Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  August 30, 2018 3:00am-4:01am PDT

3:00 am
number 6848, 780 post street. action requested by apel lanlts. reinspection by senior allen davidson and reversal of the order of abatement. would the department like to come forward? >> sonia, is this working? >> yes. you just have to place your item there. >> ok. thank you, mr. deputy. and good morning, commissioners. james matsu, acting chief housing inspector. 780 post street is a 36-unit, five-storey building. there are full of tenants, many older tenants there. we received a complaint eight months ago, in january, from somebody that had fallen in the elevator because it wasn't aligning properly with the hallway.
3:01 am
so we wrote a notice of violation. the elevator starts and stops abrumentzly. we posted the notice. we did a reinspection. we referred the case to a director's hearing. we mailed a notice to all interested parties. posted the notice. did another reinspection. the elevator still was not operating properly. here's a picture of the elevator. another picture. and there's a third picture. director's hearing was dully held on march 29. a hearing officer issued a continuance and gave more time to the owner. in april, we reposted the building because the work still had not been completed. in may, we did another reinspection.
3:02 am
on may 10, there was an advisement with order of abatement. the advisement period expired. there was another reinspection prior to issuing the order of abate that was issued in june and posted on the building. the owner appealed. there's some business about who it was doing the reinspection, but we cleared that up. we had senior inspector alan davidson go back in august, august 2 to take these pictures. notice is not satisfied. it continues to stop abruptly and jolts when you right it. so, we're recommending that the order of abatement be upheld at and all cost by the department be assessed. thank you. >> thank you. would the appellant like to come forward?
3:03 am
>> good morning. i'm the elevator service provider for building and i have been for nearly 25 years. never at any time throughout this entire period has the state of california elevator division not issued an operating permit. this elevator was manufactured and installed in the 1920s. and it's 99% original and it is termed in the industry as a reecstatic control. the elevator is adjusted a certain -- to a certain load and the brake spring tension on the brake drum, on the brake shoes on the brake drum is set at a certain tension for a specific load and the elevator circuitry and controller does not have the capability to adjust for a varying load as newer elevators do. so we tried to set it at an average and we've been setting it at about two people to stop.
3:04 am
and i contacted the state of california elevator division who issues the permits. the issue with the expired permit is nearly all the buildings in san francisco have expired permits and they're very far behind. we requested a reinspection and received a letter that they have received the request and will get to it when they can. that is just the issue of the permit itself. but furthermore, dave henderson is the head person for this area and i asked him about if the elevator was adjusted with one person or two persons and it stops even with the floors in both directions. is that acceptable? and he said absolutely acceptable. so we have -- i just handed this gentleman some letters from other elevator companies that maintain the same type of equipment and speak to the accuracy or inaccuracy of the ability of it stopping accurately with varying loads. one of those letters from an elevator consultant who has
3:05 am
about 50 years in the industry. so we just wanted to share those with you. i've been out to four or five of the inspections and have made adjustments. i'm there periodically. and as the elevator, say it gets a lot of use in a month, somebody's moving or something. the leveling accuracy will change with that given load. so i'm there tweaking the adjustments here and there. further more, we rebuilt the motor, put in new brake shoes and there is a fine line between stopping accurate and then being a little too abrupt. if we soften the abruptness, it will be less accurate. so, that is the story with respect to the technical side, if i'm not getting too technical about the elevatorment again, those letters address the type of drive this is. again a reecstatic control and just how they cannot adjust for a load like the more sophisticated elevator like in
3:06 am
these buildings. if they fall off half an inch, it automatically relevels. and it can adjust for varying loads. this elevator does not have that capability. the sbraek set at a given tension and there is a given amount of slide with that load that we set it with. should the load change, the slide will change greater or lesser depending on the load. >> commissioner. >> thank you. i do have a question. i'm very familiar with old elevators. there is one in the building i live in. but is there a way to manually bring the elevator up level? >> manually, of course. but that would be -- >> by the person riding? >> no, i'm sorry. no. there's not. for me as a technician, i would have to manually do that. but no, this doesn't have the capability to do that feature. >> do you see why it might be a problem that somebody can't bend their knee or if they're in a wheelchair that it might -- >> of course. and, again, i've been working
3:07 am
for this landlord for 25 years that the building and others and i'm there on a regular basis so i'm doing tweaks all the time. >> ok. thank you. >> ok. i wanted to mention one more thing. the alternative is a full renovation to a modern elevator and that brings in a whole litany of code compliance issues and that issues the code compliance, life safety, a different kind of machinery and a new structure and it's quite involved on the elevator side. i can't speak for building structure itself, but i can speak to the elevator side. >> good morning. my name is richard parker and i'm an architect and i have been working with the land lord here on this property to study what it would take to bring in a new, modern 88-code compliant elevator and we really would have significant issues with it. if i may, just briefly.
