>> [inaudible]. >> our city attorney has already made that clear for now. i am currently still the supervisor of district five as well as the acting mayor until at such time the board decides if they would like to make a decision to select someone to fill the term until the next election. >> one more question. >> reporter: can you talk about personally what he meant to you. anything you can learn from him? the biggest legacy for the city will be? >> i worked with and have known mayor ed lee for over 20 years and what i appreciate about the mayor is his commitment to public housing mostly because when i became a member of the board of supervisors, i made it clear that was -- he asked my

top three priorities and i said public housing, public housing, public housing. as someone who grew up here and spent most my life there, mayor lee, very similar situation, we bonded over that. and looking at robert pitts and looking at it going from this place that was completely falling apart to just painted walls and new fixtures and how beautiful it looks and the fact that he really was stead do you on helping to make this happen is really what i will always remember about him. his commitment to tune out the noise and focus on trying to get the job done and i really will always appreciate him for taking my praourty seriously and helping to get that work done. he was a dedicated and committed public servant and i will never forgot him for that. thank you, tara. >> thank you, everybody.

that concludes the press conference. good morning, today is wednesday, december 20th, 2017. this is a regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call taken]

we have a quorum. next item is item b, the oath. will all parties giving testimony before this board today please stand and raise your right hand? we need you to stand. thank you so much. we need you to stand. [oath is given] thank you, you may be seated. item c, approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for meeting held on november 15, 2017. is there a motion to approve the minutes? >> motion to approve. >> second. >> motion and a second.

any public comment? ok. seeing none, all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? ok, minutes are approved. item d, new appeals or abatement. case number 6839, 132 apollo street, owner of record and appellant, chow ko sang, and informational for the members here, the staff presents their case first and has seven minutes. then the appealant has seven minutes, and public comment for three minutes each and each side has three minutes for rebuttal. would the department like to present? >> good morning, all. senior building inspector. so, issued the notice in february of this year.

it was for fire damage. we were called out for fire damage. when we went out there, we encountered that the fire has actually damaged the whole back of the building also substantial smoke and water damage throughout the building. and converted from a single-family home to three dwelling units. so, all the tenants have to be basically relocated. the owner was given enough time to actually deal with the fire damage and provide assessment report. there was no evidence of providing any assessment report so therefore we had to send it to code enforcement. we requested the owner to shut off all utilities, contact the building department. once the report was obtained and provide the assessment to verify all the fire conditions, and all the structural items that were affected by the fire.

so, all the windows in the front were supposed to be covered, they were all broken from the firefighting. also like i said substantial damage to the structure, integrity of the whole back of the property. so, we advised the owner to actually get assessment report and shut off all utilities. all right. >> yes. thank you so much. so the tenants are out at this point, or -- what is the status? >> the reason the case was forwarded to code enforcement, the owner was never in contact with building department in that regards. >> we don't know? >> even though it was a single-family home, it was actually converted to three units, and we actually wrote up a separate notice for that as well. >> and do you know if they are

still in the house or no? looks like they are probably not. >> probably not. the house was pretty bad. we have pictures as well. >> and there has been no activity as to a permit to resolve this? >> we found the owner actually did obtain building permits after the fact. but once again, no assessment report given to us for the damage. so, we would like to uphold the order of abatement and impose the assessment costs of this case. >> thank you. >> do we know when the fire occurred? >> yeah, occurred february 16th of this year. >> the same day? >> we were called out the same day, went out the same day, posted a notice and explained to the homeowner what he needed to do to correct the situation. >> any other questions? thank you, inspector. >> appellant?

