lot of them but also school district-specific issues like special education, student discipline and teacher administrator employment disputes as well as litigation. when not at work, i volunteer as a tutor and serve as vice president of the san francisco charter school. you should have a couple of letters of support from folks there. i believe that the result of my passion, experiences and skills, i have alberta to offer. i was asked to speak about my goals for the dcyf and i don't have the full context and perspective. based on the meetings i've attended and other conversations i've had, it seems as though communications with service providers is an area for improvement. i understand there was some confusion with time lines and requirements and connection with the switch to a five-year funding cycle and also at the september meeting, the service provider working group raised a concern regarding lack of communication over the switch to a new data base and invoicing software.

the last thing i wanted to mention is my connection to san francisco. of course, those people who grew up here have a very special and i remember replacement able leadership with the city. before san francisco i lived in every major city in the u.s. when i graduated from law school and it was time to start the rest of my life i chose sf because i love it here. and i want to make my chosen city better. >> thank you. >> ok. >> supervisor yee. >> so, you rattled off a lot of things. which is fine. if you were part of the oversight committee, what would you try to work on? so, as i mentioned, i have been to a few o.f. meetings and i found it to be in general a very functional organization. the meetings were efficiently run and they do a lot to try to bring in the service providers

into the process. so they have a service provider working it seems as though it's difficult to ensure that messages are getting across clearly from dcyf to the service providers and i think it's critical to dcyf. the service providers are on the ground serving children. that was what i noticed. based on my experience so far, that's what i focus on. they adopted a committee structure where they have a communications committee that seems like a prime opportunity to focus on this issue. >> what do you think dcys role is with the school district? >> education in general? >> my understanding is that they are providing wrap-around services. they do everything outside of school that children need. they have focus on early education, after school.

they focus on preparing kids for college and career readiness and they work with sfusd and make sure kids show up at school ready to learn and everything outside of their lives is supportive of that. >> what do you think the greatest challenge for our high school youth would be? >> i heard you ask that questions earlier and thought it was hard. there are so many. obviously housing. i think violence. in my work, i see a lot of kids with special needs. as i mentioned i'm an education lawyer and i represent school districts. i attend i.e.p. meetings and that is a group that i see that i think is consistently under served and misunderstood. so that personally is what i see as a great area of need and it's hard to say if it's the greatest.

>> you have a child add edson. >> i am a board member at edson. >> ok. you are a board member. >> i'm the vice president of the board at edson. >> you don't have a child? >> i do not have a child at all. >> ok. [laughter] >> i didn't mean to ask that. >> that's interesting. >> the edson board has certain seats for parents but i am not filling one of those seats. >> why did you chose it or someone asked you? >> it was similar to this. i just wanted to get involved. i live on market so it's in my neighborhood and i thought second grade so i wanted to get involved in a school and it was one of the largest charter schools that serves t.k. to eight so it seemed like a good fit. and i like it. >> thank you. >> i have a question. have you reached out to dcyf and

attended any of the meetings? >> i went to a meeting last july. so july of 2017. i was feeling like i wanted to get more involved and so i went to a meeting then. it seemed like it wasn't the right time for me. i was about to take on a new job i have now. i wanted to make sure i had the capacity to do it. i applied in dog. i meet with dory and the executive director and attended the september meeting. the most recent meeting. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> and i note -- i know that you had applied originally for another seat not in this particular body. office of early childhood education so you definitely have shown your desire to serve in some capacity. i wanted to remind the committee members of that. ms. sharif, can i ask you a question. i don't know if supervisor yee

asked this question. have you reached out to dcyf and attended any of the meetings? >> i have not attended any of the meetings. >> thank you. >> all right. ones again. >> it's always a tough decision. >> any members of the public wish to comment. please come forward. it would be good to hear from you. that would be great. >> dori. >> hi, dori. dcyf. i just wanted to note i did reach out to naddia sharif when we learned about her application. we had a great phone conversation yesterday. she has a lot of familiarity with dcyf as a program participant, staff member and advocate to i wanted to note that with the three of you. >> have you also spoken with ms. >> yes, i did.

we met in-person. i answered a lot of questions she had about dcyf and i invited her to attend a meeting and set up a meet and greet with our director maria sue as well. >> she did that. >> yes. >> ok. >> ok. >> thank you. >> any comments so far? >> well, this is the last item. you guys are not making it easy. you are both great, by the way. can we have another seat? i really. i think both of you would be an asset to the committee.

