process to historically we have the option to uphold the appeal or - um, but after that in the process for what, you know, in compliance. >> sure. i have one of the supervisors and owe architect to get back for approval. >> we can have - our role today is to uphold the appeal or not uphold the appeal but have someone from the department to reach out to you, you to guide you through the process of getting your permit that's. >> go from the city and- >> (multiple voices). >> so you're in front of of the building inspection commission and the appeals board a citizen oversight body but we are not - we don't work for the city in its capacity so somebody from dbi will reach out to you.

>> 49 south van ness. >> not an alternative building inspection commission department unfortunately, but welcome to come back to the commission with questions about, you know, your process and have other meetings for public comment and tell us how things are but required to get our permit either way and complete the work in line with the building codes. >> i was kidding. >> we're here to evaluate whether or not the department made a mistake in issuing so if you have any offers for the permit you talked about. >> oh, yeah. for sure and do you have it. >> i bring it yeah, because i have it in my e-mail and my architect has it and my lawyer

has it. because the building since 1925. >> if you can produce 3 permit will be helpful. >> make that disappear i'm going to look for that. >> during the deliberations please. okay.. thank you. >> to clarify no dispute about the legality of the buildings but without a building permit. >> i agree. i agree with that. >> and from your phone number and you want my e-mail. >> take my e-mail. >> we have no problem the certified issue and thank you. >> [off mic.] >> do you want me to. >> sorry i'll have staff reach out to you.

>> sir. >> sorry. >> yes. and so. >> i understood; correct? prior to this hearing why you are here and did you have an opportunity to review your, you know, the income taxes that we're. >> the lady called me from i believe from this building i

have a hearing and changed from 820 to 10 i don't have the papers. >> have you familiar with the notice of violation from november 4th, administrative code section 31.04(h). >> with which one. >> a lot of them. >> no, he said he posted on the building or on the house the house is abandoned nobody goes through. i have not been there now probably i'll say 9 months not been up there and before november 2, 2021, was work performed on the property without a permit. >> yes, sir. >> all right. thank you. >> all right. and but i got the okay. from them because it was covid at this time, i got okay. from them by the person

going to sign is papers not there. >> you got the okay. from who and from 49 south van ness and the only one working. >> did you receive a letter or permit. >> she said go ahead and work nobody here don't come to the building and working on the existence how to get work from the house at that time. >> yeah. is were not working only one.

>> inspector has a comment as well can we recognize him. >> sir, have a seat and the board will let you know if they have in any further questions and commissioner meng have further comment. >> i want additional information on the page. >> excuse me - >> just answer the question. >> okay. >> yeah, just answer questions and clarification. >> (multiple voices.) >> inspector. >> my clarifying question is we post nixon is property itself but have mailing address that you confirmed that is; correct? >> we do both and through certified mail send it to the

owner and which can be found from the exhibits and the address. >> they sent certification mail i'm not there i don't sign it and have what they call them the connoisseur was not signing for it they sends that back in the firmament is happened. and sent it regular mail i do receive it. >> you had a initiation that was sent back are you aware that was not delivered. >> i asked them and they said they had that and once i got into an argument with them and can i have anyone from the department say that was delivered. >> we have redundancy of certified mail a photo posting

on the gate that gate has been removed continuation an unauthorized gate (multiple voices). >> i'm asking in the certified mail we got the notifications that was delivered and we have. >> under the sheet we indicated that was presented to the owner mailing address. >> we don't have the - >> that was returned on page 29 we have one receipt of serviced mail with signatures i think we're trying to get clarity do we have that for the other notices. >> i think i missed that attachment from the report but after the mailing or can contact the office they can find that

from the micro soft team the sheet indicates we served the serviced by mail i remember i have confidence about by team if they didn't do it at all answer. >> i think the last certified- >> (multiple voices). >> from 2022. >> (multiple voices.) >> and that is director haney. >> yeah. yeah. i mentioned i missed that attachment (captioning is ending at this point which is on the line item from the bottom to the top from the bottom. the third one from the bottom dated on october 16th, 2024, which indicates rb. notice of hearing certified mail. so. so it's in the database that we

received the certified mail receipt back, but we don't have copies of the signed. i missed it from the attachment okay. and if we can during the break time maybe i can contact the administration team, see if they can email that to me. i just want to clarify that the return, the receipts you do have is from the original director's hearing. it's not from the correct. i think it sounds like there had been some sort of miscommunication about coming today and about this process. so i'm trying to figure out i understand where that is, but i do see the thanks for the clarification on the 2022. i did not hear, i mean, a request like the request from the appellant is not to you know, push forward the hearing or anything of that nature. i haven't heard anything to dispute the claims that have

been asserted. i mean, i've heard a frustration and maybe a lack of understanding, but i haven't heard any dispute of the facts, disputes about i haven't heard you given me any information that counters the facts that have been presented. commissioner williams asked, if you did work without permits. you said yes, and then you proceeded to tell us that, well, someone at 49 van ness told you that it was okay, but you can't. you haven't told us who. well, obviously obviously i was not prepared. i mean, i didn't know i was here because i was just a phone call. so obviously i was not prepared. he asked me a question. i asked him honest, honest answer. i mean, i'm not going to say no. i mean, it is what it is. but i mean, the thing is, at 49 south venice, you gotta understand something. those people, are they not? they they have zero communication.

you go to second floor. i mean, you gotta understand this. you go to the second floor, which is they work with the fourth floor. they have the same computer, but miscommunication, they don't know what the hell is going on. i mean, he can answer that because i've been with him and i ask him, i believe this gentleman too. i believe that gentleman was there too. i mean, believe me, i've been in the second floor, third floor, fourth floor. is that my problem? no, i mean, i'm paying. i mean, i'm paying my taxes. i'm paying my things. i'm doing my dream thing like, are you actively working towards getting a permit to push forward the work? yes. still to this day. okay. and then the thing is, they tell me to do things. i mean, do some stuff, like you're going to go get electricity and then oh, sb9. have you heard, you know, about sb9. sb9 is a new law. i was the first the first guy in san francisco who signed for that. 23 000

something happened. yeah. no no no worries. so they tell me to do sb9. sb9 cost me about like 23 or $28,000. and then they're going to give me a permit. guess what i paid that. guess what. they didn't give me no permit. so i mean you see if you guys can just if he can just answer me this question, i'll pay whatever you guys want me to pay the sb9, i give you a permit. i paid for sb9 until this day. they didn't give me my money back because i don't need sb9. no, no longer. and he can answer that the sb9. i don't want to lose. yeah the thread of what we're discussing here, i know that there are a lot of things that we're feeling frustrated

