>> a regular meeting of the abatement appeal's board. i would like to remine everyone to mute yourself if you are not speaking. also -- um for members of the public, the public comment number is 4-15-655-0001. the access code is 24855799398.

also one of the commissioners read the land acknowledgment once we are ready for this? >> >> on the first item is roll call president tam. present. >> vice president eppler. >> present. >> commissioner alexander-tut is excused. commissioner bito. >> here >> commissioner newmann? >> here. >> and commissioner sommer. >> here. >> we have a quorum. the next item can i have the lan acknowledgmentment >> we are on then cest ral home

land of the ramaytush ohlone the original inhabitants. as stewards of the land the ramaytush ohlone have never lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place as well as for all people hos reside in their traditional territory. we recognize we benefit from living and working on their home land. we wish to pay respects acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the recommend ram community by affirming their rights as first peoples. >> thank you. commissioner sommer. >> the next is item b. findings to allow teleconference meetings under california code section 54953e. the discussion and possible action. the board will discuss and possible low adopt a resolution setting fourth findings required under bill 361 allow the aab to

hold meetings or for commissioners to attends meetings when necessary row mote low according to the modified brown act. teleconferences set fortin ab361. mufr to adopt. >> second. >> there is a motion to adopt the findings by president tam and the second by commissioner bito. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> the motion is approved. any opposed? >> no. >> okay the motion is unanimous. thank you. and the next item on the agenda is item c. continued appeals order of erickson bait am case 690542195

green street. the department will present its case first. [no mic] i don't think his mic is on. your mic is not on. try now. try again. >> um -- you hear mow? i think that is better. >> okay. i will start again. john, acting chief building

inspector case for code enforcement. 2195 green street. this case was continued from may 18 of this year. and it relates to a 10 unit condo building. and the notice of violation was issued 4-21-21 and relates to unoccupied rules and use as a roof deck with furniture and plants. this roof is located on the 4 story building and there is no compliant guard rails. there is a parpit 30 inches above grade. the directory hearing on october 6 of last year. and abatement was issued. requiring the property owner to obtain permits to comply with the notice of violation and

complete and final within 30 days. there is no permit to comply with the violation. so. we recommend you impose assessment of class. that concludes the report and i'm available for questions. >> thank you. commissioners have questions. next the appellate. >> okay. the appellate will present their case at this time. for 7 minutes. good morning i'm nile an attorney representing pamela wiget the owner of the roof deck this the department has improperly found to be a nuisance that must be arc baited. mrs. wiget owned the penthouse

and officer deck. she is here today having trouble getting upstairs. we will call her soon. >> you as the voting board members have the power to reverse the order of abasement. this is a situation over turning the action of the department and warrantied and logical. given that the roof deck use in existence for over 40 years. the department base the action on its inability to locate documents from 40 years ago when the roof deck use was first well allowed after the renovations. it had already been used as a roof deck. mrs. wiget's roof deck with windows and doors on the roof was dealt in 1981 pursuant to permit. in 1981, dbi was regular low throwing away the paperwork.

it admits that on its website. it has been noted in court decisions. the director's representative based his issuance of the order of abasement on the false statement that the department has all the records. a prior ruling already found the department did not track records accurate low before many 83. with the institution of electronic recordkeeping. the department approved the tiling of the roof deck in 1981. inspected the high end tiling for the officer deck before it issued the cfc for the pent room and roof deck construction in 1981. the pent rook and room deck were aircraftllowed the department approved new fire escape as the second means of the roof the

entire area. months after issue in the 1981 the department approved the construction of a green house roof deck that was to be built on the roof deck. o00 autodepartment has issued permits for the roof deck. the use is continued for 40 years. um -- this position that the roof deck has been in existence supported by superior court rulings regarding litigation and the tiling which was too heavy at the time. so -- we ever looking for permit to just replace the walking surface. up on the officer deck. department at the time no guard rail was required when we built it in 1981. apparently. the department is now saying a guard rail is required.

we don't object to the putting on a garbed rail but do object when order of abasement issuing on this. and certainly based on the statements that no permit was -- had been located or unearthed when they south it. we argue that a permit already exists for the roof deck use. if the department wants to come become now and say, well, a guard rail is required, we are okay with that. but that does not make the current use a nuisance that needs to be abated. >> we ask that you over turn this order of abasement. as a minimum. i would feel questions if there were if you felt you should

modify the order of abatement and irrelevant it would be the under lying nov that says that it is of some consequence they failed to unearth a building permit. -- and that use of the roof now needs as a roof deck needs to cease. it has been a roof deck has been used for 40 years. it should not have to cease now. when it has been used without incident except for some water leaks regarding the weight of tile. thank you, i'm available for questions, of course. i would have asked mrs. wiget to speak she has not made her way

up yet. >> thank you. >> my apoloies i was supposed to read item c. appeals the november 5, 2021 order of abasement regarding an unauthorized roof deck and roof deck was approve in the 9080 and 81 and issue in the error and should be reversed at the may 18, 22 meeting the board continued it to june to allow time to review written materials that the appellate submitted. >> at this time, we will take public comment from the anyone that is in the house. >> not making public comment there was a letter that was sent i'm not sure if you receive today i want to offer it.