>> i'm the designer, expediter for the project, and this is the owner. on february 16th, fire damage, the next day the tenant was vacant and left the property. so, since that, the day of the fire, all the tenant left. so actually vacant since that day. so on, on may 30th, there was a permit pulled to repair the damage for the sheetrock, to try to repair some of the damage and hired during the process in late march, draft plans and measurement and design to work with the planning department to get a plan submitted and june there was a permit submitted by us to comply to the notice of

violation. early july there was a hearing, i was there with the owners. the case was continued. was never heard, it was continued for 30 days and since then i've been working with the planning department to provide photos of the site, assessment of the site to make sure that there were no tenants involved in the -- the tenant was left and then the sites, all the stucco, exterior of the property, three units converted back to one unit, and that was approved by the planning department. then we are working with the building department for the structural comments issued for the fire damage and for about -- for about four weeks i was working with the city engineers, she would require us to draft a report for the structural report.

that were submitted back in august and in early september the permits were approved and it was -- the permit was pulled. the owners actually pulled the owner's building permit and he's working on it by himself. he actually is pulling to call for inspection very soon but he's by himself and he actually had some experience in building but he's by himself, so it's -- it's, going to take him 5, 6 months, maybe seven months to complete the process and he is doing the work to abate the notice of violation. thank you. >> we are going to ask you some questions. commissioner walker first. >> commissioner walker: i need to clarify. so you went through the planning process because there were actually how many units, how many tenants were actually

living in there? >> there -- there were indication of three separate units in the property because third floor was locked off by a door, it was locked. second floor and the ground floor. and that case we have to convert it back by removing the walls, reconfigure the layout on the first and second floor for interior connections between all three floors and then that's part of the -- >> commissioner walker: trying to assess if it went through the process required by the new legislation that the city actually prioritizes not taking these off the market. so, my question is, was that evaluated and that's what was done at the planning department? >> yes, ma'am. >> commissioner, any other questions? ok. thank you so much. >> thank you.

>> you said 5 to 6 months to do the work? >> yeah. >> public comment? >> any member -- no public comment on this case? ok. rebuttal from the department? >> yes. the permit that the owner got to repair the fire damage was over-the-counter permit which did not actually comply with the notice of violation that we issued. it was just for sheetrock replacement and to verify work conditions. we advised the owner that he needed to get a structural report to us and we gave him enough time to actually comply. we gave him from the day that we

issued notice, we gave him approximately three months plus or minus some days. so, it was enough time for us to be given any report or provide any details. >> certainly. >> i'm a little confused. i thought the permit and i think the appellant mentioned it was filed in june. what -- what was -- is that the one you are referring to that did not comply with the complaint? >> the one in june is just to comply with the illegal conversion. the one that we are talking about, it was an over-the-counter permit for dry wall repair due to the fire damage or to remove dry wall, it was not listed on the notice of violation -- >> so, there was -- >> i see on this permit detail

report, comply with complaint 201762871, and 201763031. >> yes, but there was no assessment report provided. we wanted to verify the conditions of the building before they submitted permit. there was no report, there was nothing. >> that's still outstanding. >> ok. >> thank you. >> could i ask, i'm sorry. of the inspector, i'm sorry. >> can you come back up? commissioner walker. >> commissioner walker: yes, there was a time frame suggested of 5 to 6 months. so, assuming they came in and got a permit for what wasn't addressed with the existing permit, is that a sufficient amount of time for doing the work? i mean, what is your assessment? >> for the fire damage, they would have actually came back to

us and said hey, this is the assessment, this is what happened, what needs to be done. we would have given them an over-the-counter permit to remove all the fire damage, secure the building, and then we would have worked with them to actually comply with either the legalization of the three dwelling units or change it back to what it was approved under a 2009 permit, i believe. >> i see. >> thank you, inspector. appellant would like to come up for rebuttal. >> as he stated, he was in the process of hiring an architect and engineer to conduct plans. inexperienced owner in the property and this is his first time doing work, especially with

the fire damaged property, and he hires, in the process of hiring somebody and at the end -- and he -- there was a dark horse hearing that was scheduled. while we were there, it's actually continued, it was a continued case, it got continued, i'm sorry, and i thought that was sufficient enough for us to say hey, we are contacting the department and they know what's going on so we don't have to make this addition or make another contact with the inspector and say we are doing work. i thought that was the indication that the building department know that we were doing work. so, in that case, then, we did not contact the inspector. but the owner was in the process of hiring us to do the work, and i don't know how long he took before he gets to us and hire us, but prior to that, he was doing searching and he was on his own, actually, all this time.

