>> there are two key words. those that were mentioned earlier that the first hearing, when the case was continued. the key word is continuance. at the hearing on january 13 of this year, the key word used at the hearing was not up to date. that tape at the very end, there was discretion in that case. discretion was done back and forth for three minutes. it got fairly unpredictable. so, the portion that we put at the end was a hearing officer saying it was returned to staff.

we talked back to the staff and there was a further opportunity. they assured us that they were going to get permits to deal with and the violation. that did not happen at the end of 30 days. at the end of that 30 days they were obligated to issue an order of abatement. they were given very the time to process it. now we are here with a deck that is occupied. there are no guardrails. the department is now going to ask how we allowed this condition to continue. i would say that if there is confusion, maybe we can

consider requesting a transcript of the hearing at that particular address, held on january 13. all of you board members can review it thoroughly. if i am somehow misspeaking, i will be glad to admit that at a later date. in absence of that, -- [unintelligible] >> i appreciate that. we only heard a key portion of what was presented. i hear what you are saying. i would feel more comfortable getting a copy of the tape and being able to listen to it, to make sure that we have jurisdiction to do anything. or, get a transcript. i just, i think you are right. i hear what you are saying.

>> when it comes to abatement? >> they are saying get the transcript. give them another 30 days and another 30 day exception. >> i feel like the order was issued. i get that part. i am sort of confused as to whether we are supposed to follow the words of the hearing officer. i guess, we usually start our action once the order is issued and an appeal is filed. so, that part was done correctly. we just have not had a situation where there is a contradiction between what might have been said at the hearing and the order itself. i guess, that is where ibm -- >> lets reserve that discussion until afterwards. >> i would like to respond to

the comments. first of all, there is a guard rail. a significant guard rail. secondly, the transcript, and i have handled director disagreements four years at the department. advisement does not come back for another hearing. when it turns to staff, generally, i have no problem with getting a transcript or looking at the whole tape to get the thing. if we have to continue for 30 days or something like that -- >> once again, i would like to have final rebuttal. never once was the word advisement used in our case. never once did use the word advisement. i addressed that very clearly in

item #3. i object to what has been referred to as a lack of due process. we submitted this package to staff on september 13. in the staff report, none were noticed in terms of the violation or the order of abatement. the have extensive claims as to why the deck is too large. the building code does not apply? that was never said before. we had no opportunity to respond to the false charges about which was the applicable code. the original deck covered 25,000 square feet. when we renovated, it was reduced. based on the staff report now,

which we just saw for the first time, that would mean that any time you be route to a historic building, you lose your roof. that could not be the intent of the historic building code, to undo the historic features. there has been a roof deck on this for 100 years. there has always been a roof deck. the contractor that worked with the roofers here. they can testify that they simply replaced the deck that was there and replaced it with boards. >> commissioners? but discussions? >> on the face of this, i would actually suggest that we uphold staff recommendation and give the appellant time to complete the work. but i do have issues about

procedure here. i want to have a discussion here with other commissioners. >> i also want to get clear. it seems like the issue is not just time. it -- if it was a different or smaller configuration, but what is the resolution? >> you are right. we just noticed this for the first time, 15 minutes ago. we got a structural report that was for what a deck normally is. normally only 30 people. this was one freak incident, one year ago, where someone supposedly had a party, which was not approved -- there are rules about that. we notified all the tenants as soon as i heard about that. it should have been done through

the police department. but you are right. this issue about the size of the deck is an incredibly important issue. the deck was a lot smaller than ever before, but it has been there for 35 years. this is a in a square building that is entitled to keep historic features. we would want to be able to make the case that the state historic building code allows you to retain the features that were there originally, in the same size. i consider these to the scare tactics. we had a well known structural engineer already determined that as and walking back for people to stand on, it was perfectly safe. what we would like to do is try to work out -- >> perhaps the best course is to