>> thank you. should i read this? part of the record. >> okay. >> thank you. is there public comment virtual? 3 minutes. >> sorry i did not see you. you can come up. let me set the clock for 3 minutes. good morning, mr. president and member. one second i will reset timer for 3 minutes. thank you. >> i'm sorry. trying to reset it. mr. president and members of the abatement appeal's board yoochl speak in the mic, please? >> i can.

>> i wanted to start by looking at the first page of the staff report. outstanding violations, yes. life safety hazzard, unsafe result, order of abatement that's it in a nut shell. i'd like to direct the board's attention to the photographs at the end of appellate's submittal because there are very interesting details to call out here. first thing, if you look at this one. shoes the north doors from inside the pent room. you notice outside of it, some small railings in a tight square that is an air shaft. and it is covered by a thin piece of plastic and a 3 foot or 3 story sheer drop to the bottom. that piece of plastic is not

load bearing. if you look at the night photo here. you see more or less is now with the railing missing. ihas been missing the entire time i owned my property, 10 years. i believe that it is still dismounted because the wood around it is too rotten to take a screw, frankly. and presents a hazzard because if anybody were to sit on it and fall back or bumped into it or people were playing or a child crawl on top that thing would collapse and you would fall to the bottom of the shaft that does fall under inadequate guard rails the hazards are much deeper. the other thing i like to draw your attention to, again, the

photograph here of the north doors from the inside and then the other photograph of the small child of and the doors on the west side, the interestingning about the doors is that they open out ward on to the roof. but they don't appear in any plans. they are not reserved in permits. and the permitting history of the project of the conversion ran for years. but these doors show up nowhere. nowhere in the permits. nowhere in the plans. the existing doors the door to enter the pent room shows up clear with an arc to show where the door it. the door at the back of the penalty room shows up but not these doors. so i'd like you to think about. wrap up your comments, please? >> i will. >> imagine what these would have been like if the doors did not

exist there. at the time the certificate of occupancy was granted. the person inspecting the tile would have seen a tile roof. not a roof deck not an occupied roof. just a roof with tile on it. jot person inspecting the second means of egress would have measured the distance from out the front door. fire door. turn left to the latter. >> sir? >> pictured there. why did you want to state your name. >> scott mains. i own the property under the northwest corner >> okay. >> and i'm available for further questions i encourage you to ask them y. thank you for your comments. >> was there public comment virtually?

we will have rebuttal from the department and you have 3 minutes. >> just 2 quick pints. there was a permit filed in december of 26 of 2013. for now roof pavers and wood over pedestal system. that permit to me acknowledges that there was work done at the officer. that permit did not get issued the work referred to has not been inspected. and further more if you look at the appellate's brief, page 5, go to the third paragraph down; there is a time line in or about 1985, hoa discovered leaks under the roof deck patio. >> and it mentions from 95 to

2003. regarding the leaks and the weight of the roof deck pavers. then mentions the supreme court determined that although the hoa thinked remove the previously approved pavers from the officer if they cause leaks the court ruled that the hoa has the duty to reinstall the roof deck paving system and mentions continued to use officer as roof patio. during the litigation and following the court order removal of the tile from the roof deck. so when i read all of that, come to mind is -- when those pavers were removed if they were was the plywood needing to be removed to see where the like the like was? and -- was there dry rot to the

framing due to the like? and if so, obviously there is in permit for that work. there is no inspection of the framing and you could have an unsafe condition there with dry rot that and so the point i'm making is we need a permit of some kind that deals with the need of a guard rail. and -- concerns about dry rot. we need a permit of some kind and as that got through the system it may answer questions. that concludes my comments. thank you. >> thank you. does the appellate have a rebuttal at this time. you have 3 minutes.

let her know had 3 minutes is up. why you ready. >> yes. >> nile again. i like to make a few comments regarding the rebuttal and i ask mrs. wiget to speak after she catches her breath. >> so -- permits were issued for

the officer deck. it was used as a roof deck. the tile was removed because of leaks. but there was new roofing put on. presumable low the department inspected the new roofing unit the surpas when it got put on. il leave that to a different time. there is only one reason why we are here today because one michelle is say thering was no roof deck. they mislead the department when the person was the head of the hoa and seeking a new perimism sort of seek a new permit trying to obstruct a permit temperature is clear that the department

used the roof deck as an officer deck in 1981 and continuing on. that there were leaks with the tile does not take away from the approval of the roof as a roof deck. that was stated again in 1997 when -- a permit was approved -- or reinstalling the officer deck tiling. because it had to come out because of the leaks. so -- this is a continuous roof deck use of mrs. wiget who is just come in you have a minute left. why my name is kelly london i'm pamela wiget's sister. you missed the public comment period. >> it is building all right.

