ób given us today. >> my pleasure. thanks for having me. >> and that's it for this episode. for sfv tv i'm chris manors. thanks for watching.■% is regular meeting of the abatement appeals board. i ■alike to remine everyone to mute yourself if you are not speaking and the first item on the agenda is roll call. president chavez, present. vice president neumann, here. commissioner alexander-tut, here. commissioner meng, here.

commissioner shaddix, here. commissioner sommer, here. commissioner williams, here. we have a quorum. next is land acknowledgment. >> the abatement appeals board, we acknowledge that we are on the unceded ancestral meland of the ramaytush ohlone who are the original inhabitants of the san francisco peninsula. as the indigenous stewards of this land and in accordance with their trt nor forgotten their responsibilities as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples who reside in their traditional territory. as guests, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. we wish to pay our by acknowledging the ancestors and relatives of the ramaytush community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. >> thank you. next i wanted to announce for today's procedure that one of @úthe

agenda items is go to be taken out of order. item b, approval of minutes and then case 26925 and then 6924 will be following. next, i ke to read the oath. will all parties gingy please stand and raise your right hand?e testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of thank you, you may next for members of the public that may be listening in, the public comment call-in number is 415-0001 access code, 26641se your hand for pub comment on a specific item, press star

3 when prompted by the moderator the webex password is 0717. and then also for the parties that are hereto present today, the department ■ will present their report first, and then the appellate. the department has seven minutes and then next the appellate has after that, there will be comment and then each side has three minutes of n rebuttal time. our next agenda item is item approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to opt the minutes for special meeting held on june 12, 2024. >> so moved. >> there was a motion by commissioner alexander-tut and second by

vice president neumann. is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, is there ■2any remotely? no. all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? thank you. the mites are approved. next going to read agenda item c2. case number 6925 201 ashten avenue. owner and appellate emberton. action requested by appellant: appellant appeals the april 12, 2023 order of abatement and assessment of costs. appellant request the board to

rescind and reverse the dbi violation notices (the notice of violation and order of abatement). appellant has also stated that "l of blight was completed prior to nov.” >> [microphone not on. unable to hear speaker] the appellate timely in submission, but we failed to brief and to distribute to the commissioners.■; seeing this, we recommend that the case be continued to our next available hearing. sorry about that, we just made a mistake and like to do it properly. >> is the appellate aware? >> we■spwith the appellate before the hearing and she is aware and she is still present if you like k he >> okay. >> you may come forward to the microphone. >> hi. >> hi. so, as matthew said, we have not received all your m we haven't had the opportunity to review them as a board. i would love to hear your opinion on whether ouwant us to

continue or if you want us to move forward today without of the materials? >> i think continuing the case to make sure everyone can take a look at all the information is most appropriate. >> great. i agree with you and i just wanted to make sure that you were on board with us. >> excellent. thank you. >> i move to continue is to our next hearing. >> second. >> there was a motion. who did the second? commissioner the motion by pridchavez and second by vice president neumann and i'll do roll call vote on this motion. chavez, yes. alexander-tut, yes. meng, yes. shaddix, yes. sommer, yes. williams, yes. thank yo

next item is c1. case number 6924. 204 tingley street. owner of record and rangel samuel and ahmad larizadeh action requested by appellant: appellant appeals the order of abatement dated february 7, 2023, and assessment of costs. the order of abatement was issued due to the owner's failure “to comply with the code violation within the timele.” appellant requests revocation of the lien against the subject property. appellant has argued that “no lien is bestowed on subject property: 20y st. city of sf destroyed plans/app in 2020. due to hardship, permit was not processed in time of director's hearing. duplicate is bof sf.” and, staff--sorry, the staff will present first and then you'll present. senior inspector.

>> good morning to everyone, and building inspection commission. joe ing, senior building inspector. i'm here for department of building inspection and appeal case on the agenda as one case just removed. continued case with appeal case numproperty address, 204 block number 6782, t the property is a one strya sin family

use--[indiscernible] of the case from last hearing. [indiscernible] dbi uilding inspector review and authorize rear addition being construct [indiscernible] o inspector further found the property owner repeat the same violation from in 12 years ago that with nov and order of abatement in april 2012 and july 2013 respectively. a memberpublic file a ov issued march 2021. as a result, second order of abatement issuein to the owner fail to comply with the code

violation the order of abatement issued with the following condition:obtain permit and complete all required including final inspection to comply with the nov and pay for all code enforcement fees. following is permit and activity. june 2023, the owner obtained a permit approval to correct the violation. that permit is also the only owner applied to address the violation, however, this permit has not been completed with dbi final inspection as of today. this appeal case was approved by the board to continue on today's agenda from last month, however, the required permit work stilnot complete with final inspection by dbi yet. the last inspection was reviewed multiple construction

deficiency the owner required to make correction and reschedule for reinspection.ld the order of abatement, including assessment of cost due to nov issued based on the site inspection findingment the r of abatement issued propertyly february 2023 due to the ner failed to obtain permit until june 2023, which was four months after the order abatement issued. given sufficnt time to allow the owner to complete the corrective work, however, the owner failed inspection due to the completed work deviated from the approved plan and not complied with the building code. the building exterior increased the fire hazard. that conclude my presentation.