take a continuance. looking into this matter on the order of abatement in the first place and get that fire out with the department. i suggest that, because there is an issue here that the law clerk brought up. >> maybe this comment will help bring us to a solution. if i were solomon and i were handling this case, i would say close the deck. do not allow anyone on that roof. reversed the abatement order. let it go through the planning process. this way, no one uses it while it is going to planning until it is resolved. i think that would be the best solution. is there any way to accomplish that? >> we had better check to see if the deck is part of the system. >> i would like to figure out if

the deck is part of the mx -- annexing system. >> are there guard rails? are they high enough? can you explain that? >> we do not have an issue, therefore we cannot categorically say. we have to assume it is on safe. >> could i have -- is this the -- is that a whirlpool on top? is that a pool? >> what that is, there is a storefront on about -- ground floor. the hood is to protect the skylight. >> how about this? take a 30 day continuance and have staff look at the issues of

exporting. and then come back to the abatement heart. >> commissioners? >> what was that? >> a 30 day continuance. going out to see if the deck is a required exit. with a chance to review the tape. >> i am ok with that, but the issue here, we did have an order of abatement that went out. the question is -- against that seems to indicate that that was their contention. there are some issues about it, but when you replace a deck that requires a permit. the issue at hand -- i am not

asking a question. the issue at hand is really whether to be clearer on that procedure. in order to clarify whether we have terrorist action to do anything. -- jurisdiction to do anything. at this point, i am leaning toward polling for staff recommendation, but we do need more information. the issue is challenging for a lot of people. if the deck is inconsistent, but not complying and falling apart, we want it to be safe, but for it to be rebuilt it has to go through the planning process, as it does not conform. it is not our job to make those rules. >> commissioner, as your motion

is in the form of emotion from you -- >> first, i wanted to hear what the commissioners and my colleagues thought. >> added to your motion. >> just to see, for a 30 day continuance. >> after that, we talked about taking a 30 day continuance on this matter to allow the staff to go out and review the deck. and at the same time, maybe get a transcript of the hearing for us. >> is an exit, we cannot close it. >> do we have these tapes? are there transcripts in existence? >> we only have the tapes. we do not have the transcript.

sorry. >> the department has a tape and a transcript. >> i am not sure if they keep a transcript. >> we can make one. >> all right. >> a continuance of 30 days? >> the motion on the floor is for a 30 day continuance for the inspection of the property. also to get a transcript of the tape. during which time, the roof that will not be used. -- roof deck will not be used. >> is there something about exiting, also? >> this is a roll call vote. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes.

>> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> the motion carries, unanimously. item d, public comment on items not on the agenda. but seeing no one? -- >> si no one? >> item -- seeing no one? >> item e is adjournment. >> aye. >> abatement is adjourned. we will take a 10 minute recess.

>> good morning. this is a regular meeting of the building inspection commission. at that time, i would like to ask everyone to turn off all of the electronic agenda item -- all of the year -- all of their electronic devices. >> [roll call] >> we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda, no. 2, .750-4 of the city charter,

declaring appeals before the commission as provided by the administrative code in chapter 77.1. the discussion and possible action regarding mr. wilkinson's request for a fee waiver for three appeals he seeks to file on behalf of lakewood tenants association. >> good morning. may i proceed? >> identify yourself, please. >> your name? >> ross will consent. i represent myself and the lakewood tenants association. you may remember something that was copied to yourselves last

january. listing a prolonged series of difficulties in getting a building inspection actually enforced. we have three appeals that we filed. there is a fourth that we did not file that was for excess. we thought that that would go to the access appeals board, but they do not have jurisdiction. we will have to bring it to you first. >> may i interrupt? this item is before you not on substance, but an underlying appeal. he has asked to file his appeal without pay of it -- paying filing fees. you have the ability to waive the fees. he has been informed that he could fill out the form for its bid -- and agency used by the

court of appeals. he did not choose to do that. he wanted to come to you to keep the appeals that he wishes to file. the ultimate item before you today is whether or not you will allow him not to pay the filing fees that the board of supervisors have set. >> that is exactly right. thank you for making my speech for me. there are two approaches to the question of fees. one is the legal approach. i gave you some excerpts. i am not a lawyer and do not hat -- did not have much time to research, so this is what i found. there is also fairness and reasonableness in this matter. i will allege that this is a

