>> >> welcome to the city and county of san francisco abatement appeals board meeting this morning at 9:30 am., wednesday, april 17, 2024. this is regular meeting of aiding and abetting please mute yourself if not speaking. >> roll call. >> vice president chavez here. >> thank you. >> president neumann here. >> commissioner sommer here and commissioner williams here we have a quorum and commissioners commissioner

alexander-tut and commissioner shaddix are excused. >> okay. >> um, next, i would like to administrator the others have office for all people will be speaking today. will all parties giving testimony please stand and raise your right >> okay. >> do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> okay. >> thank you. you may be seated. >> okay. >> next um, we will have our land land acknowledgement. >> unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush (rah-my-toosh) ohlone (o-lon-ee) who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory.

by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. >> okay. >> thank you. >> next for anyone who may be listening in and intending remotely the public comment call in number. >> public comment call-in number: 415-655-0001 - access code: 2661 086 0068. press *3. where promoted but i moderator and the web e is 0417 password

for everyone information i'd like to read the time allowed for the public for today's hearing. um, the department will present the case first and the appellant each side has 7 minutes to present. next is public comment. and members have limited to 3 minutes per speaker and lastly rebuttal time of three minutes for the department and the appellant. >> okay. the next item is b approval of the minutes. >> for the minutes for the my apologies the minutes are not available request the motion to continue this item to the next

meeting. >> second. >> second and motion and second and all commissioners in favor i'm sorry any public comment. >> no public comment. thank you. >> um, the next item is >> 3. 1. case no. 6918: 3655 20th street - complaint # 202295141 owners of record & appellant: knowles john f. & daphne & knowles gregory. mr. karnilowicz

manner to address the complaint considering owner was unaware of the complaint.”. >> okay. >> now the department would like to come forward at that time? >> let's see - >> hello testing. >> good morning to everyone my name is joe i'm with the enforcement center for today's agenda. case no. 6918 address 3655 20th street lot number (rustling of papers.) three 068. >> number complaint # 202295141. the description it was issued on september 8, 2022,

for conditions after the - of the subject address first permit was the late district ending in 7117 was an emergency to removal approximately 4 feet long by the retaining wall this was unsafe conditions exist and we - inspector of said do owner uses plywood to - we view all the retaining walls deterioration cracks and permit from owners failed to get permit and repair the retaining wall was in the

timeline. and a director was dully schedule with hearing offers determine for order of abatement and to compete all final inspections permit to apply with pay all code improvement fees permit number was the last four digits we proposed to build new - at the rear yard to access the ongoing violation, however, this permit has on a inspection today issued on september 23rd as the order of abatement was upholding the

order of abatement and up held did the costs. thank you. >> with the appellant like to come forward? >> good morning commissioners i'm mr. karnilowicz and general contractor for 15 years if not longer than the original permit was addressing the section of retaining wall that was on a property line between two neighbors and signed off by inspector. somehow i don't know for what reasons the inspector came out and said there are walls around the perimeter not in the complaint and therefore, have to address that. evolving get an engineer to draw up the drawings for that and so just

for the record you notice - okay. >> there is a crack on the perimeter retaining wall and notice plants going o going through that that retaining wall has been in that condition 20 or thirty years not leaning over and a immediate hazard the design that the engineer was to put in one the property but not the retaining wall where we are within the property itself to put in interior walls that would prevent surcharge on the whole property moving not just the retaining walls on the side b which means if you do this the engineer has designed wouldn't have much to do with the

retaining walls themselves but would prevent a surcharge on the work that was designed and was not happy the owner was not happy and would like to change the design. and gentlemen, welcome engineers do that bottom line not a large safety issue not at imminent hazard we have had the order of abatement put on the property and again, the initial permit was issued what was signed off by the inspector i believe was correct in fact, that wall was not a retaining wall but part of retaining wall just that was sitting in mid-air and fallen do you think that's where is the argument it on that any questions? >> any questions?. okay.

