>> this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president alexander-tut. >> a present. >> vice president tam. >> present. >> commissioner clinch. >> here.

>> commissioner jacobo. >> here. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> here. >> commissioner moss. >> here. we have a quorum. and the next item is item b., the oath. will all parties giving testimony to raising your right hand. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to best of your knowledge? and alt for the record state the time allowed regarding the appeal. for new appeals, the department will present the case first and then the appellant. each side has 7 minutes and next there will be public comment and members have three minutes each to speak. lastly, there is rebuttal time of 3 minutes for the department and then the appellant.

and that thereby will be public comment time for 3 minutes as well. if you could please mute yourself if you are not speaking, please. and for every one in attendance, we are meeting remotely as the abatement and appeals board for public comment to call in. you would please dial 1-415-655-0001. and the access code is 1463507228. to raise your hand for public comment on a specific agenda item, press star 3 when prompted be i the meeting moderator. so when you hear the public

comment is called, please press star 3 if you would like to speak. thank you. our next item is item c. request for rehearing. rehearing request case 6875, 24555 jackson street, heard and decided on october 21, 2020. at the october 21, 2020 hearing, the aab denied the appeal, upheld the order of abatement and imposed the assessment of costs on the basis that the order of abatement was properly issue and the department of building inspection did not err or abuse its discretion. the action requested by the appellant to grant the request for rehearing if appellant may

speak now and you have three minutes. mr. kinon. >> thank you very much for your courtesy. is mr. korman in the meeting? can you tell if he is, or could you add him in? >> he is most likely one of the public comment callers. we won't be able to check until afterwards. he will be allowed to speak as well after you do your three minutes. we won't be able to -- unless -- are you going to present and use that time or is he going to? >> i will do it. i just want to make sure that he's present because previously he called me and indicated that

he was having difficulties logging in. >> we see him -- would you like to check that, john? >> sure. >> i will give you the host duties. >> madam secretary, through the chair, the point of order. in regards to this appeal we're hearing, is it three minutes, madam secretary, to make the case why we should have a rehearing, is that correct? i don't believe any public comment can be made outside of that. and maybe it's a city attorney clarification. >> clerk: i believe that brad can clarify that, but i believe that mr. corman might speak during the public comment for three minutes. i don't know. city attorney, can you clarify that? >> good morning, commissioners. brad rusty from the city

attorney's office. the procedure as i understand it would be 3 minutes per side and then 3 minutes for anyone who is going to give public comment. a party to the case is not a member of the public. they would have to use their time under the 3 minutes allocated to the party that speaks. >> of course, commissioners can ask questions if they like. >> through the chair, what we're hearing this morning is evidence to show to be given in regard to why we would allow a rehearing, is that correct? so rehearing the whole case again is not what we are doing. it is information directly associated as to why we should have a rehearing, is that correct? >> it is really new information, is that correct? >> clerk: yes. the board -- the standard here is whether the -- >> the standard here is whether the appellant who is seeking a rehearing can present legal error or new evidence to justify whether a rehearing will be

granted. if the board determines after hearing it from the parties that a rehearing is warranted in this matter, you take action to grant the rehearing and on the agenda the next item is the rehearing itself. and so you hear the case again. >> sorry, madam, through the chair, so the new information is what needs to be discussed now. not the actual information that's been presented just before, correct? >> a yes. we have to let the appellant speak and the commissioner cans make their determination after that. mr. kinon. and the 3 minutes will be the total time for you and mr. corman has unraised his hand, and i haven't been able to unmute him, just an fyi.

>> is are you authorized to speak for mr. corman? >> yes, i am authorized to speak for mr. corman. i just want to make sure that he is listening and can hear what is going on. >> okay. >> an i believe that he may be on the call. i provided that information. but we can't tell at the moment because we have several members in our queue. >> right? >> can i mute myself for 30 second and see if i can determine whether he can hear? >> okay. >> we've got one more person -- the caller raised their hand and i am going to unmute them and confirm whether or not they are mr. corman. >> call-in user, is there many corman? >> can you hear me? >> an i'm bob, yes, good morning. thank you, everybody, for

appearing. can you give me the names of people who we are talking to or who is talking to us? thank you. >> so he is on. >> he is on. so i think we can start the hearing now. and first hear from the appellant. >> thank you very much. i will try to be very brief and not restate everything that we stated in our november 2 request for rehearing. we would ask that the order of abatement be withdrawn because mr. corman have done all they can to comply with the notice of violation. they have provided plans and planning has simply refused to act upon those plans. there has not been sufficient evidence to show they were in violation of anything that was alleged in the notice of violation with that and to submit this matter based upon our appeal to the abatement board filed i believe on

november 2 and supported by the letter also dated by november 2 and all the material that is really submitted in this matter before specifically including the appeal provided by the law firm. >> mr. corman, if you have something to say, you can say it at this time. you have two minutes left. >> thank you. can you hear me? >> yes, we can. >> i just heard a gentleman there who was talking before who was not the attorney from the city. it was some other gentleman. from dbi. could you give me that name of that party? i don't know who i am talking to. >> you are wasting your time at the moment, but the only person that spoke and maybe you are referring to the city attorney. and -- >> someone else from dbi perhaps. otherwise -- >> the city attorney is brad rusty. >> i know.

>> not born in this country, with greatest respect, and i don't know who that is. >> this is your opportunity to make your case. and to present new information. >> i will. >> can i just say a couple words? i presented a number of sunshine requests and per the protests and arguments and support of withdrawal of the aab findings of fact on issue, and i just submitted something on monday as well. monday night through email from office depot and by certified mail and was received yesterday by confirmation from u.s. postal office, postal service. so i believe that you have a number of protests that i have lodged and also what mr. kinon has stated today and in writing. everything i have done so far to date is submitted including what i submitted monday or tuesday this week. and you have it. they have it. i'm done. thank you.