about, but we're here to talk about one thing and that's whether or not work was done without a permit being issued, which you have said you have done. but if we're going to talk about one thing right here, believe me, i'm going to be here every other day. if you believe me. yeah. okay. thank thank you both of you guys can be seated. thank you. okay. thank you. they'll deliberate now. thank you. i think there's an announcement. oh, yeah. we have a text from staff about the certified letter that was sent because we received this from the us postal service, as your item could not be delivered on november 9th, 2024 at 3:25 p.m. it was held for the required number of days and is being returned to the center. so that was the notification we sent. there we go. okay, so i do thin, sorry to say, he was took the oath. took the oath. so okay. that's a lie. so would you like to if you had more time to come back, would you be able to

present us information that would be counter to anything discussed here today? of course i will, of course. okay. so i'll bring my lawyer with me and i'll bring all the emails that the conversation i had with them. i want to recognize your frustration, and i apologize that there was this miscommunication about you showing up today. and i know that you had to travel to get here. so my dad passed away, by the way, and i have to come back for this. i'm very sorry to hear that. yeah, i again, am recognizing your frustration. and this is. i'm sorry that you had. i'm sorry. thank you. sorr. we the question on the table. we i think we have two questions on the table right now. the first is the question that we're here today for is whether or not there was work done without a permit. and it sounds like there's a second question as to whether you would like to come back at another time with more time to prepare and be able to provide information that shows that that that first question is that that you had a permit or

you were working toward a permit, but is that something that, yes. can you please also ask this gentleman or this gentleman to bring the permit that they gave to the previous owner because it disappeared? it was there at the system. it disappeared. okay. we the department can present the evidence that it has. and then we're going to ask you to bring whatever materials you have for this conversation. the conversation is about, again, whether or not work was done without a permit at the time that the notice of violation was issued. sure, there was covid by the way, this it was covid. i understand that. yeah, yeah, that's what i think are the two. it sounds like you're requesting that we postpone this hearing. yes, please. yes. okay. and then i have i have not been receiving any notice. okay. and it sounds like you're providing your contact information and we can get into better touch with you further down the line so we can

have more notice for you to arrive. thank you. without having to upend your plans. sure. thank you. yeah. to the department. since there can be an issue with certified mail, can we send both certified and uncertified mail? as a general practice like so that we, you know, like certified mail can be a barrier for folks who are not home? but there's two ways to do it. and so that this is a i understand that our notification will only be determinant on whether or not people receive the certified mail. however, i think it's a good practice to unless there's legal objection to also just send it by regular mail or email if it's provided. yeah, right. if you know it's not even really about whether or not you open up the envelope and read it, like, did we send it and did we provide notification? and that to me is the is the

burden is the burden is on the department to not whether not determine whether or not you read the read it, but whether or not we notified you in a proper way. and that's the only reason we're considering an extension on this. and if. yeah, and so, you know, take it, put it in a drawer, never read it. we've issued our notification. it's the burdens on the department. so i'm sorry you're asking if we could just send us regular mail as well as registered mail. yes i can i can implement that. can we also i mean, just for down the line, if we're calling people prior to coming, can we double check that we have a certification that they received thing like the information because it seems like we have this receipt that they didn't that he did not receive this notification of a hearing. if we have the contact number, we'll start calling. yes. okay. just yeah. this was i apologize. there's obviously a miscommunication on this point. we. yeah. but i mean did they

send me about this hearing. they did the certified mail that was not. oh they did. and the posting on the property okay. no. because this issue about the mail is been going on for a long time. it's not just this time. okay. thanks for your time, guys. sorry. thank you. i think we have to make a motion or i'm sorry, commissioner williams. mr. mr. yes. so i i'm understanding you want to continue this hearing, but i want you to understand what you'll have to do if you continue the hearing. and i want to make sure you understand that. so we are limited in what we can do and how we can rule on these appeals. so unless you produce evidence showing that there was a factual mistake in by the board in issuing and finding that in november 2021, you didn't have the electrical and plumbing permits before doing the work. we can't do anything to reverse this. so i'm

i'm raising this not because i want to deny you the opportunity to be prepared, but i don't know if it's worth your time to come back to unless unless you're confident that you can produce some evidence of that. unless you unless you can bring in a permit or you have a name of somebody who told you you had a permit or something. so i just want to make sure that you're clear on what we can do with this because, you know, due process is important. but i also, you know, everybody in here today, we've these can run for a long time and i, i don't want you i, i feel for you. and i don't want you to waste another day here when we can't do very much. you know, we can't do anything in these, in this capacity about your bad experiences at 49 south venice or any issue you had with somebody representing to you that you had a permit, we just can't do anything about that. so just so you know that i want to make sure you understand that. and you're clear with that. you

want us to consider moving forward with continuing the hearing. with all that in mind, i don't have no problem. let's move forward. yeah. because if i'm going to go through that, i have to request cameras from 49 south venice. look for that lady. i mean, and then it's going to be dragging along. so i'm sorry. i'm confused by what you're saying. you're saying. no, i mean, move forward on on just making the decision today or move forward on. yeah. because he said he's he has a feeling to going to move forward to tonight. so might as well just go forward with it. okay. i mean i'm just going with mr. william. propose probably he doesn't want to see me back her, which is no problem. no. you're charming and funny, so i. hey life is short, bro, but i. you know, it's not. it's not my proposal. i just, you know, in adversarial proceedings,

sometimes you get, you know, it's competitive and emotional and you're just like, okay, i want to have i want to have my shot. but this is also, i imagine at this point, it's been a huge investment of your time to be here, and you're going to have to make that investment again. and if you're going to do that, then you're certainly welcome to we can we can consider that. but for your own sake, i, i would hope if you're going to do that, then you will present some evidence of, you know, something that we can consider on whether the department made a substantial error, in fact, or law in issuing the notice of violation. well, obviously we can't go by the certified. i haven't received it. that's one. but i mean, we can go on and on and on. so on. the substance of the notice of violation. i mean, i was not prepared. i did not even know why i came in here today for you understand that i might. have you seen my flight? i just landed at 10 p.m. last night. 14 flights, 14 hours flights. right. so you got to take that

to the consideration. and my dad just passed away about four days ago right now, and i have to come back. sorry to interrupt you, sir. so would you like to still ask that the board go forward with the continuance? just, just just want to know, i don't know. do you want to do you want to come back another time, or would you like them to make a decision today? i'd rather come back with my lawyer. okay. so he has all the papers. okay. thank you sir. so it looks like he would like to do the continuance. so we need a motion on that. and i'm also just finding out. i think we may only have this room until 130. no. okay. motion to continue. okay. second. okay. so there's a motion by commissioner alexander to second by vice president newman to continue do a roll call, vote. to continue to the next meeting. the next meeting of the board. it may be on