3:08 am
this is 780 post street right here. it is actually quite a beautiful building. it is located here in the tenderline neighborhood of san francisco. we have these really beautiful, large light courts that services the building. and this is the street facade right there. but here's the floor plan. and this is a way to get to see the whole floor. there's seven units per floor. but this is the area in question where we have the elevator core right here opposite the main stair core and the elevator's add -- add jay sent to a light court right here. in order to increase the size of the hoistway and shaft, we would have to displace 10 tenants for well over a year to do the demolition of the
3:09 am
existing concrete frame of the building. and that would take jackhammering that concrete frame out. of the building. and set a new foundation under the hoistway as well as upgrading the structure to the roof for the new mechanical room up there. the elevator itself is probably $500,000 itself. the structural upgrades and other half a million. another $250,000 probably just in life safety upgrades to get the elevator and the building life safety systems to communicate with each other. and then we've got permit fees. that is over 12k4rr.2 million just to replace the shaft and put it in a new elevator. divide that by 39 tenants. that is over $39,000 of pass-through costs to the tenants in this building. at that point, it is a year's worth of displacement. i really don't know how we're going to -- i understand and i completely empathize with the issues here of these old
3:10 am
elevators in these buildings. i use them all the time, too. here in the city. and i empathize with the tenants and those that use it. i trust that the landlord is doing the best he can and the maintenance staff to make this as safe as possible. i just look at the cost and what it will do to the structure as a whole. it is prohibitive, honestly. and i'm here to answer any other questions regarding the architecture and structure of the building, if you'd like. >> i have a question, but it is primarily to, like, the building manager. what happens if somebody gets stuck currently in the elevator? if it's down -- if they're in a wheelchair and it stops below the floor. what happens? >> they call me and i race over there. >> how long does that take? >> depents on where i am in san francisco.
3:11 am
about an hour. >> we near a conundrum. at some point -- i mean, at some point -- >> one thing that was offered up is to post a sign in the elevator saying no more than three people and that would maintain a greater accuracy thank posting. that was just a suggestion. i wanded to offer that. >> good morning, ladies and gentlemen. my name is sarush, the owner of this building. i've owned it for probably 30 years. mr. cotton has been maintaining it. we have always received from the state inspection board a permit. they have inspected it and said it's ok. i'd like to request that you would allow them to continue that practice and, you know, let us know what the situation is.
3:12 am
as robby alluded to, we'd be happy to place science outside of the elevator letting people know to be cognizant of the height sdoifrns they're not surprised. the problem is with all the effort that we have made, with all the times that robby has gone out to the building to fix it and do whatever we can possibly do, this is the design of the elevator from 100 years ago. there is not much that we can do to repair it. and as -- [bell ringing] and as richard mentioned, the costs of which we looked into -- you know, we looked into every option. look into every possibility. it would cost an enormous sum and it seems that it would be kind of a lot of overkill for this elevator to be replaced and it cannot be repaired. we are kind of in a tough spot. and i acknowledge that, you
3:13 am
know, tenants may be inconvenienced, but i think, on balance, you know, it may be that the cure is worse than the disease. and we are requesting your consideration of the practicalities of what is going on so that we can come up with a good solution and maintain the safety for the tenants. notify them and say please be careful. >> thank you. >> commissioner walker? >> to follow up. it is a 100-year-old building. i would assume you have a plan for the upkeep of it over time. when are you planning on replacing the elevator? >> well, we have no plan at this time to replace the elevator. due to the, you know, massive cost and the massive displacement that would be required of the te nanlses in place and reduce the housing stock in consequence.
3:14 am
if the costs get passed on to the tenants, that is another, i don't know, that is another $100 to $200 per unit. and i don't know whether that's something that the tenants would prefer. certainly it would require a major outlay of capital and that is another big problem. it's just a tough one. and, you know, basically we're throwing this out there to come one a survival solution. >> could you -- >> yeah. >> jeremy, excuse me. >> thank you. thank you very much. >> thank you, sir. >> jim, you're pretty familiar with this building? >> yeah. >> yeah. would you -- would you regard this as a well-run building?