>> clerk: thank you. did you have anything else to add, mr. kinnon? >> no, thank you very much. >> thank you. is chief hernandez on the call? does staff have anything to state? >> no. >> okay. thank you. so is there any public comment on this item? >> are there any callers? >> i'm sorry, i was muted. there are no callers. >> president alexander-tut, i will leave it to the commissioners. >> thank you. so everyone has received the commissioners the appeal and the november 2. i have not heard an argument around presenting that there was a legal error. and i have not received any information that there was new

evidence to provide that was not provided in the previous hearing. but i will -- so i don't have any further questions. i will go down the list to ask if all commissioners do and any questions or comments? >> i am in line with what you just said. the opportunity was given for new evidence to be presented. i didn't hear anything new unless they can show us otherwise. that's all i have to say. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> no. >> commissioner jacobo? >> no. >> a commissioner clinch? >> i don't have any questions and i agree with your assessment, president tut. >> and commissioner moss. >> no. >> city attorney, do we need to

take a proactive motion to uphold or deny the rehearing request? >> yes. the commission should take -- commissioners should make a motion to grant or deny the rehearing request and state a basis perhaps that the appellant has presented or not presented new evidence or legal error. awe >> president: okay. i would like to make that motion that to deny the rehearing request based on the assessment that the appellant has not presented evidence that there was a legal error or new information that would require a rehearing. is there a second? >> second by vice president tam. >> clerk: there is a motion and a second to deny the request were rehearing. i will do a roll call vote on

that motion. [roll call vote] that motion carries unanimously. the next item then would be item d., new appeal, order of abatement. case number 6878, 1600 clement street. owners of record and appellant, sophie lau, 1945 ocean avenue, san francisco. action requested by appellant, reverse the order of abatement and related cost of $1,497.80. so the department will present their case first.

and have 7 minutes. we have chief matsu. >> good morning, commissioners. we have an opportunity today to write a new chapter. the purpose of the san francisco housing code is to insure a minimum standard of culpability and we have a situation on clement street. the owner of this property is simply that repeats -- repeatedly violates the housing code over and over and over again. the owner will present themselves as a victim of so and so didn't call me back. this isn't about who called who back. it's about real violations of the housing code. so i would like to introduce

housing inspector mccarthy who has been with the department for many years. are you unmuted on here? >> i believe i am now. >> great. >> so tell them what you have done with the department. >> seven years. >> and what is your assignment right now? >> i am a housing inspector. >> and what part of the city? >> i work all the way out in richmond, inner and outer richmond. >> all right. >> district seven and district eight and housing inspection division to be specific. >> have you been out to 1600 clement? >> yes, i have. >> more than once? >> yes. >> [inaudible]

>> about how many times? >> in total, over a dozen i would estimate. >> a dozen visits. so from your packet, holding up the picture of the -- can you describe this picture for us? >> that is a picture of the shower pan in the unit in question, unit 105, after a little bit of demolition had taken place. >> all right. what about this picture? >> that is the wall outside of the shower pan which would be adjacent to the sink. >> what else can you describe in this picture for us? >> well, if you see that the

broken wall where the electrical outlet is, that's the outside of the shower pan. if you look a little, you see some framing has been patched in and if you look beyond that, you will see the tile of the shower pan you showed earlier. >> all right. what about this photo? >> that is the same bathroom. the floor had been removed and the toilet was just perched on the floor joists and then you see the garage down below. >> is this the only time that -- is this the only complaint that you have had to respond to at this building? >> no. >> what other kinds of complaints have you had to respond to there? >> i've responded to complaints of the elevator being out.

individual units being nonworking, no hot water. [inaudible] leaks from the top units, among others. >> what kind of work quality do you normally encounter when you try to get the violations abated? >> when i had violations written on the property, the repairs tend to be band-aid repairs for the property owner, meaning that a patch for the problem would be temporarily taken care of in order to hopefully abate the

complaint, but i continue to go out for the same issues due to the fact that the underlying issue leads to housing violations, not necessarily repairs and patches put in place to abate the complaint. >> when somebody does that, would you say they are acting in good faith? and is that just going to cause a problem again? i would say that the actions were taken in order to abate the complaint but not necessarily make the understood lying issue go away. therefore, i have return for the same issues several times out of the particular building.

>> i appreciate that. we had a director's hearing with a similar issue and the owner had an attorney at the hearing that was hired the day before. the attorney said i would like to request an extension because i have only been hired yesterday, so i need some more time. but meanwhile, we have some people who are really suffering because they don't have access to the bathroom in their unit. they have to go to a different bathroom somewhere else. and is john marion around? is he there? >> yes, i am. and i was wondering if other people in the queue for public

comment. >> there is one caller in the queue for public comment. >> and there are three, four caller, and now more than -- about four callers in the queue for public comment. >> okay. i will try to keep this brief because there are other people that want to get on here. and you have sued the landmark twice and the shower is still not working for the people here. you have 100 complaints and -- >> not to interrupt you, but if you could wrap up the comments and is almost the end of the 7 minutes for the department. you can go ahead. >> so just going to say that i had a mentor when i first started working here who said

sometimes you have to take off the inspector hat or whatever hat you are wearing and step into the shoes of the people that live in it. i know i wouldn't like it if i had to go on some other unit to use their shower and even for a week much less six months. that is something to consider when you think about the issues in this case. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. the appellant, ms. lau, i believe, she is calling in. i don't know how we would determine -- how did we do that last time, john, to determine that was her. >> well, there is -- i will go through the callers that have their hands raised. we'll try that. >> clerk: let me give you the host duties back.

