>> the meeting of the abatement appeals board. please mute yourself if not speaking. and the first item is roll call [roll call] we have a quorum.

and that next item is item 3 -- b -- oath. will all parties giving testimony today please raise your right happened. do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? >> i do. >> clerk: thank you. i just wanted to state for everyone's affirmation regarding the appeal, the department will present its case first and then the appellant. each side has seven minutes to present their case and next is public comment and members have two minutes each to speak. and lastly there's rebuttal time for three minutes and the department goes first and then the appellant. and i hope that there will be

public comment of about two minutes each. also for anyone that's listening in, i wanted to state that the public comment call-in number is 1-(415)-655-0001. and the access code is 146 328 3859. to raise your hand for a specific agenda item, press star, 3, when prompted by the mediator. so next item is item c, approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt minutes for a meeting held on october 21, 2020. did you want a statement? >> president alexander-tut: yes, sorry. so we had just gotten these and i don't know that everyone has had a chance to review them. so we can continue to -- continue -- if there's a motion that we can continue these to the next meeting. is there a motion? >> motion to continue the ax

theapproval of the minutes to te next meeting. >> i'll second. >> clerk: a second by commissioner moss. and a motion and a second to continue the meeting to the next meeting. are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> clerk: any opposed? thank you. that item will be continued. >> madam secretary, is it possible to have -- take the next two out of order to do the appeal first? we are waiting to deliberate about our rules to have a hearing. >> clerk: sure, i think that is fine. city attorney, do we need to make a motion to do that or go ahead and take it out of order? >> so you can call it out of order. that's fine. >> clerk: all right, thank you. so, yes, president alexander-tut we will go with the appeal first. >> president alexander-tut: thank you. >> clerk: so we're currently on agenda item e. new appeal: order of abatement. case number 6883: 188 winfield

street. the owners of record and appellant, virginia winfield l.l.c., and kim nguyen. the action requested by appellant -- reverse order of abatement and waive the assessment of costs. i believe that the chief is here to present for the department. >> good morning, commissioners, i am the chief building inspector for code enforcement. the case is for 188 winfield street. the case is a complaint with existing conditions and have been misrepresented on permit 1702-502 to propose the existing three car garage conversion to one additional unit. and main street level and basement level. it has one-story garage over a crawl space. and this was presented as a one

story over a basement. and owner was requested to stop work with the permit, and obtain a have vision of the permit for the existing conditions of the building as a one story over a crawl space. including the existing elevations and conditions of the crawl space and the proposed height to convert this into a new basement. and the planning approval is required for this. the nature of the violation is misrepresenting the existing conditions under the permit to convert this three garage -- one-story structure to a dwelling unit. in the plans it was estimated that there was less excavation that was actually happening. the standing violation is still active. i do note by having positions with the permit applicant that they actually submitted a revision permit. and they actually are moving

ahead with almost getting the work final. but the case is still active. the appellant requests to waive the fees because no work was done. and the condition is to uphold the abaitdment and assess the costs. i believe that this concludes my staff report. thank you. >> clerk: okay, thank you, chief hernandez. it appears that there are -- it looks like in the attendee list that appellant is available? there are two members with the last name, so let me see -- i'll do this. just one moment. so, monique, i will give you the host duty and you can unmute

miss million. just one moment. actually, i think that i will -- if we could try to temporary maybe make -- to add them as panelists and make it so they could speak. but, go ahead and unmute her first and we'll see how they'll do their presentation. >> president alexander-tut: okay. miss million? >> yes. >> president alexander-tut: you can speak now. >> hello? yes. >> president alexander-tut: continue. >> yes, can you hear me now? >> clerk: yes, we can hear you. thank you for joining. we would like to know -- are there several people that will

be speaking for your presentation? because you'll have seven minutes for your presentation. >> yes, i am the owner kim nguyen and i will have two witnesses talking on the project as well. one of the witness is henry, my representative, and also tad wynne, who is the contractor for the project. >> clerk: okay. we are going to add them both to the meeting. and then i'll let you know once we begin the seven minutes and then everyone who is speaking is part of that seven minutes presentation, okay? >> okay. >> clerk: okay, just a moment.

