the n.o.v. was for the walkway. the walkway also joins a deck off the rear garage, a detached garage. they come off the living level. because there is like a five-foot difference between ground level and living level. then subsequently after that n.o.v., a letter of determination was also launched in parallel. the n.o.v. was abated multiple times. you can see that online. each time re-opened and we ended up in a director's hearing on the n.o.v. at the -- during this interim time, as well as at that director's hearing, it became apparent with statements made by our neighbors that the walkway was one component but there was the back deck issue that may or may not come up. sort of the not yet was the responses to a question from the director in the director's hearing as to whether or not that deck was an issue as well. and that just -- during this time, it became clear to us that we have to get this whole thing sort of cleaned up and done. we just wanted to move on with our life. on the letter of determination, as foll

the difference between this and n.o.v. as we are not making clear requirements of what you have to do. we are saying you need to proactively improve the situation. but eventually, if they continue to be ignored to, it would go to the city attorney. the difference is now, if it does go through a court case, they would still have to create -- builds the fire and sprinkler and implement the fire alarm. it would not just be monetary but they would have to be -- they could be required in that situation distill implement it. >> i asked that question because i would hate to think that a negligent property owner would be ignoring this and not doing anything. and then there is no teeth behind the order. for example, i will order abatement process. >> it is appealed to us as an order of abatement. it is like a notice. >> ok. i have a follow-up question. what about the other outstanding n.o.v. that lead to the order? >> they will also have to be abated. you still have to deal with those as well. you still have to address whatever issu

the building. so, we kind of got an n.o.v. on our day the very first day of ownership on a case that had been open for over a year at that point. during that year, previous ownership, a deal was made with d.b.i. that no permits would be pulled on the building until the electrical upgrade was complete. currently in the building we have nine units that are off-line plus the commercial space as we've kept with that same standard, not pulled any permits on the building and not done any work pending the completion of this electric upgrade. so, we do have off-line housing and we're incutinger about a $30,000 a month revenue loss until this electric upgrade is xlaoe. as soon as we purchase the building, june 28, we quickly mobilize to work with pg&e and our electric contractors to get electric upgrade done and i'll give an explanation of our progress. >> great. >> good morning. i'm a project management consultant specializing in pg&e upgrades. we do about 30 or 40 electrical jobs a year. we have a good relationship with pg&e. we took

if the penalty on the n.o.v. was consistent with the building code requirement, a very basic compliance audit. one of my complaints was referred to the city attorney, and the second complaint, 655 alvarado was closed. when i sent an e-mail inquiring on the status of 655 alvarado, the response i received, and this is a quote, appropriate action was taken and the whistle blower program now considers your complaint closed. the answer is incompetent consistent with the mission of the city services auditor, which is to promote transparency and accountability in city government. not satisfied with the answer, i exchanged four sunshine request e-mails with the city services audit i don't remember, i have my last -- auditor. you have my last two e-mails and the response, when you read the e-mails, you will find several administrative weaknesses in the administration of the whistle blower. i recommend cgoboc retain an outside firm to conduct a complete review of the san francisco whistle blower program. i will review a few

if the penalty on the n.o.v. was consistent with the building code requirement, a very basic compliance audit. one of my complaints was referred to the city attorney,

the n.o.v. gave two paths. revert back to what was there before, that addresses the violation or legalize it. they sought to legalize it. they will continue and have that illegal condition until the board continues this to the call of the chair. i would prefer to have the matter resolved and then if there could be discussions between the appellant and the city about how to resolve it. it doesn't for close if the board up holds the denial. it doesn't -- >> so your view would be denial of the appeal would give yourself, mr. duffy and other departments the teeth to get this project back in order more immediately than kicking the can further down the road. >> it gives certainty to all parties. >> ok. >> was that your point of view too. why we should just take action? >> yeah. >> i think i would lean towards commissioner lazarus point of view. >> would you like to make a motion. >> i move to deny the a we'll ap and hold the decision of the planning department on the basis that it was the appropriate decision. >> we h