>> thank you. >> the board may have questions after the deliberation ask questions from you later. >> yes. thank you. >> next is there public comment on this item remotely or in-person? >> okay. >> okay. >> caller you're unmuted. >> allowed to speak. >> yes. thank you. i'm the neighbor on the other side of the wall i treated the wall as into our property as (unintelligible) a series of reports which we played the wall as (unintelligible) shows that the wall is moving based on the

picture you showed a large tree that actually has been leaning we have to take - have to be pass with the neighbor because that wall is about to fall on our property we have reported - on the matter the wall has been built previously by the owner when we moved in um, that was - is (unintelligible) requirements the neighbor trying to hide it but pulling a layer of concrete on top of that and also shows that neighbor is (unintelligible) um, careful with our own life we have

(unintelligible) area and the only reason he agreed to - (unintelligible). >> we have provided all that information and the city and now we are waiting actually change and - we have because to wall we have our (unintelligible) on that property and that was not happening. >> thank you did that conclude your comment, sir? >> yes. it does. thank you. >> thank you. >> any additional public comment? >> okay. >> seeing none, there is rebuttal staff have any

reliable? >> um, the overhead should - put it on there now. >> i put it - it should adjust now. >> um, usually [off mic.] >>. okay. >> sfgov any assistance where

the do i have a second? u cam. >> you can you can. >> passes to everyone. >> so this map shows which is the dashed line a subject address where it is in blue the retaining wall which own the east side of the property. and original condition is like also have an image this is the original condition calls for emergency permit to remove that so the current condition from our most recent finding the

owner using to apply wood up through the condition not acceptable and we do get enough time for the owner to respond to the complaint they filed a permit and got the permit but no action for construction to continue to abate the conveys all work complete that's my comment so i ask the commission to rule on the abatement. >> yes. one thing regarding the map that you complicated was that submitted as part of the record? >> was that previously submitted part of the staff report. >> it is not, it is not.

>> so but just accepted that give the image of the location and it so impact to the property. >> the board will have to decide. a late submission. >> i think - >> oh, well. >> i think [off mic.] >> well the issue is the other side has not had a - to review the documents make any comments to it so is that the other side not given an opportunity. >> i filed this document website the information map system and printed this out and

intended to 0 show it on the projector this morning. >> i guess is this one. >> it can be part of presentation. my i would suggest that one, that the other side be given the opportunity to review um, and if you have any questions about that that but also consider whether or not, you know, you can take this takes into consideration but in light of the evidence one being that the other side has not yet been given an opportunity i suggest the other side be given an opportunity to comment on that particular document. >> do i have additional copy you can share. >> extra copy? >> yes. >> i do have one more copy. >> if you can give it it to -

>> (multiple voices) (laughter). >> here and i do have two copies. >> provide the overhead. >> thank you. >> (clearing throat). >> just a second. >> do we give opportunity? >> like the appellant any rebuttal? >> um, getting back to what i said earlier the wall has been removed so not an imminent hazard on 34 part removed so not

a hazard as see i think we are done and removed that hazard the complaint was about so i feel that we're not even though the work has not done with the drawings but working, working with another engineer to address the retaining walls and had cracks in that for over 20 or thirty years and i want to mention the property line the neighbor was talking about a second ago is that that been around for a long time and leaning on his property has been removed and so that's where we stand right now. >> thank you. >> thank you. okay.. thank you. >> um, then the board have discussion or questions?

>> i have a couple of questions. >> so i'm sorry, go ahead. >> there is been a assertion made that it is life safety hazard this is not a life safety has is there an engineering report do you have a engineering report stating not a life safety hazard. >> at that point in written report only a verbal. >> were there any at the request was to mitigate and remove this where there any circumstances preventing what are the circumstances that prevented the owner from moving forward and meeting the requests obligation. >> because of design of what the engineer has got right now

is actually within the rear yard not around but even the whole area. so and with the heat design he's containing the sewer charge that is what he's drawn in and the permit is issued for not addressed the wall none the retaining walls per se. just within the rear yard that is putting the design structured design that actually prvts the sewer charge in causing for an the exterior retaining walls. >> okay. >> i don't have any other questions. >> commissioner sommer. >> can i point that out the initial is not whether it is a hazard but whether or not the order of abatement was issued properly and had a director