>> call 831-524, are you ms. lau? >> i am not. >> are you ms. lau. >> i am on behalf of the tenants. >> one moment. >> thank you. >> caller 628-800, are you ms. lau? >> no, i'm not. >> thank you. >> caller 415-694, are you ms. lau? >> i am not. >> none of the callers who have their hands raised are ms. lau. if ms. lau is listening, please dial star 3. . >> okay.

should we give a one-minute grace period? or moving on? >> clerk: sure. i was thinking she was going to be on the call because she also called this morning to say she was calling in. >> president: she called in last month. >> clerk: i was assuming she called in this time. >> there is one more caller that hasn't raised their hand and i can try them. >> okay. >> hello? >> are you ms. lau? hello? >> hello? >> is this ms. lau? >> yes. i am here for the appeal case 6878. >> here we go. >> ms. lau, you have seven minutes. i will begin the time now. >> thank you, ma'am. good morning, commissioners.

good morning, everybody. i appreciated the opportunity to bring forward my case. this is a three citation all initial by inspector liam mccarthy originally start out with the shower was leaking. and then actually we went through the first citation. i got the extension, but now i appeal the second citation and the third, but for some reason one citation is not on the agenda today. so i guess we'll deal with that later even though i filed the appeal paper, and i paid the fee. but it is not on the agenda. so we'll deal with that one later, but the one on the agenda today is the citation 202047031. and due to multiple hardship after the covid, the procedure was changed.

we had a hard time trying to get the plumbing permit. we waited for quite a bit. we finally got it. and then later we were told we also need a building permit. and we went ahead and applied the building permit. submit the plans. but for some reason over the counter the clerk for some reason did not take in the plans. so last week actually more than a week ago i was under instruction to resubmit the plan again. currently it is under submission for the approval of the plan. we went ahead and we did the unit where they complained. the tenant did not complain but the inspector give us a citation for unit 205 due to the unit above and the tenant did not put the shower within the tub, so therefore some leaking water stain on the ceiling of 205,

which that's already been taken care of. and that citation number is 2020-53341 which is not on the agenda today. the one on the agenda today is regarding the shower room we need to pull the tile back. again, we have multiple problem due to hard to find workers and also the tenant, it was not cooperative in the beginning. later since they're okay. they are more cooperative now, but of which they did not before. so we're requesting since we are having the hardship and the procedure problem and the plans refused by the d.b.a. clerk did not take in and we encounter many, many problems that i call the inspector and try to work with him, raise questions, try to follow up with him. and send email, making calls,

inspector mccarthy did not respond. i finally had to call the different inspector, matt luten, who is very, very helpful. and he helped me even arrange the final inspection that the citation which is not on today. so i mean, when we encounter all these problems, it is beyond our control. so we feel that it is not fair that we should be charged, penalized, and i am requesting is to waive the assessment charges and fines and interest. bottom line is all along we tried to comply the citation, tried to take care of the problem, and work with inspector but we encounter so many snags and problems and one after the other, delays, and so it's really beyond our control. does anybody have any question,

i would be happy to answer. >> clerk: so at this time -- is this the completion of your testimony? because the next step will be public comment and rebuttal. but you still have some time, ms. lau, if you would like to use the rest of your time. >> we have the extension on the first citation. by the way, i also had people look at the shower because the shower room. the shower pan was already replaced. because it's right above the dry rot where is into the area that we need to repair, so we were told the bathroom floor cannot be put on the tile first before replace the drywall. if you put the tile in the bathroom floor, then whoever is going to work to replace the dry rot and they have to most likely going to have to put another

support beam. so it just is not in orderly where it's supposed to. i was told there hah v to put the re-- repair the drywall and taud additional beam before they can do the bathroom floor tile. but we can definitely try to work into the shower room and put the wall back. again, if the shower room tile is back but the floor tile is not back, i don't know. so overall they have another bathroom to use from day one, which is right above the unit. it is unit 204. so i understand there is a little convenience, but again, it is beyond control and this covid is causing miserable for everybody. so i have inspector not returning the call, not responding to email. i have to go through another sources. and then the plans was not taken

in due to the clerical error by the d.b.a., although the other inspector and mr. matt luten was very helpful, but i am not getting any cooperation from the tenant. i was not getting cooperation from building inspector mccarthy. so with all these issues, i feel that as a property owner, we have done everything we can and we certainly deserve a little leeway that we like to request not to be charged those assessments. >> does that conclude your statement? >> sorry? >> is this the conclusion of your statement? >> yeah. all the delay is beyond our control. we try to work with everybody w the tenant w the inspector.

and like i said, one snag after the other. three citations and actually, it is all pretty much related to one issue is from the original shower leak. and we need to replace and add additional support to the drywall area in the garage. >> sorry to interrupt, but your time is up now. we will go to public comment. >> thank you. >> there are four callers in the queue. i will start with the first. caller 831524. please go ahead. >> caller: hi, everyone. thank you for listening to my comments today. i am a member of the west side tenant association and housing committee of san francisco. i wanted to speak today so everyone knows the practice of good and are horrendous and unacceptable. the experiences in regard to moi

neighbor are not unique and that should be appalling to everyone. i wanted to use the time to share some experiences from other tenants. my first experience -- the first san francisco apartment was owned and managed by the horrible slum lords. the worst rental experience i ever had. of course, this is back in 2000 and 2001 when the market was such that people could get away with charging crazy amounts of run to rundown crap holes. i am not exaggerating about the ridiculousness of these folks. the roommate called to mote notify them water flooding into the bedroom and mold problems and they couldn't bother to send someone over that day. it was not a leak but flooding. and the building had rats in the building. we had to move out for our health and sanity and safety, but this was breaking the lease. and we lost our deposit to the incompetent, evil people. another tenant said stay away