>> thank you. the appellate may come forward. >> my name is ahmad, the project sponsor. what they say not complete true. what you hear here, something is non sauns. we applied the permit a long time ago. the person w be contacted was in jail and couldn't get a hold of her. by the time i figureed it out, i pulled a new permit and was issued. he knows that. the permit was issued, it is not it wantissued. the order of abatement came in after when the owner contaedi tried to find the person, but he is deported to mexico, so there is no way they could get a hold of him or me, because she didn't know what to do. finally, i got involved with

that, low up all procedure. the departme knows what i did, and what happened unfortunately, she hired that they didn't know what to do and got the money from her and i'm a licensed contractor and i tell the building so you can see what is goingn. first of all, whoever has been hired to do the job, they put the plywood without the proper paper for bl paper for water protection. they use the wrong plywood. this is exterior of the window. exterior of the building and on■

top, used corrugated plastic on top roofcan see, which not even-not supposed to be there. let me show-this is exteriorof the plywood. as you can see, it is already deteriorated and are it is not supposed to be. this kind of material is not even used for the siding of the building. the poor la f÷has gone through-this is exterior back of the building. as you can see, they same material and with the corrugated roofing. it is not going to protect anything. what it is, she has to start all over again, which means all ■[the plywood has to go away, the roof has to go away, they have to do the proper

siding, proper waterroofing and everything has to benethe beginning again, so she started-she is looking for some contractor. $140 thousand estimate she got to do that. i don't think she is able to get the loan to fix this problem. all we are asking-- >> especially with lien- >> if you put the lien against thlose the building. >> i already been a lot of trouble since the beginning with l the situation with the guy i give the money to. he have to go to jail, because i don't knowts, but i end up losing the money. i give it to him and i have b6 some drawings again, which one time i came to the building to check

the permit and they say they lost the drawings. remember? >> ewxactly the drawing has been lost twice in a row. >> then i say, why this happening to me? i remember i was crying because why everything happening to me you know? first person steal the money, a ■clot of money, and second, they the drawings again, and i don't know, everything--i am asking why it is so complicated and i try to do right way, but every time contact somebody, it is steal the money and right now, we / already change the-the material he was showing with good one.

with the better one, so just--i am here because i want my house to finished to complete, because it is my house for more then 30 years. i have been as=f not in the best condition, but-- it is my mansion. that is all i can say. i am here f'k%because-i'm sorry >> i think this is concour presentation. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this agenda item? w

is there any remotely? en, next we have rebuttal. staff can come forward. >> the appellatennot finish the project in time as of today, th remove the unauthorized rear addition, and restore last legal condition. that's it. >> and does the appellate have rebuttal? >> i think this is not going to work. we are not going to remove it. we are not staying the same thing. this lady has two kids and can't afford to live in house. we want to continue getting the proper contractor to get it done, and

we not going ■>is only 47 square foot of the addition to this property. unfortunately she getting into bad contractor and she's losing she's been going on for so long. i think there is no way we can remove it. the thing is, we have done, but it is not done properly. they have to start all over. she has to go through it, she will go through one way or another. i would rather you guys not lien the property so she can get a loan and finish it off. that's my last word. remove it, no.to she's not going to remove it. >> no. and i want to mention, they keep saying i add a room, i add extra space in my house, but it is not adding. when i buy this house like

or so in 1994, the house was already extended like in the same-- >> square footage. >> yeah, but we tried to make it new because the material was already old. alrey destroyed, so tried to fix better, this--i don't know what did wrong, but we never saw all this trouble was going to building like this massive problem. >> okay. okay. (c >> i just tried to fix my house. i not destroy, i'm sorry if he thinks i want to destroy my house where i have been living in san

francisco for more then 30 years, and i been working for this property and i tried to fix itdestroy my house. >> to honor the person that constructed in the building and ancestors that lived in it. that built it. do not want to destroy it, i want to because there is the home of my children and my own where i have been when i was very young and to conserve it. but it is better condition so we can

because we have a right to live in a house that is appropriate to live in and as u all know, we want a warm loving home with a bathroom and has good conditions for us to live and for my ■ígrand children to continue living there, and i do not want to destroy this home and that's the reason i'm here, so you can helme to remove this lien and not to have the doors closed so i can continue living in my home. thank you. >> thank you for consideration. >> thank you. commissioner-b■eoard members

