when the notice of violation was issued in may of 2010, the owners were aware of the problem, and we are seeking financing to complete the rehab this property. they received some bids. those that we have received are to the $20,000. this is a major rehab project. -- $220,000. financing is critical. we know it has taken time for us to get here, but it has not been completely wasted time. we have worked with planning staff, we have a set of plans. we had to pare that before we could get contract bids out. if the order of abatement is issued, it would create a cloud on the title, which would work against us, because it would be more difficult to get financing to÷6ñndmx rehab this project.

what we want to do is make this building -- is already secured. we want to complete the upgrade its structure. in order to do that, we need financing. the old order of abatement -- the order of abatement would impede the process. the owners were looking for money to do the project in 2010, but they ran up against a brick wall. we are asking that the order of abatement be held in abeyance, for a period of time, maybe four months, so we can get our financing. at that time, we will have the bubuildi issued and ready to go. it is the intention of the owner to rebuild a beautiful structure.

that is our contention and our concern. we would strongly recommend that the order be held -- commissioner lee: you mentioned the building is secure. what do you mean by that? >> why would have been put around it. -- plywood has been put ar' it. commissioner murphy:5s in the pictures, it is not safe. i wanted to ask a question from staff. is there any way that we could make the building in the rear safe? commissioner hechanova: what we

might be able to do is require an engineering support in 10 days. within 30 days, make safe, board up the buildings, and file as an abandoned building, and put it on our list. commissioner murphy: would you be able to do that? >> surely. commissioner walker: i have a question as to, do you have a plan b, if planning does not approve your residential? >> our plan be would be to reinstall the garage. we are ready to pay for any staff time. commissioner murphy: have you applied for a variance? >> no, we have not. planning says to hold off on that. we are also willing to pay for dbi staff time.

we do need this additional time. in order to get financing to get this project off the ground. commissioner murphy: it needs to be properly framed out, she did with plywood so that people cannot get for that. if that is done, it is up to staff. commissioner walker: our action would be to uphold this and give you four months to comply, to hold it in the n@ comply with staff. >> that would be a tremendous help to us. commissioner murphy: could we make it six months? commissioner walker: i would rather make it shorter. >> could we go five months? commissioner murphy: 6 months is

pretty short. commissioner walker: i would make the motion of five months. if they need to come back -- commissioner lee: ok, so the motion is five months? at the same time, give them 10 days to obtain a shoring permit, 10 days for an engineering report? commissioner murphy: i will second the motion. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> hello, commissioners. i am a member of the san francisco coalition for responsible growth. i think we are all aware of this, but planning will be the big holdup. i just wanted to get that

across. making it secure is a wise way to go. thank you. >> any additional public comment? commissioner hechanova: have they received a timeline as to when the potential review will take place? by planning? >> we are going to file within the next week or so for their review, yes. no more pc comment, no more rebuttal. we will uphold the abatement for five months. the owner is required to obtain a shourd permit and shore -- shoring permit and an yengineering report in 10 days,

file as an abandoned building., >> i think you misspoke, you want to hold the order of abatement in abeyance. commissioner walker: thank you. commissioner lee: thank you. >> a roll-call vote on the motion. [roll call] the motion carried unanimously. item e, new appeals, orders of abatement. case no. 6755 -- i'm sorry. case no. 6756, 423-425 noe street. >> good morning again, members

of the board. staff and the department is asking the board to uphold the hearing officer in this particular instance. we have a four-unit apartment building. this particular building right here. can there will be a couple of issues that will come up here. standing in front of the building, one extent of the north side. there is a situation -- the story here is -- the property owner had done some of the work, but he has never facilitated a routine inspection, going back

to the last one we asked for in 2002. he does the work and then the inspector has to try to get in. he does not show up for the inspections. you have a series of documents that show requesting access. if you cannot make that particular date, to schedule something else. on the notice of violation we issued, it also says the property owner needs to make the date and time of the reinspection, secure a different time frame. the orders for the violation are mentioned in a couple of instances. chapter three of the san francisco housing code requires all apartment buildings three units or more be subject to periodic health and safety inspections. when the inspector could not get in, he found himself at the adjacent property. he saw the peeling paint on the subject building, there is a presumption of lead-based paint. he wrote that notice of

violation, but we never had a chance to get in to see the whole building. there has been a conversation as of september of this year between the inspector and property owner, but we have not yet been able to get in and see that. while we were able to see parts of the south side, we were not able to see this location. it is not our policy to try to crash addition policies -- adjacent policies when we are doing a routine inspection, so that -- had the inspection occurred, we would have seen that he painted the building, given documentation to show us the fire escape at the front of the building was serviced, as far as maintenance. we have not been able to get inside, though, to see that this side has been done to see the garage and the circumference of the building for purposes of

