. >> madam secretary, will you please begin by calling the roll? >> clerk: yes. today is wednesday, october 23, 2020, and this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. the first item is roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. we have a quorum, and the next item is item b, the oath. will all parties giving

testimony today please raise your right hand? do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? >> i do. >> okay. thank you. and i would just like to state for the record that the department will present its case first, and then, the appellant. each side has seven minutes to present their case. next, there's 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. and i also wanted to just read, as everyone knows, we are having a public meeting via teleconferencing. the number to call in is 1, 408-418-9388.

the meeting i.d. is 146-408-3349. to raise your hand to speak on a specific agenda item, press star, three to notify the meeting monitor. the next item is item c, approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for meetings held on september 16, 2020. >> move to approve. >> clerk: is there a second? >> second. >> clerk: and who did the second? >> hem. >> clerk: is there any public comment on the approval of the minutes? >> operator: there's no public comment. >> clerk: are all commissioners in favor? any opposed? then the minutes are approved. our next item would be item d, continued appeal, order of abatement. case number 6875, 2455 jackson

street. owner of record and appellant, nancy ryti and bob korman, 3450 sacramento street. action requested by appellant, that the order of abatement of reversed. and i believe chief hernandez will be presenting for the department. >> okay. good morning, everyone. my name is mauricio hernandez, chief building inspector of the building department. [inaudible] before adding new story, coviolations, and permit -- code violations, and permit vieition las. an inspector attempted to visit the site on september 4, 2019,

and to inspect the veracity of the complaint. on 10-8-19, a notice of violation was issued [inaudible] that he has told him that he's not in in the office and has stated that the engineers working on consolidating permit said has just informed me that the engineer has been absent for 11 months. a notice of violation was actually written up. mr. korman was [inaudible] before reviewed plans, and determined the extent of the work taking place. on november 7, 2017, a notice was issued that the owner failed to comply. on november 26, 2018, the case was amended to reflect that the

site condition as the inspector visited the site, and [inaudible] d.b.i. also confirmed that the work has been done on the lot, including a new roof structure, in-fill light structure on [inaudible] and living space. on 8-20-2019, the case was heard [inaudible] and a hearing was granted by the hearing officer. on september 24, 2019, the case was heard at the director ease hearing again, and a 30-day advisory notice by the hearing officer to state that all permits required full compliance must be filed and completed within 30 days. so at that time, the 30-day advisory was given, and order of agreement was issued based on the fact that the owner has not complied with the notice. at this time, code enforcement

is requesting to uphold the order of abatement for all of the assessment of costs. >> just to interject, and i don't mean to rudely interrupt, i i'd object to the notice of violation and move to strike it. >> clerk: okay. mr. hernandez, are you done? >> yes. >> clerk: okay. mr. korman, you can state what your case and state what you'd

like. >> thank you. we'd ask that the notice of abatement be rescinded because it's essentially infirm. there was multiple levels of hearsay that were submitted. this process was very similar to the process today where mr. hernandez just read a case summary prepared by staff. that says come repreparprepare and it doesn't say who inspected the alleged violations and who said what things, so there's insufficient evidence to support the director's finding or any finding today. in addition, there's one additional problem. as you're aware, the staff

report indicates, mr. korman applied for a permit on october 31, 2018 specifically to address the issues in the notice of violation. for whatever reason, in the system tracking system -- and i just want to make sure that i'm referring to it correctly, this is the supplemental exhibit to a, this is a screen shot of your permit tracking system, and attached to that screen shot is a pop up from the department of building inspection that says do not issue the permit, do not issue any permit without e.i.p.

review. mr. korman has tried to get a permit. he's submitted plans, and the record shows that. those plans will address all the issues in the n.o.v., but for whatever reason, he hasn't acted on that permit in over two years. so mr. korman has done everything he can do to comply with what the department has asked him, but the department 1i67 simply has failed to act on the plans that we submitted. thank you. >> clerk: next, there would be public comment. if there are any members of the public that would like to speak? if so, press star, three. mr. cannon, are you aware if

mr. korman is going to speak or if he's just listening to today's hearing? my screen shows that he's called in. does your screen show that he's there? >> clerk: my screen shows several attendees, but no one has raised their hands to speak. oh, there's one person who wishes to speak. >> caller, you are on the line. >> hello, can you hear me? >> yes. >> yes. >> hi, everybody. my name is bob korman, and i'm

calling in. >> okay. i can go ahead and speak. >> i just want to thank the board for having the hearing, and i just want to consider everything that mr. cannon has said, and i want you to know that i'm interested in getting this permit issued. excuse my voice. i met a couple of times with richard tam. he was very cordial and asked me to submit new plans, and i did through my engineer. i even went to the new building on august 10, 2020, and met with a gentleman named gary love, and he accepted all of my second and third i think iterations of plans, structural, and i didn't have the second or third or fourth iterations of calculations, and they were given to me by mr. allegria in early september,

and i mailed them by certified mail to mr. tam. i never received a green card back. they were mailed by certified mail, so i've done everything can to comply, and i'm still waiting for the permit to be issued, and i believe the language in the permit application 201810314687 plus the attending exhibit, which should have been submitted to planning, which describes the project review application form, that the plans and permit are being submitted to comply with the notice of violation 201888993. i've done everything that i can, and i'm still very patiently waiting to have the permit reviewed and issued -- the permit application reviewed and issued, and i would respectfully ask that the board consider everything that mr.

cannon has said, and everything that mr. cannon has supplied, and i look forward to asking this issue rectified in an expeditious manner because this project has been waiting. because of the stop work orders, there's a lot of water damage into the building, and more damage has occurred because of the delay of 25 months. i want to thank you for your time, and i apologize that i didn't understand the instructions. i was told to press star, not star, three, but i finally figured it out. i thank you for your time and your consideration and your patience, and stay healthy, and thank you. i'm done. >> thank you for your testimony, mr. korman, and thank you for being here today.

madam secretary, does that conclude public comment or is there anyone else in the queue? >> operator: there's no one else in the queue. >> okay. commissioners, if there's nothing else -- >> clerk: oh, i thought i unmuted myself. we have to go to rebuttal. the department has rebuttal for three minutes, and the appellant has rebuttal for three minutes. >> so the violation was confirmed on november 16, 2018, by the building inspector. he did confirm the work that was done.