>> i have a question for you. so, what we heard from the inspectors, part of the reason the notice of violation, there has never been a formal assessment report that's been filed. do you understand that? do you understand that we need that? >> yes. well, i do understand that part of it, but i -- when we were hired, i thought that was -- that was done because there were notice of violation. so, and given that the dark horse hearing was actually continued, i thought -- we were doing work and assessment and that's why the case was continued and our part, i did not make addition contact with the building department as well. >> do you have that assessment report now? >> yes, i can get that turned in. we have that structural report that was -- >> yeah. ok. >> commissioner walker. >> i show that there was a director's hearing. >> there was, there was one.

>> you said it was continued. >> it was continued. >> and it happened. it did happen, it was there, but continued case. it was never heard. >> hmm, that's not what our notes say. >> we were there. well, it's actually -- on the schedule of the day, and we were there, it was put and continued case, we never got heard. so -- >> i need to clarify. >> clarify that in a second. other questions for the appellant? thank you. >> thank you. >> just want to clarify with the staff. >> yes. >> can somebody clarify -- >> right now. dan lowry, deputy director. in a director's hearing, if they seek for continuance, they go up to code enforcement prior to hearing and they talk to the hearing, they talk to the supervisor there and then if they grant a continuance they

allow the continuance put on the schedule and if they don't hear the continued case, allow another 30 days for the continued case. >> thank you so much. >> commissioner walker. >> because on our notes it says that it was held and it resulted in an order of abatement issued with the following conditions. so, we -- am i looking at the wrong -- i don't know what -- do you want to see this? >> inspector hernandez took my sheet.

>> ok. according to this case history here, an order of abatement issued september 5, 2017. and 9/8/17, order of abatement was mailed on 9/12, it was posted on the building, and on 9/28, the abatement appeals board was filed. so the appeal for this case was filed on 9/28, when i was on the notes here. an order of abatement issued. >> ok. so -- i mean -- that's for discussion, i guess. >> yeah, ok. >> ok. commissioners. discussion. warshell. >> there are many things that concern me in this case. that there was initially an illegal conversion is troubling.

that three families were exposed to, or three households were exposed to a dangerous situation and you know, we at this point don't know if the tenants received all of the support that they should have following it. that's not necessarily an issue we will cover today, but it's a concern. some of the comments that these proceedings have gone on a bit longer because the property owner is trying to do things on his own and he's not as experienced as he might be with doing these sorts of projects. and so far just a minor over-the-counter permit has been

issued. all give me great concern. i share the question that my colleague commissioner walker raised about going back to a single-family versus maintaining the housing of three units. once it had been established, even though illegally. so there are just so many things in this that i find very troubling. that, you know, i see no reason to do anything but uphold the department and if anything, you know, when we see a history like this, you know, my -- my concern that we get a good resolution,

if anything, would suggest that there should be very heightened awareness of the history through the department so that the scrutiny over this ensures that if the owner continues to want to do the job himself, that he's using people who are as licensed and skilled and talented as is necessary to see that this property is restored to usefulness in a safe and legal manner. so, i personally see no reason to do anything but support the department in this matter. >> i concur. and i also want to clarify, it did concern me that there might have been miss interpretation of what happened, but it seems like there was a director's hearing

with appropriate noticing and follow-up noticing as required. so i do have concerns, it's clear that when folks change the use of their buildings as much as we need housing, if they do it without the benefit of permit, this often results in things like fires and it's really important to underline that that's not appropriate or ok. so, i concur, and i would move to uphold the order of abatement with all fees. >> and i would second that. >> ok. there is a motion and a second to uphold the order of abatement and include the assessment of costs. ok. do a roll call vote on the item. [roll call vote taken]

notion carries unanimously. >> just one direction to staff, make sure we meet with this property owner and derek so they truly understand what happened at this hearing, since i was there was a misunderstanding about what happened at the director's hearing. so, if we could have staff meet with them, make sure they clarify after this hearing that they understand what the action was, i would appreciate that. >> ok. >> yes, we will, commissioner. i'll advise them of the code enforcement to explain the process to them. >> thank you. >> ok. case number, item two, case number 6840, 158 howth street, owner of record and appellant,

yusuke seki, 206 summit way. would the department like to come present its case? >> hello again. on november 28th the building department got a complaint. it was investigated by karl malchew, complaint investigation team. we have no entry and we -- >> can you talk more into the mic? >> on november 28th we got a complaint regarding a possible multiple illegal units in garage, large unpermitted building in the rear. the in inspector went to the site, not able to get access. the tenant called, gave us information from the owner.