deliberation. >> commissioner williams. >> before deliberating, i suppose the question i have for staff is, what is the-if there is and there is, what is the present danger to public health and safety with the condition of the property? in the first page of the materials unsafe building with undetermined fire and unsafety building elements. what are those elements? from t photo, the current condition is wood frame building structure and they are fire like

stucco or material that protect from fire. any fire happen that increase the fire hazard to the neighborhood. zk■q commissioner alexander-tut. >> yes, thank you. i have a w questions. first to the department and to the appellate. the first question is the department, can you tell what is the current status of the current status and scope of the permit. the most recent permit. >> they only have one permit on file and there has been issued back in-the record show in june 2023, and they you can see exhibit i, which show the

inspection hiy. they did get additional inspection from last hearing. it was june 17 and the following day scheduled for inspection. our und out they have multiple deficiency not comply witthe building code and approved plan. you can find the page on page t report, and which i put it in red on the top. june 18. >> i would just add, after the last hearing i met with the appellate in the office inspector and agreed to send a inspection seeing if there is a quick easy path forward but the work been done and everybody agrees it is substandard.eates-it is not pro the actual house, the interior of the house

and elevated hazard to the neighbors. i just ñ&add, very sympathetic with the property owner here. we have a tough decisi front of you. we already have a existing order of ■ abatement from 2012. if we do choose to uphold this order and they do go for a loan, we have a subordinate precaution and subordinate the lien to any lender. pretty standard process. the mi forward? coulu k about the subordination process more? >> sure. basically we are telling the owner come in and ask to subordinate the order the lien, which takes precedence. normally i believe government liens take precedence over all others and banks are less likely to lend with those there, but we have a

process if they agretothe money aside to make the repairs, we to think of another word, subordinate our order to bottom of the list and the protection the city has is there is money set aside in escrow to make the owner to go ahead and obtain financg. >> that is very helpful. thank you for that. i also--i have a question about just the case itself. the first page it says weathering, but we heard a lot about the permit talks about-the description of the permit and instruction history goes beyond permitting and what we heard from the appellate is also the scope goes beyond weathering. is what before us-if they were just weather, like do the

weatrinotice of violation? i'm confused about what is in o us. ■íja >> is photo captured in 2012, 12 yearagaddition is unauthorized. that exposed roof frame is unprotected from fire, not only just weather. so, in case a fire happen, it will increase the fire hazard and burn quicker ■aand strong.

>> you will back in just a moment. >> this oto captured recently in june 18 and also july. they remain unchanged. you can see the roof is also unprotected with like plexiglass or plastic material on the top. >> so, the-are we hearing both this or just hearing the that talks about weather? zk >> i can clarify that. the illegal work was done in 2012 and have order of abatement for the illegal addition th■notice of violation is they failed to weather proof the 12 years, and it creates a hazard. this notice of violation is for the weather proofing.

right? you have the original notice of the violation about illegal construction, just took so lon permit to move forward created additional hazard, so today we are only hearing about the eather proofing. unfortunately, it was my hope ey could go out and actually weather proof this and we could walk away, but the underlying construction is subsa roof and siding on top of it, because the the frame needs to be replaced. i suppose if you wanted to order while the work is being moved forward. i think that would be >> so, i would-thank you everyone for the time. i am curious about the supposed solution from the department to the appellate.

if we-would you be able to accept teare the rest of the work is being done? is that something you can do and how long would that take to do? >> you want the paement appellate to come for withered? forward? >> yes. >> i'm a coraor. this isn't a easy job. you are dealing with something that has been done, wrongly done, so we have to takeall out, with the proper paper and put the new plywood, then we have to put the stucco in there. i don't think it will happen overnight. either you give--you accept not giving them the abatement so she has enough time hire regular, reasonable contractor to fini the job, and i will follow with her and

sure that she--i'm a licensed contractor, but n' but i rather help her out because it is a bad situation, and i'm willing to put my time, free time for her to help her. happen overnight. >> just temporary weatherization- >> temporary isn't going to work. this is complicated situation that people get into it, but they don of it. in order to get out of it you need money and if you don't money, one person with two kids, i don't think she can do it. unless she and can move out of the place. first of all, it is too small. small bed room, corner building with one bathroom, how can three people live in it, i don't know. this is unacceptable to put this lady

into so much-- >> the smallest house you can stay in the neighborhood, and then the one in really bad shape. we ■:try to have ?[indiscernib the neighborhood is nice and my house ha why you don't give me a chance? i don't like to have to demolish my house. this is my house. like i say, it is my mansion. it is what i work for so hard. rinow i'm here to try to [indiscernible] i'm so sorry. >> thank you. >> commissioner williams. >> for