i just want to point out that, since through the whole process, mr. korman has -- and i don't want to say difficult, but he has been sending a lot of sunshine requests. that only affects my staff, and we have provided about 400 copies of the same folder and file. so code enforcement has actually been helpful as much as we can. as you can see, this case started in 2018. i understand what's gone on with the planning process and things, but the history of this property goes back to 2010. there was a case back in 2010, and mr. korman disputed that case. there's a lot of history on

this property. permits go expire and renewal. at the moment, this property is vacant, so as you can imagine, we have neighbors calling us. at one point, we had a piece of plywood covering the roof had fell off, and we had to send an inspector out there to make sure that other nearby properties weren't damaged, so i just want to point that out. >> clerk: thank you. that concludes your rebuttal? >> yes. >> thank you. i would object to any of that rebuttal. that constitutes hearsay. mr. hernandez doesn't have personal knowledge of any of that information. mr. korman has been trying to get a permit issue, and for whatever reason, the city has refused to issue the permit. if the city would look at his documents and work with mr.

korman, everybody could work together to get this problem solved. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. that concludes rebuttal, then president alexander-tut can take over. >> thank you. so i wanted to ask one clarifying question to chief hernandez, and thank you for your presentation does today. can you confirm -- i know you said it again. can you confirm the dates that d.b.i. inspectors went to the property and saw the violations? >> so on our records, we have 11-26-18 and that's when we observed all the violations. there is also pictures of the work that was not included

under the scope of the work. there's multiple sky lights. there's a light well that's installed. there's a roof deck being built that is not in the original plans, so there's more extensive work that was done without the benefit of a building permit. >> and i don't mean to interrupt, just to make sure the record's clear -- >> through the chair -- yeah, yeah. >> so you will have a chance to rebut any questions that we ask. however, to have order in this hearing and make sure that everybody can hear each other because we are in a virtual space -- you know, we will give each party an opportunity to respond, but i'm going to ask for no objections or interruptions while people are speaking, but you will have a

chance to respond. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry. please cannot, chief hernandez. >> so as you can see in the pictures, there is extensive work, like i said, you know, and the inspector did confirm the violation in november 26, 2018. >> okay. thank you. >> madam chair, i have a question, please. >> thank you. commissioner mccarthy? >> inspector hernandez, what -- i so know you've said what the charge is here, but the permit, the violation in front of us today is for work done without a permit. now you went through a list of that work there. is that a part of this violation? for example, you said there was a deck there.

for exceeding the work there. there was a permit, which is what we're here in front of us today, it's for work exceeded. >> yes, yes. >> can you tell us what work exceeded? >> it's adding extensive work, sky lights and creation of a roof deck and living space on the top floor. >> so this is what was found to be not permitted to do. >> yes. >> just so my notes are clear, that date was from 2018. >> yes, from november. >> and then, that violation was issued to the appellant then, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> and then, sometime in 2019, we had the hearing, correct? >> correct. >> and in that 2019 hearing, a

comment was made, it was almost the whole hearing was hearsay. it had nothing to do with anything. what -- what can you -- can you address -- can you get me to understand why he would go to a hearing that had nothing to do with anything and why we were bringing him in because there was nothing to be talked about? >> so unfortunately, i don't know how to talk to that. you might want to talk to his legal advisor. i believe mr. cannon is his second or third legal advisor on this matter, but i was not there at the hearing. >> there was no application filed in 2019 to address any of

those violations, is that correct? >> correct, yeah. >> okay. thank you. no more questions, madam secretary -- or madam chair. >> okay. thank you. i'm just going to call down to the commissioners, and there will be an opportunity, as well, to hear from the appellant. vice president tam. >> yes, hi. i guess this question -- i have a question for mr. cannon. i know mr. korman mentioned this conversation in his statement, that he had since submitted plans and is working with d.b.i. to get permits. can you confirm that? >> yes, i confirmed that the original permit was filed on october 31, 2018. there's been back and forth with planning on that.

on the first day that planning opened for business this year, i believe it was august 16, mr. korman hand delivered a second set of plans to address the notice of violation. >> the second notice set of pl addressed all the items in the notice of violation. >> [inaudible] exceeded the levels of the prior issued permits. there have been a total of 96 permits issued on the building, and no one has specifically said which permit exceeded the school of -- which work

exceeded the scope of which permit. >> so aside from the [inaudible] highlight buildouts and in-fills and roof decks [inaudible] from the top floor? >> excuse me. i didn't quite hear that. >> so aside from the most recent set of plans submitted, any previous set of plans submitted address a sky light buildout or light well in-fill or a deck buildout on the top floor? >> it's my understanding that previous permit applications did in fact address those as part of the seismic retrofit. >> thank you. >> so i have a question, madam chair. >> yes.

>> so is it your testimony that permits exist, for example, that show the outdoor deck on the roof deck. >> it's my testimony that no one showed what work exceeded any particular permit, and it is my belief that there is an outdoor roof deck. i believe that is a mischaracter sedation of one of the neighbor's complaints, and that's what i'm saying about the misunderstanding by neighbors, and you have photos by neighbors. nobody has any confirmation of those, and there just simply isn't any roof deck. >> okay. that's a good point. inspector hernandez, are you aware of the plans submitted? do you have any records of what those plans show? >> yes. we looked at the plans briefly, and like i said, i mean, here's

the problem, mr. korman. if you even look at the permit application, i think we actually added them. the amount of work that he's putting in, his $2,000 worth of work, we have tried to work with him and tried to explain to hem that evaluation was one of the issues. second, i don't know if mr. cannon has actually walked the property, but in fact, i know they keep claims that these are allegations by the neighbors. my inspector was actually there. the building inspector was actually there in 2018 to assess that it was actually a violation. we had to amend the notice of violation so we reflect the existing conditions. we do have a set of plans that reflect some of the work, but still, some of the work is missing, and he's not add that go. >> so there is nothing there but a roof deck, for example, is that correct, mr. hernandez?

