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 that minimum mandated statutory area the configuration needs to be changed. as you can see, on the photograph, you have in your package and that i have given you, we have all of the tiles that come off from the... excuse me. the large number of the tiles have come off on the walls and our shower pan and deteriorated and these needs to be replaced

and when they are replaced it requires a minimum area for that new shower and that configuration then triggers a change of design. >> is that... >> there is a certain minimum circle, you need to be able to put in. >> for accessibility issues? >> i don't think that it is accessibility. i think that they say that any shower needs to have a minimum size. and when you get that minimum size, in where you have something that does not meet those standards at this time, it triggers some other requirements, in terms of having a larger area. now, in our bathroom in order to have that work, the sink has to be moved and you have to have some plumbing changed. >> may i have, our department is that addressed in the building permit approval?

>> the department code does have minimum requirement of shower side, 30 inch and 60 inches above the drain and 1024 square inches that is a separate issue and that would be addressed through the permit. >> okay. >> so, that on record our department will address those types of issues once the project starts. just to be clear. so >> and he just pulled his permit last week. so certainly within the last two weeks and there is no mention of that at all. and we have been going on and he just got the permit. >> certainly, if the construction is not done per code, he will not get a sign-off and then he will have to rip it out. it behoofs him to be aware of what the code is, and i assume that he is because he is a contractor and so it will be done per code with my expectation. >> i wish that could be as

optimistic as you are that it is done appropriately and as i pointed out when the units below me had work done because of the seeping water, and the probability of wood decay, it was nearly cosmetic without any permits or any inspection at all. and so i am quite concerned that here we have a building that has had some serious structural problems, that this work, that there is no indication that this is being taken performed by the code. >> commissioner mar? >> but i guess that this is another question that goes not only to you, but to the department, you are raising other violations, but, our inspectors have not cited those structural problems. our inspectors have only the nov only addressing the bathroom problems as far as i know and also the paint. the peeling paint in your dining room, living room or

wherever that is. and so if it is your opinion that there are structural problems but our inspectors have not cited that, for the building. but we... that is not part of this. that is not part of what we are discussing here today. >> unless, the department wants to clarify otherwise. >> you are absolutely correct and i say inspector dicks look here and you can stick your fingers into the studs and he said, that will be taken care of when he does his work. and where we he said that i can't site something i can't see. when we have... this is a city wide problem. when you have years of water seepage through wood framed buildings, studs, and structural members deteriorate and i have seen this in this building and this problem is just continuing. and i have raised this with the

inspector. and he said, don't worry it will be taken care of and i am very much worried because we have the whole height of the building where cosmetic, superficial repairs have been made without any attention to that. getting back to the list of 8 items which were cited, none of them have been done. >> commissioner lee? >> mr. paxton, you mentioned that some of these problem takes year of development to mold and mildew and such. my question to you is our records show that a report for a complaint was filed at the department of building inspection in 2009. and at that time, the inspection showed that they were already missing tiles and mildew and rock. and obviously, if it was up to me that did not happen over night. so my question is what happened prior to 2009 and what did you do since when you first saw a problem? or did you not notice it until

2009. >> no it had been going on for years before that and there s a gradual deteriation of the shower and started off with cracks and i brought it to the owner's attention and the owner's sold the building and he bought it and the tiles started falling off and sheetrock and the bugs started appearing and i said that the work has to be done. and when nothing got done, i ultimately had to resort to calling housing. which i would have preferred not to have done. >> okay. i like to hear the property owner's response to that comment to when the time comes. >> commissioner melgar? >> hello, how are you? >> good. >> so, you know, i as a group that is hearing the appeal, i need to see some evidence, you know, to make a decision. i heard from the landlord and