sorry for the delay. so, monique, i have the host role and i did add mr. nguyen and ms. nguyen and you added henry. so they're all available. so this is the portion for the appellant. so the appellant time is seven minutes. so whoever would like to begin with go ahead and begin the presentation for the appellant. so, henry, are you beginning this presentation? the representative? >> hello? >> clerk: hello. >> hello, can you hear me now? >> clerk: we can hear you. >> okay, i start, i start. yes. we have obtained all of the

permits from planning and corrected the violation. and all of the violations and work were done and approved by mr. hernandez, and lowry and in the inspection -- the inspection done as well. all of those were completed back in july of 2020. the only thing we're waiting for now is mr. matthew green to final approve the project. however, we are waiting for a new electric meter to be installed before mr. matthew green can sign off the petition so we are asking for an extension to get the electric meter done and the project will be done. so that's where the project is. henry will witness as far as the pg&e timeline. so, henry, go ahead. >> [indiscernible].

>> henry? >> clerk: he's on the call. let's see if we can unmute him. >> okay. >> clerk: henry -- okay. >> sure, sonya, thanks. hi, commission, i'm a licensed general plumbing electrical contractor since 1975. i deal with the city frequently, with pg&e and i've had a number of projects with them. we've had issues that it took 14 months to get a meter installed and they came by one time and i said this is what we want and they said, no, we want to change this. and we still don't have it resolved. in regards to winfield street, first of all, i just want to point out to you that although, yes, this complaint was made about overexcavation and everything -- the permit was

suspended on november 26, 2019. it was stateed by planning approval on december 18th. so we're talking about three or four weeks later. obviously, this is not such a big deal from the planning side or the building side, otherwise, it would not be reinstated that quickly. it's not unusual that things happen out in the field and, thus, this is how this all happened. on the special inspections, that kim just pointed that out, all of the inspections are done. they just need to get these verified by matt green at d.b.i so basically getting back with pg&e, i did eventually get someone from pg&e to meet with us yesterday and i said, okay, how long is it going to take? and they said, well, probably about two to four weeks or something like that. and i said, well, first of all i need an.

a.i.c. letter and hesaid, oh, yo you right away. and it's just over 24 hours, i met with him yesterday at 7:00 in the morning. so we are waiting to get the a.i.c. letter. again, with the equipment they want to get installed right now we have to put in a by-pass, so that will be installed hopefully next month. it's very hard to get equipment these days. i think that you have all heard about this, everything is taking forever to get in. but i'll let tad, the general contractor, jump in more on that. so that's where it is right now and i request that this be continued until -- for about three months so we can get everything finished up and close the whole job out. again, the last thing -- this is adding adus and providing housing and it's an important thing to consider.

thank you. >> am i going now? >> clerk: yes, yes, go ahead, sir. >> this is tad. i'm a general contractor, licensed 9639610. and this is my second career, i was an engineer before, with my career for 35 years. so i understand engineering really well. and it's debatable because [indiscernible] the senior initial was showing us the calculation on how he calculated that we are activated more than 60 [indiscernible] from the crawl space. and he refused me, but, anyway, for the expedited work, so i go to him and furnish the n.o.b. by

a [indiscernible] report. it cost me $6,000 for nothing. and then as soon as the n.o.b. issue, i right away went to see ms. hernandez and i told them that was not clear and i wanted to have a meeting with the engineer to sit down and do the calculations. and because i am a licensed engineer, and so i had a licensed engineer with me and we go through that, but they refused to do that. they say either you take this or you can go to appeal. which is not fair to me. but, anyway, we got it done. and the only reason that we have [indiscernible] is as kim say and henry was in, and i testified to that, that i am a long ways away from pg&e, to get our electrical outlets and test