okay. thank you. so we'll are commissioner questions and comments. like to open up to my fellow commissioners. i have a lot of questions myself. and thank you all for presenting your case. it is on. okay. yes. i like to open up to -- commissioner newmann. i would like clarity on the actual arc baitment, were to be the guard rail and inspection of

the existing tile on the roof? [no mic] >> yes. deal with the guard rail and any other aspects the focus is the guard rail >> what does the assessment cost for the abatement. >> the assessment cost is -- 2, 116.26 this covers all of these staff time up to this point. commissioner eppler. >> sure, i have a couple questions first for the department. there is a contention there is a missing permit in the records the department has and the department said the records for this project are complete.

can you explain you know what gives the department confidence the records are complete in this case? >> in the staff report it states the language in the notice of violation and down toward the end says, search of city records fail to unearth a building permit. inspector was very there in that statement because he was not seeing there are no records he was saying in his search failed to unearth records along the possibility for the property owner to if they have found records we were unaware of we will be happy to look at those. >> question for the appellate. quickly on the same topic. we understand that you can't make copies of records but a known practice of taking notes from the records.

have you physically seen or gone to search for the permit in the dbi records? >> yes. we have searched. for the records. and they don't -- the dbi would give us the permit if they had the permit they will not giveut drawings; right . so the bigger point is that the department was regular low throwing away documents from the period and the only documents we received in response to our public record's act were 80 pages from a 4 year permit -- renovation of a 10 unit building 4 stories tall. that's all the department had. but what we have is a record afterwards of roof deck, roof

deck on various permits that were approved. >> and since you mentioned the officer deck in 1981 a new patio or platform added. why, there -- we have what is a permitted pace and the rest of the space, which we don't have. the permit for. what was the purpose at that time for permitting a new platform patio or platform structure? >> if you go up to the roof deck level of that building the stair case splits one up to the pent room. the other split is a fire escape to the officer. so the fire escape to the roof sits about a foot and a half taller than the roof. what was done they put a patio roof deck about a foot and a

half high so anybody coming up to escape a fire had a place to go outside the fire escape door. rest of the roof has been given deeded to the pent room as an exclusive use occupancy of the officer deck. >> you mention in the your comments that you would be willing to go ahead and add the safety guards and provisions that was mentioned as being necessary for a compliant in today's term, roof deck, if that is the case then that you moots the situation. what is it hayou know to be clear for us you are seek here if that is really not an issue? >> if we are willing to do it is one thing whether the building is a nuisance that needs to be arc baited without it is another

question. because it has been in use for 40 years as a roof deck and approved inspected bite department numerous time and approved as a roof deck the order of abasement is improper. the basis for it is can't unearth permit system not a basis. for finding that the roof deck is the roof deck use is improper. without getting too far in the weed this is thing is requiring mrs. wiget to suit hoa to put the guard railos and -- you have seen there are 15 years of litigation between them and it still continues. >> thank you. that's all for me now. commissioner sommers? >> hello, thank you.

so my understanding of the issue in question is whether or not this area is allowed to be used or was permitted as an officer deck occupiable roof deck. i know we are talking about who's deck it is and guard rail and other items regarding the deck but the issue at hand for this board, i believe, is whether or not it was permitted to be an officer deck, is that? correct? i don't know who i'm asking this to? >> department. >> thank you. >> there are 2 parts. and that's one part you just described with the other part that concerns mow most is the guard rail. if somebody guess up to the receive now, and they might go

forward the edge they can fall off they don't are protection. order of abatement itself was not just regarding the the city -- there are lots of noncompliant guard rails in the city and -- i don't you know -- i don't know what the purview is of being able to try to apply a current code requirement to an existing deck. however. i thought we were talking more about is it a deck or not a deck. >> so hai know is i read the full language notice of violation. that was written. on the april 25, 21. includes unsafe building. and the language is in the completeness.

complaint filed with this department regarding a potential low hazardous like. unoccupied roof is used as a roof deck. with furniture and plants the roof is located on a 4 story building. there is no code compliant guard rails. palpits 80 inches above the roof. a search of records failed to unearth a permit for the roof deck building and permit fileed install new roof pavers were not issued. use of roof as occupied deck is prohibited until roof deck permit is approved. it is referring to permit filed that was never issued and referred to the fact that there is no code compliant guard rail. there are 2 parts we gotta deal with both. our focus is more on the guard rail issue because it is a life

safety issue. what i see with these things if you focus on the mall stuff first the big stuff takes care. they file a permit that deals with the guard rails as it goes through the system the issue of the legality of the roof deck will be handled along the process. >> sure. >> tom, joe duffy. [inaudible] if you don't mind i'veed like to make a suggestion on the i think the wording of a building permit require in the this in this instance would be comply with notice of violation reinstall roof deck and new guard rail system. if the poot patio was approved they reference that permit. and i looked this morning there before the hearing. about records there are records in there it is not sure if the