from 1600 clement street owned by the laus. i am a current tenant and today is 34 degrees in san francisco and we have no heat, which we have not had in many months. the owners treat people horribly. repairs are done after multiple phone calls and confusion and with the utterly incompetent or extremely rude. don't get fooled by the hardwood floors and great location. this is a hell hole. run this, woman used white out on the contract to change the dates and alter it. electrical, sewer, and mice, go to a hotel. do not go near this dump and devil and will devour the kind and inexperienced tenant. this place is a fire trap. we are filing our small claims case with the attorney tomorrow. she has gone too far with fraud and altering the contract. another tenant stated if i can give the lau family a negative score, i would. we ended up renting the

apartment and desperate and naive. while walking around the apartment, it was dirty and food left in the freezer. i asked if the unit would be cleaned before move in and it was cleaned already but the food would be taken out of the freezer. that should have been a red flag. at this viewing we were told if we wanted the apartment, we would need a $500 cash dpoz sits and immediately went to the bank and were told that the apartment was being given to someone else. we confronted mrs. lau and whe she saw the money in the hand, we won the contest of who would get the apartment. we found the apartment to be filthy. and marijuana left by previous tenants. this did not seem like a place cleaned for new tenants since we are charged a $300 cleaning fee. upon calling mrs. lau, we were told everyone has different standards of cleaning and ours were too high. >> caller, please wrap up the comments. your time is almost up. >> i will wrap up now. thank you for listening. >> clerk: thank you. >> thank you, caller.

the next caller is 415-296. please go ahead. >> thank you. good morning, commissioners. this is jamie zeal on behalf of tenants bill and emily william. we strongly oppose the order to reverse the abatement and related costs of $1497.80. for no good reason my clients have been without a working shower and the bathroom has been in disrepair in the unit for over five months. this is not a little inconvenience. egregious and unacceptable and violates multiple provisions of civil code section 1940, 1.1 and other laws that require landlords to provide plumbing facilities that confirm to applicable law, maintained in working order, and legally efficient water supply to appropriate fixtures and floors maintained in good repair. the landlords have been diligent

and taken the client's legal rights seriously and they would have obtained all necessary permits before tearing up the client's bathroom. they failed to do so in violation of the habitability laws and other laws which is completely unacceptable. they obviously don't take my client's rights seriously and are not acting in good faith. you heard earlier mrs. lau's excuses and deflections, and litany of blaming other people. for the delays and inadequate band-aid repairs that have resulted in my client's being without a working shower and and are always cooperative and never denied access and were not

offered the that is completely unsafe for use and they are afraid to use it. the landlord should no longer be given the benefit of the duet and they are repeat offenders and repeat violators and the behavior should not be tolerated. and heard from others and what you will hear from my client and the order of abatement and cost assessment should be upheld. thank you. >> a next caller is 628-800.

>> thank you. good morning. my name is joy and i am calling in support of a tenant in this case which served over 10,000 units and this is one of the worst cases we have seen. and during the pandemic, when everyone is required to shelter in place, our home is supposed to be the safety net that is protecting us from any public health threat. not having working or bathroom during a time like this is not only a health risk for the tenant, but also a health risk for the public. it is unacceptable that tenants and building officials have to repeatedly request the landlord to repair the bathroom for over five months. and this issue is still to the resolved currently. housing should not just be a commodity that generates revenue for owners. this is people's homes and tenants deserve to have dignified housing and landlords have the responsibility to

insthur units are habitability. i would like to urge the landlord to resolve the repair issues within the time frame provided. thank you. >> thank you. >> final caller is 415694. please go ahead. >> good morning. this is bill williams the tenant at 1600 clement street. thank you. in the five months since we have been without a shower and since the bathroom was torn up, workers have come here four times to do work. the last one was on august 29. contrary to what mrs. lau says, the workers have not been refused entry in the any time. we have alwaysed a mitted them, but the last time anybody came was on august 29. the permits were not -- the

to-do list work were not obtained until very recently if, as we learned from chief inspector hernandez at the last hearing on october 21. we have been given use of the shower in 205. however, the ceiling fell in as you have already heard and we could have been injured. and this has been repaired, however, the floor of the shower seems unsafe. it dips a lot. and so we are not happy about that situation. and over the five-month perspective, and workers or tilers to do the whole job have come, but none have been engaged. recently i understand that mrs. lau has hired or called on november 8 to say that somebody had been hired to come and do

the work. and then on november 9, we were called again to say a relative of his has got the covid and he will not be able to come. and so he has been quarantining. so we have heard that is what they said. but i contacted this person myself. and by phone to find to ask for the doctor's statement that will release him and say it is safe. and so far i have not seen that. so we hope this will be the case, but there is a terrible track record. so we don't think the landlord has demonstrated good faith and there are recent similar sentiments of complaints in the last few years and which have

illustrated and we are were out of the hot water for months. no action was taken until compelled to do so. and with the experts say examine the boiler and there is nothing wrong with it. on the day that the plumber was compelled to come -- >> wrap up your comments, caller. you have a phi seconds left. and this is not the first time that we have been out of commission and for several

months. and get to the email with the apologies. this email is from a person named emily and with 146 days ago, day 84 of the coronavirus, on saturday, and june 6, 2020. and the landlord can allow working in the garage and directly below the apartment.

from the to go away and the workman in the garage and leaving the damaged bathroom floor for seven hours to see into the garage and the workmen who were unsure what to do about the whole in the bathroom floor and covered up the hole and that is with the bathroom until this day. and up until 6:29 and ken lau made the shower unusable which is how it remains to this date. and to date we have no bathroom floor and we are unable to use the shower with the the bathroom and the 2020 shower and it collapsed with the ceiling. the ceiling has been remared.

that is the end of that statement. >> i think we do rebuttals, right? >> yes. they will have three minute rebuttal time. so that is end of the statement. and next is the rebuttal and the chief now has three minutes rebuttal time. sophie had her hand up. does she want to go first? >> it's up to you if you would like to let her go first, burr procedurally the department goes first and then the appellant, but if you want to let her go first, you can do that. so unmute ms. lau. >> you are unmuted. >> sorry?