out the apartment before we finalize. and matthew green has met with me for about four or five times at the unit. and he is well aware of this. and, you know, i don't see any problem for us to have a final until we get the meters installed. and i'm available for any questions or any -- from the panel or the committee has. >> clerk: thank you. that's the end of the appellants presentation and we'll go to public comment. so is there any public comment on this item? >> [indiscernible]. >> clerk: okay. thank you. so the next will be the rebuttal. chief hernandez, did you have any rebuttal? >> yes. i would like to point out on

page 2 the complaint tracking sheet, on 3-15-2019, a site inspection revealed that the work continued after we issued a notice of violation. so we did actually put a stop work notice on this property. which is actually set up as an evidence on page -- i believe that it's on page -- page 12 of this packet. again, there's another entry on 3-18-2019, the case was referred to enforcement as the owner refused to stop the work. throughout the whole process of this case, i want to point out that this address is actually connected to 217 virginia, which had another issue in regards to a scope of work. this is not the first time that this owner has been here appealing a case, which they lost that case on 217 virginia, which was to do a one-story

addition which they installed literally with just an over-the-counter permit for a bathroom and kitchen remodel. again, not only this project affected the adjacent -- exceeded the scope of the work, but it affected the adjacent property which we continued to get complaints over and over until they got the right permits. and also they were cited multiple times with -- by public works by obstructing the public right-of-way and installing an illegal ramp which we have evidence from public works that they cited this owner multiple times for it. thank you. >> clerk: okay, thank you. now it's time for the appellant rebuttal and you have three minutes. >> yeah, i'm going to have tad wynne to do the rebuttal. >> well, first of all, i have

known mauricio really well and what he said there is incorrect and people do complain. and the city come out, and they not listen to us. they just issue the n.o.b., how they like to write this. i am very sorry he recommended that the city should have some way for us to voice our concerns or our debate on the n.o.b. with they committee like this. because you cannot write anything which would not pass. what i say is passed. the 217 virginia, we did exactly the same reason because i spoke to the inspector and they said, oh, there's a complaint. and they just follow the command and they rolled up and [indiscernible] and i have asked them so many times. i said i need to do my job, so i

write a complaint. and i had talked to matt green before, even the neighbors were complaining that we are stepping on their property. we have broken their fence and things like that. that is untrue. because our [indiscernible] and she just made like that. and i had to report back to kim and put out [indiscernible] to sue them and they removed all of their stuff and they sent it back. this is a fact. we can show you all of the papers that we sent them to court and everything like this. and the people -- they -- the neighborhood, you know, fight this because when we get the permits, they fought us to a hearing, to the appeal. and we supposed to have a permit for this one that we're working two days, and they come in again and they stop the work and we

have to go back to the hearing. and we go back to the hearing and we won, and we come back to work and they complain, and now the city comes out to -- came out to the site and they say this is from the neighbors. and so that's why they wrote it up. patrick [indiscernible] and he knows that. and the engineers have no case -- no case, that we are exceeding the code for the excavation. and there's a single number that isn't given on how we calculate that. he says we see it by eyes. and we have paperwork and we have calculations and we have drawings, and we have the licensed engineer, and he refused to meet with us. and then lowry witnessed this, and then called him up and he refused to do this. he says -- [indiscernible] and he goes --

>> president alexander-tut: excuse me. so sorry to interrupt you. if you could wrap up your comments. >> and everything he said is untrue. i am available to debate in court whatsoever for that challenge. they need education. >> president alexander-tut: okay, thank you, sir. >> clerk: okay, president alexander-tut? >> president alexander-tut: thank you. so i think we go to the questions of commissioners. we can start with vice president tam. >> vice-president tam: thank you, madam chair. my question is -- i completely understand pg&e takes a little time to get out and to get this meter thing done. i'm actually having that myself in san mateo project. but that has already been