i think i'm in favor of, again, depending on how my colleagues feel, i can go either way. if i had to make a choice and it looks like i might have to make a choice, listening to the two present and answering the questions that i felt ms. powell was able to answer the questions more thoroughly to my liking. in terms of understanding the scope of what dcyf does and who it serves. both of you seem to be very active so that's also equalized on that. the slight edge ms. powell has for me would be her knowledge of what she does and some in sight into how it can be improved.

i would nominate her. >> i agree. the reason i wanted to state for the record ms. powell had been here for another committee. she's shown her desire to serve and that is not to take nick away from ms. sharif. i think your experiences and what you are putting forward also, i would encourage you to apply for something else. we have a lot of opportunities to serve. your experiences having gren up and the experiences you have and also the work you do, i think the transitional age youth population and those experiences are really important to this body and really important to the board of supervisors in general. i would also like to acknowledge that the fact when we often say please stay engage and apply again and come back. it's not that often we actually see someone do that. so i want to acknowledge

ms. powell when we say it we mean it. i actually had applied a long time ago to be on the commission and was rejected the first time. even though i probably had more experience than anybody else in early education. it was political for some people. i was encouraged and i went back and applied again and appointed. it does help to stay engaged. >> thank you. ok. can we entertain a motion >> my motion is to apoint ms. powell to seat number 1. seat number 11.

>> seat number 11. send it out with positive recommendation to the full board. >> ok. we can do that without object sex. object objection. >> any other items. >> no further items. >> motion to adjourn. >>

>> turn off your phones.

sfgov-tv ready to begin. good morning, today is wednesday, october 17,, 2018 and this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. i invite everyone be to turn off electronic devices and the first on the agenda is roll call. president warshell. commissioner konstin. commissioner mccarthy, commissioner moss. commissioner walker. commissioner clinch is excused. we have a quorum. and item b, the oath. will all parties giving testimony today -- excuse me -- please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the

truth to the best of your knowledge? okay, thank you, you may be seated. information for the presentation of the cases. the department will present its case first and then the appellant and each side has seven minutes to present their case and then there will be public comment and members have three minutes each to speak. lastly, there's rebuttal time of three minutes for the department and then the appellant. >> okay, since these two cases that we have today are so related, the 75 fresno and the 300 columbus. what we're going to do is that we'll allow each of you to have your seven minutes but we'll hear the case as one in the interest of coherence. so perhaps we can begin on 300

columbus and, of course, the department if necessary has doubled their time allotment as well. >> clerk: for the record, it's 6850: 300 columbus avenue, and peter and paula abowd, and more time to enable them to fix the wall. and case 6851: 75 fresno street. and the owner and appellant, doong family trust, kwok ho, betty bow, c doon and more time needed to fix the wall. >> good morning, everybody. good morning, commissioners. so, yeah, back in 2 2010 we hada complaint on safe conditions and we had a brick wall that is connected to 75 fresno and 1224

-- 1224 grant. and the inspector had a notice of violation for hazardous conditions which he advised the owners to provide an evaluation report and to correct the situation. unfortunately, these three properties involved on the case, it's 300 cocoa lum bus and 75 fresno and 1224 grant. and we have to tie all three property owners. at this time back in 2017, since we had still no correction of these notices we had to refer this case to code enforcement division. then we provided a note of abatement, and it's to uphold the abatement and assess the costs. we still have the unsafe condition. >> commissioner warshell: is the third party still -- >> there's a notice of abatement

on that one. and it seems that the other property owner is not willing to comply. >> commissioner warshell: oka okay. any questions? okay. so for 300 columbus first. >> the cases are identical, all three cases are identical. i represent two of the owners, 300 columbus and 75 fresno. and this wall is a remnant of a building that is skewed to columbus. it was not torn down, it was left in place and the adjoining buildings partially use the wall in different spots but a section of the wall is freestanding and a section of the wall on the exposed side, the brick is deteriorated. that brick needs to be repaired.