same patio it is a big building there may be others it shoes 42 inches guard rail height was the code in the time. that is what i think would resolve the issue and i don't think he is opposed to that. and but certainly, and if there was patio tile during and taken off because of a like. it is you would need a permit to reinstall if you took it off to fix a like. i'm concern thered is officering material on a patio and people are walking on it. it is in the a good yes, you will get leaks. you want something on well whether tile or other material that professional could come up with to design a proper walking surface at that. and if the patio was use was established in the 80 owe 81, planning department dbi will rescue noise that. that happens all the time in san francisco because of roofing projects that need done under

the decks constantly like. i wanted to hopeful low may be that might help and i'm available for questions, thank you. thank you. i have a few questions here. mr. duffy you said you locked earlier this morning and what did you come up with, what was it that you saw that recognized that there was a permit for 42 inch railing? >> there is present time there are a lot of plans. there are drawings and -- i saw details for patio and patio i don't know what patio that is. i never been to the building. i checked with staff earlier and the other thing surprising about this process is that typically when inspectors do research and can't pined it. they applicant is more than welcome to come in and have a conversation and meeting before well is a hearing. before well is a second notice

of violation. that usually i don't know why nahad not happened because we are a long way down the line. i say is having that sit down meeting going through the drawings and bringing up the pat combroes details would have been helpful it might have established may not have gone this far. i did see details on plans from 1980. >> these were approved. >> yes. >> they were plans that were approved bite department. >> the other question with the plans did they have structure indications the roof would sustain weight. from what i hear with mr. niles heavy tile has been an issue on this roof. there was engineering showing that this roof could sustain occupancy and what type >> i did not notice but there would have been you really node to get in the nitty-gritty of the drawings. at that time any engineer that is designing a load on a roof

would have to make sure there is supporting system for that. tile deck. i will say that since 1980 materials have changed a lot. in those days people used the concrete pavers there is loiter material and suggest they think about that. and i'm sure they can get around that. >> and i'm sorry one other thing is our records in dbi are pretty good. we have a records management division. may be there were some lost. i don't like the term we are throwing records, way. sometimes you will not find everything but there are the planning department records go well and might have had a hear and there is stuff about the roof deck. you know there is a lot more research you can do to find the authorized use of this area yovment that is another point that came to my attention. typically when you apply for a

roof deck your drawing you submit with dbi and planning will are to be involved were there signs from planning that or mr. niles did you have any. i see you have great recordkeeping here. but for some reason no application for the officer deck or the imployed officer deck or in question here or are there nor are there any documents from planning department. stating that an application was filed for a roof deck. >> your question goes to the point that we are trying to figure out -- or look for records from over 40 years ago. when -- i love dbi i think they have a great management system. but -- in 80 the management system was not great. it is i different management system now. all we know is that the permit for the roof deck was approved

and repeated low approved. we are how planning got involved i can't tell you. >> is that usually would be the process. right. submit with plan to apply for the officer deck and the plans go to dbi for the safety issues and what not. you know there is no engineering reports. for the weight of the officer to carry a load. the railings you -- mr. duffy you said you found there are plans that show railings. they are not installed here. i think what -- was said was that there was a plan for to reinstall tile and put on hahn railing in 20 then the hoa did not follow through with it. was is that the 2013 permit never filed but not issued? >> correct. yoot 1997 permit issued.

>> commissioner eppler. thank you. question for the department. you know commissioner sommer got to the heart of the 2 prongs. my question is if we put aside the permit issue. and only had the issue about railings would we still have a notice of i have scomplagz if it had not been remedied would be here today? um -- well you would have to have a permit clearly states that there is an illegal used roof deck there. but i cannot come become to the safety issue. if they get a permit for deeming with the railing, and show the location and describe the use. and if this goes through the system and that permit gets

issued inspected and welbe happy to close the case jovment i will ask that differently. if we open up a file cabinet and found that permit there that said this was we would have the notice of violation in place for the missing railing. >> precisely. >> commissioner bito. i want to get some of the sequence of evans here it is getting convoluted here. the state that the condition and one of the things that is hard to judge by the photographs in the staff report don't state the year these were taken. they are not clear. so the question the question that the issue i'm understanding from dbi is really a safety issue in hand rail. am i correct in that?