>> you are unmuted. >> i can you hear me? >> you can hear me and the 3 minutes rebuttal time starts now. >> i'm sorry? >> you have 3 minutes for your rebuttal time. >> yes. well, i respectfully disagree with some of those comments. as a landlord, we are not happy with the problem when tenants complaining so wherever there is something wrong, we always like to take care of it as soon as we can, but again, sometimes you have the problems getting people and setting up appointments, so i don't understand why the tenant, on the one hand, that i complain, and on the other hand, they delay and find excuses or i am not free today and i am going away monday. out of town. so with this kind of situation, sometimes as a landlord, our hands are tied.

we want to have a tenant to be happy and we want to keep the citations away and work with the building inspector. and sometimes we are going through a lot of hardship. especially during this covid. a lot of things is not happening the way we would like to see. so with all due respect, i think through all the emails and the phone calls and i went down to 49 south van ness about six, seven times and i talked to matt luten and emails back and forth. and there are over 100 for these three citations. [please stand by]

that took care of it. what we're dealing now is with the second citation which is related to the first. and we are definitely working on the first, even though the plan

has submitted, we're still waiting to have approved, so we can start -- we already have worker lined up to do the dry run repair in the garage area and same time, they can also take care of the bathroom floor. the tile. now, we can certainly go ahead and do the tile in the bathroom. i'm sorry, in the shower room if that's okay. so basically, we just try to do everything possible. find a way to work with -- trying to comply. >> if you could wrap up your comments, ms. lau. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> you have three minutes for rebuttal for the department. >> thank you. think about the shower in your house. how would you like to not have

hot water for four months? how would you like to have to go to somebody else's house for five months, six months? this is the risk -- list of 25 complaints that were filed with the city and county of san francisco and here's 25 more. and here's 25 more. and here's 25 more. there is a pattern and practice here that is not in good faith. you've sued this landlord twice. when extensions are given, sometimes that is taken to be an accommodation. and sometimes when you keep accommodating bad behavior, you're enabling it. and most landlords do the right thing, they follow the rules. of the good landlords that

follow the rules, by taking a firm stand against this problem landlord we have on our hands today. with some people you give them an inch, they'll take a mile. thank you. >> thank you. that is the completion of your -- okay. we'll move on to commissioner questions. comments? i have a few more both ms. lau as well as the department. i'll start with ms. lau. ms. lau, you testified that you are waiting to do the -- you're waiting to do the repairs because of dry rot? this is the same thing you

testified in october 28 days ago. how long does the dry rot need to dry out? >> we already took out the -- over counter building permit. the same day we brought in the drawing, the architect drawing, but for some reason the clerk did not want to take that. so i even ask him, i say you sure, we were told we were supposed to submit the plan together to get the building permit. >> my question is specific. it's about how much longer does the dry rot need to dry out? you testified that some of the work could not be done because you were waiting for the dry rot to dry. i'm asking how much longer -- you testified the same a month ago when we had the building, so i'm asking is it still not dry?

because we heard last month it wasn't dry? and how much longer are you going to need for the dry rot to dry? >> ma'am, the dry rot -- the dry rot, it's long gone, it's dry. >> it's been gone, removed. >> it's not wet, no, no, no. it's not wet. dry rot. it's got some of the molding. you know, the molding, so we want to replace that. >> i see. thank you. and then can you tell us, what is the current stats of the work? -- status of the work? >> well, like i said, the first citation we got 90 days. but by the time i get the decision, it's already after 10 days of that decision, so even though i had question, but i called in and i was told that, well, you had your 10 days, but, unfortunately, see that last -- the very first citation, the appeal date was october 21st.

by the time i got the decision, it was november 2nd. so i mean that just to show you know there is a delay -- a lot of delay beyond our control. but even though the plans, the drawing has been submitted, but i'm waiting for them -- in fact my architect called yesterday and getting no phone call, no return back, callback. so we're trying to rush the department, the planning department to approve the drawing so we can go ahead, because we already lined up the general contractor who will perform the work. >> and have you completed -- have you completed the work you do have a permit for? >> i'm sorry, i didn't hear that? >> my understanding is that you have a plumbing permit? >> yeah, we had that initially. >> have you completed that work? >> yes, in the beginning. >> and the plumbing work has been completed?

>> the plumbing work, the rough inspection has already passed, yes. and that's related to the shower pan. >> okay. and do you have all the permits you need? >> yes, yes, ma'am. >> and you testified in october that you had offered the unit 205 for full use to the tenant, however, the tenant spoke in october and again this month, this hearing, said that was not true. >> oh, my god. >> can you -- [indiscernible] >> tenants from 105 had the use from day one. five months ago they were using 205. >> were they allowed to fully move into the unit? >> well, we gave them the key. and we told them they can have full use of the unit, 205.

they've the right to move in, yes. i think we went through this same question last hearing, but they're the ones that choose not to move in, but they only want to use the bathroom. they have full usage of the full unit. we intentionally keep that open for their convenience and meanwhile, we're losing all the income for that 205 unit, which you know, that's -- that's what the owner -- that's what we're suffering the rental loss. it's not fair for them to say, they only got to use recently. that's shocking. >> not use. i think everyone agrees it was available, but the question about moving in. >> well, they chose not to move in, yes, but it was there for their use, for their full use. >> you did have in writing they have the option of changing units fully 205?