december 11th. yeah. we can we can just provide notice. we'll provide notice of the date. i don't know the date. right now, but we'll provide notice. so is this continued to the next meeting of the of the board. is that what the motion is. yes. okay. and the roll call vote president chavez. yes. vice president newman. yes. commissioner. alexander. yes. commissioner. ming. yes, commissioner. shaddix. yes. and commissioner williams. yes. that motion carries unanimously. okay. the next item is case c two, case number 6935805. vermont street. owner of record and appellant harry alt and roberta alt. action requested by appellant. appellant appeals. the director's order of abatement number 202180046a and assessment of costs issued on march 7th, 2023, following a

hearing on february 21st, 2023, staff had come forward. okay. thank you. okay. thank you. now i will be ready for the second case for today. and i just want to remind everyone there's some new information for now. this morning after the arb report released last week. so there's some information will not be alive with the report. i will be give you some highlights down the road here. appeal case number 6935. the subject property address is 805 fairmont street. block number 4093. lot

number 064c campaign number 202180046. the subject property consists of a two story wood frame building in taifib. construction for a single famil. residential use in office occupancy. a peeve of my record research in campaign investigation performed three years ago. dbi building inspector reviewed an unauthorized addition of living space on the ground floor of an existing single family residential building. consisted of unauthorized entry, hallway, bathroom vapor, etc. that has been constructed without a building permit and city pending approval. this unauthorized setting could be used as an illegal adu. the unauthorized unit addition poses a risk of fire and life safety to the

occupant of the building. until last tuesday, owner filed an over-the-counter building permit reference to the last four digits for 810 and attempt to adjust the violation. building plan reviewer issue plan review comment on the same day of the permit application, file owner is required to adjust the plan review, comment, and return the revision plan to continue the plan review with permit center. the outstanding violation has been unattended for over three years from the first nov issue, and it is undermined the fire and life safety of the existing building render the building unsafe to occupy. the director was hosted on february 21st, 2023. the hearing officer decision was to issue an order of abatement with the following condition. firstly, to obtain permit approval and complete all required work, including final inspection site to comply with

the no. and pay for all enforcement fee. staff recommendation. uphold the oral abatement, including imposing assessment of costs, the no finding and dbi hearing officer decision were precise and accurate, so okay, that concludes my presentation. the appellant like to come forward. my name is bob nelki and i'm working with the owner of the property. and i'm accompanied here with the owner. hi, i'm roberta alt, the owner of the property in response, we are requesting that the order of abatement. be removed and that the case be returned to the to the department. we filed a building permit application and as inspector and had stated, and

there is a penalty of assessed to us a nine times penalty on a $15,000 estimate of work. we're not asking that we don't pay fees for the permits or for a penalty. our concern is that the that the order of abatement should be removed. it should be noted in mind that the owner bought this property with this work that had been done, a wet bar, a bathroom and a partition wall was installed on the lower level of the of the building. this was done by the prior owner, not the current owner. she is now filing a permit with a set of plans to correct his problems, his mistakes. and we're going to we're we're going to be assessed a penalty. and we'll of course pay that penalty. but we ask that the order be rescinded and that and

that the any code enforcement, enforcement fees that go with it be removed, it's a it's a very, very small space. i mean, it's only a square building, literally 25 by 25 at the rear of the property line. and it's as i say, the work was done by the prior owner. nothing. nothing was done by this owner. and we're simply asking for your consideration. and the owner is here to answer any questions for you. thank you. yeah, i'm available for any questions. i purchased the property, the person i purchased from is deceased. i bought it from his brother as is. i was living next door. the place was always that way and he was very close to her

family and we bought it as is. so i didn't have any idea. i thought it was a single family home and so my asking what i'm working on is for it to be a single family home. and. she's been delayed. there have been some issues that have happened, but other than that, she is willing to take out a permit and to correct these violations, which someone else did. okay. thank you. okay. does that conclude your testimony? anything. anything else? did you want to. there'll be a time. i'll just also say that there are i mean, there's a lot of work to get through this. there were no i went to the city to get prior permits and drawings

and i pulled everything. and there at that time, hand drawings were accepted and so yeah. so there wasn't any background information that we were trying to as we were trying to uncover this whole journey. we now have an architect on board. okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? none in person, none remotely. then as a rebuttal staff rebuttal, would you like to come forward? the dpi policy doesn't allow the change of ownership. we set the timeline to compile the noi and

the records so that the ownership has been changed. in april 22nd, 2022, and owner has attended to the directory in back then. and they did submit the arb appeal form back in march 2023, which is one and a half years ago. and they did not take any action to submit a permit to address the noi until last week. so that's why i want to say thank you. okay. thank you. this the appellant have any rebuttal. do you able to see the information or i can distribute a copy. may i have the permission. you can just you can just give them the copy. i'll give it to them. thank you. in terms of the timing, it did take some time to get an architect and plans and stuff and things through. we've been working on this for many, many months. and that's that's basically the delay. it's a good faith delay.

yeah. i did after i received this, i did go down to the department of planning and i would say very similar to the prior gentleman. i've just buying a house. i didn't understand any process. i went down and asked questions. i paid a fine. i thought i was done, i was given a case to come in. i then called the number. i'm a mom of working mom of three kids and i called to try to change the hearing date and i didn't get through to anywhere. but i did go down and they told me that i would get another court date and to wait. and so this is the next court date. it has been a very long time. and then through asking around, i found that i could get some help because i couldn't navigate the process. i had no idea what i was supposed to do. thank you. but i didn't leave it. you can

go back and see that. shortly after that, it was issued. i was down and i paid. i don't close to $2,000 on a fine. thank you, thank you. and commissioners, you have deliberation. oh, i called, i asked for public comment already. yeah. thanks. board members, i have a question for the appellant. can you can you walk us through when you bought the house, when you found out about this violation, what actions did you take? and then and then how long do you think you need to rectify the permit? the what is your strategy for rectifying it? and then how long do you think you need? sure, i got the notice in 2021. was it february? i'm awful with dates february and i bought the place

in 2019 and so i found out about it in 2021 when i received the violation. and yeah, and so i went down to city hall. that's what i did to figure out what it meant. i called the we can look up the name of the inspector who was on the original, i called him, i have emailed, texted him, we spoke several times. i was trying to figure it out. i then came back down to city hall or not to city hall, to the department of planning on van ness. i wrote a check and then there was the situation with the court date. i tried to change. i went back down again, said, what do i do? and they said, you'll be assigned a court case. and then i spoke with someone and she introduced me to bob, and i've been working with him, and we found an architect. so that's

