the city of san francisco sfgtv meeting of the san francisco building inspection commission occurring august 21, 2013, will begin shortly.

>> good morning, today is wednesday, august 21, 2013, this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board, i would like to remine everyone to turn off all electronic devices and the first item on the agenda is roll call. >> president clinch?

>> here. >> vice president melgar? >> here. >> commissioner mar? >> here. >> commissioner mccray is expected. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> here. >> and commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner walker? >> here of the >> we have a quorum and the next item is item b. the oath. would all persons that may be giving testimony today please stand and raise your right-hand? [oath >> you may be seated. >> and have an announcement that item d, for a new appeal case number 6779, 3580 san bruno avenue has been withdrawn and this case will not be heard

today. >> the next item, is c, approval of the minutes, discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for the meeting held on may 15th, 2013. is there a motion to approve in >> i move. >> second. >> are all in favor? >> aye. >> aye. >> are any opposed in >> is there any public comment on approving the minutes? >> seeing none, the minutes are approved. >> next item is item e, continued appeal order of abatement. case number 6778-326330.

the owner, brandon acase no. 6778: 326-330 presidio avenue owner of record and appellant: brendan a. quinlan, 63 wawona street, san francisco, ca 94127 owner of record and appellant: elizabeth quinlan, 63 wawona street, san francisco, ca 94127 action requested by appellant: the appellant is requesting the aab's assistance in securing the tenant's cooperation to complete the necessary repairs. >> this is testimony, delibation and possible action to reverse or modify the order of abatement. >> the department? the department their staff representative? good morning, members of the voting session and mr. president, my name is senior housing inspector and i'm here for inspector who cannot make it here today, i just want to give you a quick synopsis of

the case and you have the staff report for all pertinent information regarding the case. the property at 326, 330 procidio avenue is a 6-unit apartment p building. >> housing services roefd a complaint on october 8, 2009 on the same day we inspected the property and found the violations and issued a notice of violation, it is to be regarding maintenance repairs and peeling paint. over the course of the complaint, the owner and the tenant, were allowed to work out accessibility to the unit to conduct the repairs. and prior to the notice of violation has remained outstanding and the director's hearing was schedule and the order of abasement was issued against the property if work that was not done.

it appears that the owner is willing to do the work and the case before you and his abide by your decision, our recommendation was to up hold the order of abasement. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay, appellant? >> apologize, i forgot to announce that each of the department and the appellant have 7 minutes, and then there are three minutes of rebuttal time each. >> good morning, my name is brendan and i am the owner of 326 precdido avenue and i bought the building in 2005 and met with mr. paxton because he had issued that he wanted to present to me.

i met with him in his apartment and he showed me the various things that needed to be corrected and i agreed that all of these items needed to be corrected and so i told him that i will take care tf and i wanted it to be caken care of as soon as possible and soon afterwards, i got a letter from mr. paxton where he laid out, and backtrack by saying the major part of the repair was in his bathroom and so soon afterwards i got a letter from mr. paxton saying that he wanted to have a more elaborate bathroom constructed and he had drawn up a sketch in detail about how he would like to have it enlarged with a shower bench and a soap niches and the frameless glass inclosure and a new sink and new tile and much more elaborate job than what i was required to do. at that point, i told him that we could not do that and we were not required to do that. and that is where the

controversy has developed from. and so this has gone on for all of this time. we have been willing to do the repairs and he will not allow us in to do the repairs because he wants to have this very luxurious bathroom where he now has a regular bathroom and it got to the point that he decided that he would stop paying rent and use the money that he would normally pay for his rent to purchase a shower valve which he intended us to use in the bathroom and i have the receipt and it cost $1621. and mr. paxton rent was 772 dollars, and so he stopped paying rent for two motorcycle and partially for the third month to reimburse, himself. of course it was not anywhere in the realm of a reasonable for us to install and so this went on for longer and long and her then we came to the issue

where, you know, he called in the housing inspection division and the inspector showed up and was able to verify that these issues were real and we never denied that they were real and we acknowledge that these problems existed and we wanted to take care of it. and so the housing inspector issued the notice of violation and i responded immediaty to mr. dicks by which is on the record and we received the letter by acknowledge that the problems existed and that i was fwoeg to forward that to the management company and for them to contact him to make a plan to move forward with the repairs. and the reply to the management company was, and this is in quotations. he said that you will never enter my unit. he said to the manager at the time and so he denied him access right tl. i contacted

ron dickks at the housing inspection and this went on. and so this continued and continued and, to the point where now here we are with all of these hearings and we are not any closer to getting it done. he wants to be able to decide, which is in his lease and i have no problem with that and he wants to be able to decide the color and the quality and the style of the replacement parts. and i have no problem, and he specified a green tile and i went to the store and i ordered the green tile and i have the invoice that i did. i gave him all of the colors in the world and he could pick any of the colors. he said that because this may be disruption to his family life that he wants to be relocated during the work and he suggested that he be willing to move into the laural lynn hotel and so i went there and i

prebooked a suite for his family. he still refused to do this, we gave him everything that he wanted but we did not agree to this out landish remodel that he wanted. we are at the stage that we feel that cannot go get into the unit. i am not going to break the door down, we can't get in. he says that he has let us in. he claims that he has let us in on numerous occasions and he has. he will let you in to look at it and when you call back to schedule the work he says no. so it is a catch 22, we don't know what to do. i at this point i have exhausted every rememberty to me. it is how the residential lease

is interpreted legally, i have done everything that i can and i have taken out a permit to do the work, and it is just impossible for me to move forward with this. and i urge you to think about take all of that into consideration, you can see in your package the scope of the work that i submitted. and i submitted, and he goes back and test the heating and it is working fine but he continues to complain about us and he has taken us to superior court where it was dismissed and he has taken me to small claims where the cases were dismissed and he is a difficult guy to work with and i just can't understand why we can't work and get this thing done? it is a straight forward simple job, i am a contractor i do this for a living, i could be in and out of here in no time and over and done with, but we

simply are not being allowed to do what we are required to do by the notice of violation. from here on i am going to have my legal counsel handle it because it is going over, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> department rebuttal. as i initially stated, it says that it is up to the commission we will abide by what your decision is, and at this point, thank you. >> i actually have a question.

