. We understand the fire says theres no life safety concerns. If a hood is not vented and somebody installed a gas stove and we dont know who installed it, whether it was a plumbing contractor, licensed contractor, theres some issues going on. We still have a case here. We dont want to have an issue with a fire occurs and now we are having a notice violation. Thats why i think we should get the abatement proceedings going and upheld. Questions . Thank you. Secretary would the appellant like rebuttal . Commissioners, thank you again for your time. If i can just close out that you heard the tenants attorney admit they did the work and thats really the predicament that were in. Work was done by the tenant that resulted in the Code Violations and the order of abatement. Sometimes things take longer than one would wish to resolve, but we are intent to work on it. As i mentioned, we do have someone we can work with on the planning issue and also the code issue. I honestly dont know why a tenant would encourage an order of abatement to be recorded against title. It is an encumbrance that can affect the property. Im surprised to hear them advocate for an order. But in conclusion, again, i want to raise the apel lapt appellants request so we can give the board an update on the status of the plans. Just to the comments about which i find a little bit that today is the first they have heard about that you were going to request a continuance and so on. Is there any particular reason why the last two months you havent reached to them this is the direction youre going . As far as the comment about the conditional use authorization, that was mentioned here at the hearing and tenants counsel was present for that. And as far as a continuance request, that is something im making here right now. I dont believe it affects the tenants in any way. And i think they should be in favor of not having an order of abatement against title for the property. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Are we finished . Yes. Conversation . Commissioner walker. I dont see any further evidence presented here with this request and i dont believe the decisions that have been presented are in our jurisdiction. That is why the Planning Department and Planning Commission is the place to go for the issue of going forward. That is what we did is to by our approving an abatement order, we asked that the process now happen at the Planning Commission. So, im always concerned when these go on liens. I think we all are as we consider our decisions. But i think it was pretty clear in our discussions last month when we discussed this or two months ago or whatever it was. You know, this is a situation where the city leaders who do the business of legislation have actually put into law a process to deal with legalizing illegal units. And we have a hefty and helpful process in place. We offered that as we took our decision last time. I want to reinforce that. I would make a decision to uphold the order of abatement or deny the continuance request and put this where the decision needs to be made, in planning. We dont have a decision about this anymore. There is no evident to the contrary to reverse it. Would you also add to your motion to uphold the assessment of costs . Yes. And that the order of abatement was properly issued . Yes. Thank you. If i could talk to the attorney representing the tenants please just for a second. I think the other counsel mentioned there really is nothing in here for you as tenants if this is filed if we uphold the abatement here today. And you were saying you kind of wanted this to be upheld today. Is that correct . Im just trying to understand for example, lets say and i do agree with you two months with no contact i dont really find that acceptable. Im not trying to undermine that. Lets just say starting today because i know the tone of our last hearing was lets see if we can Work Together here. And if it really doesnt matter to you and lets say for example if my vote was to continue this and we come back and here where we do have it filed with the Planning Department for conditional use and so on, would that not be acceptable to you . That would be fine. My clients have been trying to do that for the last few years. My concern and i think the concern of the tenants is solely that theyve been doing this now for months. Saying that theyre going to do this and then they dont. After every hearing that weve attended, counsel for the landlord has approached me and said youll be hearing from me. And what i have heard is threats of, if your clients dont move out, were going to evict them. And this last time since the last hearing, we heard nothing at all. So, i think that it should continue and if theres no repercussions, nothing is going to happen. And the problem is my clients are constantly worried about whats going to happen next. They have no idea and their lease is going to be up for renewal in the next several months. And theyre concerned that if this conditional use permit is not finally obtained, the landlord is going to hold that up as a reason why they cant renew the lease. Even though it is at the land lords doing that just and i agree with everything you said. Im not trying to undermine your position. If we were to say im just trying this on, commissioner walker. Because im still trying to hit this tone of cooperation. If lets say we were to reduce the 60 days to where we had it less time frame for them to get back add more time . No. Less time. Rather than 60 days like 30 days . Exactly. A more kind of olive branch approach to everything here. And i do agree with them in regard to for example, i dont know their business. If theyre refinancing their building. It does cause some problems. And thats not your concern. Your concern is the tenants. I get it. I think were really close and i would like to see it be that we make some effort. I think theres a few more comments. Im probably alone in this thinking. Im just throwing it out there. Well, actually i have questions for counsel. Sorry. How long have your tenants been residents . For her . Okay. I think these tenants have been there since about i would have to look at the lease. 2012 maybe. Okay. But prior to them, there were other residential tenantses there. Commissioner lee has a question for you. You mentioned the lease will expire in several months. Can you be more specific . When is your lease up currently . [speaker away from mic] can you come up . Im sorry. Please state your honname for t record. Im mary mou. It ends at the end of the year. The option we have is as the current tenantses first right of refusal. Exactly. Are the terms outlined in the lease of why the landlord could not renew . The reasons why they can refuse our if we are defaulting or are if we have written notice that we are defaulting or are in breach of the lease. And we have not received any written notices so far. And we are allowed to exercise this option at the beginning of the april. As if give written notice that we intend to okay. Any other questions for the tenants of this property . Okay. Thank you. I have a question for owners counsel. Yes, commissioner. I understand this isnt under our jurisdiction. It sort of goes to intent around cooperation. I guess i would like to know for the record what is the intent of the owner when it comes to if the tenants issue a notice they intend to exercise their option, whats the response from the landlord going to be and the owner . Its going to be consistent with my position last time i was here, which is the owner is not going to agree to extend the lease based on the prior breach and default by the tenant. And what is that default . The breach of lease by illegally changing the residence. I put the lease to my exhibit. I know. And again, the lease contemplates residential use, but only after the tenant obtains the required permits which did not happen in this case. Thats the reason why were here. There is an i understand lying breach of lease. And commissioners, if you have any other questions, im happy to answer them. The lease did commence in 2014. So, and thats also part of the record. Its an exhibit to the letter, mine dated if october of 2017. Okay. And the previous sorry. So, this new lease was executed with this group of tenants . Not with the previous tenants who were living there . There has been no authorized prior residential use at the building. So, counsels comment is false. No residential use was allowed at the property. Now the person who came up and spoke, we dont recognize her. We dont know who she is. Shes not a signatory to the lease. She wasnt a party to the lease. So, we dont know who she is. The tenant is actually an entity, an llc. And so, we dont know who that person is. I have one final question. Again, i think this is going to our thinking of sort of, if our goal is collaboration in resolving this issue, the intent of both parties and what they want to do is relevant to that conversation. If im understanding correctly i have never in my experience, i have never seen a landlord execute a lease with a party expecting them to go to the Planning Department and legalize the unit through a conditional use process