requested, correct? and you have to have the green tag in order to move forward with pg&e, is that correct? >> yes, that is correct, commissioner. that we can't get the green tag until the a.i.c. letter first. so, again, i was promised that i'd get this letter in a day or two, but, again, once we get that we can get the electrical inspector to come out and give us the green tags. after that they come out with the metering. >> vice-president tam: got it. >> i don't know how long that's going to take. >> vice-president tam: yeah, sometimes a little bit difficult to deal with. another question that i have for inspector hernandez -- so the excavation originally -- were they allowed the excavation on their original plans? because i know that there's some revisions submitted. the original plans was excavation allowed and did they

take that on the original permits? >> yes, the excavation was allowed but what mr. tad doesn't understand is that the numbers did not add up. in some areas they were only allowed to take about 11 inches or eight inches of soil and they said they had an accepted abatement. but on the last page where there's pictures you can see that there's some areas that is two feet to actually have that height. so that's what he does not understand is that his numbers on the original plan did not add up to what they were doing at the time of the complaint. >> vice-president tam: got it. now with the submitted revisions requested, did that accommodate for that, you know, extra excavation? or is that -- >> yes. >> vice-president tam: got it. okay. i think that's all i have for

now. thank you. >> president alexander-tut: thank you. madam secretary, do you want to go through the list and i'll kind of -- i'll keep my comments to the end. >> clerk: okay, next, commissioner bito. >> commissioner bito: i don't have any comments at this time. >> clerk: commissioner moss? >> commissioner moss: no comments. thank you. >> clerk: commissioner sommer? >> commissioner sommer: i was curious and sort of trying to follow the timeline of events and all that -- this particular appeal is regarding the initial plans that showed a basement when the staff went out to the site and there was no basement. my question was, did the original plans -- and maybe this

is for d.b.i., did the original plans indicated that there was a basement existing that was being remodeled? so it was already a livable space? >> no. so this is actually a detached garage with a crawl space. and the plans they submitted originally, they were alleging that there was already a basement in some areas. which there were not a basement it was just a crawl space. >> commissioner sommer: right. but it was -- i see -- so you're just saying that it was shown as a basement. i guess was it shown as habitable? or was there renovation to be habitable? >> it was not showing as habitable, but the proposed was going to be habitable anyways. the issue in question was the volume of the soil they were removing from the property. >> commissioner sommer: right. but also is your concern, or was your concern, that the original

plans showed as though there was an existing basement and it was just being -- it was already habitable and it would still be habitable but in reality you went out there and you felt that it was a crawl space and a basement was going to be added basically without approval, is that the concern? >> yes, that was the concern. >> commissioner sommer: got ya. okay. that was the clarification that i was looking for. thank you. >> clerk: thank you. so i think that's all of the commissioners i believe, president alexander-tut. >> vice-president tam: may i ask one more question. inspector hernandez, what are the fees and the cost and the penalty at this moment? >> so right now i believe that the fees are -- just a second -- i thought that i put those fees -- at the moment, the fees are

about $1,800 worth of fees. >> vice-president tam: and that's penalties, fees -- >> yes, all of the administrative fees. >> vice-president tam: thank you. >> president alexander-tut: i do have some clarifying questions as well. vice president tam, do you have anything else? >> vice-president tam: no, thank you. >> president alexander-tut: so i'm looking at your timeline and it looks like this order of abatement was originally issued in july of 2019. which is over two years ago. and i'm sympathetic to the questions about pg&e, but those seem to have been done in the last 24 hours. so can the appellant walk me through what's happened since 2019 -- since the order of abatement was issued, what have

you done to address this since july of 2019 when the order of abatement was first issued? >> hello? >> president alexander-tut: yes, i can hear you. >> oh, okay, this is kim. so we have been working with pg&e since day one when we applied for the a.d.u. and applied for the gas and electric new meters. somehow they said that -- they only got the application for the gas meter. so they recently installed the gas meter, like a few months ago. it took them that long. and they say, oh, you didn't apply for the electric meter. and i said when i applied i thought that i applied for both. what do you mean only gas? and they make me go through another application for the electric meter after two years. they didn't catch that. and they told me that. that's why it takes so long to get that meter. but, other than that, all of the other work regarding excavation, correction, all done -- way