sympathetic to your case, but you're presenting us with a position in which it sounds like you want to keep the addition without removing it, but you are not presenting any- >> solution. the timeline and solution? what is happening with the loan, because you are stating there needs to be enough time, but with our timeline we have been presented, there has been time, so what is the plan? what is the soluton can have something to work with? >> as i said, i just got in that, because--she came to me needed help, so i'm here to help. but, i will follow with the-maybe the loan or something or see the job site and see whether we can get some contractor can come up with , i get the loan. if you put the lien against the property she is not going to get the loan. basically,b that is what it

is. >> right. >> we get the loan and contractor and get it started and keep the building department informed that procedural wise going through, we call for be done, but as i said, it takes time. >> you are a , so much time? >> with the right money can take one or two months to do it, but wrong money, it isn't going to■t happen. maybe 6 months. i say 6 months it would be done by 6 mujts. months. >> director greene, how would that work with the new lender, because my understanding would be that existing liens on the property-the city could agree to have the new liens to be subordinant to the older liens, but how-would there be an agreement with the new lender between the department and new lender to have the city lien be

subordinant to >> not sure of the innerworkings of the subordinate our loan. >> typically because i deep with it a lot and not in this specific circumstance, but essentially a lender will make a request to the city to subordinate the lien, or there is a clause within the city lien that says, to subordinate under set circumstances, and :■then the lender-it gets recorded ant, so that is the order entities can collect the money, should there be a default. >> yeah. yeah. first in rst is right so that is what i was wondering if there is a new lender. unless e ■7they

are subordinant to the prior existing lien. yeah. yep. >> absolutely. >> okay. alright. from what i heard, my position would be, we could-there needs to be some with the ccommodation to deal weathering, that can't just be left out there without doing anything with that. if the appellate is willing to do something for thatth would be comfortable providing some to be completed without having to take the unit down, but if it is not done within that time, then it has to go down, anbe en. so, for the apat were the position, would that be feasible? >> as i said, feasible if they can gret the money. i just got involved. can

get some loan or something or find reasonable contractor to come up with the solution. i promise i can help her out. that's all i can say. >> okay. >> putting a lien against a property with this situation i don't will serve any purpose. it just make her worse then what it is now. but, by cooperating with her, that could be done. nothing is impossible. once we find the right solution, then there should be ■b■rno problem. i have done it before and this isn't going to be the last one, but the lien agait somebody >> to answer that question, the len would be to get action for

corrective action initiad, whyears, so tha be the answer to that.■í■r we are willing--i'm not going to speak for anybody else, but solution, but we need to know what the solution is. >> we are coming up with lution. we said give 6 months and see whether we can get it done within 6 months. as i said, i put my time and effort in ther i don't need anything to collect from her. >> i'm done. >> i have great sympathy for what through, and i understand complicated and n is difficult. it has been 12 years since the original notice of violation. i can't imagine that it is healthy or safe for anybody to be occupying that space. uethat that has been an additional fire dang

to the neighborhood during that period as well as putting the rest of your hom risk should that catch on fire. in addition to mold, mildew, water proofing issues, things that nature. you know, the notice of violation isto create urgency and moving forward and it doesn't seem to have worked thus far. i don't see how removing it moves forward the process any quicker and so i'm inclined to uphold it. i time to remedy. i don't know how other folks feel on--i dont know what the full assessment of cost for the lien or has it not

been--the full assessment of cost. >> it looks like it is on page 28. >> representative, you can have a seat. thank you. you can have a seat. thank you. >> the outstanding balance is around 4 thousand something, but that is final, because they add up based on how long the se our division. with your authority or suggestion, we r do some w >> commissioner alexander-tut. >> so, what i'm hearing is that the biggest obstacle to 8ethis is n the facts, not the-there is no

disagreement about the code or the city's process, it is en. and getting that loan in order to do the work. so, i like to make a motion to in advance for 60 days. that gives you 60 days to get the loan and if the lien goes into place after the loan you have the loan ntin. and so, that should solve your loan also protect dbi and create that level of urgency so you do the work and protect the ighborhood and the house. that is my suggestion that we put the abeyance and to the attorney, could you explain what that means for the commission? >> putting inabance for 60 days would just mean the order would

not be in effect for-- >> are you not hearing her? >> the order being in abeyance for 60 days means the order would eff days and my understanding is that means that they wouldn't even have-because the o is not yet in effect when they go seek out a loan, it would not be something that a lien on the property. >> i'm not inclined to give the entire period for the work i think there's-i'm very sympathetic, but i think this is the balanced approach where we can both protect the department, create urgency and protect the neighborhood as well as give you the space to hopefully move.

