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 garage area. we have to make sure it is properly sprinklered. if there is a garbage chute or anything like that -- is all the types of things that are on the list given to the property owner as part of a routine inspection program, to tie -- try to minimize those problems happening in the city. this program has existed for the past 25 years. we will continue to work with a property owner, but if he is of a different philosophy, we will consult with the city attorney to gain access. commissioner murphy: the picture that was taken of the pipe, where was that taken from?

>> when we had the routine inspection, he did not show up, the next day, we were at the adjacent property. commissioner murphy: is that the policy of the department? >> if we can see it in plain view, which the inspector was, in the adjacent property, that is ripe for writing a notice of violation. especially because of the particular history. commissioner murphy: isn't that trespassing if we go into somebody else's property? >> we were lawfully on the adjacent property. we were doing an inspection here. the inspector was here. he saw it the peeling paint on the adjacent property. commissionerit is part of the pn the corner. he was let into this property to do this inspection. what he was doing was what he

did with this property, walking around the outer edge for a scheduled inspection. as he got to hear, he could see the peeling paint. >> ok, i understand. it is not our policy to go on property without permission of the owner. >> no. that is why we send that whole package to the property owner, requesting the inspection, why the inspection, the code section, and a whole list of things that i am going to look at. so that the property owner knows. sometimes they may have minor items that they can fix before we get there and it is a reference for them. >> we just need to be careful with trespassing issues. >> absolutely. we were not. but it was in plain view. >> got it. thank you. >> was the one that took the picture the same inspector that

had cited the violation? >>njvncy i have him here. >> rosemary, back to my original question. is this the first time that something like this happened? >> this happens on occasion. how did the other ones -- >> how did the other ones get resolved? >> we keep trying to get in. when we have a property owner getting up, it tells us that we have to do something else. in a situation like that, where it has happened before in the code says we have to do the inspection, we get an inspection order. they generally do not come up because property owners usually cooperate when we and -- when they understand what we are trying to achieve. i readily acknowledge the work that we did from the street.

but we are saying is that we did see some things that have to be corrected. we needed to be able to get in to verify on site but was happening into the routine inspection. >> you would go to the city attorney's office to get an order form? >> in this particular instance, if you vote to uphold the order, be will try to work with the property owner for a little bit. if he is adamant about not doing a routine inspection, not letting us in, we will consult the city attorney. all we have done is gotten inspection warrants in the past, when we were not able to get in. >> were you not able to get an inspection warrant before it reached us? >> because that is not a process in the city and county. the code says that these

buildings are subject to inspection. most property owners cooperate and let us in. the other thing that will happen is, if we have to get a warrant, the property owner bill be billed. most property owners do not want to do that. there is case law that says the property owner is obligated to let us in without a warrant, but if he refuses, that is the warrant that week -- that is the course that we take. >> anything to add to that? is that correct? >> the only thing that i wanted to make clear was the order of abatement that was near something that needed to be visible. the fact that they did not allow the routine inspection, i do not know that that is within your jurisdiction. blacks there is a reference to them. >> the inspection of the work that you reserved to have done.

>> so, the abatement order is for the paint? >> and the step. the ability for the the city to make the inspection -- the inability for the city to make the inspection to confirm that the work has been done. >> if you visibly solve these items without the property owner present, could you not go back and confirm that they were done without the property owner consent? >> now we do get back to routine inspection honor -- issues. because you failed to show up the day before, when we were at the adjacent property and saw the condition, and we were there for a scheduled inspection with that particular property owner. we're not going to call him to the inconvenience him because would not let us in. that is not policy. >> i have something for

clarification. abatements. obviously, the front steps, you could see them from the streets, but you could not fully inspect the paint issue from the street. >> correct. >> that would still be outstanding. >> correct. >> as far as we're concerned, no matter what was done unless we inspect it and see that it was done, it is not done. >> thank you. >> ok. commissioners? >> i have a motion to except the abatement order. >> i feel that there is too much time being spent on this already. i do not know how it is in valley forge, california, but we are in an economic downturn here. we are running inspectors back

and forth. i want to second the commissioner workers motion. >> the motion is to uphold the order of abatement and the assessment of costs. >> and commissioner murphy seconded it. >> there will be a roll-call vote on the motion to uphold the order of abatement and except the assessment of cost. >> president lee? >> yes. >> vice president walter? >> yes. >> commissioner when? >> -- [roll call] carries, unanimously. item f, the general public comment. items not on the agenda.

is there any public comment? seeing no one, item g, adjourned -- adjournment. the abatement appeals board is now adjourned. >> we will take 15 minutes? >> it will take approximately 15 minutes to set up for the building inspection commission.