>> structural and safety. yes. yet question to appellate is that -- what opened this, was it a complaint that open third degree nov? >> yes. a neighbor complained even though dbi inspected dozens of times >> which is part of, okay. that's fineful >> society question they -- because -- we can go back through 30-40 years of records. i think there was there is evidence that there was a deck here at some point that was permitted. and i think the current issue is really the safety of the guard rail. the question to the appellate sell if if you would pursue repairing that but is that

through the hoa that would be responsible for that. that is part of the exterior. >> well, mrs. wiget is in the process of applying for the permit and met with mr. his honoring yesterday. very helpful in getting the permit issued. tell then require mrs. wiget through her council to then force the hoa through the prosecutor court to actually do the work in compliance with the orders of the court from 1990's saying the hoa has to replace the officer deck tiling. >> and i would presume that is arc side this issue that is her presumablely the hoa takes care of the exterior. >> correct. >> een if the -- sorry. even if the space is deeded to mrs. wiget would she be financial low responsible. >> correct. and it got litigated 3 times in

the superior court. the courts orders is clear on what the hoa has to do. yea. >> it depends on -- yea. how the ccnr's. >> that is somewhat -- i realize it affects the appellate which is important. >> it is material to thisful because i think the appellate or the owner has been trying to pursue that but it has been part of the problem is the legal battle she has been going through the hoa if the hoa is responsible and they are fighting it. she is pursuing that path and the fact that she is actually working with dbi to pursue a permit. i think that sheds a different

optic and light on this. so -- if the appellate or the property owner was not doing anything at all, i think that would be a different story. >> i mean it is a little bit of a catch 22. if you want to fix something and not in your responsibility to do that and trying to pursue is that but you are having legal obtackles that is the notice of violation is against me i'm not the person who can if i can the issue what the notice of i have lilgz is about. >> joe duffy dbi again. typically if know applicant shows there is litigation or a court proceeding we would stall actions but i believe that has

been pretty common practice with dbi. we are not going to keep enforcing something if there is a reason why machine cannot comply we are reasonable in that approach. have they provided prove to dbi? >> no, we have not. once we get the permit you know not to shed too much we once we get the permit we will do a demand to the hoa to perform on the permit >> and whether it goes become to superior court to enforce the previous order of the court, or goes to mediation. not arbitration. it is unclear. what the next step would be it is likely go to back to superior court in a motion to enforce.

>> the hoa's responsibility if the exterior is the their responsibility to maintain the exterior of this building why is the owner pursuing the permit and not the hoa? >> i can't tell you why the hoa is not performing. on getting the permit in the sense mrs. wiget is getting the permit because the hoa isn't. >> yea. >> if it is a responsibility of another party for the mainlies of it prowlablely that party would seek i own a condo. on the things on exterior of the building it if it is required they pursue approvals. that is why i'm asking. you are exactly correct. we are caught in this bind that we want to force the issue you know work on the permit to resurface the officer and put on

guard rails. >> commissioner? [no mic] >> we started -- well, 97 we -- got a permit for retiling. in 2013 she tried again and started again this week. mrs. wiget is recovering from surgery we are trying to do it right away after last month's hearing but she went in for surgery. [no mic] [cannot hear

commissioner] >> dbi was say nothing reading the nov it soundses much different than when we are hearing today. in the nov they are saying it is an unoccupied officer deck. which is not true it is an -- hawe would say not true statement for 40 years it has been occupied. in that failed to unearth permits we got caught up in other stuff and still stuck with an hoa that was not moving. during that period we were in contact with the hoa trying to get them to move forward with

the permitting the hoa did not move. >> thank you. >> i like to correct the record there. there was a reference made to the 2013 permit. with regard to it dealing with the guard rail. well is no reference to the guard rail in the 2013 permit fighted just the pavers the 2013 permit is not guard rail. for the earlier questions you asked. the efforts being made bite property owner in getting a permit may be because they are claiming they have excluzive use of that officer area. i guess -- that puts them in making efforts to getting the permit. and so that concludes my comments furthermore if you

upheld the order of abatement it would be recorded on lot 41. and if they had issues with the hoa, the order is a legal document and could use that if they had any node to do so. just making that point. >> commissioner bito? >> well, the -- dbi's pursuit of this is really in the interest of safety but in the interest. property owner --up holding the abatement helps their pursuit of those repairs i believe. >> the order of abatement requires mrs. wiget to not use her receive deck she used for 40

years. based on statements that are inaccurate. or -- not meaningful, failure to unearth permit 40 years ago. when the permitting system was not good. the -- it is an occupied roof deck in the unoccupied officer deck. if the department wants to require you know the help with enforcing tile be put back down great. but does it node to be an order of abatement. i don't think so and not based on this nov >> mr. niles. whether it was occupied for 40 years or being used for 40 years does not mean it was warrantied there is a lot of unwarrantied inlaws and could be unsafe. issue here is you know to have a

safe approved place of use or deck of use so that nobody falls over the sides and falls down the shafts. that's the question and personal low the structural integrity of the officer. would it hold what type of occupancy. so, i'm thinking that you know we would like to see mr. wiget go through the process and theiring legalize have it comply with building codes and safety guide lines. in doing so, as far as the order of abate am i don't want anybody on the officer now. personal low i would not want anybody on the officer for safety concerns. you know i would move withup holding the order of arc baitment and providing time she get time for frame for her to