>> i would like to point out that if put in place once the loan is in place they could be found in default. that is also something to consider. >> i don't have a way to get around that. >> that may be something that--to be considered. not necessarily, bu basically you could be found in violation of you]vr lo is placed on your property during the period in which you hold the loan. >> therefore obtaining the loan--if you ask to subordinate. >> in this circumstance, and this is■á-i think the would be easier to have--it would easier to obtain the loan without

the lien, but should the lien go into place after the loan is given that creates additional complications. problem to solve, but i'm just-i feel we the way those things work. >> that is a important flag. >> i think maybe the solution-let rk with the depart days. one more extra--we get started right now and we keep contact with them to see what the loan is all about. once we get the loan, obviously we dont es to the lien, it will mjcalled back. it isn't going to help anything if you worry about one more extra month. you can give us a-enough chance maybe sooner we can get it done, but

department and make sure every step of the way we can work with the department. i have been doing it 30 something years, so i think we can work it out. >> thank you for the suggestion, but they are doing deliberation rit now. >> i know, just trying to help. >> okay. it is a process. sorry about that. to me like the board is sympathetic and trying to figure out a solution that something that works for you, but also is going make remedied and since it has been over a zgk decade that this has been unsafe, not only for you all, but for the neighborhood, so i ■4not quite sense to move but open to other suggestions.

it sounds like perhaps putting the first--it is upfront cost, might be easier way to obtain the loan and not put at risk of default, but if somebody else has a different solution, i'm open. >> i like the timeframe, 60 days, sothin+#jkg #,to initiate some action and it sounds like there will be is cooperation with the department and prior to this there was some cooperation with the department. i dont know if there is something--within obeyance, with continuing this hat would be hearing for 60 days and continue this for 60 days, you come back and if it is not done, we will just enforce this thing. i dont know--to me that might sound

simpler, but that creates a risk if a fire happens within 60 days. i recommend in that time the appellate takes measures to make ■

>> commissioner sommer-- >> [indiscernible] i think in-i think i agree with a lot of things been said. everyone is sympathet blg. ic. it is hard when you have poor construction and bunch of circumstances, i hear you. i think the difficulty from the board anpais the timeframe. we are talking about a order of abatement from now three years ago, however the issue that created was order of abatement from 10 years for that or 8 years before that, which is a challenge. why hasn't it beenaddressed in that time? i can guess. i also have however, i think it makes it challenging.

in summary, sort of a bunch of options that are all not wonderful, i would go with what commissioner alexander-tut pred to hold abeyance for 60 days. that still says that we are-there is still notice of violation, it is still pending to be enforced and will be enforced in 60 days, but your loan without the lien. >> are we saying that in 60 day obeyance we need to see a start of work? yeah? >> and then what- >> then doesn't go into place, they just start working to remedy the nov. >> then-okay. so if it is not--if that person is also did not complete the work or whatever and a guarantee we won't be here again from that action? >> no. >> not really.

>> none of it guarantees. [laughter] >> that is true. but i suppose--that's whit is normally to completion, right? the ordent, you have to be completed to not have order of abatement. gñ >> uh-huh. >> then you know it is taken care of. i think if we say 60 days-it needs to be completed in 60 days we knowk it won't and that means the order of abatement would be recorded in 60 days, basically? and so you can get your loan in the meantime. >> and hope [indiscernible] >> right. i don't know how that works i suppose. ■ i are don't know if i have a good solution. >> i don't know much about lending laws, but it does seem as though even if they were to apply to a loan

now without order of abatement that they would have to notify there is a risk of default and at that it might be difficult e that lien if the order is issued. i would think that--again, i know not a lot about lending laws, but this is something they may have to disclose anyway, that there is a risk of order of abatement. it is a materialfact, and so--again- >> construction insurance tha has to be put into place as well. >> right. clarify for the board, there is a existing order of to go through the subordination process with us anyway. >> got it. so perhaps we uphold the

rrent order. are you seconding the motion? >> commissioner alexander-tut, would you like >> yeah. i just want to share the thinking. i dont want to have this again. i don't want to havethe conversation again in two months and that is what i anticipate happening. if we are here in september i don't hing to change and we will have the same set of fac the same difficult decision, so i want to--my thinking is to avoid that. would lean one of two ways and interested hearing the commission, obeyance that is longer that we think the work should be completed in, and i can't predict all of the ins of somebody else's financing

and don't think that is the commission's purview either, but so ■ji could either extend it to the what we think if is-6 months feels long to me and getting into hope fall what will be rainy season so that is for construction. whatever--say 6 months or upholding so i like to see what the rest of the commission is-- >> i'm leaning towa upholding the order. i think i would be more open it seems like the financial piece has en the largest barrier and when we are talking ■ about the quoted price we heard

