hey good morning. today is wednesday, january 17th, 2024. this is a regular meeting of the abatement appeals board, and i would like to remind everyone to please mute yourself if you're not speaking. the first item on the agenda is roll call. um president newman here. um, commissioner alexander toot, commissioner chavez, commissioner shaddix here.

commissioner williams here. and commissioner summer is expected, and we have a quorum. um, next, we will have our land acknowledgment. morning the abatement appeals board acknowledges that we are in the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush, who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the ramaytush ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples, peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guest, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our respects by acknowledging their the ancestors, elders and relatives of the ramaytush ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. okay, thank you. um

next, for any members of the public that are listening in the public comment, call in number. is (415) 655-0001 and the access code. is 26644644212. and the webex webinar password is 011724. and to raise your hand for public comment on a specific agenda item, press star three. when prompted by the meeting moderator. okay. um, next on our agenda is item b, uh, remote public comment, discussion and possible action discussion and possible action to follow the board of supervisors remote public comment policy that eliminates remote public comment except when necessary, to enable the

participation of people with disabilities. um, first, is there any public comment on this item? um, is there any remotely. okay, i'm seeing none. then. uh, board discussion on that. so this is basically to determine on whether, uh, the, the abatement appeals board is going to follow that same procedure or not regarding remote public comment number two. i'm aware that the board of supervisors made this decision because there's um, there was disruptive public comment that hasn't been our experience. and i don't see a need to limit remote access. uh as someone who is here, surprisingly, with my child today, because i didn't anticipate his disability flaring up. um, that line of what? when to make that request

is not always as clear as maybe it looks like when it's written on black and white. um, i think we can revisit this if becomes an issue in the future, but i don't i don't feel the need to do that at this time. okay. is there any are there any other commissioner comments? mr. chavez? i don't have very much to add except that i agree with commissioner alexander to. i think it's our responsibility as a public board to be as accessible as possible. and keeping public comment open online hasn't posed a challenge for us so far. if we can continue to leave it open. commissioner williams. i echo, uh, prior statements and i would go further and say we should be encouraging remote public comment or any public comment. and if i remote public comment is what's feasible and possible for the public and it makes it easier, we should be encouraging it, uh, rather than restricting it. any other comments? i concur

with everything that was said. shall we? do we vote? um. emotion yes. there should be a motion. um, no. a motion to continue with remote public comment. so, so moved. second. okay. so that motion is by commissioner alexander to and the second was by commissioner chavez. and we'll do a roll call vote on that motion. um, president newman. yes, commissioner. alexander. toot. yes commissioner chavez. yes commissioner. shaddix. yes commissioner. summer. and commissioner williams. yes yes. oh commissioner. summer. oh, did you did you did you vote? i wasn't here for the beginning. oh, okay. it's uh, this this was

a discussion to as to whether or not to continue with remote public comment or not. and you were you were here. i was here for the. yes. yeah. for that then. oh, okay. it was very brief. you didn't miss anything. yes okay. thank you. then the motion carries unanimously. thanks, everyone. okay. so, um, next we have, um. our item is. is on what? approval of minutes. uh, this item is a discussion of possible action to adopt the minutes for meetings held on may 18th, 2022 and june 15th, 2022. um just would like to read that the minutes were already approved and they were agendized in error. however, if anyone, uh, has public comment on this item, you can you can do so at this time. is there any public comment? okay seeing none um,

the next item we have then is item d, new order of abatement appeals. the first matter is appeal number 691246 de vallejo street, block 0133. lot 020. complaint. number 202286188. owner of record and appellant is justin yonker. the appellant appeals the april 26th, 2022 order of abatement and assessment of costs on the grounds that he is in the process of correcting the cited violations. an appellant requests that the order of abatement and assessment of costs be reversed or modified. the hearing is convened pursuant to administrative code 77.3, which provides that the building inspection commission, sitting as the arb, may hear and decide appeals of abatement actions pursuant to san francisco building code 105.2. before we proceed, the hearing, we will administer the oath. um will all