get the permit and go let you process and show she would move forward with complying with safety codes. >> i -- have a question. can the abatement order upheld without the acknowledgment it was unwarrantied? that seems to be an issue. there are 2 issues and commissioner sommer has pointd that out and one is the idea that this was unwarranted and well is not a clear picture on whether it was or was not. but it is clear that is unsafe in current condition. is there a way to do that. dbi should also respond. board has the authority to modify an ordyou is articulate the specific conditions you find exist to passport when you were

going to mandate in the order. >> dbi should speak to whether or not that -- say that one more time? i'm sorry. the board has the ability canup hold, reverse or modify an order of abatement you have the ability to modify it to make findings that the board will find would support the order in this case. could be different with the nonpermitted use of the deck versus the guard rail and the tiling issues. i was going to respond to that. the language in the order of abatement says all permit it is required for commroinls of the violation must be completed in 30-days that allows if they with a permit if they finds an old

permit that says it was an officer deck there and present that to planning. and present us with a permit issued this deals with the guard rail and other issues, and once thap is signed off we can close the case. order of abasement is open enough that allows for whatever required permits they can obtain. you say in a way that implays that evidence has not been presented i feel as though i left lane is we don't have the permit in hundred that shows clearly roof deck. but we have a lot of permitting over time that shows what eluded to that was an approved roof deck at this location. so -- as they go through the permitting process for anything that related to a guard rail and other issues they can present all the supporting document if

the planning department accept its and finish up with a permit and this permit gets inspected we close the case. well, or if if they don't agree with that we are back where we started and i guess i'm hesitant to say that it was not previously approved desk based on the information we have. we ever not saying that there are no records for a roof deck we say we have not found any. the appellate if they come up with documents that we are not aware of and part of the permitting process for a guard x-ray other issues that can be presented through that process facilitate the issue. joy think the process has been gone through.

no. that's an issue there is no permit that the acknowledge in 2013 by filing for pavers that is acknowledgment well is a problem. there are no permits since filed or issued in any way that deal with this unsave condition. >> soundses like this fight has been on going for a long time and other, and -- things delaying that. i guess i would based on when we have seen and talked about -- seems to me. okay. i think there are a couple things, if this was approved at some point, as a roof deck. i don't think there is evidence to say it was not. it seems like there are permits over time that show use as a deck. whatever. if those permits we don't have them this is a difficult thing about this. if than i showed a guard rail and it had been removed i agree

a safety issue, replace it. i also obviously want to guard rail and safety at roof decks. i don't think we can't walk around every previously approved san francisco roof top and say you need to stop and install a guard rail. we don't do that. so to me what was approved and what is there. do those match up? so i mean may be i'm talking to you commissioner tam as a discussion. that i would be comfortableup holding a portion of this order of abatement but not the whole thing like what modified what mrs. newmann was saying. we are down this path and talking about guard rails. might have been guard rails approved before. may be not. we want to make this a safe condition. and that's the approximate suspicion we are deciding upon, okay.

yea. i don't i would hesitate to formally i don't know rule, acknowledge that well was no officer deck in this location based on the information we have seen. >> i would agree with you. commissioner sommer but i would also instead ofup motion to continue this on and ask the appellate to bring back um -- proof of the work that they is done to per sue a permit and the state which their pursuing this work with the hoa. so i would my gut is to sense based on what i hear this is a complicated, case that we are

dealing with. and i'm trying to stick to the issue the safety issue that the inspector brought up which is the guard rail. fact they are pursuing it in good faith but also that there is an hoa that involved in this, you know, i don't want to make a difintive decision yet and continue it on for a certain aim of time to allow them to show that. >> i don't know how. >> did you have something to say? >> please. jury appellate's council is misrepresented both in writing and hear today. the efforts of the association to satisfy the judgment as well as the findings that resulted from the litigation history and the court and the court decisions. there commolestly misrepresentd

and contradicted boy the public record. i thought for certain when they had a month to reapply they would go and correct their errors but they have not. point i want to speak to is this i don't believe that it it is board's troll determine whether or not there was a permit. dbi already determine third degree there was not. and i want to mrin how they went about that. in 20. we have 20 -- do we have a timer. is this public i'm the only person in the room that can speak what the association did when. >> it is up to the chair to determine how much comment he wants to allow. >> i'm not opposing that. i believe -- i believe we have we understand where you are coming from. no , i have not tuesday yet. >> i believe we understand where

you are coming from which we understand this the department has done all due diligence. no audio. in determining you know our main focus now, too, is the life safety issue here >> yes. >> you know -- no audio.