3:15 am
>> well, we have had times when we have to go out and write up notices of violation. >> yeah, i understand. but all the violations would always be addressed and taken care of? there is no other standing out violations on the building right now, is there? >> i would have to check on that. however, we have -- can i speak to this issue of the modernization? >> yeah. in one second. i want to get -- i want to get in on it. i find the testimony here very compelling here this morning in regard to the defense of -- and i do understand what they're going through because i know every one of these buildings myself. one of these elevators -- the decision has to be made to revamp it and it does trigger off a huge impact. not saying i'm not doing to do it. but i understand where they're coming from. this is a building that's ran well as far as the city standard would be considered and they are dealing with a situation where we as a department can look and say, well maybe if we all work
3:16 am
together here, that thele alternative displacement and doing the upgrades and so on would be better if we would work together and see if we can make this elevator where two people go in at a time and so on, for now. so, that's kind of where -- >> yeah. i wouldn't -- i'm not able to make that kind of generalization about the state of the building at this time. but this photo right here that we showed earlier -- >> yeah. >> taken august 2. there's a tape measure here. and it's showing about five or six-inch difference here. a couple of years ago, director huey and louis convened all the issue of stakeholders on the elevators. fire department, cal ocea, landlord, tenants, all the various different agencies. there is a difference between replacing an elevator and modernizing an elevator. modernizing is a process where you don't have to necessarily take out the entire shaft of the elevator.
3:17 am
the fire department issued a willingness to work with owners to change the dimensional requirements and whether it has to be large enough to get a fire department gurney inside the elevator. which are some of the things that make the costs go up. and so there is modernizing an elevator without displacing the tenants. the elevator, as it stands today, is not just a one-inch difference. it's five or six inches. it jolts every time you go down the thing. imagine if you were dependent on this elevator to get to your home. so, i just -- i will leave nit your hands. because, you know, you're the final arbiter of whether an order gets put on this. this is one of the few ways we have to hold the owner accountability. and there are people watching this broadcasts that will take
3:18 am
a message away from your decision today. >> i'm not quite finished here. >> sure. >> ok. and i dully noted about people watching the podcast and how our decision here. that is why we're having this conversation. it is important if a building like this one, and they come up and make pretty compelling arguments as to their situation on this, and they're coming up with solutions, for example, limiting the amount of people who go on that elevator, they would eliminate the step issue that you are talk about. >> that is not necessarily proven. i wasn't at the inspection, but there was not a ton of people on this elevator when this photo was taken on august 2. this one right here that shows a five or six-inch gap here. >> ok. >> however, we would like the work with the owner. >> but let me talk to your
3:19 am
modernization of the elevator and i'm very much up to speed again, too. to modernize an elevator in a shaft that size, i'm sure the gentleman will come up and back me up on this, you can't. how about that. can you come up here and maybe talk to that? >> i appreciate hearing the option of doing a modernization versus a full replacement. we're working with, again, the 100-year-old equipment. the guide rails would have to be replaced with steel if you wanted to retain the old cab, which is not that pretty. it's steel and it has a certain size to it. it does not immediate the current a.d.a. all the other code issues with controller and life safety and so on would have to be adopted with any change in the controls that control the leveling. so, the physicality of the elevator to do a modernization still would be a dramatic amount of work. >> the shaft size that there's
3:20 am
there right now wouldn't meet code, right? >> not for an a.d.a., no. >> step modernization really, when we ire talking modernization or upgrading the cab, we're talking about pulling out the existing one, expanding the space within that. >> to make it meet the current code. that is correct. >> which was to your testimony would impact the building and where we would have major impact to the units in the building. >> indeed. >> and people would be displaced to get that work done. >> indeed. >> to me is at the crux of what we're talking about here. so i want to stay focused on that. so how do we work together to make this as safe as possible for the tenants? >> one thing i was -- i'll make more frequent visit there is to keep these -- make the tweaks to keep it as level as it can be. i come about once a month. that is about as standard for this type of elevator but i can come more frequently and focus on the tweaking and fine-tuning of the leveling and give it a particular load. one person, two persons, whatever is deemed as the
3:21 am
average load. >> how many times have you had the situation before and called in. is this the first time we're dealing with this? >> no, occasionally we'll make adjustments. i want to say -- >> so when a sxlainlt made, you make the adjustment. it's not necessarily called in to the department of correction -- >> that's correct. six years ago this issue came up. we made the adjustments. the inspectors came out. they with respect happy everybody left. they were some of the same people involved in this. they were satisfied. great. it operates the same today as it has five years ago. again, we replace the brake shoes to make it stop as bests as we can and i can make more frequent tweaking to kiept as accurate as it can be. >> ok. commissioner walker? >> again, i'm really familiar with old elevators and the expense of keeping them up.