>> i'm sorry? >> you did inform them in writing that they have the option of moving to unit 205? >> we gave them the key. [laughter]. of course, there is no writing, but we gave them the key. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. i appreciate you answering my questions. chief inspector, my understanding of the housing code is that the housing code exists -- i'm reading from the code -- it is declared there exists in the city and county san francisco substandard buildings and dwelling units whose physical conditions render them unfit for human occupancy and habitation and which characteristics are to be determined to jeopardize the health, safety and welfare of their occupants and of the public. can you address how the housing

code specifically addresses the kinds of concerns that the tenants brought up today, which is a little different than how the housing code operates? >> yeah, sure. it's for habitability. if there is somebody in the unit, it has to function. if you find people that repeatedly violate the code, it's illegal to be in violation of the code constantly. so that's why we're all here is to make sure this bad behavior doesn't continue. and year after year after year of problems with this particular owner, it's just kind of overwhelming when i think about it. we think it's important that the

commission send a firm message today. >> so the housing is focused on the habitability requirements of the unit. >> absolutely, yes. >> that's all my questions for now. thank you for that clarification. i'm going to call on vice president tam. >> vice president tam: thank you, madame chair. ms. lau, i had a couple of questions for you. one, you mentioned you submitted -- your architect submitted drawings to planning and you're waiting results from planning? >> on october 9, i went in under maryseio's instruction. he told me to go ahead and register on the lobby in the first floor, then go to second floor and pay. so i did exactly is ththat. after i went to the second floor, one of the clerk was filling out the job card. i was preparing to pay.

in the meanwhile, i show him the two sets of plans. he says, no, no, we don't need this. i said no, yeah, yes you do. >> no, not on this you don't need it. >> so i did not want to argue with him. so i came back and called mauriceio right away and i called the architect right away. they said, no, no, no, that's not right, that's improper procedure. the clerk is supposed to take in the plan. >> vice president tam: from my understanding, you have permits to finish these dry rot repair, everything is within the scope of what it is now and you're able to finish the work, tile everything back up and put everything back together, right? >> that's only -- sir, that's only the shower room, but without the plan, we cannot do the, you know, repair the dry rot because there is --

according to the plan there is -- we're supposed to add additional support. so you know without the plan being approved, i don't think the general contractor, they want to start the work. >> vice president tam: you said you already have bids. have you secured a licensed contractor to perform the work already? >> yes. >> vice president tam: when is this work able to commence and when is it expected to complete? >> well, i got a 90-day extension from october 21st, the appeal hearing on the first citation. and that is the dry rot repair with additional support. and unexpectedly we did not know going to run into, you know, the clerical error. the plan was not approved. so to this day, we're still waiting for the plan to be approved and i got the worker lined up, but as soon as we get

the plan -- the worker already lined up, i certainly expect within the 90 days we should complete, but again, the bathroom floor i was told that it has to be finishing the -- well, again, maybe the guy will look again. the contractor will look again. so what we want to do, if they rather to have us to finish the ceramic tile in the shower room, we can do that. in fact, you know, we definitely ready to do that work, but the floor, it's something we got to wait. so i mean that's the tenant's choice, and the department of course. if we're allowed to go ahead also do the tile work in the bathroom, which is a small area. it's a very small area. but i'm going to talk to the contractor again. see if there is any way we

finish the bathroom, the floor and the shower room tile. in the meanwhile, they can work on the dry rot repair in the garage level. does that sound reasonable? >> vice president tam: well, thank you for the information. we'll digest that as we go. and then lastly, you said that, again, you've already agreed to provide the whole unit and you're suffering a rental loss, but at the same time, as a comme comment, these people are paying rent for a habitable unit and there should be urgency here to provide them that habitable unit as well as a good landlord. >> yes. >> vice president tam: that's it for me. thanks. >> yes. we have done that from day one. we understand everybody needs bathroom, of course. yes. so we provided that convenience the whole unit for them to use

from day one. >> vice president tam: thank you. >> president alexander-tut: and i want to go commissioner jacobo. >> commissioner jacobo: i appreciate the original line of questions by both madame president and vice president. unfortunate to hear what we've been hearing from the tenants that have experienced this both personally and indirectly. i can tell you i couldn't imagine not having hot water for four months as it's been labelled -- >> that's not true. >> continue, commissioner. >> commissioner jacobo: i actually wanted to ask if there is any additional context that

you can add kind of to the background of this? i got cut off originally and i just want to see if there is anything else you'd like to add, and through the chair if that's okay. >> i'll allow it. >> thank you, commissioner. sophie lau owns 1340 larkin street which is subject of a lawsuit. larkin street, we have another 100 complaints at 1430 larkin street. and my predecessor described sophie lau as somebody who incorporates violating the housing code into her business plan. and that's exactly the kind of predatory behavior that we're here to stop.

that's the mission of our department. so -- you commissioners are in a unique position to send a message today about what is going on here. thank you. >> president alexander-tut: my apologies, commissioner jacobo. >> commissioner jacobo: i've heard enough, but thank you for that. >> commissioner, i apologize, on my cheat sheet, i spelled your name with a k, not a c. so. -- >> commissioner clinch: that's okay. i have a question for sonya or deputy attorney. we heard this case last month. we reached a conclusion. and why are we hearing this again? what is new? >> this is -- this is

actually -- this is a housing inspection services abatement. the first was for code enforcement services. it's the same property, but a different case. >> commissioner clinch: thank you. in that case, is it not germane, i'm not sure who i'm addressing this question to, is it not germane to be discussing things like the difficulties and such? should we have hernandez helping us out with that, or is that a different issue? >> i would think the issue is a little different because the original notice of violation, our case is about a particular notice of violation. and the language requires a permit, but doesn't require plans. we told ms. lau in the beginning it was an over-the-counter

permit she needed for this. >> commissioner clinch: okay. so i'm a little confused about jurisdictional or department jurisdiction here, but we heard new testimony today i think -- if i recall, about leaking in the ceiling of the shower above. and i have to say as a structural engineer, there is leaking. how do we know there is not dry rot? how do we know there is not dry rot in the tenant's unit? so is it possible -- i'm sort of waiting for the deputy city attorney, are we allowed to request that the landlord remove drywall in the ceiling to inspect the framing given there is already some damage to the unit's floor framing?