been my process, what i plan to do, and i don't think we need much time because we've already started and the permit process, and i don't think we're that far away from getting it done. i'm just looking to not do anything other than for it to be legal. single story dwelling, that's all. i'm not looking. i'm just pulling the permit for it to be with the work that has been done to get signed off, that would legalize the current work. yeah. is that okay? that's that's done. and we've got it reviewed. and do you want to provide that the what we have so far. yeah we have plan review comments i won't go over with it. but they're pretty they're really minor comments on the plans. just clarification primarily it's just to remove a non bearing partition wall that was installed. and of course we do electrical and plumbing work as well to make sure that there's

permits, make sure everything's safe. and we could you know if the permit is issued we can do the work very quickly. i mean, within within a month or two. and it's a very simple task. i mean, we're talking like 1100 foot for both floors. earthquake cottage. so it's small. commissioner newman, i have a question for the department because i like with the adu stuff, isn't there adu amnesty in the city of san francisco and just kind of i'm looking at this and it's like was that is that is there a reason that was actually there's a state law that says you can request five, five year moratorium on enforcement. we didn't get that request for this. i believe it was just re extended. the owner didn't ask for the moratorium.

owner did not ask for it was they are they. yeah. were they made aware that that is a program that exists. i can't i can't comment on that. but i would be surprised if they were to be honest. okay. is there any reason to believe she would not have been eligible if she had been notified? if we get the notification that we would go out and do a site visit and verify that there's no life safety issues, just to what i've seen, we probably grant it. we lend on. yeah. yeah. so you may have been eligible for a waiver of this entire thing. yeah. i think covid-19 for denying. okay. thank you. thank you. can come up to the you can come up to the mic, ma'am. i don't i mean you're fine. i'd like to motion to with. what is it. when we agree with the appellant we

don't do this very often. no. not to deny the appeal. not to deny no to uphold the appeal. oh, sorry. no, we want we want to grant her her position. how do we do this? we don't do this very often. we agree with the appellant. and so you would grant the appeal and the order of abatement would be reversed. i would like to. yeah. based on the what's before us that if this the appellant had been notified that there was a state law to grandfather her adu in that she would have been able to do that, then i just just clarify, i think i have enough i understand i understand that she didn't and she didn't know and maybe she would have. it's speculative, but i think it should go back to the department and, and perhaps she can make that request at this time.

anyway, i think that that was that there was information that she should have been provided and so my motion to send this back to the department. sorry, can i just clarify one? yes, of course it doesn't. grandfather in the it just puts a five year moratorium. thank you. yes yes yes the moratorium i'm sorry. thank you, thank you, thank you, thank you. yeah, yeah. i don't want to give false hope. you're right. thank you. that we would have not grandfathered it in because that's kind of a but stopped enforcement and allowed five years to come into compliance. that's been extended. so just for the record so the motion is to grant the appellant's appeal and reverse the order of abatement and assessment of costs. that's correct. sorry if i stole your. oh it's fine. we have some people in the queue. are those comments so that. yeah, there are people that want to speak

but should i is there a motion, should i say call for a second first and then have people speak? or what do we do here. no, i didn't make a motion. she just made a motion. i will second that motion. okay. so there's a motion in a second. and then there are people that were in the queue to speak. now are you. no. okay. now they're not okay. is that what you both were going in the same direction. fantastic. okay, commissioner williams, so there's a motion and a second to grant the appeal and reverse the order of abatement, including the assessment of costs. do i do public public comment on this? is there any public comment on the motion? there's no public available. do a roll call. vote. president chavez. yes. vice president newman. yes. commissioner. alexander. yes. commissioner. ming. yes. commissioner shaddix. yes. and commissioner williams. yes. thank you. that motion carries unanimously. yeah. and also just sorry about that. 80 use are so

complicated. i'm sorry about the difficulty you've had there. okay. well okay. okay. next. next item. also just a suggestion. since we only have the room till 130, then we probably shouldn't take a break. yeah. keep moving. okay. so item three is case number 69372678 21st street. owner of record and appellant paul wilkinson. action requested by appellant. appellant appeals. the director's order of abatement number 202183642. a an assessment of costs issued on august 16th, 2023, following a hearing on july 18th, 2023. sonia, can i interrupt really quickly if we what happens when we hit 130? we get kicked out. that session ends. there is another commission that's coming in. if they can, they they may allow us like another few minutes, but they need time to prepare for their meeting

because their meeting starts at 2:00. so if we don't get to the rest of the cases, we just have to adjourn. we can, we can. but however, the last three cases are related. so if possible, it would be good if we can go through it, if we can, if we can get it done today. so we don't have to continue another time. and also the members are the people are here. yeah. in 22 minutes. but i yeah i, well i mean it's not up to me. that's up to you guys. let's see how much we can get through. but i also just want to preface it, i want to make sure you all have like a sufficient amount of time to make your arguments. so if we get to the time that we're going to try to figure out a way to, to get everything. yeah, okay, okay, okay. thank you. so that staff can come forward quickly. i think this is we're the last

three minutes. okay. we'll see. we'll get to that in a moment. oh, they're not here. okay. which which for which one are you? did you say one of the last three? these two right here. so i'm not sure if this person is actually in the room. is the appellant. oh, there's somebody online. yeah. okay. okay. mr. wilkinson, your hand is raised. you're on. okay. but yeah, i didn't i didn't i didn't hear that. is there a member of the public. no, no that's okay. we just wanted to make sure that you were here and represented s. yeah, actually, while i have you, can you take the oath? i can. can you do that? sure. okay. we'll do that later. okay. when you get ready to talk, go ahead. okay. you can mute yourself again. thank you. okay. confusing. go ahead. okay. thank you. following with the third aabb appeal case for today.

appeal case number 6937. the appropriate address is 2678 21st street block number 4088. lot number 021. campaign number 202183642. the property consist of a two story wood frame building in type b construction, approved for a four unit multi-family residential use in our two occupancy three years ago. dbi building inspector was deployed in response to a member of the public campaign. he revealed that existing brick foundation of the multi-family residential building has deteriorated. the first noi was issued upon final inspection complete one year ago. the owner obtained approval for a building permit to correct the violation. however, this permit remained idle without any inspection until last friday. today there are two inspection records found from the permit checking system,

but all of them were failed due to the owner failed to provide approved permit during on the job site. at the time of inspection for the past three year owner, an attempt to repair the failed existing building foundation has rendered the building unsafe to occupy. the director has. hold on. sorry. july 18th, 2023. the hearing officer decided to issue an oral abatement form with the condition 30 days to obtain permit to complete all requirements, including final inspection and pay for all code enforcement fee. staff recommendation uphold the oral abatement, including imposing assessment of costs to know and funding of dbi hearing officer decision will be safe and accurate, and i do have some updated inspection record for the permit they they issue. i just found out this morning they do have two inspection. may i have your permission to distribute this information. thank you. it's showing owner.