>> sure. >> is it the department's position that the landlord is doing everything that he can to remedy this? >> the information that i have, i am not personally involved in this case but the information that i have is that yes, that the landlord is trying and you heard his testimony. the landlord is trying to resolve the issue. it is a matter of accessibility at this point and a relationship between the landlord and the property owner determines that over all resolving the problem. >> commissioner walker? >> yes, what is the approximate time needed to do the work on this violation, anybody? >> okay.

thank you. >> yes, commissioner. i already have obtained permit. >> okay. >> and i already have most of the materials. and the subcontractors have been ready on a number of occasions to do the work and we would go to the build to find out that we could not go in. so the answer is two to three weeks, probably two, outside of three, including all of the relevant inspections. >> got it. thank you. >> commissioner mar? >> i guess this is more of a question for the staff. because the initial complaint came in from the tenant that we talked to the tenant about resolving this issue? >> pardon me? did we talk to the tenant? >> because i would guess that the initial complaint came in from the tenant. >> yes, it did come in from the tenant and we talked to the tenant in regards to resolving the issue between the tenant and the property owner?

>> right. >> along those lines? >> right. because he wants to resolve the issue. or to resolve the complaint. >> or maybe, get our tenant group and landlord groups involved to help mitigate. we have a whole program that is aimed at trying to resolve these issues. >> i can refer us back to the actual complaint. it is one of your exhibits. and let's see if there is any notes regarding a conversation between the inspector and the tenant regards to resolving the issue with the owner. and i don't see any in there. >> okay. >> and so i... what is before you, i mean, for my reading, i honestly there, again, i am not the actual inspector on the

case. okay. >> commissioner lee? >> commissioner mccarthy asked if the department felt that the appellant did everything that he could in his powers to correct this situation. which i would assume, getting the permits and everything else. so, if that is the case, why was the order of abatement issued? i am just wondering what the reason was. >> the reason that the order of abasement was issued because the notice of violation was issued in october 2009 and it is four years down the road and the type of situation where we are trying not to hold on to cases forever. and get some sort of resolution, one way or the other and ultimately the responsibility is going to the property and instead of the owner of the property was issued in the abatement to comply with the notice of violation. >> thank you, could we have the

appellant's rebuttal, if you would like? >> >> commissioners, don't really have anything to add beyond the fact that you heard from the department where they are aware that i made my best effort to resolve the issue, and like i said, i have been in constant contact with our inspector dicks. and he has, you know, we have a paper trail of our communications where i have shown him the letters from the tenant where he states in black and white that he will not let us in. and, beyond that, i am powerless to do anything and i can't fix it from outside on the street, i have to be in there. so, that is basically, the bottom line. thank you. >> thank you. >> public comment? >> thank you. >> public comment? >> and there are three minutes for public comment. >> good morning, commissioners

john paxton and i am the tenant. i urge you to deny the appeal mr. quinn wants to appeal, these violations have continued for over, for nearly 4 years. and they, he and his wife have successfully delayed compliance. there were 8 violations. and he has corrected none of them. the owner and some of them are pretty simple. cleaning out the vents. that has not been done. and the owners are contractors, property, managers and attorneys, have been in our unit on dozens of occasions, to say that i have denied them access and an out and out misrepresentation, what is true is that they feel that they can maneuver the violations into an excuse for not living up to their strong and unique contractual obligations under my lease which i negotiated with the procedure owner. he never read my lease before he purchased the building, and

he is bound by the contract, he voluntarily agreed to be bound by. the situation at 330 procido avenue is one that is too common in the city, water leaks are treated by housing as a cosmetic problem when they frequently cause serious structural deteriation, and following the 1989 earthquake, there was moderate damage, to the building resulting from the wood deteration and the building was cited and the owner was required to make 104 f repairs which was never done, water leaks have been seeping through the inspire height of the northern wall for years and the present violation has no requirement for structural evaluation or even a building permit. in 2012, another violation was issued for water damage to the apartment below us which required that the owner paint over the problem. in my rebuttal package, i

include the photos of the water damage to the unit on the first floor and two floors down, and from the damage from the leaks from our shower, and the owner's worked only to perform a superficial cosmetic repair without any inspections or structural evaluations with the probability of the structural decay exists. >> item e. >> the building is a wood frame, building, and have to comply with the soft story ordinance and it has significant other problems and i hope that the bic will recognize that the wood rot is a problem for the city's housing stock. it appears that the resolution is to have the court report a resiever and i surge you to deny his appeal and to expedite the process. >> if you have any questions i

am happy to take them. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. thank you for coming. i do have a question about the statement made by the building owner regarding your requirement that seemed to expand what was already there. so could you answer that part? because i mean. we are not a court of law. so it is not like we are going to be looking at the lease or whatnot. we are trying to resolve this issue. so, what is the issue regarding expanding the bathroom? or the abilities? >> that is fine. as a tenant, i'm entitled to the protection under the building code, the building code says that when showers are replaced they are going to be brought up to certain minimum size. it is a very small room in order to get