was 50, 60 sa10 percent that cost. i think that is where we can make a larger impact if feel like we want to assist in this being able to move forward more quickly. >> commissioner shaddix. >> thank you. i know there is not a best solution in all this, but i'm leaning also b towards upholding and i'm liking what i'm hearing though. the additional 60 days, but i have a strange feeling we will be back in 60 days doing this so leang more towards upholding. >> i have to agree i am leaning to curious what options we have in terms of financial considerations? are there wavers orthings we can do that might be helpful in that regard? >> i think they can wave the

fees. that's fine. >> so, there are separate motions potentially. one, whether to uphold or reverse or put the order of abatement in obeyance, and then the d be with respect to assessment of costs. separate motion. first make a motion to uphold and then-- - [multiple speakers] j. >> correct. >> i like to make a motion to uphold. >> i want to be--so, your motion is to uphold the order of abatement? >> yes. >> so not the 60 days?a motion order of abatement and is there a second? >> second. >> okay. the motion is by president chavez and second by vice president

neumann. do a roll call vote on the motion. president chavez, yes. -turn on your microphones, please. sorrdent neumann, yes. commissioner alexander-tut, yes. commissioner shaddix, yes. commissioner sommer, yes. commissioner williams, yes. the motion carries unanimously. and then there is a second motion. >> i like to open discussion to wave the fees. >> so, this second motion is to wave the assessment of costs? >> yes. >> is there a second? >> i wanted to open discussion first-- >> open for discussion. >> okay. >> i a because this is every appeal hearing says there is a hardship andb never a

case where everyone says the fees are fine. that is generally what people are concerned about and i don't is a metric for deciding who is worthy and not worthy of how to make that decision, so i am extremely sympathetic and try to find a way forward, but not inclined to reduce the fees. >> also, i want to remind the board about the standard is that, to hear appeals regarding issuance of final bill for assessment of persundt showing substantial error by the department. ■j>> if there is no other comments, then i'll close discussion and leave it at what we already decided. >>indicernible] right now? an open motion

>> there was a first, there was second. she said she wanted to open up for discussion. >> i'll withdraw. >> she is with drawing the moti■-. >> the first motion was withdrawn and your new motion is to uphold the assessment of cost? >> yes. >> the there is a president chavez to uphold assessment of cost. is there a second? >> second. >> there is a second by commissioner alexander-tut. roll call vote on the motion, president chavez, yes. vice president neumann, yes. commissioner alexander-tut, yes. commissioner meng, yes. commissioner shaddix, yes. commissioner sommer, yes. motion carries unanimously. thank you. next we are on item d, new appeals order of abatement case 6926,

2121 laguna street. m owners of record & appellant: catherine siler. action requested by appellant: appellant appeals the june 28, 2022 order of abatement and assessment of costs and re-hearing. appellant states that “sffd plan check released fire cabinet approval as a prerequisite to obtain permit.” appellant seeks “removal of abatement status,” and argues that the “notices went to non-board member or agent.” appellant also request for jurisdiction on the ground that their “permit application is waiting for dbi approval."pe for dbi approval.”inspector ing, would you lick -like to come forward? >> this is going to ■start at 6926? >> yes. >> thank you.■@

now we'll begin the last case. appeal case property address, 2121 laguna street. block number, 0627. lot number, 019. the property is a construction multifamily resintial building in r2 occupancy. [indiscernible] dbi issued two notice of violati2018 and 2019 respectively after receiving complaints from the member of the public about retaining wall, [indiscernible] building parking garage. the nov was closed as it was found to be a [indiscernible] code enfor mber 2018. an order issued

june 2022 by the hearing officer. today, over 6 years from the first nofebruary 2018, however the required permit still has not been completed with dbi final inspection sign off. the property owner obtaind a permit approval in january, 2023 d mpl however, this rmit still has not been completed with dbi final inspection to date.uphold the order of abatemen including assessment of cost. the nov issued back in 2018, the owner failed to comply with the violation within the timeline. four years after the first nov date, the order of ■nabatement issued june 2022. to date, over two years has elapsed from order of abatement date,

however the violation still remain outstanding. that concludes my presentation. >> thank you. >> thraunk. thank you. the appellate come forward. >> yes, good morning. my name is robert caruso with the john benjamin company and we are a have been n project management hired by the t company, pmc to look into this tory of what happened, and bring everybody up to date on where the project isow.got into the-l all the minutia going back to 2018 when the nov was filed. that was in february 22, 2018, and they subsequentially there was a permit application with submitted

in february 27, 2020 and the permit was issued january the 5 of 2023, and i have the permit number if you want that. the fiwork was started to mitigate that situatthat retaining ah, july of-that's not correct. it is july of 2023 and completed september 2023. rainbow water proofing and restoration, that was the general contractor on the job. the structural engineer on the job was murphy burr and curry and then the-i dont know if you know-get into when you do a project like that, it involves concrete and retaining walls you have to have special inspections and special inspector who is independent of the general contractor and the owner goes out and