can we not inspect the framing above at the same time? is that within the department's purview? >> just before the city attorney chimes in on this one, that's one of the most important questions that we have in this situation. and it's related to the appeal that we didn't calendar for today because we don't have the information on that one. so i'll keep your comments in mind going forward. >> commissioner clinch: very good. that concludes my comments and questions. >> commissioner mccarthy: i have heard the line of questioning. it does help. just one question. the reason we don't have mauriceo here today, he's not -- >> he's at the meeting, but this

particular case is a housing inspection. that's what this appeal is for. the case last month was for code which was his case. >> commissioner mccarthy: thank you. i thought i heard that and i wanted to be clear. >> yes, this is a different notice of violation. >> commissioner mccarthy: but the appeal in front of us, what is strictly in front of us is to reverse the order of abatement? >> yes, believe so, yes. >> commissioner mccarthy: but basically it kind of comes off to me as pretty much the same case as we had before, all the same issues were discussed. and you know, the inconveniences and the time delays and the reasoning for why we made the decision last week. it's still the same to me we're asking to reverse the order of

abatement. the city attorney can weigh in. >> deputy city attorney, could you meant? >> good morning. the state attorney office. yes, it does appear to be the same issues that were discussed last time. just a different code violation that is being asserted here. >> commissioner mccarthy: all right. to madame president, to your comments there, and i was following your line of questioning. the problem is coverup. you can pull a inspections. but the coverup is the issue. to get the authorization to cover up. so in this particular case, inspector, i'd like to ask you a few questions on the inspection. inspector mccarthy?

>> yes. inspector on the call still? >> yes. liam, make sure you unmute yourself. this is his first go round. >> okay. >> he's listed. he's still muted. >> he's still muted. >> i can unmute him. >> okay. sorry, i minimized my screen for the meeting, and i can't pull it back up. i'm glad you unmuted me. go ahead with the question again. >> inspector, you can't give complete coverup to the project out there, is that correct, at this point? >> i'm the housing inspector, not the building inspector. >> commissioner mccarthy: okay. all right.

so the reason you have an opening in the lower floor and the reason you might have tile still broken and so on, have you checked in with the inspector, the building inspector, why they haven't given ms. lau coverup? >> well, they hadn't had a permit in place so there would be no inspections scheduled. >> commissioner mccarthy: outside the plumbing and the electrical and the permit, that has been inspected, but the coverup permit, the reason why she hasn't finished the complete project is due to one reason which i see is the permit that is in file with d.b.i. to be checked at this point, is that correct? >> the only permit that has been in place all these months was the original plumbing permit. there was some work done in regards to the plumbing, however, there had not been a building inspection obtained for

this job as i had advised many, many times over the several months time frame that this has taken place. and recently, there was a building permit obtained, i believe a couple of weeks ago. and according to the situation, there has been no work done since that building permit was obtained. but prior to that, there was no building permit change, so that was, in essence, where they were at. there would be no inspection if there were no permits in place. >> thank you, inspector. that leads back to my point i'm trying to make, that is the application that has been filed to be plan checked that allows her to give the coverup to complete the job, which is the same information we got in the appeal last week.

and that's why we felt it was good faith led by mrs. lau. now, separately on the issue here, the related costs here, i really haven't seen anything that would make me change my mind on the decision we made last month. but through the chair, i am concerned, though -- and i think we need to have a memorandum of understanding here, because to me, this hearing, you know, it's important that we're fair and partial platform and that's what we have been in the past. i felt this hearing had nothing to do, but more so to point out that ms. lau is not a good landlord. i'm not here to say whether she is or not. i understand she's had issues with the city, but what is before us to have the abatement released today and i haven't seen any information on that.

staff needs to understand when they bring them in front of us, for me personally, you need to do a more fairer job in trying to make arguments. i really didn't see the meta and i'm disappointed to be honest. it was a tough hearing to sit through to hear the staff make comments that they did. and i do understand this is a difficult case, but this -- there is nothing here that would change my mind to reverse the order of abatement and related costs. >> this is joe duffy, can i speak? >> fine, mr. duffy. i'm not familiar with your position. >> oh, joe is acting secretary to the abatement appeals board. go ahead. >> just to also convey, the building, what i see here is, i

think it might help you give you oversight on the file permit. it looks like there was a building permit issued. reading between the lines, i would say the building inspector, i said you're pulling in, you need to get plans submitted, they did submit plans. i do see a file permit. i think the permit should be expedited through the department to get that permit, because when that permit is issued, that would get the work completed. in the bathroom, it may have been with the water damage. that would be something of the permit, that permit should get issued. that would help resolve the problem for everyone. i'm hopeful those comments will help. and then on the -- our building inspector could check any damage to the ceiling or that when he did the inspection. typically the building inspector will look for that stuff and if they do need to get it referred,

they make that happen. but i thought the comments might help to make you understand. i've gone through a couple stations. it needs to be reviewed, it's an easy review on this, so i encourage -- [indiscernible] -- get some actionable plan to get that permit issued. >> can i -- i would like to make a clarification on one of the statements that the commissioner made so we're -- we are not rehearing the abeyance that we decided last month. that we order in abeyance and my understanding we gave them 30 days for all work to start. all work to start, including the structurele work and then 90 days to complete the work. so that was the order of abatement.