>> yes. >> so do you know what's in that amended addendum plans that have been sent in? >> the new ones, no. i know there was a half set that was given to me, but again, he doesn't even show the in-fill of the light wells. he still shows as the existing third floor to keep that open space, and he already has that in-fill. it doesn't even show that on the plans. so the only thing that he added in those plans was the actual roof sky light. >> okay. yes, the pop-up, so that's all that's in there. >> wyeah. >> okay. because i've seen a lot of exceeding the permits over the years because of a lot of pop-ups, and that was my testimony last week is there has been a lot of confusion in the building world and the

development world is what is and isn't legal in pop-ups in planning, so i can see where you'd get an exceeding the permit on pop-ups. so based on the plans that have been submitted, it doesn't address all the other -- >> no, it doesn't address -- for example, the light well enclosure, it doesn't address that. >> so you're going to be writing another notice of violation because it hasn't been addressed. >> well, no, because it was in the original notice of violation, and he can always do another set of plans that show that. >> okay. thank you, madam chair. >> okay. i'm going to go to commissioner clinch. do you have any questions? >> yeah. i guess the big question is, why do we have 96 permits on this property, if i can ask

that of the attorney. >> mr. korman has been working on this property less efficiently than he would like to for a long period of time, but he has been going and getting permits as needed, not acting as a scofflaw. there have been problems, but there have been problems on both sides, and you can tell one of the problems is that the city has refused to grant the permit, and mr. hernandez just gave inconsistent representations when commissioner mccarthy asked him about the new set of plans, mr. hernandez first said he had not even reviewed the new set of plans, and then, he started saying what was in the new set

of plans. >> i do -- i have to interject and say, with 96 permits, i don't know how mr. hernandez is able to keep them all straight. >> i would agree, yeah. >> so i think there's an issue that i'll let others -- mr. hernandez, in fact, speak to, if he prefers. no more questions from me. thank you. >> chief inspector hernandez, did you want to respond to that? >> yeah. in my response, i don't know if we were actually talking about the plans presented to planning because at some point last month, mr. korman came in with a half set of plans that gary didn't know what to do with. unfortunately, that's how mr. korman likes to operate. he likes to send in things by mail, and then allege that things were lost, and we get them and said hey, what are

these set of plans for? we talked to him and asked him if he could come in and tell us hey, what these half set of plans are for? the ones that i reviewed is a half set of about ten pages, it's just a few sheet showing the sky lights but nothing showing the enclosure of the light wells or the living space on the top floor or the roof deck that was being created. >> thank you. commissioner jacobo, do you have any questions? >> no. i'd like to thank commissioner clinch and mccarthy for theirs. i'm good at this time. >> thank you. and commissioner moss? >> no comment. no comment at this time. >> oh, i'm sorry. can i ask a quick question of

our city attorney. i believe mr. korman's hand is raised again. since he's an appellant in this case, is he able to speak again? >> good morning, commissioners. brad russi from the city attorney's office. it's up to the chair to allow [inaudible]. >> if my other commissioners don't object, i think it would be good process to allow mr. korman to address the -- >> clerk: okay. thank you. so john, if it still appears that he would like to speak, you can go ahead and unmute him. >> operator: mr. korman, are you unmuted? please go ahead. >> can you hear me, please? >> yes. >> clerk: yes. >> hello. i'm bob korman again. i want to thank everybody for

their testimony. this is going way too fast for me. i only have a piece of paper to write on, and i ran out of room, but i want to object to everything that mr. hernandez said. i'm being very respectful of him, but he made some comments that are not based on fact, that are actually, quote, unquote, not true. he said -- go backwards with what he said, i may not have the time, and i may have to address them with my attorney because i'm not a court transcriber and i can't write everything down. he said i brought in a half set of plans, 24 by 36. he said instead, i gave him 11 by 17, and that's false. gary love signed receipt, saying that he would distribute the sets of plans to planning,

to code enforcement, and also to the engineer, richard tam. richard tam must have received them because i checked with the certified mail receipt, and it was received, although the green card was lost or something, never returned. but i have a confirmation that mr. richard tam's office received the full two sets of plans of 24 by 36, and embedded on the plans are the permit application numbers. further to that, mr. hernandez made some comments that i can't recapitulate, and i'd like to have some time to comment with my lawyer. mr. richard tam, in his five

notices of violation, he did tell mrs. miriam keeler, next door, that was sent to me by code enforcement, that i had permitted for work starts on other permits. if you were to look at our reports -- i have four of them. three issued earlier, and one of them issued december 2019. they recapitulate, restate, eight permits enforced at this time, that they're now claiming that exceed the scope. all of the permits that i applied for and received, they've all been abated,

cancelled, terminated, or gone. they don't appear. there's a line through them, meaning it's a quote, unquote, true statement that i have no permits issued. and now, the claim is i had no permits or they went beyond the scope. for mr. hernandez to mention permits back in 2010 is to tar me with a brush. they're bringing up another allegation after a hearing with my former attorney, j. michael hall, before city hall was shutdown. it was alleged that i did work without a permit, and i had five building inspectors crawl

all over the building. it was alleged that i had an idea legal painting scaffolding set up to the building next to me, and mr. sweeney was pretty much user friendly at this time. i think he could be. that hearing was nothing but b.s. i have a lot more objections, so i don't have the time, but i'd like it revisited through my lawyer. and the value has increased to $60,000. it was already increased on one of the permit applications. >> clerk: mr. korman, sorry to interrupt you, but thank you for your comments. >> thank you. thank you. >> so i have a few follow-up questions, and this is for mr. cannon? a lot of the response that you have today rests on the permit

that you applied for in august. we had this abatement hearing originally scheduled for last month, but we put it in continuance in order to allow mr. korman to respond and to finally obtain legal representation, which he did. did you submit the -- a lot of the testimony falls on the august permit. i have hundreds of pages of documents from you guys. was that submitted? >> i'm not sure -- i'm not sure what your specific question is. the -- it's our position that the city has not demonstrated through substantial evidence

any permit violations, and we have submitted additional evidence to show that bob korman has been acting in good faith. specifically, we have shown that bob korman has shown good efforts to correct the items in the notice of violations, and mr. korman, as of today, has addressed all the items alleged in the notice of violations. when mr. hernandez was speaking in his rebuttal, that really kind of confirms the point that i'm saying. he [inaudible] broad brush and says the violations were confirmed by the inspector, and he saw, so mr. hernandez is confirming that he has no personal knowledge of what happened. mr. hernandez talked about one