we received the complaint. we have been working with the building department since 2013 when the complaint came in or 2010. and one of the owners wants to fix -- i'm sorry, two of the owners want to fix the wall. one of the owners has a belief that it's not his responsibility or it's not his wall or it's not on his property, even though that we have a survey. so we have submitted plans for -- well, i created a set of drawings for the entirety of the wall. those plans have been submitted to the building department. 75 fresno, the permit number is 2013-01-14-7849. and 300 columbus, is 7850. they're sequential. the drawings are sitting there. we have gone through and ready to be issued.

the price to repair the wall is not significant. but we can't fix someone's wall that we don't own. this is owned by three parties. so after working with the building department until last year we requested to be sent here. we were not -- this is not something that you guys did to us, we asked to come here to have an order of abatement filed against us so that we could appeal it and get in front of the building commissioner abatement appeals board. the third owner did not appeal the order. he didn't do anything. so there's an order of abatement on one of the properties, the guy who has a belief that it's not his responsibility. and we've been trying to work with him for over the last five years and got nowhere. on the other two owners who are here participating, we have been in discussions with contractors and we have a price and the plans are ready to go and if we

could just get him to say yes we could move forward and have this solved in two months. what we're here asking for both cases is that you continue our cases for 12 months or whatever, and then on his case, which there is an order, it's not appealed, it's sitting with the building department, you guys refer to the litigation committee and take a look at it. now you'll ask why, why do you want to get involved in a civil matter. this wall in my professional opinion, i'm happy to report, doesn't pose a failure mechanism under soil. it needs to be repaired but this wall is not going to fall over because the soil behind it is pushing or the surface of the brick has deteriorated. i am extremely concerned that there's a portion of this wall that is in an abandoned previous building that is about a 25-foot canilever.

and having it sticking 25 feet up in the air in an earthquake is a classic failure mechanism. the people at 75 fresno, it's a 20 unit s.r.o. there's 20 housing units put at risk. and the wall on their building is actually bearing for the building. so it's making their building an unreinforced masonry building. we have submitted alternate plans to try to work around that issue but it's creating an unreinforced masonry building and it's permitting us from doing a seismic on that building which also needs to be done. so it's posing earthquake challenges from retrofitting a 20-unit s.r.o., and on the canilever portion, 300 columbus is a 70-unit building that is below this wall. so in the event of an earthquake, and i think that there's an article in today's paper that we're back to a 65%

chance of an earthquake in the next 20 years, that's a hugely optimistic belief, the fault slips every 100 years plus or minus 10 and we're 13 years into the plus side. so i believe that we're going to have an earthquake soon. knock on wood, not too soon, but it's going to happen. these earthquakes are not random events and they're due to strain and release of the strain, which is an earthquake. so when there is an earthquake i'm very concerned that we'll have a portion of 75 being damaged and desperately needed housing and 300 columbus, crushing down and taking a portion of the building out. so we want to fix it. we're asking your help. for the 1224 grant to the city attorney and maybe the city attorney can put enough pressure on this gentleman so we can fix

the wall. it isn't that hard to fix. but i can't go on to someone else's property, we can't trespass on someone else's property, no matter how good the reason, and you just can't do it. but with your help, and this is why we asked to be brought here, we requested this. with your help maybe the city attorney can motivate the owner that it is his responsibility, there is a survey, and we provided it to him. so it's basically our presentation for both buildings. owners, do you have anything to say? they want to fix it. just can't figure out a way to force this gentleman to do it. but maybe the city attorney can motivate him. it's just putting too many people at risk. >> commissioner walker, you had a question? >> vice-president walker: can you bring up your diagram and on the screen point out to me the

properties and where the wall is. so name them. >> this triangular is 300 columbus. and this lot here and the yellow line is the wall. >> okay. >> 1224 grant. and this area right here is 75 fresno. >> all right. so 12 -- the one in the corner is the one that has not responded? >> and it's the one who has some belief that it's not his or you can't make me do it. >> what is that building, what is the occupancy? >> it's commercial. believe it or not i think many families live there. >> it's residential up above? >> yes, on the second floor. >> okay. >> yeah? >> so it looks like that wall touches a fourth property. >> yeah, the good news is that wall is not showing any deterioration there and it's going uphill so the height of