parties giving testimony today? please stand and raise your right hand. okay. do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth? to the best of your knowledge? yes. okay. thank you. you may be seated. okay. the hearing procedures are described in section three g of the arb rules of procedures. the appellant and the department will each have seven minutes to present their position on. the department presents first, followed by the appellant after the presentations, we will have public comment. members of the public have three minutes each to speak after public comment. each party will have three minutes for a rebuttal. first the department and then the appellant. after rebuttal, arb members may ask questions of either party. the department may now present their case. good

morning, president. commissioners. uh, john hanson, chief building inspector, code enforcement. i will be presenting the appeal case today . for 460 vallejo street. uh, the complaint. 2022 861.88. this is, um, four story, single family dwelling. uh, the violation relates to work exceeding the scope of permit. there are a number of items, including possibly merger, uh, fence greater than, uh, nine foot six and nine foot nine, um, proper line windows were removed and relocated. garage door was widened and front facade stucco was removed and replaced with horizontal siding. a new building entry door installed, uh, the roof deck, uh, barriers were removed, opening up the

roof deck to the entire roof. uh trees stairwell windows were installed. uh, the elevator shaft enclosure door, uh, does not have the required doors and the rear stair has been changed to cantilever steel stairs. uh, the director's hearing took place on april 26th of 22. and in our abatement was issued at that time with the following conditions. 30 days to obtain permit and complete, including final sign off and pay all csvs a permit was issued, a filed on may 19th of 2022 that has not completed the plan. review process, and to date, that permit is not issued. um. so staff recommends that you uphold the order of abatement and

impose assessment of costs. so i am available for any questions you may have. the appellant may now present their position. uh, good morning. thank you. members of the board. i'm tom tunney of reuben. jason rose. i'm counsel for the property owner who's actually peter iskander, who's here. he's going to speak as well. you have justin yonker was the filed the appeal on peter's behalf, but he's not the owner of record just to clarify, um, really, you know, we don't disagree with much of what mr. hinson has said. um some of the details,

uh, of the alleged violation is perhaps one thing is this is a two unit building. it's not a single family dwelling. um, mr. iskander is going to provide you with a little more detail about the project, but i just wanted to address what we think is the bigger and biggest issue here. you're probably asking, you know , why have you gotten to the point of an order of abatement and this hearing and it has been years. um, we, as mr. hinson stated, we submitted a permit to abate the violation and address all of the items and as is, uh, normal procedure, that permit was routed to planning immediately. um, and then we started working with planning. um, we've planning had its own process that it needed to go through issued, um, neighborhood notice of the permit,

discretionary review. uh request was filed, which means a hearing at the planning commission. and we went through a process with planning, uh, where they had scheduled and then postponed, uh, at least two described review hearings. and that's the last we heard from planning. we we've tried to follow up and haven't heard, um, the staff at dbi today may know a little bit more about the about where things stand with planning, but we're waiting for planning to schedule this discretionary review hearing, uh, which would then allow us to move forward with the permit. then we go back to dbi and go through final review plan review at dbi. um, so with that, i'll stop there. that's probably even more detail than you needed. and let mr. iskander introduce himself and then we're available for any

questions you may have. good morning. member of the board. um i'm going to read, uh, so i'm peter iskander, the owner of four 6462 vallejo. uh, we acquired this two unit residence in 2014 to accommodate our expanding family with the intention if eventually housing my elderly parents, um, over the subsequent 4 to 5 years, we secured permits, collaborated with various skilled builders tradespeople to finalize the project. in 2018, uh, following numerous inspection by sf dbi, we obtained a certificate of final completion in 2018. the project proved to be more stressful for our family than anyone could ever imagine. uh, nearly causing a rift within our family union. at one point, we contemplated splitting and selling our, um, uh, newly constructed home. but