people in safety violation for stretching out the process by alleviating the fee structure and the press this we have, in order to you know impose foes ask the cost on the department when notices of violation for life safety things are not complied with regardless of the s. it is always difficult. there will have to be money. may have to be conversations and permits and conversations with neighborseen if than i are not in hoa. those is shes are irrelevant top what we are looking at. well is always something. and i'm an attorney myself. managing a couple litigations they are messy and take time it

is a cost of doing business. and so, i feel it is our responsibility to i agree permitting is all over the place. and very inconclusive. and i understand the bpt departmented's perspective if you correct the safety thing the rest of it takes care of itself whether we say well is in permit or ignore it. it gets to a good place. i'm in favor of amending the notice of violation to focus on the railing and public safety aspect and approving the notice of violation. >> the commissioner eppler is this mying the violation. is that what you are suggesting? >> yes, that's correct. >> we meanup hold and modify. up hold the order and modify or -- you know -- include terms

for correction. >> that's right. and time frames. >> yes. >> you want to set this motion. >> we can have more discussion in case but i expect one of to you have a better idea than i. >> how do we feel about [no mic] >> right. i would be fine with that. i'm good with that, too. >> you want to set the motion? how would we word this. >> to be clear to articulate what they are the board based on discussion is that the board is finding that the safety violations with respect to the railing exist as allege in the the notice of violation the

board wouldup hold the order. abatement but notup based on the unpermitted use of the roof deck. and then a question of -- the time line you will put for acquiring the permits. for guard rails. comply with safety. >> the time frame. what would be a time frame to show. >> general low with safety violations it is 30-days to start the process. >> pursuant to the code. >> the start. >> right. >> to begin the process. >> motion to uphold the order of abatement. >> syrup.

joe duffy, the only issue i would have is i bruup the officering material there was a tile deck. looks like if there was a patio not the officering material you did in the walk on a tar and gravel roof. what i ask for is a code compliant and patio material if they approve that tar and gravel roofing is okay that would be okay. we were not i'm not comfortable with people walking on a tar and gravel officer tell cause more trouble. ask may be it was legal exit get that. but than i removed the tile and now we have the building inspector that wrote this did call it unoccupied roof because it appears it was officering with patio furniture on it. if you are going to put language in a code compliant and patio and railing and materials. >> yes. yes. >> patio material. >> make one statement.

this statement is it appellate's council is this one of the things that has made this confusing for myself. is this this is a condo. and i read through our 12 page brief it is not clear what their responsibility is in this. >> we were yes, we did not address ho averse us the appellate. in the brief. i apologize we didn't. >> to me it is part of who is actually responsible for take care of it. why so -- unfortunately it was too your client's detriment that was not part of your brief because that hoa should have been part of this discussion because ultimate low an hoa takes care of the outside of a building like this. >> then the notice of violation was issued to her.

joy understand but it is a material that is not her responsibility to fix the exterior of a building if it is the hoa's responsibility. >> but i don't know the terms. hoa. i will say that also. >> right. >> i direct you to in our briefing which is i grant you long. is this the court records show it is the hoa's responsibility. to replace the tiling. and presume annually to install the hand rail triggers by this lack of tiling. >> back to the motionum hold the order of abatement with the modification that mrs. wiget seeks the required permits to comply with safety railing and roofing material guidelines

within 30 days. >> a second? >> second. so well is a motion and a second. to uphold the order with the moifkdz to comply with the seeking a permit. to comply with the guard rail and officering guidelines within 30-days and a second by commissioner newmann. roll call. i doll a roll call vote. president tam. >> yes. vice president eppler. >> yes. >> commissioner bito. >> no. commissioner newmann. >> [inaudible]. commissioner sommer. >> yes. >> see. with 4 votes that motion passes.

>> thank you. the next item on the agenda is general public comment. is there public comment in the audience in not referring to this case. right >> open general comment. >> it is disturbing that the complaintant in a matter has so little time to comment. i'm not going on the specifics i understand it is not appropriate but greater voice has to be goin member in my position as the complaintant and as the person referenced erroneously in this brief. i have a very details understanding of the history here but there was no way to

inject it in this decision. and much of the discussion here has suffered because of it. hopefully in the weeks to come i will be able to provide communication to the dbi in order to clarify that. thank you. >> thank you. >> i would like to say that i tried to do public comment and on time then at the virtual meeting but couldn't i don't know how the navigation happened there were problems and i was not heard. so i was late today that is my fault but i do think that it seems arc maze to me that this is 40 years on and that -- owners i'm confusedow owners and hoa yet hoa's are not forced dot things they are supposed to do and the ordinance will take care of their element.