of the permits had a too small of a number for the work that was being done, so it was rejected. >> mr. cannon, thank you. i had a very specific question. is there anything in the documents that you submitted that you can point to that speaks to what was submitted in august in order to try to rectify or address the notice of violation? did you submit anything that i can take a look at in these documents that you have submitted that i can take a look at and see what exactly was submitted? >> yes. i sent two letters to mr. harass last night. one of them has one exhibit, which is the screen shot that's showing d.b.i. has been instructed not to give permits. the other has five exhibits, i believe, one of which includes the permit applications from mr. korman, which is directly

addressing the issues in the notice of violation. if you have one minute, i can tell you exactly which exhibit that is. >> while you're finding that, i'll give you time to find that, chief inspector hernandez, you referred to a communication you had with the planning department. there was a hearing -- the planning department had their own hearing last month regarding the permit and their own violations that were said

on this hearing. do you have any comment? >> yes. i spoke to one of the building inspectors, and they're moving forward with their order of abatement, so they'll probably be sending the owner the abatement so they can either appeal it or assess all the costs? >> and the permit that i was referring to is exhibit c to my supplemental letter submitted last night. . >> this one was filed on september 20, 2019. >> correct. it was -- mr. korman originally filed a similar one on october 31, 2018.

it wasn't acted on, so he refiled again on september 20, 2019. >> and this is the same application that is listed on my report, and this is the same one that has been having the issues with the plans, and that's also with the same issues. the application is not the issue. the problem is the plans, they're not accurate of what the existing conditions are at the moment. >> and the problem is mr. hernandez has said he hasn't even looked at the latest set of plans that mr. korman has submitted. >> thank you, mr. cannon. please, we're going to continue with the hearing, and i'm going to -- if there's no more comment, questions from commissioners, then, i'd like to move to discussion amongst the commissioners.

>> commissioners, my comment would be is the problem i'm having with this is commissioner clinch's comments to the 96 permits. i don't want to get into what those permits are for, but the other thing i'm having trouble with is this slow walk to submitting the set of plans that are reflective of the violation. so we go from 2018 all the way to the present date, and i'm still hearing from staff that we're still going to have problems with the plans that are being submitted. i don't want to get into that, but if that's the direction that we're going to go, that are reflecting that side of the property, that's a huge problem. so my sense is even though i'd like to give the benefit of the doubt, looking at this project here, it seems to me that it's too slow going, and there is

really no excuse at this stage as to why there shouldn't be a correct set of plans. if i felt there was a good put forward here by the appellant, i would feel a little bit different, but we're getting much of the same old, same old, so i will not be voting to uphold. okay. thanks. >> thank you. would anyone else -- any other commissioners like to speak? >> i'd just like to go on record that i also agree with commissioner commission commissioner mccarthy that we're spinning the same wheel and not getting anywhere with this. >> thank you. would any other commissioners like to speak or make a motion? i have a question for the

department. if approximate -- if we move forward to deny the appeal and go forward with the abatement, what is the timeline to get this work done? >> well, it doesn't prevent the appellant from doing the work or getting the work done. it's just going to assess the fees and penalties, which i think is $2,011 right now, and interest assessed at $48 a month, so it doesn't prevent the appellant from going forward on the work. >> do i have a motion or would anyone like to make a motion? >> could i briefly respond in

30 seconds? >> i'm sorry. we have moved away from comment, and we are doing commission business right now, and we are in the discussion phase. >> i move to uphold -- staff's recommendation to uphold the abatement. >> second. >> who -- oh, commissioner moss. is there any discussion from commissioners on this motion? >> commissioners, this is brad russi from the city attorney's office. i just want to make sure we get the motion correct here to state the intent of the commission. the motion was, i believe it was from commissioner mckaerthy to deny the appeal and -- mccarthy to deny the appeal and uphold the order of abatement. did you also want to uphold the assessment of costs? >> yes, i do. >> and for that motion, would you say that the basis was the order of abatement was properly

issued, and that the department did not exceed its discretion? >> yes. >> so there's a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the order of abatement on the basis that the order of abatement was properly issued, and that the department did not exceed its discretion, and we'll need a roll call vote. >> thank you for that clarification. we'll do a roll call vote. [roll call] >> clerk: the motion carries unanimously. this case has ended, so thank you, mr. cannon, for your

participation. our next item is item 2, case number 6876, 1600 clement street. owners of record and appellant is sophie lau, 1945 ocean avenue, san francisco, california. action requested by appellant, vacate the improper director's hearing ruling and related cost of 1,217.87. chief inspector hernandez? >> good morning again. i'm chief inspector mauricio hernandez. [inaudible] a complaint was filed with the department on june 13, 2020 [inaudible] replacing rotting joists, no

building permit for this work. after conversation with presumed contractor, it was noted there was an emergency, and contractor was right to get a permit. on june 30, a notice of violation was issued for failure to obtain the permit. on july 20, 2020, a final warning was issued, and the case was referred to d.b.i. for code enforcement process. on 8-11-2020, a hearing was held and after hearing all the facts, it was determined by the hearing officer to issue an order of abatement against the property. staff is recommended to uphold the order of abatement and impose all necessary fees and costs. the owner was given a notice of violation for unpermitted construction work, repairing replace rotting joists with no building permit. the correct action was to provide proper plans [inaudible] and obtaining all requiring inspections to close

this complaint. at this time, it was late, and i apologize. the appellant did obtain a permit, and they're working with the owner because she needs to obtain a new set of plans. she did obtain two permits, a plumbing permit and a building permit. the problem is we're having is it's a unit -- the joists are actually underneath a shower, and the unit is occupied by a tenant, so at this time, i completed my presentation. >> clerk: thank you, chief hernandez. i believe the appellant is miss lau. if you're on the call, if you could press star, three to

please unmute yourself. please press star, three. i don't see her at this time. i explained to the appellant the process of calling in because she is going to be a calling-in user to present her testimony, but i'm not sure how to go forward with that. >> do we know if she's on the line, sonia? >> clerk: i don't, i don't. i see, like, call-in users, but i don't see her name. i just see numbers. >> operator: do you want me to unmute them in turn? >> clerk: oh, yeah. that would be great. >> thank you.