3:22 am
however, we have tenants in this building. so, i'm also aware that over time an old elevator that can be repaired now eventually cannot be repaired. as we look at this, and that is the truth, because you don't get -- you don't have parts. other main things that will end up costing as much to modernize as to keep it up. >> not necessarily. >> maybe not for you, but for the building owner. yeah. at some point, these do need to be replaced. that is the point here is that if you're a tenant and stuck on that elevator and there is a fire or there is -- you're stuck in between floors, for some reason you can't get up or out. i don't know what happens at the ground. does it sink at the ground also? >> no. >> our first exiting level, you
3:23 am
can still go down if you -- there's still shaft left. there's still places to go. it's not leveling on the ground. if it can sink at the first floor exit, do we know that? are you aware of that? >> the lobby is obviously used more so we pay a little more attention to that. and there is a resident manage every there. when there is -- >> first floor. >> i'm sorry. there is a resident manager on site so he'll call me and say, hey, robby, the elevator is stuck. >> i have a picture of it. >> i'll say do this, do this, do this. >> this is the issue that i'm weighing as a commissioner is that we have the issue of tenants and if it's an exiting issue, on the first floor, it is slightly different than being stuck on the second floor. though probably not for the tenants. >> i don't think the issue is at the first floor. it is some of the intermediate floors that i need to tweak. that's all.
3:24 am
there's no photograph of the lobby floor. if it was, it's leveled. >> i'm concerned about this. i am -- i feel -- i mean, we can talk about it after we, you know, do public comment and whatnot. let's chat about it. >> good. we'll close public comment then. >> no, open to public comment. >> oh, i'm sorry. is there public comment on this item? >> good morning. my name is jerry dratler. the specific issue before the commission is what is the correct public policy for noncompliant elevators that are in operation well beyond their intended service life.
3:25 am
the commission is weighing public safety ante tenant displacement versus cost. my suggestion, because this is a televised meeting is that the commission develop a bright line where increased cost is more important than public safety antenanlts displacement. thank you. >> i have replaced an elevator like this. it took us 18 months of planning te get all the permits, the parts were delivered before we started. and we spent five months switching out the elevator. all the issues you've heard are there. had to make the cab bigger. the shaft bigger. switch out the wood rails. it was about half a million dollars so it is not an inexpensive issue. the other side, which i'm not hearing and a little concerned.
3:26 am
there are certain parts that they break. you can't replace them. some of the cast steel parts, they break -- the state won't allow you to replace them. there is a time you can continue maintenance and there is a time if it breaks it will be out for a year. or you get ahead of this. but it is a very, very long period to design a replacement elevator and it is incredibly expensive. >> ok. any further public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. ok. commissioners? >> are we going to do our rebuttal? i'm sorry. does the department have any additional rebuttal? >> i thought we'd already done them. >> it was kind of intertwined. we officially didn't. >> so, it's simple.
3:27 am
from the point of view of the housing inspection division. we get a complaint. we go there. we see it is not operating properly. we go as to what our notice of violation says. so, at the end of the period of time, have they satisfied our notice of violation? they haven't done that. it's basically operating the same as it was when we were there eight months ago. there are ways to work around a.d.a. there are ways to work around fire department issues, to control the costs. when you -- when they are talk about tenant displacement, that is temporary displacement. you're not allowed to permanently displace tenants in that kind of situation. that would violate the rent ordinance. again, our department has -- we understand there are issues that are a very difficult issue with elevators. we spent two years meeting with all the stakeholders on this when the director convened that working group. we're sympathetic with the plight of the owner.