before, you know, now. it was done -- completely done in may -- may 11, 2020. special inspection by engineer came out, gave us a letter for everything. and we send it to d.b.i. inspection department to finalize it, but then on july 20th, and matthew -- mr. matthew green, yes, supposed to okay and that's it. but we have to get the electric meter. pg&e drop a bomb on us the last minute. i have applied three times to get the electric meter. >> president alexander-tut: thank you. so -- i think that our next step is to ask, is there -- a motion from one of the commissioners on this item? and i think that our options are to -- madam secretary, can

you -- or mr. city attorney, can you walk us through our options? i believe that uphold the order of abatement or return an order of abatement and grant an extension? >> so the board's three options under the code are to uphold the order of abatement, modify the abatement or reverse the abatement. >> clerk: is there a motion from the commissioners to do either of those options? >> vice-president tam: madam chair? >> president alexander-tut: yes? >> vice-president tam: may we -- i'm just thinking here, may we, you know, uphold the costs, but grant the extension so it gives them time to work with pg&e to

get this done. i feel that they are moving forward and submitted the plans to reflect what they are doing now to the subject property. but, you know, our time and the department going out and whatnot, i mean, uphold those. but kind of waive -- the penalties -- that's why the $1,800. is there a breakdown of what the costs -- you know, combined are? and just kind of taking the costs, waive the penalties, and grant them an extension? does that make sense? >> clerk: grant an extension for how long. you say to uphold the abatement but to -- i don't know if the order had assessment of cost but to give them additional time. but you have to state the amount of time, i believe. >> vice-president tam: so he's saying two to four weeks from mr. carnilowitz, and he recommended about four weeks for

pg and e, is that correct? >> commissioner tam, that's what they said, but we still have to get the equipment that they want us to install. that's the thing that is going to take three months, rather than four weeks. there's nothing happening in four weeks. the equipment will take us a month to two months. >> vice-president tam: got it. >> requesting three months. >> vice-president tam: okay. so three months? >> clerk: zach, can you confirm what is the allowable time? >> so you can hold it in advance for 60 days. with respect to -- with respect to the costs, under the building code it states that the board can reverse the costs upon showing of substantial error by the department, so that's the finding, kind of the preliminary finding that you would have to make with respect to costs if you're going to reverse costs.

>> president alexander-tut: president tam, do you want to make a case that there was substantial error on the department? >> vice-president tam: i think, you know, the department went out and did their job and did their due diligence on what they were supposed to do. i would probably -- i would probably go ahead and grant the extension and grant the time at this moment. i would like to make a motion to grant the time and, you know, give them the time they need for now. >> president alexander-tut: so, does -- does that mean that -- is that putting an abatement for 90 days and if they don't do it and the fees automatically are, you know -- >> vice-president tam: correct. or 60 days.

i think that, zach, you mentioned 60 days? >> that's correct. 60 days. >> clerk: president alexander-tut, may i ask a question or ask you a question? maybe i'm not understanding how the abatement relates to the final -- you know, the pg&e installation. in terms of -- so is it that if -- if they can finish the permitting as it stands or finish the project as it is currently permitted, then what? i guess that i wasn't fully understanding how those two things are related. i thought that we were saying was there a misrepresentation on the original plans -- the d.b.i. saw that, assessed that, that's what this case is for -- yes or no? to me it sounds like i did not see a substantial error in that granted, i didn't see the plans, but based on what people are saying. so how does the rest of the pg&e

work affect this, i don't know if you're the person to ask. >> president alexander-tut: thank you. is that a question for you chief hernandez? or city attorney. the question is -- how did pg&e timeline and the installation of the meter -- how is that relate to the appeal -- the n.o.b. and appeal and the abatement before us? >> for the department, i think that -- like i said, it's not relevant to the violation itself. the violation wasn't actually to do with they were adding an illegal unit, right? they were illegalizing an a.d.u., but they misrepresented the soil excavation they were doing. that was the bottom line. so it wasn't like we were going out there and saying, oh,