fortunately, we navigated through these challenging times and opted to retain our homes. um, shortly thereafter, we received a notice from planning department regarding the items that were approved but did not go undergo planning staff review. this item include facade restoration to the original wood siding fence along the eastern side wall, and new garage door, and the front door. we diligently addressed all the discrepancies and followed the scarf recommendation. from 2019 until january 2022, when planning staff scheduled a scheduled for board of hearing, it must have been like the second or third time this has been scheduled. um, these items encompass, uh, enlargement of the second kitchen. uh, as recommended by the staff and then, uh, further notification, uh, 311 notification, uh, approximately about two weeks before the scheduled hearing in january 2022, our hearing was postponed again. and we've been in the same spot since then. um,

despite our our efforts to communicate this, when we received the abatement notice, they may have been misunderstanding. we filed a. 2022 05194663. in front of that, you have a copy in front of you, which states abatement of nov 20 2286 188 um, about a week after filing this pa, this pa was sending to planning department and then the current status indicates that the permit is being reviewed by planning, um, planning has not provided us with any further planning. what to do? the building department at the same time is issuing further notice to abate and further enforcement. um, we are cooperative. we're eager to resolve any discrepancy that may exist. please provide us guidance. what to do on the next steps. um. um, yes. okay. you

may be seated. okay thank you. we'll now have public comment. um. commission secretary, is there any public comment? okay. online. okay okay. well, thank you. we'll, uh, do the public comment in person and then online. okay. go ahead. for 60 vallejo street. yes thank you. okay good morning. my name is jerry dratler. i'm not prepared for public comment, but i know this project well. mr. iskander is a contractor, so he knows better for 60 vallejo street was offered for sale for $13 million. i put a swimming pool on top of it. um, i am told by a well known structural engineer the weight of a swimming pool

with water is equal to almost to the weight of the building. so we're looking at some pretty serious stuff here. it just goes on and on and on. so i'd like you to consider that, um, when you opine about his request. thank you very much. okay. uh yes. i think i don't know. is there any additional public comment online? no. and no additional public comment in person? okay okay. then yes. so the next we will, um, we'll have the rebuttal. um, the department's rebuttal for three minutes. uh, just to, uh, agree with the appellant, it is a two unit building. um, i misspoke there that it's a single family dwelling. what led me to that

is, um, this concern that the two units may have been merged together into one unit. so but i do stand corrected. it's a two family dwelling and no other rebuttal. the appellant is available. if you have any rebuttal. no. okay uh, seeing none there's no rebuttal. then um, it could be the board discussion. or questions. if you have any questions. commissioner williams. yeah. uh, well, i'm wondering if the appellant could address, uh, mr. rattlers, um, comment about the swimming pool on the building and the construction. there is there is a jacuzzi on the rooftop that's been permitted, and it's fully permitted. that's not an issue of notice of violation. it's not

a violation of planning nor building. department it's something that he has a personal issue with. maybe, but he's not one of the neighbors that i know . but it's fully permitted. we have fully permitted that. it's not. no, no, it's not it's not planning issue. it's a jacuzzi. commissioner alexander touched. yes, i have, uh, so this violation was issued because years of work without a permit, not work that exceeded an existing permit. is that correct ? no. or um, the violation was issued for numerous different items. many of the items requiring additional information, additional explanation, additional drawings

. we provided those things as, um, if you look at the best page to look at, it's probably the page in front of you. okay. yeah. you can check, um, our. i'm sorry, our, um, abatement appeals board secretary, uh, matthew green, he'd like to chime in on this, uh, is it on now? i can't hear you. okay okay. yeah. good morning, matthew green, representing the department of building inspection and serving as the secretary of the abatement appeals board today. so there were several building permits that were completed in 2018 on this notice, the violation is from january of 2022. so there were no active permits at the time. so, um, both correct. it was done without permit, but it's beyond the scope of the original permits. okay. it's unclear whether the work took place between 2018 or 2022 or was, um, mistakenly signed off in 2018. but the conditions today do not match the approved