we call the owner, requested an inspection. and january 31, 2017, we got access, investigated the property. based on that, we wrote up a notice same day on january 31st for single-family home being converted to, i'm sorry, six dwelling units of 5, 4 dwelling units in the garage and a structure 25 feet by 20 feet in the back. and also the second floor of the main single-family home used as a separate dwelling as well. multiple life safety issues the inspector observed. there was no carbon monoxide or smog detectors on the lower area. fire suppression and also it was improperly built. there was also electrical that was not approved and plumbing that was not approved. the owner got a notice of violation for 30 days to comply with obtaining a building permit

to legalize all the dwelling units and also the addition. there was also given a penalty fee for work without permit. the notice was sent to code enforcement based on no action was taken by the owner. it was sent on may 12, 2017. i'm sorry, april, april. it was sent, it was given enough time to comply, given more than 30 days to file a building permit. >> commissioner. >> how many kitchen? >> total of overall six kitchens. each unit, and none of the rooms -- approximately under 70 square feet, so it was a small room with a kitchen. so, a lot of -- bathroom, a lot of life safety conditions we observed. >> thank you.

>> how many, have we ever had complaints on this building before? >> not to my knowledge. i think this is the first one. it was brought up by a tenant. >> do we have any idea how long it has been going on with the six units? >> no. we don't know when, you know, it was built. i do know based on my conversation with the district inspector and the complaint investigator, it was -- it was an ongoing construction. it was an ongoing construction, meaning that when he got there, there was some part that was actually built at that time and there was some part that was not built at that time. >> this is the actual only complaint we have got on it? never a complaint on this building? >> to my knowledge, the first one. >> thank you, inspector. >> appellant come forward.

>> my name is yuske, the owner of 158 howth street. december 2015 we purchased the house, me and my family and we inherited construction in the garage and in the back with a tenant in there. we are currently doing everything we can to fix the problem. i have my architect and my construction -- constructors and i am talking to my lawyer about the litigation of the tenants. the reason it got -- all this time was because the tenant at that called the city was there and he would not let me go close to the house and resulted with

my lawyer. it took about 5 to 6 months but he's evicted, or relocated. so, now we can focus on fixing. >> sorry, sir. thanks. you say you purchased in 2015, correct? >> yes. >> ok. and was it on the market? was it -- >> it was, yes, sir, it was on the market. and yes, it was on the market. >> it was on the market. so in that purchase agreement it was clearly pointed out all the legal work existed. >> it did say unwarranted units downstairs, yes. >> i think the question we are asking, when you purchased the building, did you believe these were legal units or did you understand that these were illegal units that you were inheriting that you would need to bring up to code? what was your understanding at the time of purchase? >> my understanding at the time

was eventually i would have to fix certain things to bring it to codes. i was not sure how big of a project was going to be, but definitely some work had to be done. had to be done. >> ok. and of the -- it's six units total? >> there is -- four downstairs and one upstairs. so, five units total. >> and how many occupants? >> there is eight, actually, nine occupants downstairs, and three up there, upstairs. >> commissioner lee. and commissioner walker. >> what is your profession, what do you do? >> i'm a real estate agent. i work for keller williams. >> so, when you bought this property, didn't you realize

that these were all problematic? >> yes. actually, it was before i study for the real estate license. i just got it recently and so my father was the one actually made the decision of purchasing the house. and i don't think he understood fully that it was going to be a lot of work. >> how many buildings do you and your father own? >> i own, me and my father own this one and my mother owns a building on 26th avenue and gary. >> and you have tenants in the other building as well. >> yes, we have a few tenants. >> commissioner walker. >> you are very lucky that you didn't end up with a fire like the last case that we -- i mean, with all of the tapping into the