no physical progress, but just request inspection. not providing a permit. drawing on site so we cannot perform inspection. that's conclude my first session. i stand stand by for questions. thank you. now it's time for the appellant presentation. okay, mr. wilkinson, you're now unmuted. i'm going to state the oath. are you do you swear that the testimony you're about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? yes. i do. okay. thank you. okay. and you have seven minutes so you can go ahead and present. sure. i will try to condense. yeah. so it's. yeah, it's a long story. it's been a lot of work. i live in sweden. i've had i have made two

trips out to deal with the issu. it's always been my intention to deal with the issue when i. it was very difficult to get somebody to find, to find somebody to take the job on. when i finally got a, a contractor and an engineer to do the work, the engineer surprised me when he reported that the foundation, although it doesn't look pretty, it's actually in relatively good repair and is not a hazard. so i would like to i have a letter, a letter from the engineer to that effect. we've also done the work and have a letter from the engineer stating that he's he has inspected the work and it is the work was done as he intended. unfortunately, unfortunately the we were not able to pass inspection yesterday because for some reason the for some reason

the, the permit drawings weren't on site, but the work has been done. we are trying to finish the inspection as soon as possible. but the reason for my appeal is that the notice of violation stated that the foundation was a hazard and the engineer report states that the foundation was not a hazard. okay. does that conclude your testimony, sir? yes. thank you. okay. thank you. and now it's time for public comment. is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none staff rebuttal okay. there's no staff rebuttal. mr. wilkinson, do you have any rebuttal? oh, just just

that it's been. i'm just really hoping that the air can be removed because it's been i've been doing my best, but it's been years of expense and travel and stress. so i would love to. i would love, absolutely love to have this, this this some some closure on this issue. okay. thank you. thank you. okay. so board discussion. i have one question. do we have a copy of the engineering report? president chavez that's the letter i gave you earlier. if you want to allow them to submit it, i've got copies for all the commissioners. does the department refute anything in this letter? no, but that's the first time i saw that letter.

was last week. so. okay. if you want to just make this easy, it sounds like the work is done. you want to just put the order in abeyance for 30 days and get the final inspection. we just want compliance. we're not birx for me. and i make a motion. oh, go ahead. yeah. no. sorry. what were you going to say? let's do the motion. let's just do it. yeah. did you have a alternative? she said 60 days because of the holidays. yeah. let's do that. how do we put that in a motion. motion to put the order of abeyance and assessment of costs in abeyance for 60 days from today? yes. i motion that would. yes. to can you add to allow final inspection for the to allow final inspection. would that

mean that. yeah. not sure i think you're ready for final inspection, mr. wilkinson. just have your contractor have the plans on site and schedule the inspection. hopefully it's done properly and we'll close the permit and we can close this case. yes. super. that sounds great. thank you very much. thank you. great. thank you. okay, so that's. yes. so. so who's stating the motion? i'm stating the motion okay. so president chavez and the second, second, second vice president newman and roll call vote president chavez. yes. vice president newman. yes, commissioner. alexander. yes, commissioner. ming. yes. commissioner. shaddix. yes. and commissioner williams. yes. okay. that motion carries unanimously. okay. so are we able to call all those three cases at the same time? okay. yes. okay. so the if the board

is in agreeance, these all three these cases are related. so we would like to call all three at one time. do we have to make a motion for that or can we. do you have to make a motion or no motion. but if there's any objection to them hearing them together then and are all the appellants okay with hearing these cases together? okay. and we can allow more time if as needed and as, as we have available. okay. so i'm going to read all of the cases. the first one is c for case number 6936 28 hill point avenue. owners of record and appellant kurd baber which living trust bethany kurd and brandon baber which action request the appellant appellants appeal the director's order of abatement and assessment of costs issued on september 22nd,

2023. case number 6938336. parnassus avenue. owners of record and appellant noel carrasco and stacy lusignan. action requested by appellants. appellants appeal the director's order of abatement and assessment of costs issued on august 24th, 2023. case number 6939338 parnassus avenue, owners of record and appellant noel carrasco and stacy mckinnon. action requested by appellant appellants appeal the director's order of abatement and assessment of costs issued on august 23rd, 2023 and the staff inspector staff presentation first. thank you. so this is the last presentation for today and it will be grouping three arb appeal case together due to all

three properties are addressed to the same violation. this arb case number 69366938 and 6939 following with the appropriate address 28 hill pond avenue, block number 1275. lot number 019. complaint number 202185823. the subject property consist of a three story wood frame building in type b construction for a single family. residential use in rv occupancy. the second and third property are in the in a condo setting address number at v6 and v8 per francis avenue. block number 1275. lot number 088 and 089 respectively. complaint number i just the last four digits five, six, five, five and the other one last four digits is 85825 respectively. to

each unit. the subject property consists of a two story wood frame building in five b construction approved for two family use in r3 occupancy. the record review refunding in january 2022, dbi building inspector conducted a field investigation and confirmed that a retaining wall over four feet high has failed at the rear yard between 28 hill pond avenue and 56 to 3ft eight parentheses avenue. almost three years, has elapsed, but the violations remain outstanding in the code enforcement stage. the owner of 28 hill pond avenue has filed an over the counter permit with permit center in november 2023. however, this permit is still in the filing state, pending the owner to submit the structural plan to complete the plan, review approval. the last plan review activity was completed by

city planning one years ago, approved the owner to continue the structural plan review. however, today the owner still has not returned the return. the to continue the structural plan review. it has been almost three years since the first note was issued. the owner of this free property has remained an attempt to repair the failed retaining wall. this retaining wall has rendered the building site at risk of landsliding. the director hearing was hosted on july 18, 2023, together with all three cases, the hearing officer's decision to make issue an order of abatement with the following condition. failure to obtain permit approval and complete all required work, including final inspection, site of and compliance with the no and pay for all code enforcement fee. currently, only the property owner of 28 hill point avenue filed a permit, but but he did not follow up with the

last scene. the last pancake review last year. he should bring back the structural plan to complete the review and staff recommendation, uphold the order of abatement, including imposing assessment of costs to no funding is accurate and the determination by the hearing officer is also accurate. we can go over a little bit about the contract record from my exhibit seven. which can find from the page 13 that show city planning has approved the plan review back in last year december of today november. but the owner did not bring back the draft because this is the over-the-counter permit. the joint is not in the dbi office. so that's it for now. and i stand by for the next question in the in the next section. thank you. yeah. how does this