>> operator: hi, user 102578, are you miss law? we'll take that as a no. >> do we know if there's a language barrier here? >> clerk: no, there isn't. there isn't. >> okay. >> operator: hello, user 415694, are you miss lau? >> no. >> operator: thank you. call-in user 415299, are you miss lau? >> yes. good morning. good morning, everyone. thank you for the opportunity for me to present my case. i'm the owner of 1600 clement

street. due to the emergency of the shower leak from unit number 105, we did take out a permit, we applied it on-line. we finally got it in june. we applied for the plumbing permit in the beginning of june and finally got it -- we waited about three to four weeks. we got it on june the 26th. but on the permit, we did describe due to the plumbing leak, and also, we were due to the tile in the bathroom, change the leak in shower pen and also replace in-kind. we were to make no changes, but just replace the in-kind dry rot, not knowing, four days later, we got a citation. and that citation demands that we should get an additional

building permit, and also requests the drawing, so that has created a lot of problems. due to the covid-19, we tried to, in the hurry, filed the architect, do the work, and he tried to submit it, and then, he got a return reply that the first date he was able to submit his plans would be december 4. so i contacted inspector mauricio right away, and he was kind enough to say, let's if we can help you -- let's see if we can help you. right now, there's a little snag due to the clerk probably was -- thought that this job did not need the plans, so he refused to take the drawings.

so currently, mauricio has tried to help me to iron out the problem. but going back to the issues, on june the 30, we got the citation that required us to get the plan to complete the permit in 30 days, which was impossible. i did attend the hearing, but unfortunately, the information did not include that i needed to press star, three. i went on and on and talked, and nobody hear me, so i hearing officer thought i did not attend that director hearing, and therefore assessed the costs and also only allowed us 30 days, which again, that's definitely not enough to complete the job.

now doing the -- during the period from the beginning of -- end of -- like i said, end of june, we got the building permit and the plumbing citation. together, i've been e-mailing with inspector mccarthy, inspector chung, director o'reardon, inspector duffy, architect darren wong, and mauricio, of course. due to july, we had 11 days e-mail back and forth. that was probably 25 e-mails. in august, we had 11 e-mails back and forth all on the project. we're working on the project. and then in september, we had

at least three days, and in october, we had five days. so i'm happy to give you all the dates to show that we have aggressively tried to comply. the violation notice, followed

the instruction, tried to do their work. but unfortunately, one jumped the gun and pushed for the director hearing. the other problem is the other department, just due to the covid, everything is slow. so we're caught in the middle, and i feel it is pretty, you know, unfair and unreasonable for us to get penalized for the amount of $1200. i think it's unfair, and some of it's overcharged and charged twice. certified mailing took half an hour, and we all know this is .

we really should not be penalized, and, like i said, for me feel that we've been treated as if we've ignored the situation, we purposely caused the delay. no, the delay is not by us. in fact, through all these e-mails, as you can see, i'm happy to submit all the e-mails, if you'd like to see them. it's about 50 to 60 e-mails.

so again, continued efforts, and we've been reasonable. we'd like to get reasonable results, and if we can get another 90 days, we should be able to complete this whole project. anybody have any questions? >> madam secretary, do you want to let mer know -- >> clerk: miss lau, you have seven minutes, you have about three minutes left. if you're done with your testimony at this time, we will go to public comment. then, we'll go to rebuttal, and you have three minutes to speak in rebuttal, and if commissioners have any questions, they will ask you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. so we will end your call at this time.

okay. thank you. and at this time, we will call for public comment. >> operator: one caller in the queue. >> clerk: okay. >> operator: jamie uzio, you are unmuted. >> thank you very much. can you hear me okay? >> operator: yes. >> thank you. i'm jamie uziel. i represent the tenant, tenant in this unit who have not had a working shower in their unit for 4.5 months. mrs. lau said they've been aggressively trying to pursue this situation from the beginning. that couldn't be further from the truth. we've been pressing and pressing them to get them going, and they've been very obstinate throughout the process, and it's consistent with a historical problem.

my client has had problems with these landlords for years. in 2018, they had a hot water issues and in 2019, they had other issues. the landlords tore up the bathroom on june 9, and my clients have been without a shower in their bathroom ever since. mrs. lau presented some quote, unquote, distractions in her testimony. in order for the lau family to take these things seriously, they need to be penalized for wasting my time, your time, and basically turning my clients' lives upside down. june 9, the bathroom was torn

up. july 11, we had a director's hearing. august 9, we had another director's hearing all on the same issue, and it's about time that they get the permits that they need, which they should have had before they torn up the bathroom floor. a request for a 90-day continuance is absolutely outrageous. it's already been 4.5 months since my clients have had a working shower in their bathroom, and that would put it at 7.5 months. that is completely out of the world -- out of this world, as is the delay tactics. they speak of hardships, my clients are the ones with the hardships. they're without a shower for 4.5 months. no extensions should be

granted. the director's order should be upheld, and so should the order to pay. they'll ask quicker next time, and they won't start tearing up bathroom floors until they have the permit that they need to have to get it done. thank you. >> thank you. we have rebuttal next. >> clerk: yes. chief hernandez? >> i just want to point out that the reason the case escalated is we felt this was a life safety concern. i don't know if you were able to look at the packet and then at the pictures. we did give the owner and the contractor the benefit of the doubt. we understand we're going through a pandemic, and we allowed them to say hey, get your engineer out there, make

an assessment. if you need to do the emergency work with the engineer's record of responsibility, do it. they pulled the beuilding inspection plans right away, but they never got the permit. as you can see, from the first time we visited the site, we made adjustment calls. look, there's a pandemic going on, we're having issues with people getting their permits right away, but we can work with the owner. and throughout the whole process, i understand that miss lau, she has e-mails, but also, the tenant has been e-mailing us in regard to the delays of the work, and even last night, we had a conversation, and she said now, she needs to get

another tile guy because the other tile guy is there. last month, we told her, get a contractor out there, just finish the work. i think that d.b.i. has never stopped the work. we did issue a notice of violation for no permit, but we never stopped her from doing the work. we knew she was trying to get an architect out there. we told her yeah, get one, and we can visit and get all on the same page so we know what you're going through, and there's also a housing violation against the property, as well. >> okay. thank you. does that conclude your rebuttal? >> yes. >> clerk: okay. thank you. miss lau, please press star, three if you would like your rebuttal time. okay. i believe her hand is raised.