permits that were completed in 2018. can i ask another clarifying question? so there seems to be some issue between planning and permitting. and so in 2018, there were permitted plans. it sounds like correct 2018 that completed correct. um, that um did not match the work completed. they there was work done in excess of what was approved by planning and correct. correct it wasn't in excess. it was uh, some items in planning view that it should have been reviewed by planning, but it didn't get the drawing, didn't get routed through planning. so those items include like the facade change to the original, for instance. this is a question to the department. so were those items included in the original plan set that was approved by planning? so the notice of violation is. can we

just clarify who is speaking for the department? is it. oh, i apologize okay okay. just want to make sure to make the record in conjunction with what the secretary just said. um, the last completed permits were in 2018. all of the items that are listed on the notice of violation that are listed on this abatement appeals report, all of those items i called out there are no permits for any of those. the conditions and the roof. uh, there was a permit in 2018 for a minimal roof deck. they removed. roof is now being used as a roof deck. okay and so there are no permits for anything that we call out in the notice of violation. they all exceed the scope of the original permit. okay. and all of or some

of those things also, though, require planning sign off. absolutely. yes and they filed two permits. but those two permits are not going to the plan review in a normal fashion. it seems that they're they were filed to stall the process. they're not moving forward. okay was the work that was complete and done to the code standards. so there are three permits that were signed off in 2018. they they were signed off because the work described in those plans was done to code. they were signed off. but after that they did all this other work right, exceeding the scope of those permits. then they filed two permits to as a but it looks to me like a stalling tactic. those permits have not been issued. so all of the items do not have a permit. they're not described in

drawings attached to an issued permit. okay thank you. i was just trying to get some clarification between where we were in both the permitting and planning processes. yeah. very important. um. commissioner chavez, um, yes. i had a clarifying question around the permit that was filed in may 2022. it sounds like it's not been reviewed and approved, and there have been well, i know that the planning, uh, department has pushed it back, but can you shed a little bit of light on what's going on with that permit? so so we have a permit, uh, to, uh, deal with the notice of violation that was filed in may 19th of 20, 22. there was some review, but there's a note. uh, plans do not meet criteria required for the notice of violation. so one

permit that they specifically refer to this notice of violation. um the plans do not fully deal with the notice of violation. so that would account for the fact that that permit could not move forward without the amending the plans. in response to whatever items they are missing. and so here we are with with no progress. right. was there another permit filed after that, or is that the most recent. so there were there were two permits filed, um, in may. one and may of uh 2022. and the other in april. and neither of the two have completed the plan review process. okay and, uh, miss iskander, that's those are the permits you're talking about today, the ones that you filed within 30 days of the notice of violation is that, um. yes but he didn't read the entire

statement. it says, um, plans do not meet the criteria. meeting between dcp and appellants. uh, prior to posting, that never happened. this is if you read the entire statement of that status. it's like that. we submitted the entire permit that was asked of us. the nob asked us to submit a reference sheet, which is the entire what you saw there on my sheet. it's about i don't know how thick it is, how many plants are there. and when we get to the counter, the person at the counter wrote in here, even take a reference sheet out of only out of the i mean take reference sheet should only be seven pages long. plan check unless plan checker wants to keep it as part of the plan set so he rejected the entire set. i don't want this whole thing. you only want submit seven. so we did that. we followed every single direction that the next person tells us to do. if you tell us today, today they got peter, go to the planning department and ask them

to provide the hearing for you. i will do that if you ask me to go to the building department, i go, peter, resubmit the plan check. i will do that. i'm following anything that you want me to do. but right now we're we're. i feel like we're being postponed by planning, and we don't know what to do. i don't the people who work with out plan approval and without. so let me correct that one. since 2018. there's zero since the certificate of final completion was issued, there's zero work that's been done on the building. zero work. some items were missed during inspections. some items were missed during, uh, planning. and that's what causes the problem. but there is no work. there is no worker being there in that place. i was living there, so there's nobody there. there's nobody except painting. maybe that's about it. so how is it that the initial plans don't match the work completed? there were the initial plan. the work talks