they're doing an illegal unit. they were actually approved to do the illegal unit, but it was up to the owner and at the time the professional to provide the correct information on the plans. and they're not applying the correct information. i mean, unfortunately, pg&e is not telling them they'll be six months out, that's a question that, you know, you want to ask the original professional that drafted the plan. if it's not a contractor. i'm not sure why they would use the numbers or they changed the numbers of the soil that they were going to remove. >> president alexander-tut: inspector, so if you can repeat in layman's terms what i heard you say and tell me if it's correct -- that the question of the pg&e meter is -- does not pertain to this violation. this violation is excavation and it's about the crawl space that

was represented as a basement. and that that was not resolved and there's why there's an order of abatement, is that correct? >> correct. >> president alexander-tut: so the pg&e is not relevant to what is before us? >> no. and i understand that it is for the a.d.u., but it's up for who is applying for the building permit to give the correct information on the application and then the plan. and if this issue is going to happen where we find evidence that they did misrepresent the existing conditions, you know, of course this delays -- these delays are not -- you know, it's not on our department. it's more on the owner. or the person that actually caused the work to -- to deviate from the plans or to provide the rig >> so, president tut, can you hear me? >> president alexander-tut: yes >> what i'm hearing is the extension or the pg&e issue is unrelated and it's really a

violation of this case. and the only question to inspector, chief hernandez, is that the over-excavation that you're talking about -- was that to make it appear -- i mean, were they over-excavating to get to a basement level, is that what i'm understanding? >> basically, yeah. >> yeah. so this -- their plans reflected an existing basement but it was not designed or engineered to include a brand-new basement? >> can you repeat that question, you're breaking up. >> commissioner sommer: you're saying that the plans were misrepresented and it showed that this adu was occurring over an existing basement, correct? >> correct. >> commissioner sommer: so if they're digging down -- or over-excavating for a new basement, that basement -- that new basement wasn't designed or

engineered as such? >> correct. >> commissioner sommer: if you're digging a bigger hole or doing a mass -- that mass excavation as part of the design, this was not part of the design? >> correct. this was not part of the design that's why they actually obtained a revision. >> commissioner sommer: okay. >> president alexander-tut: vice president tam? >> vice-president tam: so the revision as -- sorry -- inspector, the revisions reflect the from dirt that they took out after the n.o.b. was issued? >> correct. correct. >> vice-president tam: okay. well, then, i mean -- you know, i would probably uphold the order of abatement, right, at this point with that. >> commissioner sommer: i would agree with that. i would agree that that the first -- i think that the first

motion you made was not -- now that we understand it wasn't germane, but, excavating a basement without getting the proper design and approvals, that's a pretty serious violation. >> vice-president tam: right. they were probably trying to get the height there to comply. >> clerk: i want to restate the motion. >> vice-president tam: make a motion to uphold the order of abatement. >> second. >> commissioner sommer: with penalties and fee, president tam, is that what you're saying? >> vice-president tam: correct. >> commissioner sommer: i would second that motion. >> clerk: okay. i think that it was originally -- thank you, commissioner bito, and commissioner moss seconded it but it is a motion to uphold the order of abatement and include the assessment of costs and i'll do a roll call vote on the motion.

[roll call vote] thank you. the motion carries unanimously. thank you. so we will go next -- to idea item did revision ofs a baitment appeals board procedural rules. discussion item. the board will be updated on efforts to revise and update its procedural rules governing abatement appeals and will discuss the draft revisions and k for comments from board members, the department of building inspection, and the public to guide further revisions. >> president alexander-tut: vice president tam has led this effort. i want to be sensitive that we

weren't going to take us too far into the agenda so we're coming up close to that. so vice president tam, do you want to just kind of overview what you have done so far and what that process is? >> vice-president tam: well, i think, you know, i think that all of us should have a copy of the proposed revisions. and i want to thank the city attorney for all of his work on this. it really, you know, kind of -- you know, it's a lot of work and he really kind of did most of the heavy lifting here. with that said, i think that this is something that we are going to review, and, you know, decide to adopt at our next hearing. i do kind of want to bring up a point that with these revisions -- i know that some of the guidelines, you know, are out of date. but, at the same time, the thought that came to my mind is