3:28 am
however, there are also comments that were submitted in your packet from the tenants that live in the building. who are impacted. and we're simply asking for order of abasement. that's it. >> i have a question. that is 36-unit building? >> that's right. >> so if there is not an elevator, would all 36 people be -- would all the people on the top floors be relocated or what is the process for that? >> it's governed by the rent board so we would have to go through that process with them. >> thank you. >> appellant, rebuttal? >> thank you for hearing us. we have made every good faith
3:29 am
effort to investigate, to fix, to correct, to repair, to upgrade whatever we have been able to do. we are at a place where the only option that appears before us to satisfy the building department is -- seems to be a lot of overkill for something that may be addressed by signage and notices. and, you know, i just don't have any great, good solution because if i did, you know, we would have done it. and that is the situation. and so, you know, i hope that you would recognize our good faith and, you know, allow the state's department of industrial safety to, you know, which does actually charged with inspecting all of these elevators. they have jurisdiction over issuing of those permits. and let them do their job. thank you very much.
3:30 am
>> ok. thank you. commissioners? >> commissioners, comments? commissioner walker? >> this is truly a conundrum. i feel for all sides on this. i think that it is not so easy as just replacing it, you know w a magic wand. it takes time where the elevator will be shut down. and it may very well displace some folks who need that elevator to get around. the issues that need to be addressed by the rent control body and in their jurisdiction will be. older buildings, we have a lot of them in the city and i do agree with mr. matsu that ultimately we want to make sure
3:31 am
that elevators are safe and serve the people living in them. if you owned a building, it is your job to make sure the elevator works. and that people can leave safely. so, i feel like this order was issued properly. i would like to also just put out there that there is a potential for this to be a life safety issue in the event of exiting the building. so, as much as i'd like to be as lenient as we can, it makes me nervous if something goes wrong here. that is an expense beyond any that we can imagine in trying to find resolution here. so, i am leaning towards upholding the order of abasement and allowing some time for the process to unfold. but these elevators need to be maintained.
3:32 am
i would also assume that the department would come up with a workable solution so we don't have one at this point. that works. >> ok. >> or discussion -- i'm not making a formal motion yet until we talk about it. >> ok. commissioner mccarthy? >> you go ahead. i'll be interested. commissioner lee. >> i'm a little torn about this. i feel that i hate to, as a commission, i would hate us to compel an own tore replace an elevator. it should be voluntary. for example, i own an old 1995 volvo car. and it is getting harder and harder to find parts for the car. and i know i have to plan on replacing that car and i'm planning on replacing it now. i'm not going to wait until the car breaks down and can't move
3:33 am
and then replace the carpet i hope the owner of the building recognizes the fact that this elevator needs to be up grated or repaired or replaced someday and i would hope he starts planning for it now. i mean, not until there is no elevator or it's not working. i heard the owner saying that he has no plans to replace that elevator. currently. so i hope that changes after this meeting. but in terms of what to do with the current situation, i don't know. maybe there is some reasonable interim thaoption we can take. i hear that there is a live-in resident manager there. right? could that person escort people up and down the elevator? i'm just thinking out loud. i'm just thinking out loud of what type of solution we can put in place now to make the tenants feel safer.
3:34 am
another idea then poped in my head or option. if the elevators contents, let's say, varies from one person to five people and that shifts the elevator floors, right, in balance, what happens if the elevator is constantly heavy? meaning instead of just zero person or one person, five-person, it varies, rightsome is what happens if the elevator is constantly heavy. would that limit the variation? you know, if that's the case, why not load the elevator? >> [inaudible]. >> it can be set for a given load. the spring tension, etc.. the slide would be set for a given load. five people, three people, one person, southeaster row load. as it changes, the stopping distance would change. if we set for an average is what we've been doing for years. setting it for like two people.
3:35 am
>> what happened if you set it heavier and put some weight in the elevator? would that keep the floor level from -- >> no, it would not. it would be set for a higher load and then when it's empty, it would be dramatically out. >> you're asking if the variation has changed with a heavier load. >> the way i'm thinking is the difference between one person, five person is say 200 pounds to 1,000 pounds, right? so the floor level would vary -- >> it would. >> now if you have constantly 1,000 pounds in there and one person gets on, it's only like 20% more. >> it's still going to change. the way -- there is a lot of engineering that went into this in the 1920s technology about gear raich yoes and loading speeds. >> i'm not an elevator expert. but i'm just thinking out loud. >> the braking of it is set at a given load. >> what i'm hoping for is maybe an interim solution that everybody will be satisfied with. to help make the tenants feel
3:36 am
safer. other than that, i don't know. >> i would agree that this is a perplexing situation. we don't want tenant displacement. we don't want tenant lack of safety. we don't want risk of life hazard by people on upper floors not being able to get out. like commissioner lee, i opted to get rid of an old car because it wasn't worth it anymore. i live in 130-year-old house and my experience with it is that when things need to get replaced, you can do things in the interim. but eventually you will be facing them. and having a plan to accept that eventually and budgets for it and execute the plan in an orderly manner.