about four years during the build process. there were some things that like for instance, there's some windows on the stairwells. oh it'll be kind of nice to put the windows. it's not bothering anybody. it's only inside. we added those windows. it's not to the outside. and that property line windows, that's the only windows that was added. there were items like that, but for the majority of the part, it it it we are where we are today because there's notice of enforcement by planning for the facade replacement. and there was a thought that we were we merged the two units into one. we never merged the two units into one. we wanted to for our families. i have a large family and it's going to be multi family at some point my parents will be living with me. i have adult kids too so it's always been two units and if you look at the notice of violation, one of the bottom, it says there's a this unit has been merged. it has not been merged. there are two kitchens, there's separate clear separation between the units. um, as the firm by uh, um mr. um henson's um, so the we want to

proceed, we want to do this. we don't know how we've we've tried. can i ask, are you a contracting professional? i'm a contractor also. i'm a contractor also. so you then do know when on items that are changed, require the planning approval? um, not not all the time. i'm not a i'm not, i'm not i rely on i have architects, i rely on other people like that. that's on the field. architect on this project. yes. okay yes. we have an architect on the project. i follow the direction if when an item needs 311 notification, for instance, we send a 311 notification. as of today, we have already sent out three, three, 11 notification for or were there during the reviews. were there any amendment plan amendments issued or before. for the 2018? before for the final? yeah. 2018 uh, there are about 4 or 5 drawings.

i don't remember how many all the way to 2018. all those things were when we initially started the project. there are some changes that needs to be modified because when you renovate something, they usually something that you have to do. so it's been followed throughout the process until 2018, it took about five years to do that. when we finished, we must have gone through about more than 40 inspections of building, um, electrical. um, through the project. and at the end of that project, i think some of the items were missed. planning the first acquisition was that they thought there was a merger between the units, and that hasn't been substantiated. but since then, everybody is looking at all these different little things and we're okay because some things were missed, not purposely, some things were missed in the inspection process , something were missed in the planning process of it. so we issued the 311. we're cooperating. we issued 311, one, two, three. and then when they file the doctor, they file the doctor for the entire project. it creates a lot of confusion.

then and then right before the hearing, the hearing got postponed because there's an nov . the nov states the exact same thing as the violation of planning. and we submitted the paperwork 2020 (205) 194-6632 abated following the instruction exactly where taught, including putting the reference sheet in there and it says even in here, because the person at the counter said, you got to be crazy. we don't want to take that. just submit the seven sheet. only forget the rest of them. we did that. it gets routed to planning and we are still waiting to hear i want we want to get the permit. you know , to address this thing. if the front facade just for the front facade was a regular wood facade , in the 50s, somebody changed it to a stucco facade and when we were renovating it, you go, huh? originally it was the wood facade. why don't we just change it to wood? we did not obtain the permit to do that because it was the original one was wood.

so we did that and according to planning, we need to go back to do that. we'll do that. that's not a problem. but if you tell us, change it back to stucco. we'll go change it back to stucco. it's okay. we just want to get this thing done. well. thank you. um, can i ask the, um. sorry, commissioner williams, if, um, you can. oh yes. can i. can i ask what coordination dbe has been undertake working with planning to resolve this issue? well um, in response to the comments that the appellant just made. so they're referring to comments on the plan check from may 27th, 2022. the person that came to the counter, they admitted earlier is no longer associated with the property. uh, justin, they're saying he's no longer connected with this property, so he's he's speaking to, um, interaction with our department by somebody who no longer even

represents them at and, um, and what i'm hearing is complete denial about all of the violations we have listed. so how is there going to be, um, um , a solution from the property owner to file the proper permits, move them forward timely. so i would hope that you would uphold the order to encourage them to do that. i completely understand, but the question i asked was what coordination is dbe undertaking with planning to help resolve this issue? because what i'm hearing from the appellant is that there is and you have said that is a stall tactic. so i just want to understand how we're coordinating. so how it works is a person files a permit. uh, somebody in plan review designates what stations it goes to. and the property owner, what are there. architect walks through the system. if they don't walk it through the system, we can't just come along and say, hey, come and see us.