that some of the forms may be out of date as well. and so, you know, that's something that, you know, if the city attorney can work with the department on and the staff on, maybe, you know, presenting some new updated forms as well that would complement these revisions, that would be great as well. so that we could adopt that at the same time. and just making it streamlined so that the department can, you know, do their job a lot easier and get the information that they need in order to process and, you know, the -- the paperwork or the documents that come in. so that's one thought that came to my mind is the forms are outdated and we need to maybe take a look at that as well at the same time. but other than that, yep, thank you for all of your work, zach, on that. >> president alexander-tut: so i guess that the folks -- these

are pretty different from what we have, but they're fairly easy to read, and it's only [indiscernible] so, if folks could look at these and then try to get your revisions in by the next meeting or any questions that you have. i know that i have some thoughts, particularly around the election process, just so that it's really clear, and we're a small committee and i think that has good processes, you know, just make -- you know, keep us moving in a positive direction. but we would like to adopt these on the sooner side, however, there is no rush. we have the same rules for 25 years. so there's no -- we're not, like, going to be in any dire straits if it's not approved right away. however, it would be nice -- you

know, i think of us, there's four stakeholders here, and it's the commission, you know, the committee and the rules that we abide by. and it's the appellant who want to know what the process is. and not all of our practices are written into the current rules. it's the staff who are preparing the report, and it is the public who have an interest in the process. and, you know, kind of for all of those groups we want to make sure that our rules and regs are easy to follow and all of the information is written there. so as you're reading it, also look for things that, like, questions that you have. or even if you or the members of the public, you know, for all of us reading it at the same time, it's almost like we have the same view, right? like, what is not clear and what would be helpful being in there so that we are all kind of doing our best to write down, you know, what are the processes, and what are the expectations that all of us have that we're

all offering. so, thank you, vice president tam, for leading on that. for reaching out to folks. and for being, you know, our resource on moving this forward and thank you to the city attorney as well. in the last few minutes, do we have any questions about the process or anything in particular? >> madam chair. >> president alexander-tut: yes? >> vice-president tam: should we request that we kind of have a city attorney and the department or the staff kind of work on some of these forms as well? is that something that we can request? >> president alexander-tut: city attorney? [indiscernible]. >> and they will start at 10:30 today. >> president alexander-tut: oh. [indiscernible]. >> i didn't know how long the

abatement appeal board would take. go ahead, zach, sorry for the interruption. >> yes, i can work with d.b.i. staff to make sure that the rules correspond to the forms and to make sure that the forms are updated as vice president tam mentioned. the forms are -- i don't know that anybody really got them, and if we're going to bring everything up to date, i think that it makes sense to look at the forms. so that's something that i can work with the d.b.i. staff on. >> vice-president tam: thank you, thank you so much. >> vice president tam, i have just one question. i don't know if you guys can hear me. on the draft that we got, does this include changes? or is there a version that has changes from the older role, that's my only question about the version that was posted on the supplemental doc or the supporting doc.

>> vice-president tam: city attorney jack, did you want to -- >> yes, so what i want to say is that it's a new set of rules but as compared to the temporary rules that have been in place for the last 25 years, this is kind of a fresh starting point. so there's not -- you can't really do a compare. so what these try to do is to distill the process that the board has been using, just do that so it reflects what has been happening in practice, which isn't necessarily reflected in the existing rules >> commissioner bito: thank you so it's essentially making temporary rules permanent is what this is proposing, city attorney? >> it in part. the temporary rules were written at a time when there was a