3:37 am
it is always expensive. is always painful. but is part of owning an older property. and there is really very little way of getting around that. i don't understand the tech kals of maintaining old elevators. i'm glad that the director put together a working group on this. i'm glad that we have state authoritis that can voice their opinions as to what is adequate and what's safe. but i think my gut tells me on something like this, that what we're struggling with is we need to see some movement to developing a plan to have a much more long-term solution.
3:38 am
constant adjustment, constant tinkering with this. is probably not going to be adequate for long. and, you know, finding that path forward so that, you know, i don't know if the standard of one or two people may be safe to get up and down without having it unlevel or abrupt performance is really adequate for a 36-unit building. i don't know how many residents live here. what are the life safety events involved in this. so i share the concerns that this is a very challenging situation. and i don't think anybody has
3:39 am
bad intentions here. but i think we do have to set up a formula whereby a real action plan to have a more long-term solution is in place. and i'd appreciate my fellow commissioners' inputs as to what that might be. >> yeah. i concur. you know, i do take offense when we are kind of accused of trying to save money over safety. and things like that. but that is people's point of view. what we're trying to do here, as i read the tenant issue, there's one person who ?enlts a letter. i don't know how many tenants are in this building? >> 36. >> 36 units. >> yeah.
3:40 am
and we have -- i mean, i'm trying to, you know, it is hard for us to sit here and come up here and have hearings in the past and they have nowhere to go. and what resonates with me is we have to work with the owner and the code and try and figure out a solution. particularly in the case like this. this elevator has to be replaced and has to be replaced someday. it's not going to be replaced next week. in the meantime, what do we do? do we say to the owner go meet the tenants and really fwhaig on them between the tenants and the owners can they come up with a solution that everybody agrees on with the long-term vision of replacing this elevator in a certain timeframe with the understanding that people are going to be displaced and how they feel about that and communicate all that. right now the way i see it is we're given a mandate to displace tenants. i'm not crazy about the life
3:41 am
safety and challenging that. i do get a strong feeling and i've been around this industry a long time, when people come up here, such as a testament by owners and elevator expert and the state is weighing in on this, that there is no wool being pulled over our eyes here. this is a situation that everybody is trying to work out. so, that said, i'd like commissioner lee's y.ed i think we're going to have more of these type of situations. and as commissioners, we -- i don't want to be picking up the paper where d.b.i. is displacing 10 people. aening they don't want to be displaced and they had no problem with an elevator or something. i'm trying to figure out what is the balance here? we do have a mandate here to do the right thing. i get it. buff i think there has been good testimony here to see if we can work something out with the tenants and the owners. >> commissioner walker? >> i think that that is really at the heart of what all of us
3:42 am
are saying. that there would be -- we'd like to see some more solutions in here. i -- i'm leaning toward asking this be continued for a month with the intention of having more of a process in that month of what we can look at as a plan going forward. we are ham strung a bit because what we can do here is either uphold or deny an order of abatement and i'm hopeful that everybody hears what we're saying about the seriousness of this. and that they take the months between now and then to come up with a plan that is supported. because it is going to displace people in the short term to long-term. whether we fix it or not. the problem that we have to lock at right now is that we
3:43 am
have a code violation that exists that if an elevator can't be used because it is not level, that is an elevator that's failed. and whether the state has licensed it or not, it is a failing elevator. that is the reality of this elevator. and it's important that the state is inspecting these for sure, but it is really not the point that we're dealing with here of a violation of access to these apartments. so, you know, we are -- this is a very complicate issue. you know, it is going to cause displacement and extend discomfort in this building either way. so i feel that in the long-term this elevator is going to be replaced and we have an
3:44 am
accelerator on us now to national convention determination. i move that we continue this a month and send it back to the department, or housing division, and the building owner who can weigh in on a little bit more information for us as a solution going forward so that we can make a decision. >> i'll second that. and i'd like to add that to the apel lanlts. i think the commission is sympathetic. but we want to see more compelling reasons for us to help you. meaning we want to see probably a little bit more dialogue with the tenant and come up with a plan maybe. show us that you're thinking about the situation. and everybody's concerned. >> yeah. yeah. and to -- i think that partnership with the tenant and the ownership is what goes a long way here in addressing these kind of situation where is we're trying to balance
3:45 am
safety. and we do acknowledge that it is a big job and we are not up here to displace people and how we come told a more universal approach to this is what kind of -- is what the commissioners were looking for here. so i would second -- third the commissioner walker's -- >> commissioner walker? >> the other thing is if we could get the code enforcement outreach groups to get involved, including the owner partner association, maybe there is assets available for actually helping, that would be great. thank you very much for bringing this to our attention. >> there is a motion and a second to continue this item to the next meeting. [roll call] >> the motion carries
3:46 am
unanimously. our next item is item f, continued appeal order of abatement, case number 6845 60 clifford terrace. dorian and julie stone, appellant. department, come forward. >> good morning again. again, senior inspector hernandez. this is a complaint that we investigated. it's about a walkway that's been there for about close to 60 years. we issued a notice. we basically abated the notice at one point because we couldn't find -- we found discrepancies on plans and permits going back to the 1960s.