the wall drops so i'm not worried about that property. and the city wasn't worried about that property. this area right in here that had the deterioration and had the 75 sitting on it and acting like a bearing wall and the portion right here is posing a hazard to 300 columbus below. so hopefully you could give us some briefing time while the city attorney moves forward. but the drawings are done and we have the contractor wound up to go. >> any other questions? >> was this complaint driven -- >> actually filed a complaint to try to get this fixed. >> i see. i got ya. >> he filed a complaint, got it. >> got it. >> okay, discussion? rebuttal? >> i'm sorry, public comment. public comment first. any public comment on either of

these items? seeing none, and the department's rebuttal. >> yeah, the department hasn't got rebuttal. we just want the building to be secure, all three propertyings. i mean, -- properties. we have done everything that we can and we assessed all of our options now. i mean, the problem that we have is that it has a little bit of a condition here that we can't, you know, make the other owner say, hey, you've got to play nice with the other owners and take care of it. >> but your experience is two have cooperated in getting this done -- >> yes. and that's why it took so much time for us to send it to code enforcement. they asked us to send it to code enforcement because the owner is not complying. >> okay. >> yeah, so this is unique. i mean, usually we're sitting

here and you're saying you want us to uphold your order of abatement. in this case it's slightly different. i think that -- for the purpose of the -- if we were to, like, uphold the order of abatement and to give time to implement, it's a different -- it's a difference than continuing these cases. normally we would do that. but it's a challenge for me -- i need to look at that and see, does it make more sense for the two to continue? or to have us uphold the order of abatement and give some time to implement. so do you have a feeling about that? >> no. the only thing that i was talking to with the inspector is that if it was continued maybe the department can request the -- because this thing has been sitting with us since 2010.

you know, we know that there's a permit filed. but yet we feel more secure that we have a report -- >> but nothing has happened. >> it leaves a temporary measure to say, look, in the meantime we can provide temporary measures and that would be possible. >> okay. any other -- >> what is the total cost of the repair? >> for the entire section, including removing the brick on their building, to make it ununreinforcement masonry building and reduce the canilever and the repair of the sections is like $50,000. in this world to pose a risk to 90 occupants -- any amount of money would be insane -- but for that amount of money is crazy. it's not a multimillion dollar repair. >> you're trying to share the cost? >> there's got to be an agreement on how they want to do

it but we can't get acknowledgement that it's my wall. >> thank you. >> and do you have -- is there -- are you settling your rebuttal? >> is there any hardship issue with people who own the property? >> no, no. like i said the other person has been not responsive to all of the notices that we send. i mean, they basically keep saying the same thing -- not our wall. and even though we have put an order of abatement on the property. >> my sense is that -- i mean, this has all of the signs of everybody trying to do the right thing even though it's kind an upside way of doing it. but to the point about utilizing whatever tools we have to get this person to the table so that they most understand, you know, the financial issue, then that can be discussed. but at least they have to participate here with this

because ultimately this has to be dealt with. in 2010 we have been doing this. and this is obvious that given more time doesn't resonate at all. if anything, the strategy which is most unusual which is like a self-suicide type of thing, bringing it up to the board of abatement of appeals is unusual but i do think that is a good strategy. this is ultimately where it will end up. so my motion is to uphold and to forward it on to the board of abatement. -- of litigation committee, excuse me. >> and i think -- i think that just to sort of follow-up on that we have these two that we're hearing that have been trying to resolve the issue, so it's -- i'm nervous about doing that because of the penalties that could flow that don't seem to be directed, and if somebody

is trying to do the right thing it's not really -- the situation is a violation, their actions aren't. so i'm trying to resolve that because if we do uphold it, then -- i think that the other case is automatically been -- they didn't appeal it, so there's a notice of violation that has an active order of abatement on it. and that we can actually in our litigation process look at moving forward that case legally. i mean, that would be -- >> you know, i get it. and maybe we can help with reducing -- but i think that we need to do all equally. we need to distribute this out equally so that when the city attorney is involved in this and sending out everybody is getting that same letter. that's the way i really feel about it. because i think that -- yeah,

please go ahead. >> and rebuttal time. >> i understand the frustration with the two. we're trying to fix it and to get an order of abatement on all three properties and saying all three properties are doing the same thing. we have plans. we have filed it. if you guys want to uphold the order and delay it so we don't get it recorded, so uphold it but don't record it against two innocent parties. one is an s.r.o. and they don't want an order of abatement and they're moving forward to add accessory dwelling units. if there's an order of abatement they can't add those housing units. that's a challenge. we have plans to do a work around of the unre-enforced masonry building to solve the 75 fresno. so we're doing everything that we can. but if there's an order of