it sounds to me like he is ready to go. i don't have any evidence, where i can assume that he is acting in bad faith that he only intends to do a cosmetic repair. and so i... you know, so far it is only to me, forgive me it has been your word for it. we can only rely on the professional expertise of the department's inspectors that is what they are there for and we trust that they are assessing the situation. i don't have any evidence in front of me to say that this type of repair and replace work necessitates permit to enlarge the bathroom. so that to me is still a question, you know? whether the code mandates, you know, father than the permit that he has pulled. and you know, i would ask that we get that. but, is it the case that you

are not permitting the work to proceed if it does not meet with your professional, you know, opinion that the permit is inadequate. is that what your position is? >> there were 8 items cited on the repair as i said. not one of them has been done and the largest one is the shower. >> just put the photo on the overhead. >> there it is. >> okay. if you turn that 90 degrees. you know, here we have our shower, which is deteriorated, two floors below me there is the shower, down on the first floor. where nothing has been done there. with regards to your specific question what is my position,

it is not rocket science when we have holes in the wall. where we have clipping led based paint that is not rocket science and there is not much discretion on that stuff. and when we come to what my lease does allow that he is trying to maneuver, the notice of violation to skirt his obligation and the contractual rights under my lease, and where i am asking that there are, where i have discretionary control, when items are replaced, i am not going to allow him to ignore those contractual obligation and rights that i have. these other items cleaning the stupid flus why hasn't that been done? >> i don't know. there is a bunch of this stuff

that has just gone on. now he is in a world of financial hurt and i think that i demonstrated that in the package that i gave to you and i think that he just does not have the capacity to make these repairs and he is trying to buy as much time as he can. you know, the building had a notice of foreclosure and there are tax liens and etc., my family and i want to live in a good, clean, safe, environment where the building complies with the code, and with the building laws. >> could i answer your question? >> not quite. and so you, i am trying to figure out whether or not you are willing to let him and his workers in to do the repairs that they have pulled permits for. or is your position that unless you see a scope of work that you agree with, that you will then let him in.

>> excuse me, yes, i want to see a scope of work. among other things, we are a family that has our normal routine and it is a fairly small apartment and when you start removing this, the only toilet and you start having major sheetrock work and repair, that makes the unit uninhabit able especially in the middle of the school years, we have had summer and he has not been doing this and here we have the school year starting up again. and there is certainly remedies that he has and rights that he has to find us, replacement housing, and i have offered him solutions, and some alternatives, and this has not come together. and so, i want to get the work done. believe me my wife wants the work to be done and my daughter wants the work to get down and it has been going on for years and years and we are tired of

it. >> commissioner walker. >> it is some what of a cunundrum the permit haves been applied for and received and he is ready to do the work and he has stated here that he is will be to relocate you to do it. and i feel like until such time as our staff is able to go in and address some of the concerns that you have, that would necessarily need to expand the scope of the permit, we are in between a rock and a hard place. it is from what we have been given, it is clear that the work needs to be done. and it seems like your routine has been disrupted already with the holes in your shower, you know, and those are the things that we need to address as a department, and that we want to make sure that people live in safe and habitable places and so, i feel like at this point, we have before us, someone who

has stated that he is willing to do the work and taken out permits and i get that there is some disagreement about what color and the scope of it, but i feel like we can't know those details until such time as the work starts. so, i mean, that i... we can't, we can't make a decision on information that we don't have and is not before us, including other issues that might exist in the building. and i hear that those are concerns. hopefully, our staff can make note of those type of things as they go out and look. and as they are inspecting this job if it will be allowed to move forward. and so, normally, in these kinds of situations this commission is limited as to what we can do, and we can deny the appeal, and we can you know, hope to resolve the things in a way that gets the

work done. and maybe, you know, loosen the knot and provide the resolution and i would like to see some immediate intervention as it were with the code enforcement out reach program which includes both the tenant and the landlord representative to try to help resolve this quickly. and that is what these organizations do is try to help get resolution in these kinds of situations. so, you know, i feel, i feel for you, and i hear what you are saying. and i also feel for the building owner who has his idea about how he wants to resolve the situation and feels, some what stimeding that. and so i feel like we need to provide some intervention, here. if allowed. >> the commissioners... >> well the property manager and i, we are seeing eye to eye