in terms of being heard the i brought photographs and everything but anyway. it is the process of the virtual meetings that are hard to navigate unless you are an i phone expert and i'm anything but and a lot of elder low people are not savvy with tech. so. thank you. >> thank you. >> anyone online >> any online virtual public comment? seeing none. we am go ahead and move on to the next item. i'm sorry. did you -- >> thank you for allowing mow to speak i'm pamela wiget the owner. come closer to the mic. i'm pamela wiget the owner of the property and i like to tell

you that it has been 15 years since the order of,ed bite court. and the hoa has taken me to court, has i mean this gentlemen has taken me to court. again. to try to -- get rid of that judgment. and when that did not work he is going through dbi to stop my use of the deck. and i -- in desperation i am the one who -- is trying to get a permit for for things that really other responsibility of the hoa. such as life and safety, and railings. those railings are like my --

this is general public comment. we >> in the bay area as a whole, thinking about environmental sustainability. we have been a leader in the country across industries in terms of what you can do and we have a learn approach. that is what allows us to be successful. >> what's wonderful is you have so many people who come here and they are what i call policy innovators and whether it's banning plastic bags, recycling,

composting, all the different things that we can do to improve the environment. we really champion. we are at recycle central, a large recycle fail on san francisco pier 96. every day the neighborhood trucks that pick up recycling from the blue bins bring 50 # o tons of bottles, cans and paper here to this facility and unload it. and inside recology, san francisco's recycling company, they sort that into aluminum cans, glass cans, and different type of plastic. san francisco is making efforts to send less materials to the landfill and give more materials for recycling. other cities are observing this

and are envious of san francisco's robust recycling program. it is good for the environment. but there is a lot of low quality plastics and junk plastics and candy wrappers and is difficult to recycle that. it is low quality material. in most cities that goes to landfill. >> looking at the plastics industry, the oil industry is the main producer of blastics. and as we have been trying to phase out fossil fuels and the transfer stream, this is the fossil fuels and that plastic isn't recycled and goes into the waste stream and the landfill and unfortunately in the ocean. with the stairry step there will be more plastic in the ocean than fish. >> we can recycle again and again and again. but plastic, maybe you can recycle it once, maybe.

and that, even that process it downgrades into a lower quality material. >> it is cheaper for the oil industry to create new plastics and so they have been producing more and more plastics so with our ab793, we have a bill that really has a goal of getting our beverage bottles to be made of more recycled content so by the time 2030 rolls around t recycle content in a coke bottle, pepsi bottle, water bottle, will be up to 50% which is higher thatten the percentage in the european union and the highest percentage in the world. and that way you can actually feel confident that what you're drinking will actually become recycled. now, our recommendation is don't use to plastic bottle to begin w but if you do, they are committing to 50% recycled content. >> the test thing we can do is vote with our consumer dollars

when we're shopping. if you can die something with no packaging and find loose fruits and vegetables, that is the best. find in packaging and glass, metal and pap rer all easily recycled. we don't want plastic. we want less plastic. awe what you we do locally is we have the program to think disposable and work one on one to provide technical assistance to swap out the disposable food service to reusables and we have funding available to support businesses to do that so that is a way to get them off there. and i believe now is the time we will see a lot of the solutions come on the market and come on the scene. >> and is really logistics company and what we offer to restaurants is reasonable containers that they can order

just like they would so we came from about a pain point that a lot of customers feel which wills a lot of waste with takeout and deliver, even transitioning from styrofoam to plastic, it is still wasteful. and to dream about reusing this one to be re-implemented and cost delivery and food takeout. we didn't have throwaway culture always. most people used to get delivered to people's homes and then the empty milk containers were put back out when fresh milk came. customers are so excited that we have this available in our restaurant and came back and asked and were so excited about it and rolled it out as customers gain awareness understanding what it is and how it works and how they can

integrate it into their life. >> and they have always done it and usually that is a way of being sustainable and long-term change to what makes good financial sense especially as there are shipping issues and material issues and we see that will potentially be a way that we can save money as well. and so i think making that case to other restaurateurs will really help people adopt this. >> one restaurant we converted 2,000 packages and the impact and impact they have in the community with one switch.

and we have been really encouraged to see more and more restaurants cooperate this. we are big fans of what re-ecology does in terms of adopting new systems and understanding why the current system is broken. when people come to the facility, they are shocked by how much waste they see and the volume of the operations and how much technology we have dedicated to sort correctly and we led 25 tours and for students to reach about 1100 students. and they wanted to make change and this is sorting in the waste stream they do every single day

and they can take ownership of and make a difference with. >> an i feel very, very fortunate that i get to represent san francisco in the legislature and allows me to push the envelope and it is because of the people the city attracts and is because of the eco system of policy thinking that goes on in san francisco that we are constantly seeing san francisco leading the way. >> kids know there's a lot of environmental issues that they are facing. and that they will be impacted by the impact of climate change. they will have the opportunity to be in charge and make change and make the decisions in the future. >> we are re-inventing the way the planet does garbage founded in the environmental ethic and hunger to send less to landfills. this is so many wonderful things happening in san francisco.

i feel very fortunate and very humble to live here and to be part of this wonderful place. .

>> good afternoon everyone. this meeting will come to orde . welcome to the monday, june 13 2022 regular meeting of the land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors . i am supervisor melgar joined by dean preston and supervisor aaron peskin. the clerk is erica major and i like to acknowledge the folks at sfgov tv. thank you for staffing this meeting. do you have any announcements? >> board of supervisors are now convening hybrid meetings that will allow public comment while providing access via telephone.