who issues the n.o.v. >> look. i'm just getting in the weeds here now. i'm just -- i know people who bought homes who were told that they could park their cars there. right? and it's probably -- you know, how do we notify those people that are misinformed and so on and the code says you're not allowed to and so on. so things like that. i just wanted to know what's in here to kind of put -- >> ok. >> as a mechanism to -- for -- i don't have a slurry of people coming down to the front counter and said we were told this is four-car parking and we bought this house. >> i can understand. i can go back to the aide and ask if she could be prepared to come back next month. >> i know planning would have it in their quoed as a single family house, as one car parking. >> right. >> commissioner? >> i think this proposed legislation is for the department to enforce whether or not a front yard has been paved over. we're not here to enforce how they use the front lot. right? >> it's planning. >> that's what it is. so, the evidence of concrete on the -- in the front tha

the board of appeals. we are now moving onto item number seven. this is appeal number 18-092, mel lee versus building department with planning commission disapproval. to comply with n.o.v. 201786481 proposing to legalize the prior removal of 17 residential care units within a residential care facility, including nine for conversion to two dwelling units, four for conversion to larger space and for four conversion into larger care space. we will hear from the appellants. >> and prior to starting, i will disclose that we did a noticed duly noticed site visit, along with my director, along with representatives from the planning and the building department, inspector -- senior inspector joe duffy, zoning administrator scott sanchez, accompanying with the attorneys for the permit holder as well as the property sponsor and their manager. >> okay and just for clarity for the record, it was just commissioner honda. the other commissioners did not attend the site visit, so we will now hear from the appellant. >> hi. good evening, president fung, and the respectful members of the review board, my name is teresa wong and i'm the owner and administrator of the avenue and assisted

. >> to answer commissioner lee's question, the 2015 permit number 201509096439, the cope of work is to comply with n.o.v. 3109999 and rear building and 201211144171 for reconstruction of the rear building. replace all rot in stud walls. second floor framing with new members. they're trying to cover that work that had been done by the contractor. >> okay. any other questions? >> thank you. >> nice package, by the way. >> rebuttal? >> this is example of why we want pre-inspections. >> rebuttal by the department, please. >> we'll have to do public comment first. any public comment on this item? seeing none, department rebuttal? >> the issue with this case is it's been sitting there since 2010. there's also an abatement and appeals decision in 2012 to shore the building up. and so this is a good example of serial permitting where they get these permits and that permit, there was a revision to that permit in the same year. revision to clarify and structure information, removal of deteriorated roof, second-floor framing, stud walls, and replace them per approval. and that is the permit that never got routed t

the whole process started rolling. now it has been kind of -- now if it turns out that this n.o.v. as been trying to make the windows fire safe, it's penalizing him in some way and punitively punish him it sets a bad precedent for anyone else who wants to take action. as a landlord they'll make their own business decision but as a tenant living in such properties, i'm sure i would be a tenant in san francisco for a long time. and in general, tenants should probably see if the landlord starts taking those options based on precedent, i as a tenant will put in unsafe position and i would please like you to consider that. i know you probably already have taught through all that but it just came to me mind and i wanted to bring it up. we have, i think we already mentioned this whole process. even when the structural analysis was being done there were holes all over our house. i request you to please support the permit and allow us to make it fire safe and bring it up to intent as needed. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? commissioners, this matter is

and they are protesting the issuance on march 28th 2018 to the alteration permit to comply with n.o.v. and change a legal window to one legal window with fire resistant rating and a one hour rating. this is application 201803153781. on june 6, 2018, they voted for-1. they wanted to continue to monitor and revise the structural and architectural plans to meet all the requirements. with the accurate sport scope of work to be determined by d.b.i. on july 18th, 2018, the board voted 5-0 to continue this matter to allow time for for the party to submit additional briefing to explain how the plans can -- work. and how they are exempt from the cdc. per the president, we will hear from the permit holder first. >> good evening. >> i'm sorry. you have three minutes. >> replacing framing and changing size or location. there is no change of size or location. the windows will remain unoperable and it is fully compliant with ab009. notwithstanding the presence of these windows, when the complainants acquired the a joining property, they are appealing the permits on a few merit less grounds. i will