3:47 am
we re-opened the case based on the request of the complainant. we advised the owner to [inaudible]. we couldn't come up with anything, therefore we had to proceed with our process of code enforcement. so the department is actually requesting the -- [inaudible] to uphold the order of abatement and oppose the saements cost. i do have a question. i think we continued this item because the appellant was going through a process with the planning department. we would like the department to follow that process or give us an update of what's happening at the planning department. would you be able to do that? >> yeah. the permits do, in filing process, still working through planning process and the issue is, again, the walkway.
3:48 am
i know the owner, it seems like in his promise, the walkway is going away. the department either way doesn't have any problem with the project if the walkway is going away. then we don't have any [inaudible]. >> i'm confused. and i'm just gost trying to -- that was a pretty detailed hearing we had. >> yeah. >> and it was very clear to us that both parties had to get together and had come to an understanding because one would not move without the other one's permission and vice versa. why is this back here in front of us so quick if it was -- or did we just give it one months? >> yeah. one month. >> so, is the -- ok. ok. all right. >> the people are here. >> are the people here? >> yeah. >> everybody's here. ok. sorry.
3:49 am
>> ok. could the appellant come forward? >> good morning. my name is dorian stone. i'm the owner of the property. my wife was here last time, julie. we were represented by eric jacobs who could not be here today. his colleague david is going to pitch in if i do anything dumb. so, as just revisiting the context, we are just trying to remodel our home. we started this process back in 2014 after our daughter was born. which is shortly after buying the home to start a family. a few days after our second child was born, had an urgent request from our neighbors to discuss the project that up until that point we thought was running smoothly. with our sort of 3-day-old or
3:50 am
4-day-old, whatever. we received a series of asks that we were just unprepared to move on and we ended up in a d.r. situation. subsequently, multiple weeks before that d.r. that had took some time to get schedule because it didn't work for the -- for our neighbors, the n.o.v. was put in. out of the blue from the standpoint. the n.o.v. was for the walkway. the walkway also joins a deck off the rear garage, a detached garage. they come off the living level. because there is like a five-foot difference between ground level and living level. then subsequently after that n.o.v., a letter of determination was also launched in parallel. the n.o.v. was abated multiple times. you can see that online. each time re-opened and we ended up in a director's hearing on the n.o.v. at the -- during this interim time, as well as at that director's hearing, it became apparent with statements made by our neighbors that the walkway was one component but
3:51 am
there was the back deck issue that may or may not come up. sort of the not yet was the responses to a question from the director in the director's hearing as to whether or not that deck was an issue as well. and that just -- during this time, it became clear to us that we have to get this whole thing sort of cleaned up and done. we just wanted to move on with our life. on the letter of determination, as follow-up on that, the -- our neighbors then appealed their own letter of determination. then a hearing was set at. at the last minute, that hearing was delayed. we supported that at the request of our neighbors. said that was ok. and at the last minute, the subsequently rescheduled hearing was canceled by our neighbors. to be honest, it's -- this has been a terrible experience for us. financially it has been exceptionally costly to deal with all of these thing and all the preparation. this is all new to us so we have to hire people for that. and logistically it is difficults for -- i work in the peninsula and commute. my wife takes care of our children as well as works. so, baby sitting, things that come up.