they initiate that. they connect with planning. we don't control that. and what's the record is showing they are not taking their responsibility to move the permits through the system. if they're getting plenty of comments, they're not responding and amending the drawings. and when you say they your the property owner, are they representative? okay yeah. okay yeah. president human i just i did reach out to the zoning commissioner about this, uh, project and understanding what the delay is and actually, he's not sure either. um but he did say it is in the hands of the permit applicants to move it forward if they're waiting for comments or so. but he's looking into it. okay. thank you, commissioner williams. thank you . um, so this is for the appellant or appellants. counsel either could answer, uh, i would like to narrow down on, uh, what's being discussed at least, or i want to get a response

that's specific here. so when this appeal, uh, are you contending that the department made either a factual error in any of its work, any of the issuing of the notices, or are you contending that there was a error in the application of the building code by the department? and if so, what is the basis for those contentions of error? there were it's tom tunney, uh, counsel for property owner. uh there were a number of items listed in the notice of violation, right, right. um, many of them, we agree, need to be addressed or abated that they that they could be violations ones. um they, they they and they can be brought into compliance. um, some of them we

think are there's a misunderstanding of which floor, say the stair is on and we think they're looking at a different stairway that could be clarified. um all of all of them can be addressed. just we don't think there's any new work that needs to be done. um, unless planning requires it to bring these items into compliance. a lot of it is just going through the plan review process. yes. so so to a large extent, i'd say we're in agreement with the department. so if i'm understanding this appeal, is this in the appeal? is this more of a addressing a hardship that's being created due to the planning department. is that the purpose of this appeal, that that might be an accurate way of saying it, that we, we would like planning to move this

forward so they can go back to dbe and, and i think planning would agree if, if they were here that we have done what they've asked, that they're not waiting on anything from us. do you know of any authority that we would have, as in this board, to, to address a hardship created by the planning department? well, i guess i, i don't to be honest, i don't think you would go there yet. i mean, i might suggest a short continuance and, uh, and that would give time to hear from planning. exactly where it stands. and and what could be done next. and i think that might satisfy by the board and, and, and our, the department of building inspection staff to

move forward and, and planning as well. thank you. commissioner alexander, i'd like to hear from the department. um, if it seems like we have labeled this the violations as unsafe, which is why i think it seems like it's on an expedited timeline. um, on a quick timeline to get to the novice and move through the process. but the appellant seems to think that it's an administrative process where they're just going to get the permits filed and file the inspections, and then the records will match the permits or, you know, the permits will match what's actually in the building. can you speak to your understanding of the violations and what it would take to resolve the violations? so whenever there's a violation on each item, uh, is atimeby legal,

going through a planning building, you know, the plan check process, other times it might need some adjustment or something that would be reflected on the plan, or there might be some clarification on where, you know, it has been removed and that would be reflected on a permit saying that it's being removed. and when that permit would get issued, the inspector will go out and verify that it's removed. so you know, as the property representative just said, um, you know, um, some items might need some clarification or whatever. and i agree, all we need is a permit to be issued. so an inspector can go out there and say, yes, that's resolved. this um, it's not clear on the plans. um and so all we want is a permit to be issued. so an inspector can go back out and clarify. is it the new issued plans? and since the

speaker just referred, you know, if, if you decide to continue the case and let them reconnect with planning, you know, the department would be okay with that. so is there a standard by which we identify or when we name something as unsafe? we don't. not every notice of violation says that the building is unsafe. not every violation, but most. but once the notice of violation is issued, until we get a permit to legalize or remove the condition, we have to assume it's unsafe. okay? and we issue the notice of violation. and in this case, we issue an order of abatement. so anybody involved with that property, anybody going on it we're giving them notice that there may be unsafe condition here. and until there's a permit issued and signed off is we have to consider it as unsafe. that's understandable considering it's