makes sure all the concrete work performed was performed to the right specifications.company was appl materials and engineering. so, the work was done, it was completed. the inspections took place on ame submitted their special-the reports to the special inspection group which is part of d bi. there are two pieces that and one of my criticisms of this, what should have happened is the general contractor made sure those special inspections were submitted to dbi, however, the ame maintains all the reports and special inspections were submitted. there are two i

talked to inspector ing about this, there is two issues, one involved shot creek, a process used instead of pouring the concrete it was shot-if you want to look like a gun shooting concrete, so that negated the one report that the special inspection group requires, and the other was, there is another issue garding how the concrete was cored and the way it negates the requirement for a second issue or second requirement that the special inspection group has. really, to boil all this down, ame is now working with and the general contractor with dbi. we have to go back and sit down with the counter inspector and get his approval for

these two processes that were b rainbow water proofing and i'm confident that those will be accepted by that over the counter inspector. at's when the permit can be finally signed off. the only two issues hanging up that permit, but the work was done and i looked at it, it was done in a quality fashion. we had some pretty reputable players in the general contractor and ruand then ame that does the spwas a paperwork issue creating the fact that this permit hasn't finally been signed off. we are working with-i talked to ing this week and we are all on the same page of what has to happen to get thtinspections that are

on the check-list, the inspection group uses, to get those signed off. that's it. you have any questions of me? >> you can have a seat and have ll call questions. thank you. next there is public comment. any public comment on this item? ■g6l seeing none in person, is there any remotely? seeing none. next, rebuttal. >> again, we are here today to discuss ■o if the order of abatement is issued correctly and nov issued correctly. building foundation detearated so requires repair, so that is why the nov is issued correctly. the order of abatement is

issued correctly, ba■h■ick in june 28, 2022 and as of to date they still cannot get the permit final. the order abatement is correct. before the order abatement issued and there is special inspection and the appellate informed me they tried to revise it, but i informed them they need to submit new permit application to have the dbi engineer approval before that can be revised, so, that's my rebuttal. thank you. >> does the appellate have rebuttal? okay. >> there is reference from-you can review from page 15 of my report that atus of the

inspection and they [indiscernible] all current inspection was performed by third party and it still outstanding, so please review page 15. >> thank you. appellate? >> i have in my hand here a copy of the shs it application and that was submitted in 2020 and finally issued in 2023, and then i also have a docume here from ame that they submitted to dbi in which they addressed those two issues remaining to be signed off by dbi in ordethe. i'm under the impression, piecing all permit was issued d e work was done. the permit application went in in 2020 and my understanding it wasn't

issued until 2023 because of the process-approval process that have to take place to get the permit issued. that is not really something that is strange to me, because i do a lot of work in san francisco and there is a approval process that takes time, so that permit was issued according to this gdocument i have, this cop of the dbi permit, it was issued in 2023, and the work was started in july of 2023. and then i have materials engineering letter here that is dated, november of 16, 2023 in which they addressed these issues at still open today. these two report issues that the special inspections office is looking for. what has to have happened, which should

have happened is, right when thwas submitted, a meeting should have been called with dbi, meet with the over the counter inspector and have those two points or those two checkpoints addressed and authorize the fact that they were not necessary because of the process used to do the construction. in my mine it is a paperwork thing, and it was some pretty sloppy, if i want to be super critical, sloppy in the sense it should have been done immediately and this is kind of dragged on.w but, when i do a lot of construction work like i say in san in my mind this is not a major issue. this is something that lved, bu meeting of the minds. 'h there has to be a meeting to go through

and address these two processes that were used in the and show that those two items are not necessary. thank you. >> thank you. the board can delibera >> before we start on deliberation, can you remind what exactly is being-what we are reviewing today? i feel i heard a few different things that arr contest. it isthat the--yes. i'm asking our staff. >> they are appealing the issuance of >> generally? batement. >> generally, yeah. >> and we haven't completed the permit? >> the paperwork issue is there is structural observation letters when submitted by the engineer

generally we work with engineer of record. structural observation is required whether the engineer of record submit plants and the plan checker approves or not and going forward that is a requirement to close the permit. structural observation general observeitation by the engineer saying it meets the plans. o required and haven't received the letters from engineer of reiting for those. the appellate is saying-whether they use [indiscernible] we have special inspection from that, but there are two other items one just general concrete construction and the other engineer wanted to view the location of the steel prior to drilling of the dowels sp we have never gotten that letter from

the engineer and on top that, they never called for inspection by the district inspector to loat before it was coverework with e record. >> we are missing a couple documents? >> yes. >> okay. that's really helpful. thank you. commissioner williams. >> just a question ■4for mr. caruso. ■f■u referecing permits documents you have, you have copies? >> i have just e in my hand. >> we have those in our-- >> i don't know which document. >> whatever you are looking at in referencing, if we can look at it, it may be helpful. maybe the overhead. >> you have it? that is the you are speaking-- >> this is actually-- ■k