it was not 90 days, it was 30 days to start all of the work, specifically the structural work and 90 days to complete the work. and if there is anyone who can give an update to that, it seems like that is part of the questions that are looming over this decision. thank you. >> i would just like to say this is -- this is patrick here. if they have a set of drawings that is currently reviewed and if we need to get those issued, we will issue them right away. i suspect that mauriceo is working with the -- ms. lau in this case, and as soon as the drawings are appropriate and they meet the requirements of the building code, that permit will be issued. and if there is any delay, i'd like to know about it because i want to see this permit going out the door as soon as we have

the proper permit documents. >> thank you. commissioner mccarthy, any further questions? >> commissioner mccarthy: thank you for that clarification from deputy director duffy. i think it can be solved by getting these drawings plan checked. i thought that's where we left off in the last hearing, so i'm glad to hear they're close and they've gone through major stations. so if staff could see if we can get it out and get these people their bathroom and get them back in their home so there is no more issue. as i said in the last statement, this has gone on too long. but at the end of the day we have to comply with -- if she has submitted the drawings and covid has turned our world upside down and there is a lot

of these situations out there, so we have to work through the situations. >> covid won't be a problem here. i think as soon as we have the proper drawings we'll issue this permit the very same day. i think it's more to do with making sure that we have appropriate permit documents so we can get this permit out of here and i think we can just turn that around like literally the same day as long as we have the proper materials. >> thank you. we can go to commissioner moss. >> commissioner moss: hi. i don't have any more comments than have already been said and i do agree with what has been said so far, so like to keep moving forward. >> i had requested -- and i

think it will be helpful for this committee that we hear an update when we put something abeyance. we haven't met that 30 day, it's 28 days. because the abeyance has the two markers, the 30 days and then the 90 days. so when there is -- we do have a little bit of overlap, or what appears to be overlap. i do want to -- the reason i feel like this is a little bit different, i haven't heard anything from ms. lau that is different than 28 days ago when we gave a 30-day extension on the code enforcement violation in order to start all the work to get the permits. i think we've shown a lot of deference. and i haven't heard anything that is different, any -- that

abeyance -- time in sure that getting -- i'm not sure that getting that 30 days has given the landlord the opportunity for -- you know, to really -- to come into compliance. and the housing code is different than the building code. they are obviously related. plumbing code is related to housing code. all of our codes, because they all exist for the same -- fire code. of course, there is overlap in relationship because they're all the same building, but my understanding and reading of the purpose of the building code is that tenants are afforded habitable units. and there is somewhat of a distinction, which is why i do -- that we are -- we're being

asked to consider these differently, as there are two different hearings, two different violations. so i am not -- i am not in -- i'm not -- i'm not looking to put this in abeyance, or to relieve -- you know, uphold -- i'm not looking to uphold the appeal. i don't know if that's where the rest of the commissioners are going. so i guess the -- we need to a motion. i don't know if this will be a unanimous one. i'll put the motion up first. we can see how it goes. i would like to make a motion not to grant the appeal. >> is there a second for the

motion? >> could i clarify the motion, just to make sure that the case passions, we have the -- passes, we have the correct language. is your motion to deny the appeal and uphold the order of abatement and that the department did not err? >> president alexander-tut: yes, this is what i said. thank you. >> i'd like to second that. >> okay. a point of clarification. so a yes vote is to up hold the appellant. a no vote is not to reverse the order of abatement related costs, is that correct? >> a yes vote would deny the appeal and uphold the order of abatement. >> so the reverse of order of abatement, that would keep that

in place, is that correct? >> right. the cost will be imposed. >> the costs will be imposed? okay. >> yes. >> okay. so we have a motion and a second. so to up hold the order of abatement and assess costs. i'll do a roll call vote on the motion. >> president alexander-tut: yes. >> vice president tam: yes. >> commissioner clinch: yes. >> commissioner jacobo: yes. >> commissioner mccarthy: -- can

we reverse this. i'm confused here. a yes vote. i ask the city attorney, please explain it to me. i know you explained it to me here. but what is in front of us to reverse the order of abatement and related costs, right? i do not want to -- >> okay, commissioner tut moved to not reverse the order of abatement. the motion on the table would keep the order of abatement in place and assess costs. >> commissioner mccarthy: okay thank you. all right. yes. okay? >> commissioner moss: yes. >> okay. the motion carries unanimously. >> thank you, city attorney. >> through the chair, i had my hand up on webex, i guess it's

not obvious. >> i'm sorry. was that germane to what we decided. i just want to second what commissioner said earlier. i think the staff could have helped us a bit more with the understanding of the situation and what was needed to resolve it rather than talking about other cases, other properties. it's not helpful. we had a case before us. we should be hearing specific information about that. as commission -- president tut mentioned, if we want to have an update, we would like to have heard from the building inspection people, perhaps mauriceo to understand what was going on and for future hearings, let's keep that in mind. >> thank you, brad, for holding my hand through it there. i find some of these votes can be difficult and i did eat my wheaties this morning. thank you. >> i want to thank my fellow

commissioners for your comments and requests and also -- your shared curiosity that even when we put things in abeyance, we want to know how this continues. and you know, what is the result of our actions, especially when you put them in abeyance, they just kind of disappear for a while, but you know, we still want to know what happened. also hearing your comments on just kind of creating specifications. >> thank you for those comments. i think that's a good idea. i think that's something we can explore possibly putting on future agendas. i'll work with city attorney here, work with president alexander-tut on how we can address that going forward. thank you. our next item is general public comment. is there a general public comment for items that are not

on the abatement appeals board agenda. >> there is one hand -- there are no hands raised. >> okay. there is no public comment. next item is adjournment. is there a notion adjourn? >> motion. >> okay, is there a second? >> second. >> okay. all in favor? okay. so we are now adjourned. it is 10:40 a.m. we will have approximately five to ten minute recess and then we'll reconvene on the building inspection commission. thank you.

>> commissioner jacobo: here. >> commissioner tam: present. we have a quorum. our item is item 2, president's announcements. >> president mccarthy: good morning, everybody. welcome to november 2020 b.i.c. commission,