abatement the a.d.u. is not going -- is it one or two -- one a.d.u. so if you want to uphold it and continue it for 12 or 18 months, bring it back here. we'd be happy. the other thing is that with an order of abatement we can't do work on 300 columbus. permits are turned down -- >> if it's filed? >> yeah, but that's -- this is the risk when you went down this roaroad when you go down this rd you can't just -- >> but the issue is really it doesn't really flow until it's filed. so if we uphold the order of abatement and then hold it for the process to move forward, and then we can deal with the other one and discuss it in a different venue it move it forward. >> i want to just make sure if we're going to strategize about

this is how we're going to get -- i'm interested if the city attorneys would weigh in on this and see what you're feeling would be. to me, if we have to stay the course and keep it equally distributed, if we're sending to uphold and we're kind of taking one portion of it out and saying, okay, the party who is not cooperating we'll going to go strictly after them. to me it just doesn't sound like we have that flexibility to do these types of things, do we? >> bradley russi, city's attorney office want. >> the third party is not here and their order has already been filed because they didn't show up and appeal it. >> so help me to get off this. if we're going to have something upheld, right, do we have to do

it equally? >> well, the third party didn't appeal -- >> so we're going to send them to -- if we're going to process this -- i'm trying to look for the right words here. help me, commissioner walker. if it comes in front of us it comes in front of us as one notice of violation. >> what we're looking at is they filed the complaint and got us involved and the wall is the problem. the violation is on fixing the wall. they're here because they haven't fixed it because they can't fix it without the third party who has the same notice of violation and they haven't challenged it. they didn't appeal the director ruler's ruling to fix the wall. so they already have an

abatement because of the notice of abatement and the failure to act. so what we could do is uphold the order of abatement, uphold it, and hold it in advance for a year or whatever, and then with the other case it's already a legal issue for us because they failed to show up or do anything and there's a notice of violation on that. i mean, we do have a situation where two parties are working towards a solution and one isn't. and we cannot take legal action -- >> exactly my point because they're all in this together and it goes off to litigation, right and we choose -- >> refer it. >> refer to the city attorney. how does that work when they're all in the same package here? because i don't see how you don't get that same --

>> i'm not a code enforcement attorney. but there's no guarantee that even if you refer this case to our code enforcement division of our office that they'd bring it. but i assume that it would have all of the parties involved. >> the way that it's going it's going to go to litigation committee, right? >> it doesn't mean that they'll bring the case. i don't understand why they can't bring the case themselves apart from the city regarding this issue to clarify rights of that wall. >> say that again one more time. >> i'm not sure if they have explored bringing a private lawsuit against the neighbor to clarify the rights regarding that wall. but we can speak to that question. >> why are the owners -- >> excuse me. >> i wanted to ask a question. >> just a second.

>> day one when we made this request -- >> i'm going to explain what i think that the situation is. the way i see it is that the appellant is essentially asking for more time so that the order doesn't get recorded so they can reach out and try to convince the third property owner to get involved and fix the wall. how they do it, i don't know. but he seemed to imply they'd like to go to the litigation committee and ask for help to reach out to the third party. so that's what i'm hearing. okay, now -- before you answer i would like to ask the question and i think that is brought up by the city attorney. what has -- what has the two appellants done to try to reach out to the third party? can you explain that. >> we have been talking to him

for five years. we had contractors. >> i'm charles reiss. good morning. i'm the owner of 560 broadway, the actually 318 columbus, lot 13. ever since we received the notice of violation we reached out to all of the four property owners. and received immediate cooperation from the owners of lot 16. and immediate denial for lot 14. because of the denial that the property was on their wall we incurred the cost of i believe $12 you had how to to do -- $12,000 to do a survey which established that the property was on his property and we forwarded that survey to him. at that time he had an attorney and we forwarded an agreement to

them to permit access to allow the work to be moved forward. and they ignored that for years. subsequently the owners of lot 16 have negotiated with the owners of the lot 14. two months ago i sent an updated agreement, a much shorter, simpler agreement to them. we thought that we had a tentative agreement that they would move forward. in the last week they have reneged on that and sort of gone sideways. so we have been and we are ready to go forward and we're ready to pay. we have a contractor. and one of the problems that we're experiencing is that i have a hotel tenant who is trying to upgrade bathrooms and upgrade rooms and can't get