>> operator: okay. miss lau, your hand is unmuted. >> hi. can i have my -- >> clerk: yes, i have three minutes. >> okay. i would like to respond to the attorney who represent the tenants, mr. uzaui? yes, i sent him an e-mail. my other partner also has the interest on the property. he was trying to do a better job, rather than just fill up the cracks in the ceilings -- or the tile, and try to just do a very sad job without permits, and that's something probably with two hours work. so the bath and the shower floor was open, and then, he

realized that the shower pan was leaking. so we changed all that, and then later, due to the -- we already had a plumbing permit, so we were trying to put the plumbing back. by the way. the plumbing rough inspection has already passed. we got that, so we were trying to do the tile work, but the tenants stopped our worker. so, you know, we are having this one issue. we need to do the work, and the other issue is we don't have a very cooperating tenant. in my e-mail to mr. uzaui, i also mentioned to his client has got to use the shower, the full bathroom from another unit, and we've left that unit vacant ever since. we've left that unit vacant, and they've never lost use of a bathroom even one day.

so we've left that through for them, and i'm surprised that he's made that remark, which is untrue. i'm trying to say due to one of the tenants, going around knocking doors on the other units and tell them, say bad things about us and then how to create problems for us. so i also mentioned that in the e-mail. and hopefully, that will stop. in my e-mail, i say, i strongly hope we can work with your client. that's the e-mail that i sent to that attorney, and i totally disagree with that statement that he made, that his client has not had a bathroom for, what, four months? that's totally incorrect.

again, we show our good faith and work with the tenants. we show our good faith and try to comply with the citation. due to the dry rot -- originally, we did not know until we opened up the bathroom -- i mean, the shower room, found the leaking from the shower -- >> clerk: miss lau, if you could complete your statement. your time is completed. >> okay. if we could be allowed to complete our work, we would appreciate it.

it's punishing us for the covid delay, and that's all. >> clerk: okay. thank you. if you could stand by, the commissioners will let you know if they have any questions of you. president daalexander-tut? >> okay. i will hold my questions. i will go in order. commissioner tam, do you have any questions? >> miss lau, you said you accommodated the tenant with a shower in another unit. how far away is that unit? is it across the hall? is it on another floor? like, how close is the unit?

>> clerk: john, could you unmute miss lau? miss lau, did you hear the question? >> miss lau, my question was i know you've tried to accommodate them with another shower for them to use. wherein proximity is it to this particular unit being worked on? is it across the hall, another level? >> it's right above them. their unit is 105, this unit is 205. the whole unit, it's the whole unit. it's not just the shower. >> are you just accommodating them with the unit of the shower or are they able to stay in the other unit? if they have to wake up -- i'm just trying to see what the strain on lifestyle is? >> they are more than welcome to -- if they want to stay

there. apparently, they don't want to move there, but they'd rather just go upstairs. same layout, same size of unit. they can either have the option, live there or still just continue to go upstairs and use the bathroom. that was completely up to them. >> thank you. >> thank you. commissioner clinch? >> yes, please. thank you. i have a question for chief inspector hernandez. what is the next step? what needs to be done? >> what i'd advise miss lau is get her inspection done. the floor hasn't been done yet. she's more concerned with the

instructal item, but we're concerned about the floor. >> so finally, they got a permit replacement? >> yes, they got it last week. >> so if the plumbing work is signed off, the joist work is probably did, and now, the permit can be inspected, it seems like it can be wrapped up pretty quickly here. >> yes, yes. >> and from your perspective, the owner may have a different but, but from your perspective, the work could be quickly done. >> yes. >> okay. thank you. commissioner jacobo. >> no questions at this time. >> commissioner mccarthy -- oh, you're on mute. >> yeah. inspector hernandez, please. so i'm kind of empathetic in

the sense here that i'm hearing, and i do concur, you don't know how extensive the damage can be until you open it up. as someone who's been around it all their life, i know what it's like. the permit did pull the permit to do the exploratory work and didn't realize how much more work needed to be done. and i did feel that as somebody who submits drawings on a regular basis to understand how difficult it is right now. it's a big ask here to get drawings ready and submit them structurally and architecturally, but you do have them right now, right? >> yeah, and i think that was the hiccup. miss lau, she had the set of plans. when i walked out the door,

something happened, and the plans were not submitted. it seems in the beginning, we never stopped her from doing the work. as a matter of fact, we advised her, hey, get your engineer out there, and with your engineer record, start repairing the joists, and we'll go from there. >> it's tough. as a contractor, you're on the line and having to do the job. it's another thing being told to do that. it's a difficult -- what i'm trying to establish here is the good faith on behalf of the landlord, and everything i see right now is the landlord -- it did accelerate. now, i have to admit, i'm a little bit upset at the presentation on behalf of the tenants. the way it was explained to us was these people had no shower, period, and now, i'm hearing they had a shower for the last three months, and if they

wanted to move into another unit to absorb this inconvenience, they had that ability. so i'm getting a little bit irritated that everything has been done here, particularly on the landlord at this time. and these shop drawings, i'm not sure if they have to be submitted. they look pretty detailed and extensive. i'm pretty -- i'm hearing -- one other question, mr. hernandez. if she had been able to get through the hearing on the day it was originally scheduled for, she couldn't get through because of the pound, three, would you have continued this? is. >> it was up to the hearing officer. >> but you've been around long enough to know if this would

have been a hearing that would have been continued. >> it would have probably been continued to see if the landlord could pull the planning permit on the floor or at least the shower. >> yeah. she would have been able to defend herself. i can tell you, including my own wife, who didn't know about the star, three to get into the hearing. >> president alexander-tut had a question. the tenant representative has raised their hand again. would you like them to speak again or no? >> i would. let me go to commissioner moss. >> clerk: okay. sure. >> i have questions directly to the tenant representative, so at that point, i will also ask them if they have any issues that they would like to address. >> i don't have any questions.