wheeler hearing the owner was represented the hearing officer gave a thirty day advertisement they're on the clock and have to finish this one thirty days and at the end of thirty days were not in compliance that was what the order of abatement was issued. and yeah. nothing i've heard contests that all those facts. and also i think - i thought we were talking about the one precarious festivity of a three by 4 feet concrete and i know what you're saying he regardless it a hazard and needs to come down and mr. karnilowicz said that is taken down but in

adoption with the pilots that was my confusion. >> i believe a portion has been taken down but it wasn't recording like the pilot and i see i see behind the piece of plywood but no remediated condition permit condition. >> i'm glad to hear the piece of concrete is gone. >> i still seems yes, it is the - i'm confused because the paperwork submitted indicated were that the owner was unaware was the reason and the city wanted everything was noted appropriately and an officers hearing was held and, yes - go ahead.

>> um, the data two of 5 an indication that shortly after the owner received a violation they come to our staff and asking questions to extend it but under the page 2 of 5 on the day of october 22nd, owner acquired by the violation and posting was on september 9, 2022, they saw the posting and inquired to our staff okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> didn't seem like that argument is perhaps fair. oh, sorry go ahead. >> the should be part of your package yes, thank you. >> i was making the conclusion

not appearing that there's any proof that the client or that the um, customer was not invited. >> thank you sorry soto interrupt which is the time the person i guess on the public comment has their hand raised i don't know that is up to the board if you would like to hear the person again, i think they're a neighbor. >> is it the same person. >> yeah. please we can't never mind the same person we would called for public comment already. >> two questions for the appellant. first given the presentation and the materials submitted (clearing throat) is there a concession for the nose issue the claim was not

notice of complaint is that done? >> i part moving forward and after the fact so what notice he received had told me not aware of that abatement part of it so that pretty much all i know but take his word the abatement was not reported or what will happen request that bottom line he of the that the work the complaint was really about that failing the wall was removed and therefore the life safety was not no existence and as i said off but the first inspector and later on wait a minute we have

floors around the property not brought up in complaint that's where we stand. >> all right. so an extra question. um, you know why the owner in their appeal why they don't bring up the issue the embassy of the threat or the appeal by the owner. >> i think he is of our of town and continuing for the county and realized what the engineer designed was what he did. so one of these things miss communication been the owner and engineer and the contractor (laughter) it is complicated but that's where we areal with that bottom line no life safety issue and hoping for another engineer to

see for a better design who knows the retaining walls have the cracks. >> the photo what was that taken? >> it was taken by the city so i'm not sure when it was taken. >> okay. >> but again those retaining walls the plants through the wails are growing that didn't just happen yesterday but for a long, long, long time you see that a lot in san francisco with the retaining walls they're a - behind it and can cause sewer charge and push the wall by hadn't hadn't and i've seen this a lot. >> those are my questions. thank you. >> thank you. >> anyone has - um, just affair clarifications i think i

mentioned you've buffoon tangling to an scombrerg a plan in the yard were addressing the larger retaining walls; is that correct? for my own clarification. >> you mentioned the plans you're been discussing not addressing the side retaining wall but the smaller retaining walls where the plant were. >> it was on the property putting those down and within the property itself so if you imagine a yard retaining wall right around within the rear yard itself you can create um, you know, another retaining wall within the yard and those are the walls you're talking about in terms of safety issues not the ones on the side i want to

clarify to make sure i understood. thank you. >> again bottom line is how much will it help the design that he's got that the city approved? he of the that was too much with the retaining walls having the cracks a decent downpour for 6 months who knows those retaining walls will help the ones existing that the city - including but not limited to should not address that is not an immediate hazard and to bring that up it is incorrect and shouldn't - should just address with what the complaint was the complaint is addressing - there are a lot of different retaining walls i'm trying to understand and about the property line walls that was till was failing

in, see that that was removed and put the one in front and pavers behind there frankly that is boo above with grade no pressure on the part that was falling down by removed. >> thank you. >> it seems that i think your purview was the notice of violation issued krerlg and from what i've heard it was. the issues of the um, retaining walls solutions designed thinking by the engineer and the owner hashing that out is not crux of the matter we're