building permits because of these orders. and so, you know, recorded or not, he's having permits kicked back. and i don't want him to do works without permits. so i respectfully request that there is a vast substantive and practical difference between the three parties. two of them are trying to help. i don't see the situation as three parties being equal at all. all we need is help with one of them. we'll take care of the rest. i'm sorry. >> you said that you had a very close point -- >> i'm a little hard-of-hearing. >> my apologies. you said they went sideways on you recently and you thought that you might have some -- any insight why they'd go sideways and come to the table and go away like that. >> i should have elaborated on that. first of all we had an allocation of the funds as the

three sections of the wall and how the contractor divided up, how the costs were allocated. and in the section between -- i'm trying to get to this -- the section between lot 13 and lot 14, there was a specific allocation of the cost. and we were going to split it in half or two-thirds to me and one-third to him. and last week he came back, no, i want to pay half of that and i don't want to pay all of that. so we have talked about, listen, to get this done this is a safety issue and this is stupid. we'll pick up some of that shortfall with the costs. now he's come up with, well, even though the wall is on my property, i don't want responsibility going forward. and i want either to deed it to you or be held harmless for the wall. these are not easily legally

possible. and we're trying to deal with those things. but what it is is simply a continuation of delays. we would move forward in 30 days with the contractor and we made commicecompromises with this otr party. we have to stop open defiance of the city procedures and refusals to let this work go forward. with respect to the previous question about civil litigation and stuff, i'm an attorney, i had my firm take a look at what they estimated that it would cost for just civil litigation for lot 14. the estimate of the legal expenses were one and a half times of what the cost of the repairs are. and it was just -- they said to

me, are you nuts. go to this guy and compromise with him on the money, thootd fine, but -- that's fine. but you need access and legal right to get there. that's the hold up and i wanted to give you a flavor of that. we'll do almost anything but it seems silly to litigate over something with less involved that would take a lot longer than doing the repairs when we have some 90 units affected by this. so we respectfully request your effort to bring pressure on the 1224 grant, and, please, if you can to see the way not to uphold an order with us because this is causing tremendous complications with building permits. and just i can't think of what more we could have done and we would hope that you would be supportive of those efforts. but we respectfully request if

you would consider those issues. >> we're all in the same boat with him again. that's been the problem. we're in this boat with someone with denial. until you guys differentiate us from him, we're going to be at this for years. but if you differentiate us and he's on his own now -- >> i think that we understand, okay? >> final comment. i don't know if us sitting as the abatement appeal board can compel or influence the third party in any way. but i seem to think that we could honor the appeal and hold the abatement and give the appellants time to work things out with the third party, whichever way they choose.

>> commissioner walker? >> so i think that we we uphold the order of abatement and hold it in advance that is treating these folks differently because the current -- the people who are nonresponsive already have an order -- an active order of abatement against their property which will lean and create problems. i mean that is really the pressure that we have already exerted on them which doesn't seem to do much. what we do with that property owner is up to the litigation committee and not us. and i think that it probably will be discussed. but i think that i support that concept of upholding the order of abatement to bring everybody

into this and then hold it in advance for whatever time you all who are -- you know, builders, think is an appropriate time. realizing that some of this is complicated. but, i mean, that's what i think is what we should do to get a resolution here. >> yeah, no, i really appreciate the explanation. please don't get confused by the fact that i don't want to get this resolved, but i am a little bit nervous about how this is getting done. and what's the unintended consequences and so on, and i think that normally people get their lawyers together and do it outside and get it done. what we are asked to do here is to get that done for them. i get the fact that we're trying to get to the bottom of that, so i'm a little bit uncomfortable with that part of this equation

here. but that said, you know, i would be really interested to see how this plays out as an example of a model looking down the road. but i just -- i want to go on the record, commissioners, that we're kind of -- we're kind of going off a little bit -- off what we normally would do and how we get things done here and i want to put that on the record that it makes me a little bit uncomfortable but commissioner walker -- >> yeah, most of the time when we have dealt with these issues and we have a shared property line, retaining walls and that type of thing, all of the people show up, right? so this is a unique situation where there are people who are trying to resolve something -- >> yes, yes. >> there's somebody standing in the way. i don't think that it's us getting involved in their issues and it's us acting on the notice of violation. >> but the way that -- it's self-imposed. >> i got ya. >> and we encourage people to go