work when we're or is it two different owners. so are we doing the sorry just i mean clarification. well everyone will have an opportunity to speak. we're hearing the cases together, but all parties who want to speak will have an opportunity and we can allow more time if needed. since there's more people is that is that your question? it's. i mean, it could be seven minutes for each, but we're trying to condense it if possible. it should be we should we need to address we need to give the parties the time that they are allotted for address. and if we need to continue it, then we'll continue. it should make that decision. okay okay. but it seems that they want to start. so do we. can we start and then if we don't finish we continue it. is that a possibility or. yeah. yeah. please. please get

started. okay. hello. thank you for the opportunity to present my case. i would like to request that you remove the order or. i'm sorry. please state your name for the record. no. el carrasco. i currently own 2336 and 338 parnassus avenue. however, when the order of abatement for one of the properties is issued on the previous owner because the complaint was made while she was the owner, i bought the property from her. so there is a question there as well that i'd like to address. sorry. which which address? 336 3838 is in the it's the order is on kathleen dooley but i bought that property later on after the complaint was made. the reason i'm here is what i would like to respectfully request that this order of abatement is removed and the cost associated with it is passed on to 28 hill point

avenue, because the retaining wall in question is not between the two properties, it is entirely on their side. and i have a surveyor's report to support that. i have no issue with them coming through my property and look at things, and i have been open to let them in only with proper authorization, because they have trespassed a couple of times and they put a claim on us not knowing that that wall was entirely on them, on their side. here is the report. i'll pass it on if you want. i have been through two years of me explaining defending my innocence while they have been claiming their opinions as fact, i can back up that their opinions that they think they are facts are either completely delusional or fabricated. i don't know what their intentions are, but they are wrong and i should not be put through this process for three years on a

supposition that the wall is between the two properties. the city did not bother to investigate the situation. it was until after the first hearing that it was agreed that a surveyor report should be made. on the second hearing, a surveyor report was presented and it shows the wall is in their side of the property. they bought the property as is. they bought it two months before the fall. the wall failed. they should be. they own it. there's no question about it now. i'm a little upset about that. but i want to stick to the facts. the facts is not our wall. they have to fix it. it should be all on them. and if you think it is my wall, i'll be. i'll be willing to support the case. why? it's not. and this is the most this is the evidence. there is also evidence that the previous owner built these walls for his privacy. the nice side of the fence is facing their property, which means the people we bought

this property from were two elderly or retired women. they did not work in their yard at all. so this is something that is not ours. i don't even know. i know why i'm here because i asked for an appeal, but i don't know why i have to appeal this. this should be common sense to the city. i mean, i would expect them not to put people through process based on superstitions. so i ask you, please don't let anybody else go through this. we need to make a precedent. and if they don't have proof that a wallet belongs to somebody, if they don't know that the wall belongs to them, they should do their research before putting a claim before putting us through this process. so i ask you to please, please remove this order of abatement and pass the cost to them. thank you. can i just make a couple of comments? so i'm not not yet. not yet. there will be public comment. there will be. okay. is this another present? this is a presentation.

the other. okay. yeah. the owner, he wants to give. okay. we would like to submit this. okay. oh this is just for everyone to review. and we will give it back to the owner. if in order for well we would need a copy of the anything that the board considers should there should be it should be submitted on the record. can they look at it. oh you you can look at it. but we would need to the party would need to provide copies to the board. made a statement and i did. i didn't know i had to provide this. and i thought the purpose of the hearing was to provide this evidence. this is the information that was due november 13th. well, okay. nope. no problem sir. we will they'll they'll deal with that. thank you, thank you. they'll review it. thank you. okay. you can you can go ahead, sir. yes. my name is brandon beverwyck. i'm one of the owners of 28 hill point. the other property. so first off the bat, mr. carrasco likes to say

that, you know, he's not involved. so the entire purpose behind the failure of the retaining wall was work that was done in their backyard. and so regardless of who actually owns the retaining wall, there's actually a clearer inclusion of him in this event because of activities that took place in his backyard. so one of the things in not to get into things related to wall failure and things like that, we're obviously here for the order of the abatement. so the we're asking for the order of abatement to be appealed, as well as the assessment of the cost, just because in general, there has not been sufficient time provided for the complexity of this case. so they mentioned that they did a field investigation at the end of or early 2022 that was actually at our ask. so this is not something that the dbi came upon. this was actually asked for us, for them to come out and make sure that the situation was safe. and so we were actually the instigators for them to actually have this on their

radar in doing so, there has not been a lot of the sufficient time to actually rectify the issue. there is actually a ongoing both liability civil case. originally it was an insurance claim that unfortunately we had to escalate to the court. and because of that, as many of you might know, court cases are not fast things to resolve. and so for us to be able to understand the definition of the ownership, the financial responsibility and the fault associated with the failure of the retaining wall and its reconstruction, we need to have enough time for that civil case to actually play out. you know, the fact that we brought this to the dbi radar, i think is hopefully a signature that we want to rectify this through the proper means, through the permitting process. but we just need sufficient time to be able to do so. and we are not willing to sort of really quickly go through this and remove either evidence. that is

needed for our civil case by their destruction of the wall, or also just to rectify the open order of the abatement when we have a much more expensive civil case in the works. so the other thing i'd like to point out is he mentioned that he gave us a lot of access. actually, one of the reasons that i think it's really important that these cases are heard together is besides the fact that our properties are abutting and right alongside that wall is actually there's a written email included in my letter that shows that they actually restricted access and refused to provide any access to the property for going on almost a year and a half until the original director's hearing was held, at which point they finally actually provided a statement saying that we could go on the property to rectify the issue. since then, there's actually another a little more implied response to one of our emails to them that similarly points to a reluctance to participate in the

process. we have filed the initial permit. our structural engineer was had plans drawn up, but then was told that we needed a geology report and then that we would actually have to start the construction on the wall and all of those things. as i mentioned, actually start to put at risk our civil case. our counsel told us that we needed to have on site engineering inspections of the wall for additional evidence. so unfortunately, it is the state it's at of having to go through the legal means. but we are looking to hopefully complete that in short order. our court date is, i think, mid to end of february. we've already been told by contractors and engineers that no one will really touch the wall during the wet season anyway, and so the best we can hope for is reconstruction of the wall at some point in summer or fall of next year, regardless of what is decided here. so. okay. thank you, thank you sir. is there are

there any other presenters? we can't allow you to come back up, but we will make sure you get your property back. we'll make sure you get your report back. is there are there any other people presenting? last comment. go ahead on the survey. so what you'll probably see in the survey is just measurements of the mark. it does look like maybe the vast majority of the wall is on our property. the survey was not provided to us until the initial director's hearing, and surveyors, unfortunately, are also not the ones who can fully make a determination on ownership and fault. so the survey too is actually we're going to do public comment. you actually the other owner. oh, okay. you can come on up, take the oath. it's still there. still two minutes and 26 seconds left. so you can go ahead. so there's two things that i just wanted to highlight. one, that 3.38 was actually bought. yes. in the process of this. but they were already owners of 3.36. so they were very well, well well aware of the situation with this building when they chose to buy the other unit in it. i think it was