routine inspection. let me show you what this looks like from the street. this is the alleyway on the adjacent property. we cannot see over that. this is what it looks like when you are standing there. in effect, you cannot look over to see what is going on with this subject building. it would have been -- we would have to be here with a property owner, would have been happy, if we had gone access to the building. that is what this is about. from that standpoint, time and money, it extended code in force than has occurred. i want to give credit to the property owner because he did to work. we rode up some work on the exterior steps, he painted the front of the building, gave us documentation, but we need access to see the rest of the building. commissioner walker: and you

still do not have access? >> no, we have not. it is in all of our documentation, so we are willing to work with them, but we the corporation. he may have other information that i do not know that he may want to share with you. >> is the property -- property owner here? >> good morning, commissioners. the simple issue here is i issued a notice of violation -- commissioner lee: your name? h'm sorry, i am the property owner. mr. schmidt. the simple issue is i was issued a notice of violation last july regarding alleged problems with a step, which was not true. nonetheless, instead of going to the extent of this procedure, i simply repaired it.

these are old-boy style steps, manufactured stone block steps. there was one crack in it on the second or third step up, which i filled in with some special adhesive. it was never a problem. safety, or any other danger. the only reason i was cited was retaliatory, because i was not present for the inspection. r issue with the fire escape ladder, which has always function. i submitted that proof. there is no reason for anyone to suspect it did not function, but nevertheless, i submitted the proof for that. those are the two items on the original notice, which are wrongly cited in the first place, but i did what they

requested. he came out to inspect those items, and lo and behold, he finds something else that was very evident the first time. it is clear this is retaliatory. the other item was chipping paint on the south side of the building, which extends four feet out beyond the neighboring building to the south. the building has been regularly painted. there might be some chips in the paint, but it was not in disrepair. it certainly did not pose a health or safety issue. that is the standard here. there has been no evidence in this proceeding that there has ever been any health or safety issue. until they meet that threshold,

they have not even met their burden for establishing a violation. the it as it may, -- they also cited the north wall. it is pretty ironic. my tenants consider me a good landlord. i provide good housing, and have over the years. some of them well below market. i do not regularly raise my rent. there is one guy there that has problems. he has not paid me read four months. i am not someone abusing tenants out there. i think i am adding to my community. i pay my taxes on time. $7,000 on that property. the property has always been in good condition and no one has submitted any evidence to the contrary. going back to this north wall

issue, it had been covered with ivy that had grown from an adjoining lot to the northeast corner of my building. that ivy growing -- in the past, i have periodically have to take it down because i have painted that wall in the past. i took that down because it was becoming a problem. it was covering up the wall. that was taken down a few months before this incident arose, where they alleged the north wall was peeling paint. removing that ivy expose the wall which had not been painted. obviously, i do not know if you have any experience, but it

adheres to the wall. you have to pull it off. that leaves chips in the paint, etc. the bottom line is, that did not pose a health, safety, or any other issue in this matter. the wall was painted and completed in a timely fashion, per the notice. i did not believe that i was required to do it, but i did it. not only did i pay that ball, i painted the front of the building. as well as the side wall. it is done. no one has committed one iota of evidence to the contrary. i testified to that fact at the directors hearing. there is no wonder to contradict me. the only issue was this issue of inspection.

commissioner walker: why didn't you let them come in to inspect? it is a requirement. >> i respectfully disagree. commissioner walker: i disagree with you. >> i asked that the hearing -- i cannot recall his name. the inspector did not show up. i ask, is there any code that requires that? he could not cite it to me. there is no code. i would challenge any of you to cite me a code. there is no such code that requires me to allow an inspection. they can ask for an inspection, just like a cop can ask questions, but i do not have to for them and inspection. -- afford them and inspection. that is not the issue here. it is not whether or not i

violated a law with the inspection. this is an abatement hearing. the question of the subject matter it is in question. i dispute there was ever a problem. commissioner lee: your time is up. >> i am not done, with all due respect. >> we want to see if the department -- commissioner lee: we want to see if the department can answer to your questions. is all right? >> sure. >> members of the board, there are a few things that need clarification. the property owner was using the term health and safety in a broadway, but not the way it is defined in municipal code. chapter two and three of the san francisco housing code lay out --ájnfyhñ chapter 10 specifical- what substandard conditions are that are considered health and safety violations.

i would point out, the actual request letter for the routine inspection sites the code sections that require the routine inspection. ec says apartment buildings shall be subject to this inspection. that is clear language that said that is a required inspection. not only is that in the letter, but the letter is accompanied by a several page list telling the property owner what the odds are that we will be looking at. it is also in the request letter. we s -- when we set these inspections up -- a lot of information. we definitely would say the property owners' contention that it has never been refuted is complete in error of the documentation before you. the notice of violation has language of the inspection, that an on-site inspection is required.