>> this is the information on the permit and when issued, correct? we are curious whether or not you have the inspection documents. >> which documents? >> the documents about the special inspection. >> i havethis letter from-- they refer to the shot creek and rebar. the way they attack so they did

touch any of the rebar, so they could see the rebar before they put the shot crete on and why they are maintaining those two issues are not germane to this particular project. i'm confident when they do have this meeting with the spit is going accepted. >> commissioner williams, you have additional questions? okay. what you need here? >> yes, i are think we do. i think--well,b it may be irrelevant whether or not thse things are solved at this exact moment. i have u submit a project and has requirements

and changes and go back and talk about deand revise it. fine. it sounds like everything was done, it sounds like the last piece needs to en that is sort of irrespective of the notice of violation issue which is from 2018 i guess. this is what is throwing me a bit. somebody called and said und2fe? they did. they got plans approved, whatever, fixed everything. it isn't totally signed off. the notice of violation r what? there was a unsafe condition and it was given to be remediated? >> my understanding it was two anonymous calls, which i think-not sure of this, but i think one of them was hoa member. >> maybe this is all irrelevant. >> anyway, they called in and said there is this problem with this

retaining wall. >> sure. >> that now, i think there was-go ahead. >> maybe i can hear from the staff. someone calls in an issue, the city comes and looks at it and say yes, there is a issue. building owner you need to fix this. that is your what notice of violation? first contact? >> the received phone call from member of the ic investigation and confirm and this is accurate. we issued nov to make it enforceable to make the owner make the repair work. if they don't then we move forward to sche. they still not comply, >> got it. okay. >> i to--so called

other special inspection requirement under my report, or scanning rebar, this is important to damage in the existing rebar inside- >> sure, but that is all between the structural engineer and-i agree, tg is on the form, somebody has to address it. if it didn't somebody needs to explain why and say why is okay. somebody called in a complaint, notice violation issued, fix this, too. this is right in covid, a while the permit approved. it didn't get approved and the construction didn't occur 2win timeline designated oen the noting of violation, so you have a order of abatement, right? >> there is more history to that. they had a hearing in july 2022 and we gave them and they got another

continuance on the hearing in december 2022. >> so it has taken too long? we e not meeting the timelines agreed and extensions were provided cephal >> s, we them about the order of abatement and the hearing officer said this is enough and issued the order of abatement. >> to me, all these things can be true that it was repaired close to closed out soon and there was notice of violation and order of abatt was appropriately issued in accordance with procedures and unsafe condition, right? >> correct. in which case, it is it not inappropriate to uphold the ■; order of abatement in my opinion. that is currently happening and now done and i'm glad that is fixed. it sounds like it was fixed appropriately, but there was

still that pse or--it sounds l the time, the dictor or whom ever granted extensions ■kand whsatever the agreement was, it didn't get done in that teamline timeline and whether that was legitimate or not, i t did not. >> two continuances. >> two continuances, so-to me i think it is unfortunately and this was handled appropriately, but i don't see a reason we wouldn't uphold the order of abatement. if i >> commissioner. >> i have a question. is the order of abatement applied to the entire building or just the owner who lives in condo 1a? be enti

building. >> okay. >> commissioner sommer, would you like to make a-i heard a motion maybe from you. >> sure. i will make a motion to uphold the order of abatement. >> second. >> there is a motion by commissioner sommer to uphold the order of abatement. is there a second? >> commissioner alexander-tut. commissioner alexander-tut. is there motion and second, so 'll do roll call vote. president chavez, yes. vice president neumann, yes.%- commissioner alexander-tut, yes. commissioner meng, yes. commissioner shaddix, yes.

commissioner sommer, yes. the motion passes unanimously. next is d, general sorry. >> i believe there is also cost. nce is not the last motion, you should have another motion on [indiscernible] >> is there a motion to uphold the assessment of cost? uphold the assessment of cost. >> second. >> there is by commissioner sommer, seconded by commissioner alexander-tut to uphold assessment of costs. i'll do roll call vote on that motion. president chavez, yes. vi prent commissioner alexander-tut, yes. commissioner■ meng, yes. commissioner shaddix, yes. commissioner sommer, yes.yes.

the motion carries unanimously. now, we will go public comment. memberoffs the public may address the ard on matters within the board's jurisdiction and not on tos any general public comment on the abatement appeal said board? seeing none in person, non remotely. item e is adjournmentf. is there a motion to adjourn? >> so motioned. >> second. >> we are now adjourned. it is-all commissionersar favor of being adjourned. it is 11a.m.wetake a brief, 5, 10 minute reconvene as the building inspection commission. [meeting adjourned] ■s