3:52 am
and then financially it has been exceptionally painful as you can imagine. today, and maybe i should just revisit, that as the n.o.v. went through and we were trying to get it abated, what also became clear is that both the arguments came in with the n.o.v. is that this really was one more project. the v.a. and the planner agreed and so we have been operating since that n.o.v. was put in place as this is one project under guidance. and we have the latest notes from jeff horn to our neighbors and i'm happy to either give it to you, read it to you or whatever you like. but the e-mail, i can read it. it's pretty short. >> [inaudible]. >> sure. >> put it up on the screen. >> sure.
3:53 am
>> we had one meeting prior to this one. i'll let you read it and then continue. >> ok. >> ok? >> [inaudible]. >> we did find a date on the 11th of october. so we have a d.r. scheduled for the 1 1th of october that is progress since the last time we were here. we have been working diligently above board trying to do the best we can on this. and conveniently the 1 1th of october works because our neighbors also submitted a d.r. -- i don't know. they have a d.r. for the neighbors on the other side of them who are also trying to do some work on their home. and so we just wanted -- that way it is just one night and we can get both things done. you know, we would like this -- the ask, frankly, is just to help us keep this moving and keep the pain off of our shoulders. so, waiving fees, throwing it out, whatever tools you have at our disposal. our intention is to do this above board and get everything
3:54 am
done. we've done nothing but try to show that commitment in everything that we've done. yeah. i'm not sure if i missed anything. that is kind of the story. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so at the last meeting there was a conversation about do we do two permits -- >> if which neighbor? >> the neighbor who is the -- >> project sponsor? >> this is public comment. wait until public comment, i think. ok. >> i'm david penn, here with dorian. again, to just reiterate that thank you for the continuance that we received previously. since then, we've made a lot of progress with the planning department to schedule the discretionary review and we
3:55 am
have amended the building application permit to remove the offending walkway. and instead we will access that area that that walkway previously connected us to with a permitted and planning approved or planning -- preliminary approval up from the rear yard. >> ok. we're going to do public comment now. >> so, this case was continued so there would be an opportunity to talk to planning about the process. do you do two two permits, a permit to satisfy the n.o.v., which is the correct way for the building department or planning's request that you do one big permit so everything is all inclusive. and in the discussions with planning, their correct planing is saying that they want one permit. and that is what planning wants. at this point in time, i agreed to do it that way. it may make it messy down the
3:56 am
end. but the planning wants to do a master permit. that's direct. -- that's correct. my suggestion is that's fine. and if it is going to take a while now to satisfy this n.o.v., you guys don't fine 'em and you uphold the order of abatement -- that you put in an abeyance while they go get the permit and let them go get their permit to do this. and that is my client's request. no fines. you uphold it, but you put in an abeyance and let them move forward with their building permit. and in their planning approval, the offending walkway would be removed under a master building permit. >> ok. >> any additional public comment? seeing none s there rebuttal by the department?
3:57 am
>> no. there's no rebuttal by the department. >> thank you. does the owner have any rebuttal? ok. yes, no? does the owner have a rebuttal? no. ok. >> shaking my head no. >> ok, thanks. commissioner discussion. >> commissioner walker? >> i would move to uphold the order of abatement, hold an abeyance for six months. >> realistically, this project will take a year. you mentioned earlier, president mccarthy that -- >> a year? one year. uphold current fees, but stop assessing fees. excuse me. >> i think construction was
3:58 am
done prior to 1960 so there is no -- there is no penalties. it's just a monitoring fee. >> ok. right. so -- >> i would second that. >> so, upholding the current fees, waiving monthly -- waiving fees going forward. would there -- and we can do that? is that what you are telling me? xementz for monitoring? >> why not read the ordinance for the monitoring fee. we're not supposed to waive it. >> ok. so all fees exempt the monitoring fee. >> ok. so, the motion by -- >> the motion is to uphold the order of abatement. because there is just cause for
3:59 am
the abatement procedure. for ordering the issue. so we uphold the order of abatement. we hold an abeyance for one year. we uphold current fees -- >> monitoring fees. >> monitoring fees going forward. >> you're holding an abeyance for one year from today's date. >> one year from today's date to allowing the planning process to direct the permitting requirements. >> so, there is a motion and a second. i'll do a roll call vote. [roll call] motion carries unanimously. our next item is item g, general public comment for items not on the abatement
4:00 am
appeals board agenda. ok. seeing none, item h adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> yes. >> second. >> we are now adjourned. it is 10:38 a.m. we'll have about a 10-minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection commission. thank you.