figure it out. i agree that one of them is not participating. and one of the appellants, property owners, you know, explanation -- i totally get it. and so let's -- you know, i am kind of been on the fence about it but i'm willing to take this journey. and commissioner lee expressed it well so let's call the question. >> clerk: did you want to make a -- >> well, uphold the order of abatement and hold it in advance for 12 months. and do we need to discuss anything like that? >> are there fees associated with this? >> yes, but they're monetary

fees so they're minimal fees. there's no actual penalty or anything. >> all right. >> we have a motion. a second. >> i'll second. >> okay. call the question. >> clerk: the motion on the second to uphold the order of abatement that includes -- >> would the basis for your motion be that -- what is the abatement? >> the department ordered the issue of abatement properly. >> this is for both cases. >> 300 columbus and 75 fresno. >> deputy director? >> yes, one thing that comes to mind is if we're going to be a year out possibly from the fix on this, my recommendation would be to obtain an engineer's evaluation for mitigation of any potential seismic.

>> perfect. >> okay. >> so amend that. >> thank you. it could be part of their motion, -- that can't be part of their motion, right? we'll take the roll call vote. president warshell. >> yes. >> vice president lee? >> yes. >> commissioner konstin? >> yes. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> yes. >> commissioner moss? >> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. the motion carries unanimously. and item b, general public comment for orders not on the abatement appeals board agenda. okay. >> they were both together. >> seeing none, item e is adjournment. motion to adjourn. >> second. >> clerk: so all in favor?

>> aye. >> clerk: we're now adjourned and it's 9:47 a.m. and we'll reconvene at 10:00 a.m.. >> i personally love the mega jobs. i think they're a lot of fun. i like being part of a build that is bigger than myself and outlast me and make a mark on a landscape or industry. ♪ we do a lot of the big sexy

jobs, the stacked towers, transit center, a lot of the note worthy projects. i'm second generation construction. my dad was in it and for me it just felt right. i was about 16 when i first started drafting home plans for people and working my way through college. in college i became a project engineer on the job, replacing others who were there previously and took over for them. the transit center project is about a million square feet. the entire floor is for commuter buses to come in and drop off, there will be five and a half acre city park accessible to everyone. it has an amputheater and water marsh that will filter it through to use it for

landscaping. bay area council is big here in the area, and they have a gender equity group. i love going to the workshops. it's where i met jessica. >> we hit it off, we were both in the same field and the only two women in the same. >> through that friendship did we discover that our projects are interrelated. >> the projects provide the power from san jose to san francisco and end in the trans bay terminal where amanda was in charge of construction. >> without her project basically i have a fancy bus stop. she has headed up the women's network and i do, too. we have exchanged a lot of ideas on how to get groups to work together. it's been a good partnership for

us. >> women can play leadership role in this field. >> i tell him that the schedule is behind, his work is crappy. he starts dropping f-bombs and i say if you're going to talk to me like that, the meeting is over. so these are the challenges that we face over and over again. the reality, okay, but it is getting better i think. >> it has been great to bond with other women in the field. we lack diversity and so we have to support each other and change the culture a bit so more women see it as a great field that they can succeed in. >> what drew me in, i could use more of my mind than my body to get the work done. >> it's important for women to network with each other, especially in construction.

the percentage of women and men in construction is so different. it's hard to feel a part of something and you feel alone. >> it's fun to play a leadership role in an important project, this is important for the transportation of the entire peninsula. >> to have that person -- of women coming into construction, returning to construction from family leave and creating the network of women that can rely on each other. >> women are the main source of income in your household. show of hands. >> people are very charmed with the idea of the reverse role, that there's a dad at home instead of a mom. you won't have gender equity in the office until it's at home. >> whatever you do, be the best you can be. don't say i can't do it, you can excel and do whatever you want.

to begin. good morning. today is wednesday, october 17th, 2018. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices and the first item is roll call. president mccarthy. >> here. >> clerk: vice president walker. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner konstin. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner lee. >> here. >> clerk: commissioner warshell. >> here. >> clerk: we have a quorum. next item is item 2, president's