>> okay. i have little bit of a round of questions, so i will start, since they have their hand raised, the tenant attorney. if you could first start with the offer that was on the table from the landlord. is it a permanent offer? is it a like-sized unit? you know, the offer to the tenants from the landlord and the issue that the tenants were not willing to let the work happen, and if there's any response to that question. i just want to uphold that it is a tenant's legal right to organize and work with their neighbors, so i have no concern about that question and just want to uphold a tenant's right

to talk to their neighbors about concerns will habitability. could -- concerns about habitability. could you please unmute the tenant representative. >> operator: i believe they are unmuted now. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> yes. >> first of all, this alleged offer, this hearing was the very first time i've ever heard about such offer. i question whether it was ever made. i suspect my clients would have told me that they had been offered to move into the replacement unit. i would ask mrs. lau the same question. in what form was it made? is it verbal, is it written, because i have never heard from my clients or anybody in this matter that any such offer was ever made. as far as the allegation that the tenants did not let the work proceed, that's false. they've been pushing for the

work to be performed. they exercised their rights by complaining to the city and talking to the neighbors about similar experiences. t -- experiences the neighbors have perhaps been having, but they never ever stopped work from being performed. as far as the other shower, yes. first of all, what i said earlier was absolutely true. they have been without a working shower in their unit for 4.5 months. i didn't say they i didn't didn't have a shower to use, i said they were without a working shower in their unit for 4.5 months. true, the landlord has let them use the shower above them, but we can all imagine how inconvenient that is. when you live in an apartment, and you have to travel up a floor once or twice a day or

however often you shower. but that's not the same as having a shower in your apartment. in fact, civil code requires it. civil code 94.5 requires it, and the fact that they were given the shower in another unit belies the fact that they are entitled to have a shower in their own unit. i guess that's it. >> yes. i have a follow up. there was a picture in the documentation provided by tenant, and there's a toilet sitting on some naked joint beams, but then, there's another toilet that looks like there's some temporary flooring that's been put down. could you explain what's

available or what is -- what is the -- available? do they have a working toilet in their unit? >> they do. i'm not sure what the deal is with that second toilet. >> i'll ask the landlord. okay. >> the floor is torn up. i mean, the bathroom looks a bit like a construction zone with no working shower, and that's how it's been for 4.5 months. you know, the testimony from mrs. lau about all of her efforts, she has accelerated her efforts in the last couple of weeks, but before that, it wasn't moving, if moving at all. >> okay. that addresses my question. thank you for answering my

question. mrs. lau, are you available? >> clerk: sorry to interrupt you, president alexander-tut, there seems to be another hand raised here, so it's at your discretion if you want to take the caller after miss lau? >> can i say something? i know that mr. azui has made a remark, that it's an inconvenience for his client to use a bathroom, but i'm very sure under that law, if that one unit is habitable, if that's the case, due to work, then the landlord is supposed to provide another unit for them to use, but it's their choice -- >> yeah, that's exactly right. >> -- they did not want to move in there. we can't be blamed because they don't want to go through the

trouble of moving into that unit, but technically, we did provide them a whole unit for them to use -- a whole unit, not just a bathroom or a shower. >> so there's going to be some dispute, and we're not really the hearing -- the purpose of this hearing is not to dispute the -- you know, all of the tenant issues, but there was a comment made, so i assume that there was some dispute about whether the move was completely offered or whether -- there does not appear to go a dispute over a working bathroom available. i have a -- could you elaborate on and give the date for when you sent people to do the plumbing work and when they were denied access? >> well, originally, it was an emergency. the tenant called, shower leaking. so we went immediately and yes,

the shower was leaking, but we did not know where the leaking was from, and that kind of -- that leak just dripped into the garage ceiling. okay. while we tried to work on the repair job, we took out a permit, and once we got into the project, realized -- opened the floor of the shower, which it was all ceramic tile in the shower. so realized the shower panel was leaking -- >> so i'm sorry, miss lau. you've made a statement that you sent plumbers to do the plumbing work, and the tenants denied entrance, and i'm asking specifically which date that happened -- date or dates that happened. >> boy, i've got to go through my e-mail. i've got close to 60 e-mails.

>> okay. did that happen once? did that happen twice? >> they said no, we don't want you to come back and do the tile. we thought once the rough passed, and we had a plumbing permit, and mauricio said we could put in the ceramic tile at least while we're making the drawing. the clerk made a mistake and did not accept the drawing, and mauricio said he would take care of it. so in his e-mail, he said you can go ahead. so we went to the tenant, and they said no, no, no, even though we said that the worker would be there the next day.

>> you provided them 24-hour notice to the tenant? >> yes, we did, yes, we did, yes, we did. >> there was a photo that i referred to earlier that you can see the toilet and the floor below. it is completely open. is that in the tenant's unit? >> you mean, the ceiling was open? yeah. like i said, because the water was dripping into the garage ceiling, and due to this leakage, so when they work on the shower room, naturally, after they discover, oh, the shower pan was leaking, so they had to open the ceiling, open the ceiling in the garage to find out what's really wrong.

then later discovered there were dry rot to be replaced, that's all. but there was no instruct wast change, just replace the dry rot area. but since mauricio mentioned, well, that's still the joist [inaudible], you need to get a permit to do that. >> and then, a question. you sent someone to do the plumbing work one time, and they were denied access. do you remember what month that happened in? if you don't remember the date, that's fine, but do you remember, was it july, august, september, or october? do you remember when that happened. >> do you mean the month that we originally started looking at the work that we were going to do? >> no, the month that you sent a plumbing contractor in. >> i didn't hear that, ma'am. i'm sorry.