electric, this is exactly why this is such a big deal for us. what i appreciate but are you putting forward a plan that includes adding units or what is your plan? >> so, we are still trying to figure out what the planning and the fire wants. seemingly the planning does not want to lose units but the fire wants -- >> absolutely, yeah. >> please come up. >> daniel from, i'm the architect for the project. i was brought in june, july for the project to assist the owner. since we were brought in and since we were tackling the problem we have been meeting with the planning department with the project to understand what the city will allow or won't allow for this project. we have been actively, very

transparent with the city to allow, understand what the guidelines are so we could actually provide corrective action for the notice of violation. so, since july we have been meeting with the staff, marcell and project review meetings, etc., etc., and come up with several solutions that we have been going back and forth with, and figuring out what we can submit to city. what the planning staff wants to do is to obtain as many, keep as many units as possible, obviously, with the understanding that there is a need for housing in san francisco. but for our understanding is that we comply with the intent of the building, a single-family resident. so, we are juggling between planning requirements, building requirements, and within that process right now. we have scheduled a project review, preapplication meeting involving planning, building and fire and have everyone at the

table to come up with a suitable solution. the owner's intent was always to come up with a solution, but they have been sort of nudged to keep as many units as possible, which is not really even quite possible for a property like this. and the other, since then, what we have been doing is talking to consultants, and trying to understand the owners also. so, we have been actively engaged trying to work the process out. >> just to follow up. so i would say that the clock is now ticking. i would imagine that there will be some action, i'm not going to predict what we'll do, but my desire would be to have an initial basically decision here to uphold the violation and give you time to get permits.

what would that in your mind look like? >> well, we are trying to do, we are trying to reduce the number of units because the intent of the single-family zoning district is not to have -- >> i did not ask that question. how long will it take to get permits? you have to decide something. >> it's going to be -- my understanding right now, probably 9 to 12 months for permits because the property requires a variance, because there is a unit in the back and a meeting for that, and things for the city. so, it's not something that can be corrected in 30 days, 60 days or 90 days, it's a long drawn application process and we are trying to work through the procedure, the city proceed you are to do so, and our first time doing so. >> and he bought this in 2015. so -- >> yeah. >> ask questions and then we can discuss. >> somebody very familiar with the planning process, i think

you are on two different paths here. we have a huge life safety issue. so we are on notice now that everybody in that building are in danger. you've been collecting rent since you purchased the property, i'm sure. there's laws against that, particularly when the property is not safe. i don't want to put anybody out of their homes, but we have a problem here. we, when we are put on notice this type of violation we have to insist that all laws from our commission point are enforced and enforced immediately. you have a long journey to go based on the conversation that you are talking in the journey that you want to take with the planning department because they have strong procedures in place that protocols and guidelines you have to go through which could take, based on what i'm looking here, could take years. meantime, you can't have people in here in danger. so, you have to make a decision here, either legalize what you

have, pulling permits now, vacating the ones that can't be left there, taking care of them, doing what they have to be done, you purchased the property this way so you should be aware of this. as a real estate broker you do quite a lot of fiduciary exams to kind of deal with that. so i find it a little bit frustrating and find it pretty much insulting to think you come up and hide behind a planning issue when people's lives could be in danger. so, you can see where my vote is going here. but i'm going to just stress to the department we need to deal with this and deal with this right away. looking at these photographs here, this is a death trap waiting to happen, just like the others. >> thank you. >> is there a public comment? there's no public comment. department have rebuttal?

>> for this case, we would like to uphold the order of abatement and assess all the penalty fees based on the conditions of the building. and the owner was given enough time to come in and work with the building department to correct the situation. >> i have a question. inspector, looking at these photographs and listening to commissioner mccarthy, in your assessment, do you feel it is safe for those occupants to be there tonight in this unit with the way the wiring looks, with the way -- >> to be honest, we could not verify the wiring, everything is covered but we do, we did realize there is no life safety systems in place for the ground floor area or even the back. but everything was covered, there was multiple violations by i believe plumbing. there is a violation by plumbing

as well for illegal plumbing work. and my understanding is we -- and in cases like this, we really don't have power to evict anybody. we have, you know, the orders of abatement and notice of violation and explain the owner that he needs to correct it. >> ask a question to deputy director lowry. i guess my concern is if our assessment is incorrect, that's fine. but what i'm hearing from my commissioners is we are very concerned there are massive life safety issues and tomorrow i don't want to open up the paper and seen a fire at this complex where there is loss of life and we are sitting here. can you let us know, or the city attorney, what empowerment do we have if we are really concerned the occupants are at risk? >> commissioner, we could call the city attorney and ask to