presented that they bought it and weren't aware. the other piece about the survey is we actually went into this and it's on the property line. we didn't know whose property it was and when dbi came out, we asked the question, how does this get handled? it's on the property line. all the approach of why these are tied together is because it's unclear. and yes, the other owner did say it's your property. also an opinion. we never saw any official documentation. we didn't get it from our owners that we purchased from. they didn't show that when we pushed for the insurance case, and we were actually given an initial offer from the insurance case to say that there is legal exposure from the work that was done. one of the things that we asked was, whose property is it? do you know? and that's when they initiated the survey. so it's not that the survey was done by our neighbors. this is actually something we've pushed for. they've dragged it out for six months. we found another surveyor who was willing to do it in a month. we've tried to push this along, and we haven't had a lot of cooperation from the other side. okay, you'll

have a time to rebut in a bit. okay. are there any more presenters? no. okay, so now's the time for public comment. is there any public comment? public comment are for people who are not directly involved in the case remotely. okay, now it's staff rebuttal. okay. in general, when any retaining wall fell in between property line, the department will issue a no for each independent property owner. so that's the case. and it is the owner responsibility to hire their own surveyor to this defend themselves. if the retaining wall is owned by them or not owned by them, the department usually don't involve always not involved. so i believe if they have sufficient evidence that proven the wall is

not within their own property, then they may bring the evidence to the department we may consider to dismiss that and we otherwise our normal practice will wait until the correction complete before we obey the no. for all party. that's it. thank you. okay. the first person was mr. you have three minutes for rebuttal. yes. i would like to say that this is all hearsay. they say that i did work that damaged their wall. not only they don't know that because they didn't live in the propert, they fault the wall fell two months after they purchased it until they bought it. and the fault was outstanding when they bought it. and i have pictures of that. so that's all hearsay. i'll be happy to litigate that in a civil court over here. the fact is, if we're not going to go by a surveyor report that draws the line, if we're going to start to blur the lines and they're going to start to make

superstitions of who's the owner, if it's broken, it's yours. and if it's good, it's mine. we're going to be here for a long time. and not just me. there will be many cases after us. so i ask you to please the surveyor was an independent person. we don't know him. we don't know who hired him. the insurance company. they probably. and they came to the conclusion that perhaps 90% of the wall is on their side. the 1% that is in us is because the wall fell. that's what happened. and that's just a number. i'm just an estimate. estimating that. but it was the failure of the wall. what made it crossed into our side of the property. the footing of the wall is on the side of the property. it's tilted from the top. that's why it appears along the line of the surveyor reports that a sliver of it is in my property, that wall was built by the owner of 28. he'll point out the previous owner of 28 hill point avenue, the previous owner of 28 hill point avenue, improved his yard

to get a better price on the sale of the property and stacked it with tons and tons. and i'm not exaggerating, tons of soil and planters. i have pictures of that, and i apologize for not submitting that with my statement, but it's evidence that you would like to see. now, i ask you, are we going to make the lines of the surveyors blurry? are we going to use the tip of the wall as making it belong to me, so that i have to pay for it? or we just stick to the fact that the wall fell and it fell on my property. i don't know how to argue that, but we can do that in a civil court, and i'm confident that the witness in my back so please, let's stick to the surveyors report. there is no better evidence. and please, let's look at the pictures and you'll see that the wall is tilting and has failed. and has crossed into our property because it failed. it was always in their property. thank you. your rebuttal time.

so i guess i would say a couple of things. one, first off, i think it's really imperative actually that these three cases stay together. and the reason for that is as evident by the director's hearing, there was zero participation from them to even help us rectify the issue, even permit access to the backyard to have engineers and contractors and etc. look at it without the pressure from the city. and so relieving them of the notice of violation separate from a leaving us of it, i think, would actually do a disservice to being able to rectify the issue. the other thing i would say is pointing back to, once again, the intent behind this, which is going to what is our ask for the committee, which is to appeal the abatement and the assessment of fees to provide us the time that it takes for us to actually reach a resolution. as i mentioned, we are unfortunately, in a court case, you can tell a little bit of the contentiousness because of that. apologies for that. but it takes a lot of time. the insurance to explore. actually, the liability

portion took over a year and the, you know, the surveyor who's, you know, completely impartial was actually paid for by their behalf. so i would question actually impartiality. there. but all of these steps take an inordinate amount of time. we've actually have started the efforts to address the issue by engaging engineers who then have to engage geotechnical engineers, who then have to, unfortunately, due to city policy, apparently engage geologists, all of these things to be able to rectify the situation and so my ask is basically to appeal the order, provide additional time for us to actually rectify the issue in a permitted way. we're not trying to skirt that issue, but the earliest anything can happen here is both tied to our court case, which is tentatively next spring. as well as also the window of opportunity with the weather. excuse me for next summer or fall. so thank you. one last word, can i? he's

lying. so we. you already had your rebuttal time, sir. sorry, sorry, but we can't. we can't dispute that. you can have a seat. okay, now it's time for the board to deliberate time. do we have extension of time? okay, okay. commissioner shaddix. yeah. thank you. first question for staff, mr. ng. so i just heard that you had said it's typical that if they get a survey report, they submit that to dbi. and then you guys make the determination as to which property, whose property that's on. did i hear that right? the responsibility of dispute between the responsibility for the retaining wall is upon the owner, not the dbi. so they may choose to decide to consult with the legal counsel, but we department will not involved with the dispute. right. but i thought you had mentioned if they submit a survey report showing it's not their wall, then you take the core dbi takes

the novel, goes to the owner. let me let me clarify if let's say in this situation there's a third party involved with the retaining wall. if they admit their accuracy on one side and they come to agree to dismiss this guy, then we will do that. otherwise we normally will not dismiss the no until the violation abated. so i'm still not clear. am i the only one? no. okay, so if he's submitting a survey report saying that it's not his wall, then doesn't dbi issue the nov to whomever's wall that's failing that person gets the nov. and if both parties agree? yes that's correct. there's no more dispute. let's say there's no more dispute. okay, i got it no more. so one last just comment is that we had a similar case where there was civil a civil civil court going on and i think didn't we just we