a roof and staircases. um, i just would like to clarify. yes, please. there are some unsafe conditions listed in this notice of violation. the separation isn't present from the garage and the dwelling units. and there are some, um, um, guardrails missing at the deck, i believe. so there are unsafe conditions. it's not just a matter of documenting. with a new permit, there will be corrections made. thank you. thank you for helping clarify that. and my final question is, um, there's been a lot of talk about delays in the planning commission. has the appellant brought any evidence of these delays or communication from the planning commission? i you did not attach that to your appeal. right? yeah i'm, uh, we did not, um, and i, i at the time that the appeal was filed, the last communication did exist. but, um , the appeal was filed in, um,

in april of 23, i believe. and the last communication in with planning was late january of 2023, where our, um, we had agreed to a new section three planning code. section 311 neighborhood notification. and that was planning was going to issue that notification. and that never happened. that was that's the last. and i could provide that to the to the board and to the staff if um, and you know, honestly, i don't want to put this all on planning. uh, they are we're waiting for them to do this. but i know for them it's been a long process and it's a complicated project and different issues came up and there's a lot of interest in in the neighborhood, in the property. so, um, there are reasons why it has taken time.

um, but but i think they would confirm the last communication was from planning, telling us this new neighborhood notice would be issued and it never was . thank you. commissioner summer . um, i think my thoughts were along the lines of commissioner williams regarding our specific purview, which, as i understand it, is regarding whether or not there was an error made by the department of building inspection in issuing the notice of violation and i do not hear that that is the case. there was work done that was not permitted . so it seems correct that a notice of violation would be issued. it is not currently resolved. so and i know sounds like that's complicated. um but

i don't i don't know that it is the, um, purview of this board to, you know, dwell on that fact. i my understanding is that our purview really is to look at whether, um, the department made any errors in issuing it. and to me, it sounds like that is not the case, is that i also want to clarify. so it that's that's correct. but also so, um, the board may uphold modify or reverse an order provided that the public health, safety and public welfare are secured. most nearly in accordance with the intent and the purpose of the building code and the housing code. so i interpret that as also looking into the, um, public health, safety and public welfare. and what is the decision must align with the intent and the purpose of the

building code and health code. i hope that clarifies things. might confuse it a little actually, but no, i think i think what you're well, my hearing of what you just said is that that gives us some flexible city to do something different. if there is a concern of health safety. however, i think in this case, the concern of health and safety is in favor of the same conclusion that there was a violation that needs to be fixed . uh, are there are are we ready to deliberate? are there more questions? is mission i'd just like to point out that whether you decide to uphold this order or stay this order, it won't have any effect on the property owner moving forward with their permit approvals. so if this order exists, there still have to go forward. it won't slow it or enter it in any way. okay. so

there's no no further questioning. um, then i would like to thank the parties for their presentation as the evidentiary portion of the hearing is now concluded and the arb takes the case under submission for deliberations and possible decision. so so is there, uh, do we want to take it around and do does anybody have anything additional they want to share or see they. know. i'd like to make a motion to uphold the order of abatement. second. so there is a motion by commissioner alexander to and a second by, um, president newman to uphold the order of abatement, and also including the assessment of costs. yes. to include the assessment of costs. okay. is there any public comment on this motion? um okay.

seeing none, then i'll do a roll call, vote. yeah there was a second. the second was by, uh, president newman. okay. so the roll call vote, um, president newman. yes um, commissioner alexander. toot. yes, commissioner. chavez. yes, commissioner. shaddix. yes, commissioner. sommer. yes, commissioner. williams. yes thank you. that motion carries unanimously. okay. thank you. um, next we have item e, general public comment. members of the public may address the board on matters that are within the board's jurisdiction. and are not on today's agenda. speakers shall address their remarks to the board as a whole and not to individual board members or department personnel. is there any general public comment? um. any remotely? okay seeing none, we have item f adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn?

motion is there a second second second. okay. are all members in favor? yes yes yes. any opposed? we are now adjourned. it's 10:27 a.m. we will take a recess and then we will reconvene in in the next 5 to 10 minutes as the building inspection commission. thank you >> so i'm linda i'm part owner and manager of the paper tree in jeopardy an town. >> paper tree opened by my parent in 1968. so we other second oldest business in jap an town. at 55 years this year.