refer the case to the city attorney. >> i mean, through the chair. i mean, obviously all the commissioners here, we don't want to displace anybody. >> no, we don't. >> it's not our intent here but we can't just stand by, and commissioner walker, we have been put in this situation, trying to protect tenants but agregious life safety issues, sitting there since 2015 and the only reason we know about it is because obviously somebody in there reported it. and now it's on our table and so we have to be very firm here on this because to -- to our concerns. we have been put on notice here. so -- this does look like a city attorney's referral for immediate attention to see what we can do. you know, i mean -- i just -- it's just -- it's getting too much to see these type of more and more of these projects coming to light where people are collecting the rents of these people which is totally illegal because they are illegal units

and laws in place does not allow you to do that, and we need to send a strong message, has to stop, some underground game that's going on out there with single-family homes. and people are taking advantage of it and i feel very strongly about this. so, i can't add no more. thank you for your time. >> an commissioner walker. >> thank you for stating that. i think that i know that i agree and i -- i hope that folks, if people are listening and if anybody has friends who have buildings like this that we have programs that we have enacted to address these issues. you can proactively come in and discuss these kinds of conditions with our staff and find paths forward in a way that does not put lives at risk and actually helps resolve this. much better to come forward and try and get our assistance than to end up here.

i agree. i don't think -- i just -- there's no real excuse for this when you buy buildings that have these, you need to act immediately to resolve them and that didn't happen. thank you for bringing this forward. >> rebuttal for appellant? does the appellant have rebuttal? you don't have to. >> you don't have to. >> you have an optional two minutes to address us if you want to. you need to come up. >> come up to the microphone. >> clarify one thing. three kitchens all together. >> ok. >> thank you. >> public comment, did -- ok. ok. >> given that the appellant is a

real estate agent and in the profession and has owned buildings with tenants before, they should really know what their responsibilities are, and they should really know what's -- what the law is regarding units and regarding tenancy. and i feel like some of you feel that they bought this over two years ago, 2015. and no action has been taken to correct the problems in the building. and what, they didn't hire an architect until what, july of this year, like a year and a half later, so something was wrong. i -- i feel that some, tenants may be taken advantage of here, and the owner is just living off of that, that the tenants are just paying their rent and they are not in a safe situation.

so, i -- i want to move that we uphold the order of abatement and keep the assessment and fees. uphold the fees as well. >> thank you. >> wait, sorry. before the second. >> may i just add on the part about referring it to the city attorney for immediate action to determine life safety issues and that tenants are, tenants' issues are addressed in relocating as much as we can with the program. >> ok with that. >> yes. >> so now we have a second. >> ok. >> so there is a motion and a second to uphold the order of abatement, and include the assessment of costs and to refer the case to the city attorney for further action. roll call vote on the motion. >> vice president gilman. >> yes. >> commissioner konstin. >> yes. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> commissioner mccarthy.

>> yes. >> commissioner walker. >> yes. >> commissioner warshell. >> yes. >> motion carries unanimously. next item is e, public comment, this is for, public comment for items not on the abatement appeals board agenda. >> good afternoon, commissioners. thank you for your service. my name is pat buskovitz. a status update on a case you saw a year or two ago, i thought it was a year, but now almost two years ago. it was a roof deck and a stair tower, two-story stair tower built on clayton street. at that time the project sponsor asked for more time, working with planning. i think it's almost two years. you gave them six months. did not get anything done.