pretty much as a board or commission, we stayed it or whatever until the, the civil court was decided. i don't think our responsibility. is there civil action against one another. ours is a life safety issue that's happening here. and whatever needs to be worked out between the two groups needs to be worked out between the two groups were making a determination whether or not dbi in any way made a mistake in issuing the violation, and i haven't heard anything that leads me to believe that they've made a mistake in issuing the violation. i do have a question. has anything been done to stabilize the wall to date, like i understand that like to actually do the whole engineering and to build a new wall is a heavy lift. and when it's multiple parties involved that it takes a little bit more time. but has anything been done

to mitigate and create a safer circumstance? according to the permit record, we don't see oh, he's going to ask them. sorry, i make a comment. sorry. first your comment about life safety. so while it is retaining wall, it is the back of our our backyard and into their backyard. it's not actually directly abutting any of the houses. and so the, the, the landslide risk is actually of, you know, i don't know how many cubic yards of soil, but it is not probably there should be pictures. i think, in the dbi report to kind of show that your comment about stabilizing it. so the, the owner of 3363338 had also built some wooden structure as part of their backyard project that's actually pinning the wall right now and serving as a little bit of a support structure there. we did have our engineer take a look at it and essentially they said that, you know, to kind of not mess with it right now because to do so

would actually probably weaken it further. and so until you actually undertake the real construction to kind of leave it in its state, we have been through now, i guess, what two, two full winters, maybe even three at this point in which the progress had basically more or less been fixed in terms of the motion of the wall. and so the comment of impact to life and safety, i think, is actually mitigated more than maybe is presumed by the initial story. i would say i'm going to speak on his behalf that presumably they concur because they have various parties in their backyard abutting that yard. so i'm guessing they're not super concerned about that. is this in response to the question? to the question? yes. why? we haven't done anything in the second hearing? no, not why you haven't done anything. she was asking about mitigation, the litigatio, mitigating mitigation. mitigation. no, i haven't done

anything because the city explicitly told us that they had to submit plans. the city never told me that it was my responsibility to do anything. it was my understanding that after the second hearing, when we presented the reports, we were relieved of responsibility and they were told to submit a permit. is that not evidence? that is on them? i don't understand the city's point of view that the wall is between. they are assuming that it's between and i have an inspection, a surveyor report. you want to question the surveyor? go ahead. i, i don't see why they would do this. they have a surveyor report that proves that it's not between the two. the two properties. so the assumption of the city to put this on two of us. thank you sir. thank you. you have to just answer the questions. thank you commissioner. go ahead. board i mostly agree with commissioner newman and also commissioner sachs to a certain extent about what we do with litigation. and i with this case, it sounds like

the department's policy is when there's any wall issue notice of violations go out to both owners. somebody has to fix it. and then whenever that gets resolved in court or something, then that's when the true cost will be borne on whomever, whomever was responsible for it. i from what i've heard, that's probably what i'm inclined to continue with, especially because you have a trial date upcoming so soon. there's. i wouldn't feel comfortable deciding in a 20 minute hearing who was right about where, who, who's responsible for the retaining wall failing and who, whether the fence is or is not on the whomever's property. and you know, the report received, i mean, it's stated that that's evidence. but we, that's, you know, that's just something you put on us. we don't know if it's authentic. we don't know who created it. we don't know who

prepared it. same with the you know, if there was hearsay assertions. well, you know, what are we supposed to do with that? and that's why, you know, you have a you have a tool available to you that you're already employing, which is civil litigation. so this will be resolved either between the parties or in court in a few months. but if it's not resolved until it's but that, that doesn't absolve the parties from correcting the issue before it gets worse. and that's i think that's the staff's position. and from what i've heard today, that's probably going to be where i'm at with it. so thanks, commissioner alexander. can't take further comment, sir. thank you. i think i know the answer, but i just wanted to clarify because i didn't actually hear it and i'm sorry, i don't. i have so many papers in front of me. the owners of 28 hill point

avenue. can you just confirm that you if you agree or disagree with the that that the retaining wall is only on your property? i think it's to the point of official documents. we haven't we have never actually officially been shared. that document it only was first shown to us in the dbi hearings. okay, but do you do you agree or disagree from a surveyor? and whoever reads the survey officially about the property? he is not a surveyor or someone who reads the survey. so we don't know is our answer at this point. they don't agree. so you don't agree? you don't agree. thank you. i'm good. commissioner newman, i was just going to say i'm inclined to uphold the order. yeah. and

yeah, yeah. no, i just want to say this is complicated because of the ownership issue. but the question that we have at hand today is whether or not our notice of violation was incorrectly issued. and if there was work done to correct that, it sounds like there's a lot of other things going on. unfortunately, that's not under our jurisdiction. the determination of who's ownership of the wall is not even under our jurisdiction. so i also am inclined to uphold today, i'm going to make a motion to uphold the. since there are three orders of abatement, we should put on the record on your motion and maybe we i recommend separating them out so that it's very clear in case this does get challenged. so should we just do each individual one. yeah. so i'll first make a motion to uphold the order of abatement

and the fees. is that what we're making. assessment of costs. an assessment of costs on the case. number 6936. yes 28 hill point avenue. yes. second. so that's a motion. who and who did the second commissioner alexander. so i'll do a roll call vote on that motion. president chavez yes. vice president newman. yes. commissioner alexander. yes, commissioner. ming. yes, commissioner. shaddix. yes. and commissioner williams. yes. okay. thank you. the motion carries unanimously. okay. so i'll make a second motion now to uphold the order of abatement and assessment of costs on case number 6938 for 336. parnassus avenue. there a second, second. so there is a motion by president chavez and a second by vice president newman. i'll do a

roll call. vote president chavez. yes. vice president newman. yes. commissioner alexander. yes, commissioner. ming. yes, commissioner. shaddix. yes. and commissioner williams. yes. the motion carries unanimously. okay. third motion to uphold the order of abatement and assessment of costs for case number 6939 for 338 parnassus avenue, second. okay, so there's a motion by president chavez and a second by commissioner ming. and i will do a roll call vote on this motion. president chavez yes. vice president newman. yes. commissioner alexander. yes. commissioner. ming. yes. and commissioner shaddix. yes. and commissioner williams. yes. the motion carries unanimously. thank you. next item d general public comment. there's no public, so no public comment. general comment is if our item

not on this agenda. okay said public comment. so not not even specific to my case, but i would just like to make a public comment of essentially what all of this process has shown is that by taking initiative to bring in the department of building inspection actually can penalize you and so the for our case, it's on the backyard. dbi would have never seen anything there. so essentially this process is teaching the public to actually not engage the city. so i do think that kind of calls into question maybe the handling of these matters in the future. but like i said, not supposed to be specific to our case. i would like to thank you for that. i believe the city has been. unfairly, unfairly unbiased. i mean, they they they're supposed to be the experts. they're supposed to know how to read a surveyor report. it has taken three years. it shouldn't take that long. they're waiting for. i don't know what they're