we have beautiful papers from japan, thailand, italy, korea and the biggest selection of orgami. i do it because of my grand father and he wrote to the first english in it in the early 50s. he had an import business to import japanese goods and of course we had our line of paper. to go with the books he produced. it is something i have been doing since i was 5 and i'm happy to say i'm a designer now and of course having paper tree. it is grit. >> during the pandemic i wanted do something to make a statement to help combat the asian hate that was prevalent at that time. and so i put a call out to have a thousand hearts. this is a spin on the tradition

of holding 1,000 cranes when you have a wish. well, a thousand cranes does not make a statement enough why not change it and a call for a thousand hearts? i created a website dedicated to the project. a video and fold heart instructions. people sent them in the first mont was 1,000 hearts. they kept coming in. and the next goal was 7, 698, which was the total number of case of reported hate by the ap i website. those were the reported case of hate. there are more not reported. that became the new goal. we achieved 2 months later. the hearts were coming in it it is a big project, we have it part of our store. anyone can come and fold an easy heart. keeping that part of the japanese tradition of this in that way here in japantown is

pretty special. its great.

>> (music). >> hi, i'm emmy the owner of emmy's spaghetti i offers working that with some kind of fine dining and apron and feeling stuffy and in the 90s in san francisco it was pretty pretense in a restaurant in the restaurant scene i want to it have a place to have a place for my friends to guess i started the restaurant a no better place the outer mission spaces were available that's when i opt in two 10 he start with all people and work with them and the

events they create one of the events we do every year and backpack give away and give piaget away and a christmas part with a santa and bring 5 hundred meatballs and pa get and we're like in the mission not about them knowing where the food comes from but a part of the community. and my restaurant emmy's spaghetti and fun banquet and san francisco not the thing that everybody knows about we stay under the radar we show the showcase i take it food and we started to eat we wanted to have comfort food and that a claims

friend from i take it and helped me create meatballs and dealing evolved over the years in the beginning one plate of spaghetti and a meatball we tried to make the portions as big as they could be. and now we have quite a few types pasta dishes with a la begin and meat sauce or have a partition to a lot of food we are at a point with all the favorites i don't change the menu often 0 i eat here so much but everything is fresh your cocktail menu is the best it's ever been one thing on the menu our magazine ghetto we change

the flavor one of the fun things it is served in the historically we're known emmy's spaghetti as a friendly place and when i opened i wanted my friend to be welcome and other parents to be welcomed and it is very for this is a place for families especially in san francisco and this is where though hold their celebration important i mean you're coming to a family restaurant and you're coming for o to a fun place i love being the owner and pretty sure my life i enjoy running the psta spaghetti place i hope to be here a while we'll see how it goes we everyone is a friend we're hoping you'll be a

>> when o'shaughnessy dam opened 1923, there was a grand

celebration that was an achievement of ensuring san francisco's new water supply but it was the beginning of a unique collaboration between the city of san francisco and yosemite national park. >> lands around the dam are critically important. we, along with the park service have a very common goal thereof protection of that watershed, both for national park values and water supply values in yosemite is the cub tree's premiere national park visited by millions of visitors but the protection of our watershed and the city provides significant outside funding for the national park, over $8 million a year is for trail maintenance and wilderness education and park operations and security keeping the water safe and the park a haven. >> one hundred years ago when the dam was first built, there was a different view of the environment back then, than

there is today. and the dam was part of changing that view across the nation. that brings an importance to our work here at o'shaughnessy dam, how we manage this dam and manage our releases and the environment downstream, it's very important to san francisco that we need that challenge. >> for 100 years, o'shaughnessy dam and the park service ensured the bay area has clean water, along with ongoing stewardship much our precious natural resources. >> this o'shaughnessy

okay. so the sfpuc commission is called to order for the for the, um, budget hearings that we are starting here today at 9:00. so can we have a roll call, please? president paulson, president, vice president rivera here. commissioner jaime, she'll be here shortly. commissioner maxwell. commissioner stacy here. and you have a quorum. so before we call the first item, i'd like to announce that the san francisco public utilities