your staff, i want to commend your staff, sent it to recordation, still nothing. planning has got it. planning can't tell me what's going on, but it's obvious a level of frustration they have with grossly inadequate plans. i expect planning to eventually say we are done and reject the permits. my clients, i did not even know there were fire issues here, is totally frustrated. the fire department has been out at least once. the guy has a barbecue on his roof, on a roof that's not legal, and at best case it was an unattended barbecue on a redwood roof deck. this is not epay, this was redwood, abandoned fire, no one is there, my client is looking out and i have photos of a barbecue going on and the bottoms of the kettle barbecues

have holes in them. he's concerned about the fire. i think there is a point where planning will cancel the permit. i'm going to be back in here and a certain point, i'm going to ask you to send it to the city attorney because it's a roof deck. it can't be that hard to get it done if you really want to get it done. if your purpose is to stall, after two years, yeah, there's a point where he's going to stall, he thinks, i'm not letting it happen, he thinks that it will stall it out so far you'll forget. you have to remember, this is a case that's ten years old. so now we are going on 12 years and he's barbecuing on it and he's not even there. thank you, commissioners. >> any additional public comment? seeing non, item f, adjournment. a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> second? >> second. >> ok.

all commissioners in favor of adjournment? we are now adjourned, 9:53 a.m. we'll take about a 5 to 10-minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection commission. thank you.

you. >> when i first moved here people come to san francisco to be the person you want to be can be anyone you want. >> the community is so rich and diverse that i'm learning every single day san francisco is an amazing photoy town historically been base on evolution and that applies to every single professional field including philanthropic arts today what i do is photo based art

manifests traditional forest and some colonel lodge and other frames of digital forest is a meeting that has been changing like super rapid and the quality is not extended by the medium if you took forest in school or you get a job in a newspaper they'll give give you a list of how to create a philanthropic story my goal to break down that model and from a to b that is unique and allows the ability to incorporate different types of i believey about propels someone through the rise and a fall of their own experiences one of the main things i'm trying to contribute it unconditional narrative form the narrative art of photograph the in between of photos how does a group of photos come together as how to use the space between

photos to alight emotional responses from the audience and bring innovation and create bodies of work that narratively function the way that photos do san francisco as the commission came out and you visited me and one of their prerestricts was to find an art with enough work to fill a large says that a quad down the hallway downstairs and we hung that quad to feel like a train station that constant sensation from all different directions some of the major characteristic of the landscape festivities the blur of the train their 70 miles per hour and they're not perfect

as opposed to to what landscape will look like it creates a dichotomy for people insides the train not just the story of the subject it is not just the visual design the composition juxtapositioning, etc. not just all autobiography boo-hoo it creates pictures with meaning within them and then some of the portraits feel awkward some of them feel welcoming and the person that mime making the picture is really comfortable and other ones feel awkward and weigh i didn't and tense that sensation is counter to what we feel like makes a successful portrait that

sensation makes that work it is hard to be an artist in a city is 100 percent focused an business the cost of living is expensive and to value your success not scribble on financial return creates a conflict between the paramount egos in san francisco today. >> you see a lot of artists leaving for that reason because you need space to make work my ultimate goal to make work that firms people firms this gift and just the experience of life and of their worst and of the amazement the wonderment of

everything around us >> we're here to raise awareness and money and fork for a good accuse. we have this incredible gift probably the widest range of restaurant and count ii destines in any district in the city right here in the mission intricate why don't we capture that to support the mission youths going to college that's for the food for thought. we didn't have a signature font

for our orientation that's a 40-year-old organization. mission graduates have helped me to develop special as an individual they've helped me figure out and provide the tools for me that i need i feel successful in life >> their core above emission and goal is in line with our values. the ferraris yes, we made 48 thousand >> they were on top of that it's a no-brainer for us. >> we're in and fifth year and be able to expand out and tonight is your ungrammatical truck food for thought. food truck for thought is an opportunity to eat from a variety of different vendor that

are supporting the mission graduates by coming and representing at the parks >> we're giving a prude of our to give people the opportunity to get an education. people come back and can you tell me and enjoy our food. all the vendor are xooment a portion of their precedes the money is going back in >> what's the best thing to do in terms of moving the needle for the folks we thought higher education is the tool to move young people. >> i'm also a college student i go to berkley and 90 percent of our folks are staying in college

that's 40 percent hire than the afternoon. >> i'm politically to clemdz and ucla. >> just knowing we're giving back to the community. >> especially the spanish speaking population it hits home. >> people get hungry why not eat and give sfg tv.

we are ready to begin. good morning. today is wednesday, december 20, 2017. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turn off electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call being taken]