deciding today but i feel more challenges along those lines, of course. so i have not heard anything that makes it seem the notice of violation was issued improperly so i'll support upholding the order of abatement. >> i agree with you it is seemed like was there enough to allowing a little bit more time for engineering to um, solution that makes sense it seems like, you know, they're understoodably working with engineers it is complicated (laughter). >> and i'm, you know, i think, you know, perhaps an initial solutions i think we should uphold the order and give more time to - um, repermit that.

>> what did it mean to give more time waiting to impose more fees? >> i think for them to continue per a- >> (multiple voices). >> i think they're absolutely in violation but, you know, say okay we're going to give you instead of the fees continuing to pile up okay. you have another, you know, 6 weeks to get our engineering downtown support special use district in does that seem reasonable or? >> to clarify to waive the monthly monitoring fees that is what a it costs at the moment. >> the on the monitoring fees. >> that's the only thing as

far. >> okay. >> so the fees for the clerical work to remove the abatement and inspections- >> (multiple voices). >> i guess does that make sense? >> nice consideration do you have anything. >> asking questions of city attorney and going to consider a modification will be a show threat to public health and safety and make a special determines where the evidence by the appellant was sufficient not any threat to the health and safety doing everything we can that the retaining wall is the order should be modifying or cancelled the retaining wall was not a threat to to health and

safety and seeing a head nod. >> but i think that is i mean, i think- >> (multiple voices). >> in every notice of violation that is the case. >> right but i don't think - i mean president neumann asked an engineering report we can't say oh. >> (multiple voices.) >> and i mean, if the city, you know, i'm looking at the pictures and hard to tell in pictures someone from the city came out and said this is unsafe fix it i don't know we can. >> (multiple voices.) >> the appellant is asserting not safe or a informal collaboration the cancelation of the order of abatement was an permit and - but seems the owner was aware of the complaint and i

don't know if we have a permit that was received. >> we're reviewing what is in the cases which is that there is a request to school the order of abatement because the permit was procured but they procured a permit but not happy with the what was engineered because essentially takes away yard space so 0 they're essentially want to reengineering before actually moving forward with updating the issue. >> and the order of abatement you not only have to file a permit but- >> (multiple voices). >> okay. i got it. >> that's why not proceeding forward a permit solution but there's internal discussion and disagreement and the owner didn't wish to in all that

solution. >> and to answer commissioner williams the work can modify the order of abatement based on the evidence that he presented. you do have december discretion depending on what that is for and also for commissioner sommer regarding i think you had a question about staying the order of abatement the order of abatement is a lien on the property so saying it would um, i guess postpone that the order. on the property for example, 90 days would have 90 days to attempt to correct it and then if (coughing) that order perhaps would not be

reported against the property. >> the only reason that is provided that might be the case because the owners didn't like the solution that was provided. >> in the amount of time and you know how this is going people are busy and to it takes time. >> the owner didn't like the solution that they're engineer came up with- >> (multiple voices). >> that's i guess hard to - >> while we sympathize skoed. >> anyone want to make a motion. >> oh, yeah, i'm also comfortable with the polling my reasons being that um, (clearing throat)

i think a credibility issue with the owner. and prefer to see the engineer i think the fact a huge dispensarycy between the appeal what it was present today that raises questions i wish an answer for the owners represent and no evidence to show that was not a threat and the notice was not properly submitted to i think on that base on the record i think - i have to (unintelligible). >> all right. motion to uphold. >> second. >> okay. >> is a motion by commissioner tam to uphold the order of abatement including the costs.

>> yes. and the seconded by president neumann. >> sorry you have vice president chavez actually (laughter) on the record. >> motion to uphold and so - and with the order of abatement. >> uphold. >> i'm sorry. >> it's okay. >> motion to uphold the order of abatement. >> okay. >> thank you for that motion. >> second. >> (laughter.) >> so motion by vice president chavez and seconded by president neumann. >> is there any public comment on the motion? >> seeing none, roll call vote. >> vice president chavez, yes. >> president neumann, yes. >> commissioner sommer, yes.