>> you said that you sent people out to do plumbing work, and they were denied entrance. i'm wondering what month that was in. >> like i said, without particularly going through all these e-mails, i can only guess it's right after mauricio told us yes, go ahead, do the tile work. i would say that's probably end of september or beginning of october? >> okay. so in the last couple weeks. >> yeah, yeah. we tried to do the -- because mauricio gave us the go-ahead to do the tile, but the tenant was not cooperating. >> and how long do you think you need to do the work? now that you have the permit, how long do you need to finish the work? >> well, the inside, it's not going to take too long. the inside, to complete the

shower room, 30 days is plentiy. but the joist, the dry rot work in the garage, mauricio still tried to help me iron out some of the complications because the clerk did not take in the drawing, so technically, that was not approved, so i've got to go back and get mauricio is helping me to try to find out how he can expedite, you know. i'm sure he's going to let me know soon, yeah, to push this. >> okay. thank you. i don't have any further questions. i'm going to go to my fellow commissioners for comments or recommendations or a motion. >> sorry. are you asking me? >> no, no. i'm closing the question period, and we're going to go

into deliberation with the other commissioners. thank you so much, mrs. lau. >> this is commissioner mccarthy. >> yes. >> after hearing the testimony, this would not be in front of us if the original hearing would have gone forward and miss lau would have been allowed to participate. i am very sympathetic to the whole filing of applications with the department right now. they are doing a great job getting them through, but it does takes a bit longer to get recommendations for existing permits and so on. my recommendation to the city attorney's office, one option is to deny and uphold, right? another option is to uphold and

reduce the fees, or deny altogether, correct -- or choose not to take the appeal, is that correct? >> commissioners, brad russi, city attorney's office. there's a couple options. you could deny the appeal and uphold the or the of abatement and hold it -- the order of abatement and hold it in abeyance. because there's a life safety issue, it would be required that the work be started within 30 days and completed in 90 days [inaudible]. in terms of investment of costs, the code provides if you were to -- you would need to

find the department erred or abused its discretion -- let me get the correct language. [inaudible] if you wanted to reduce or overturn the costs for any reason. and then, of course, you uphold the order of abatement. >> so let's say we uphold the order of abatement and overturn the fees. >> you would need to find the department substantially erred in posting the assessment of fees. >> one more time from the city attorney. >> if you wanted to take issue with the imposition of costs, the board would need to make a finding that the department substantially erred in imposing the assessment of costs.

>> through the chair? >> yes. >> to follow onto the question, can it not be also the fact that we're in a covid situation, with the difficulties that that presents, and it's not necessarily a substantial error on the part of the department, but there's extenuating circumstances. is that sufficient to overturn? >> i can only advise you what the code -- >> so is there -- the other option we have is to put it in abeyance, right, and if everything gets corrected in the timeline -- in a similar timeline, then there is no assessment of fees, correct?

>> i would defer to inspector hernandez. if the order of abatement is never issued to the property, whether they pursue the issue of costs, i'm not sure of that scenario. >> no, no. if it's -- if it's hold in abeyance and if the owner actually completes the work with -- before let's say the 90-day period is expired, then, they would be just subject to monthly monitoring fees, which is really low, so the penalty wouldn't be assessed. >> can you give an estimate on the monetary fees? >> so let's say it's only three months, she'll be looking at maybe at about $140 worth of fees or something like that, or $200 worth of fees 'cause i don't think i can waive the monthly monitoring fees.

i can waive the other fees, but the monthly monitoring fees will be assessed. >> clerk: okay. so is there a motion? is someone making a motion? >> your recommendation was good as far as moving forward with the event. >> you cutoff toward the end. could you repeat that, commissioner tam. >> i think monitoring in three months and having them complied within 90 days would be a fair assessment? >> okay. so in abeyance? so is the -- mr. city attorney, is, then, the correct -- is the

correct motion to uphold the abatement, uphold the fees, but put it in abeyance for 90 days. >> i think that's right. so let me restate. i apologize if my connection is not great. i might do better by turning off the video, so let me know if you can't understand me. i think the motion would be to deny the appeal and uphold the order of abatement but hold it in abeyance for a period of 90 days provided that the work to correct the hazard commences within 30 days and can be completed within 90 days, and impose the assessment of costs

but urge the department to waive whatever assessment, whatever cost that it has the authority to waive, and on the basis that the order of abatement was properly issued. >> and when it says [inaudible] says there's multiple work to be done, plumbing and structural work, when it says 30 days to start the work, commence the work, that means both -- that's parallel; that means the plumbing and the structural work? it's not just 30 days to do one, and you can wait to do the other, is that correct? >> we haven't typically divided up aspects of an order of abatement like that. i guess it's only the structural work that constitutes the life safety hazard is my understanding. i guess the board could be more specific in its ruling, but i think that might be complicated because they're both part of the same order of abatement.

i don't know that they could be split. >> that splan works for me and is what i'm looking for -- splanati explaination works for me, and is what i'm looking for in the explaination of the life safety work. >> clerk: so deputy city attorney russi has clarified the motion, so which commissioner is going to make it, and which commissioner is going to second it. >> okay. commissioner clinch has made the motion, and commissioner jacobo has seconded it. i'll call the roll. [roll call]

>> clerk: okay. the motion carries unanimously. next item is e, general public comment. this is general public comment for items that are not on the abateme abatement appeals board agenda. >> operator: i'm not seeing anything. >> clerk: okay. then seeing none, our next item is item f, adjournment. do i have a motion to adjourn the meeting? >> motion. >> second. >> we will be reconvening as the building inspection

commission in the next ten minutes, and there is a separate -- . >> clerk: october 21, 2020. this is a regular meeting of the building inspection commission. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] >> clerk: okay. we have a quorum, and the next item is item 2, president's announcement. >> good morning, everybody, and welcome to the b.i.c. for october 21, 2020. i apologize in advance if i miss anybody's names. once again, good morning,

everybody. i am angus mccarthy, president of the building inspection commission, and i am joined with my colleagues, along with interim director patrick o'riordan, and staff. as everybody knows, we continue to face continuing health crises from the pandemic. last month, we were dealing with the worst local air quality in california history, but this month, california fire was able to obtain some containment over fire management, and therefore, our air kwult has improved. i ask the public to understand we need to abide by all the public health measures in

place. i thank for d.b.i. staff and everyone for their hard work during these truly heroic circumstances. and even though our new space at 49 south vanness remains partially closed, the department continues to issue permits, conducts site inspections, issue complaints, and enforces code enforcement as warranted. we will hear more in the department's update on permit processes during the permits during today's commission meeting. i do want to salute d.b.i.