and we had discussions and we talked about how to resolve the items. i have no problem with paying part of the construction costs. there was one of his prior attorneys said how about this and this? and he and i agreed. and it never got done. and we have had the prior contractors that said, here is the scope of what has to be done and i said, i agree. and so we have had plenty of other of his agents, who have tried to intervene in a positive way to get the work done, and generally speaking, i have agreed with him. >> and yet we are here. >> and yet we are here. >> is there any more public comment? >> no because we need to move on. >> no more questions. i am fine, my fine is just general. as a commission... >> okay. >> you can have a seat. >> thank you. >> as a commission, we have fight hard to get the land

lords to do anything in the cases and so we have a testimony where he is willing to do anything and it is a delicate situation between the tenant and the owner but as commissioner walker pointed out, we have certain permiters that we have to work in and i think that we need to up hold this appeal,; is that correct?? >> is that the most. >> the abatement. >> that is what i said. and so i would like to make a motion to do that. >> is there any more public comment? >> okay. >> sorry, you can't, you have had yours. >> i am sorry i afraid not. >> there is a commissioner mccarthy has made a motion to up hold the order of abatement? >> and might i amend slightly to give some time? >> yes. >> and also, ask that our department bring in our code enforcement out reach representatives from the

landlord and tenant organizations and bring in the tenant and landlord and try and move forward smoothly? i mean, that i think that we have these organizations for a reason, so, i would ask for an extension, you said 30 days to do the work, maybe 60 days. so, it gives, a month to try and resolve it? in a month to do it. >> yeah. >> yeah. i agree. >> yeah. >> is that... >> so 60 days? >> 60 days. >> did you second that motion? >> yeah. >> okay. >> with an amendment. >> i just need you to clarify that the motion is to up hold the order of abatement. based on your finding that the conditions are as stated in the nov. >> yes. >> okay. >> and just so that we are clear that it is based on what it is based on. >> yes. >> so did i correctly state what... and that you would like

to move to up hold the order of abatement based on your findings that the conditions are as stated in the nov? >> that the work needs to be done? >> i like to see some assurance that the tenant will be allowing the property owner into the space to do the work, too. >> could i ask a question? >> is there a... is there a... if we up hold this, and then the work is required, and then we give it 60 days, is there a means by which the work can be forced? >> can we get, can we or can he be allowed to do the work? that we permitted? >> if the tenant does not let him in? >> i mean... >> good question. >> in order for the landlord to get access to the unit, without

the tenant's permission, i believe that he would have to go to court and get an order permitting that. there is no way that he can, i mean, my understanding and i am not a landlord, tenant lawyer, is that he would need to go and get a court order that he can't force his way into the building. >> i mean, if there are provisions? the code for the department to get emergency powers to go in and correct life safety hazards, perhaps, the substitute for the director or the secretary needs to address that but the landlord on his own could not... my understanding is that he could not do that. commissioner mar? >> so. i think, i believe, that the intent of the extension to 60 days is to hopefully have, the landlord and the tenant and with the department's assistance and some community groups, sit down so that they

can mediate the access question, so that all of the work, based on the permits pulled can be carried out, and concluded. now if that is not possible, then i think that we will after the 60 days, then we will have to rehear it. it is going to come back. >> no. if we vote to up hold, it is upheld. >> okay. >> and we are just giving them 60 days to do it. which is right. because the work needs to be done. the question is, if they are not allowed access, >> right. >> that it creates a weird situation. >> right. >> and so let me clarify and i think that i understand your question better. >> the landlord can't force their way in but if you up hold the order of abatement and give them 60 days and, that expires and the work is not done. >> right. >> and there is permits and the landlord appears to have done what he could do and then it would then at that point, be