>> commissioner williams, yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. and next, we are on today's agenda. speakers shall address their remarks to the board as a whole and not to individual board members or department personnel. any general public comment? >> on abatement appeal board on items not on the agenda thank you and seeing none, item d. >> 5. adjournment. motion to adjourn. >> motion to >> do i have a second? >> second. >> all in favor, say "aye." >> aye. >> we're now adjourned it is 10:19 a.m. and that will conclude the abatement appeals board and at 10 o'clock the

building inspection commission meeting will begin. [meeting adjourned] >> i'm alice king this is my husband shawn kim and we other ordinance of joe's ice cream in san francisco. joe's ice cream in rich mondistrict since 1959 and we are proud to be registered a san francisco legacy business since 2017. and we offer more than 50 flavors of homemade ice cream. and delicious home style

burgers, sandwiches, hot dog, salad and more. we have a lot of different ice cream flavors both classic, long forgotten but classic and asian flavor inspired flavor like 3 red bean and black and now we also brought the korean i'm from korea. korean coffee krooem. we mix our traditional and trendy flavors all together. shawn and i are the first generation of the immigrants here in san francisco. so as immigrants, we have a special connection to this diverse community, san francisco richmond district. so we made this place our home. that is where we are trying to build our business as a place where everybody can feel welcome

like we felt when we first came here what really makes fisher or joe's ice cream we have been growing together with our community. so we support our local schools throughout the fundraiser. we provide job opportunity for high school, i hire them every year. built a beautiful parklet outside funded by donations from over 200 neighbors and friends and i think this really shows how joe's ice cream and our community like lives together. so -- you see our mission is to serve as a fun community hub in san francisco and richmond district. so, i hope that we can stay this way for many years. .

>> neighborhood in san francisco are also diverse and fascist as the people that inhabitable them we're in north beach about supervisor peskin will give us a tour and introduce is to what think of i i his favorite district 5 e 3 is in the northwest surrounded by the san francisco bay the district is the boosting chinatown oar embarcadero financial district fisherman's wharf exhibit no. north beach telegraph hill and part of union square. >> all of san francisco districts are remarkable i'm honored and delighted to represent really whereas with an the most intact district got

chinatown, north beach fisherman's wharf russian hill and knob hill and the northwest waterfront some of the most wealthier and inning e impoverished people in san francisco obgyn siding it is ethically exists a bunch of tight-knit neighborhoods people know he each other by name a wonderful placed physically and socially to be all of the neighborhoods north beach and chinatown the i try to be out in the community as much as and i think, being a the cafe eating at the neighborhood lunch place people come up and talk to you, you never have time alone but really it is fun hi, i'm one the owners and is ceo of cafe trespassing in north beach many people refer to cafe trees

as a the living room of north beach most of the clients are local and living up the hill come and meet with each other just the way the united states been since 1956 opposed by the grandfather a big people person people had people coming since the day we opened. >> it is of is first place on the west that that exposito 6 years ago but anyone was doing that starbuck's exists and it created a really welcoming pot. it is truly a legacy business but more importantly it really at the take care of their community my father from it was formally italy a fisherman and that town very rich in culture and music was a big part of it guitars and sank and combart in the evening

that tradition they brought this to the cafe so many characters around here everything has incredible stories by famous folks last week the cafe that paul carr tennessee take care from the jefferson starship hung out the cafe are the famous poet lawrence william getty and jack herb man go hung out. >> they work worked at a play with the god fathers and photos he had his typewriter i wish i were here back there it there's a lot of moving parts the meeting spot rich in culture and artists and musicians epic people would talk with you and you'd

>> good afternoon and welcome to the april 23, 2024 meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madam clerk, would you please call the roll? >> thank you mr. president. supervisor chan, present. supervisor dorsey, present. supervisor engardio, present. supervisor mandelman, present. supervisor melgar, present. supervisor peskin, present. supervisor preston, present. supervisor ronan, present. supervisor safai, present.