tremendous backlog of cases. so the temporary rules were really meant to put in place some procedures that just aren't used anymore. so it's taking the parts that are still in place and memorializing those but then also building out the rest of it -- the other issues that the board deals with that has never been -- like, for example, like the requests for jurisdiction. or even just how the hearing is structured. those have always been informal, but this formalizes it so that the public -- the appellant -- the board -- everyone is on notice of the procedures. >> commissioner bito: okay, thank you. >> clerk: okay, if there's not any more commissioner comments, did you have anything to add

president alexander-tut? >> president alexander-tut: yeah, i just had a question and maybe this is something that i didn't know about. but on page 4 it says "findings and decisions" about the issue is that the board shall issue written findings. >> how are you? >> president alexander-tut: and no later than 10 days after the conclusion of the hearing. is that something that is the current practice? i would say that i wasn't aware what happens after we issue -- >> good morning, tom. >> hello, can you mute yourself, please. >> i said do i have detect -- >> oh, gosh. >> clerk: i took care of it. i took care of it. >> president alexander-tut: yeah. i don't think that he wasn't aware. >> clerk: actually we made him an attendee, i don't know how that happened. >> president alexander-tut: so i think that we couldn't get --

so, yeah, i had a question, that was news to me is the findings and the decision, and is that something that is current practice or is that something that is new? >> so that is actually taken from the building code section. under 105a, 2.8d, the board needs to issue findings in a decision within 10 days after it makes its decision. and also that is current practice since the board has been in existence. it kind of happens, you know, behind the scenes. it's more of an administrative issue. generally i work with d.b.i. staff to draft a position and then we review it. and then the board's secretary sends that out. so that's been happening.

but, again, one of the goals of these rules is to take those permitted sections of the building code and to put them in here so everybody knows the procedure. >> president alexander-tut: thank you. um, then what -- in terms of the form, um, and then even in this hearing, as they're reviewing them -- i just wanted to be also aware that we're in line with the -- i'm going to mess up the name, but the language access ordinant in making sure that our forms are translated and are easily accessible in whatever language, you know, that folks need to find them in. and so if we could just make sure that those translations happen and they need to be posted on the website. i don't even know how people find these. but however they find them, it's

clear that they're available in various languages and that translation is available if it is necessary or interpretation is also available at these hearings if it's necessary. i just want to make sure -- i just want to make sure that is clear too to folks in terms of the forms. i think that the forms do outline the process, but considering for folks who might not be -- who might not read english, that this -- you know, the form might be their only -- they may not read the rules and regulations, so either having the rules and regulations also translated so they know what the process is, or having those inside the form themselves. often times you will see, like, the first part of a form will be the instruction, and then the second is actually the written part. and so that it's accessible in languages as well. >> clerk: i will try to follow up on that and see what the

requirements are to do what we can to accommodate. are there any other commissioner comments? okay. thank you. so is there any public comment on this item? >> no, there is not. >> clerk: okay, thank you. our next item is item f, general public comment. this is general public comment for items not on the abatement appeals board agenda. and there don't appear to be any hands raised. and our next item is adjournment, g, motion to adjourn? >> vice-president tam: motion to adjourn. >> clerk: a second? >> second. >> clerk: okay. there's a motion and a second. are all commissioners in favor? thank you. we are now adjourned. we will reconvene as the

building inspection commission at 10:30. >> shop and dine in the 49 promotes local businesses, and challenges residents to do their shopping within the 49 square miles of san francisco. by supporting local services in our neighborhood, we help san francisco remain unique, successful, and vibrant. so where will you shop and dine in the 49? >> i am the owner of this restaurant. we have been here in north beach over 100 years.

[speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [speaking foreign language]

[speaking foreign language] [♪♪♪] [♪♪♪]

>> i would like to remind everyone to please mute yourself if you're not speaking. the first item of the agenda is roll call. president mccarthy? vice president tam? >> present. >> commissioner alexander tute? >> present. >> chairwoman: commissioner beto? >> here. >> chairwoman: commissioner mar? >> present. >> chairwoman: we have a quorum. i want to let everyone know who is attending the meeting, this is the listen public comment call-in information. the phone number is 415-655-0001.