criminal landlord. they do not obey the law before they do work at the apartments. the appeals that are being brought all relate to the same essential problem, shutting off ventilation in the corridors to save themselves money. the department of building inspection will not require them to be start it. the tenants are faced with a filing fee of $748 for each of the three complaints that were not addressed by the department of building inspection. i might have joined those together to minimize the city, but i felt that each of those needed to be addressed specifically in order to demonstrate and correct the department of building inspection on all three occasions to do their job. so, as the lady said, are you the representative of the city attorney?

>> yes. >> as the city attorney said, we are not claiming to be indigent. we understand what the law requires for people who are indigent to have their fees waived. but part of the state housing law requires fees for prosecuting all of the work that the department of building inspection would do to enforce the code. they have to be limited to recent requirements and that they shall not be levied for general revenue purposes. i understand that the fee has gone up from $100 to $748 in one fell swoop. it seems like a pretty large increase at one time. i would like to research the question of whether that

reflects the reasonable costs of the department to address these complaints. but i will just wrap it up. we will take the stand to say that we're broke. we are not going to go as a tenants' association in as individual members the details of their personal finances before this board. we think that the department of building inspection should do a good faith effort to enforce law and, if they do not, we will have to find some other way to address it. but we are appealing to you to recognize the kind of optical that $748 in filing fees would represent to individual tenants, given the fact that we have to come to this department quite often because we have a landlord that has no respect for law. that is proven. the city attorney has already sued this landlord for refusal

to appear the fire alarms. unless you have any questions, that is basically it. >> any questions, commissioners? mr. lee? >> how many members are on your association? >> we do not have been at the exact number. dues are voluntary. we have over 200 people signed in to our association. >> how many units? >> 721. >> essentially, what i am hearing is that you disagree with the department's determination? >> they did not make a determination. >> that is not it. you are -- >> you are appealing

because you -- never mind, i got it. >> to do we have to have public comment on this one? >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? seeing no one, commissioner, comments? >> the fees are not set by us and we are very limited as to when the can be deferred. as much as i appreciate that there is an issue with what our department is doing, or not doing, that is something i am concerned about, but for the fee waiver i do us to wear we have the ability to, other than in the agency, the for the feet, or

reduce it. >> additional comments? -- before -- defer the fee, or reduce it. >> additional comments? >> i would move not to defer the feet. >> i second that. >> discussion? >> there will be a roll call vote on this item. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> yes. >> the motion carries to deny approval of the fee waiver. >> you are free to file, if you

will. >> #3, president's announcement. >> good morning. a couple of announcements here. we continue to notify the public of our continued telephone inspection scheduling service, which has been since the beginning of the year, helping to improve requests over the phone for scheduling. secondly, we also want to thank edmund clark and mabel, who have basically provided a level of public service here at the department, along with renzang

on the fifth floor. thank you very much for providing the service that the department always liked to hear of, from the department of public service. other than that, that is it. >> all right. public comments on the president's announcement? item number four, general public comment. we will take comments on terrorist action items that are not within the agenda. >> kenai have the overhead on? >> it is on. >> a they're going to focus on it when you put it down.

>> good morning, commissioners. i want to bring to your attention a rather unusual circumstance that you may wish to look into. you will see that there is a copy here of the lobby permit tracking system that shows a missing -- how do you prove a negative -- but a missing complaint. i wanted to bring to your attention that the complaint on the system, as early as august 17 of this year, was recorded correctly. the case was opened. the case was abated. but i am not familiar in any way without to remove a complaint from the tracking system. we make -- which take them, we investigate them, they are left open until they're finished. i would like to leave these

pieces of paper and have someone look into the how and why of any complaint being removed from the public record. >> thank you. item #five. sorry, further public comment? >> my name is sandy. i would like to read you a memo that was sent to members of the commission on august 15, just before the previous meeting, the august meeting. it was sent from sonya harris to the commissioners. it says -- "[unintelligible] met mr. burnback