the notice of violations go back to the building code and housing code. when you do work, it has to be verified by on-site inspection. the same thing with routine inspections if you have an apartment building in the city and county of san francisco. we have a knowledge the work that we can see from the street has been done, but a routine inspection has not been done. we asked for one in 2002 and got the same response. there is a pattern at this -- of this particular property owner. we would like to work with him on this issue because there is not much time. if we cannot gain access to see what is done -- you also have in your package, clearly, there was peeling paint. i will show you some colored photographs. this is what the inspectors sought from the adjacent property. we cannot be going to an adjacent property, and will not be able to do that, to see the entire property.

we need to be able to see the garage, look at the back of the building to see the egress. into that area to see the back, to see whether or not there is any additional peeling paint. we have not gotten access. with respect to that, we believe the hearing officer was correct in making sure an order was issued, so we could encourage the property owner to work with us. we try to give him as much information as possible. we would disagree with his clarification of the issue. commissioner lee: so this all started with a routine inspection of the apartment? >> we made a request in 2002. he did not show up them. then a subsequent request was made. the inspectors saw something at the front of the building, wrote that up, and when he was at the

adjacent property, saw the peeling paint and put it together. the inspectors try not to write various notices on the same property because we are trying to work with a property owner. when he wrote that first notice, he thought he would get access at the time of death reinspection, and that he could talk with the property owner. at any time, if the property owner had a question or did not feel like his assessment was broken, they could've had a discussion. we have not had the opportunity to discuss it at the site. we feel, on the basis of what you heard from the property owner, what is in the staff report, in my testimony, that an order should be issued so we can work with the property owner more specifically in the future. thank you. commissioner lee: rebuttal,

three minutes. >> i do not think it is fair to give me three minutes in light of the issues tendered here. this is an abatement committee. and a bateman is not an order for me to allow an inspection. only a court can allow me -- order me to allow an inspection. with all due respect, you have no power, as the director did not, to order me to allow an inspection. that is not within your jurisdiction. there is no law that says i have to allow an inspection. how the inspection is procured is different. the fact of the matter is, they do not have an order to cite. it is a misrepresentation that they cannot see the work was not done. they cannot verify that it was not done. i have stated under oath under these occasions that the work is done. there is no evidence to the

contrary. i did the work well within the time set forth by the original notice of violation. i submitted evidence that the directors hearing that the work had been done. there is no evidence whatsoever that the alleged violation has not been repaired. it has been repaired. if you want to see the painting receipts, i have them here. the work is done. no one can testify to the contrary. also, contrary to what was stated, they can see what was done from the street. when you are on 17th street looking over the fence, you can see work was done in the various areas depicted. if they are snow -- so sneaky to go into the neighbor's yard to gain access to my yard, then they will do it again. i do not like it when people are sneaking in to my neighbor's yard to look in m»>p i hope you find that offensive

as well. this is a free country. we do not have people writing you out by sneaking into your neighbor's yard. that is not the way we operate in this country. it is in violation of well- established law. if the representative does not know that, then she is woefully ignorant of the applicable law. i am astounded that she is standing up here and arguing with a straight face that i had an obligation to allow an inspection. the u.s. supreme court has declared to the contrary. if they do not know it, they should know it. commissioner murphy: can i ask you one question? why don't you let the inspectors in? >> because i believe in freedom. i have rights, just like i have a right to free speech. i do not have to explain to anyone why. it says in the fourth amendment i have these rights. it says i have a right to privacy in the california constitution, a right to

dignity. i do not need to be exposed to unsolicited accusations. if they have a problem, they have no remedies. i am insisting on my rights. i think we would be a better country, quite frankly, if more people did that. commissioner walker: i am ready to talk about it. >> thank you for your time. the point is, there is nothing to abate, so the order is polonius. >> is the public comment on this item? commissioner walker: i appreciate the passion by which you deliver your position. however, in the city, thankfully, we have some losawsn making surew÷nnpr that apartmed spaces we rent to tenants, as a

landlord, are inspected. that is called a routine inspection. when you rent to people, you agree to do that. a lot of landlords in the city do it. fortunately, we have hundreds of thousands of rental units in the city. it is our job to make sure they are safe, and no one here has been able to go in and inspect common areas of the building, nor the walls that are not accessible, because the property owner has not÷3[ let anyone ino inspect, so our property inspectors are not able to do their job. i actually think we should double this action from the department, and hopefully, the property owner will comply. i would vote to uphold a

recommendation to staff. commissioner lee: before that, i would like to ask, has this situation ever occurred in the past? what have you done in the past two ask the property owner to give you access for a routine inspection? >> we try to work with a property owner. that is the first thing. if we cannot gain access that way, especially when we have seen there are violations, the next course is to consult with the city attorney's office and perhaps get an inspection warrants. we have had more than five years since this particular building has gone a routine inspection. this is a pre-79 building. you want to make sure there are no other lead paint issues on the exterior. we do not think this inspection would take that long, but we also have a