Violations that have been outstanding for over a year. Thank you. But i do want to ensure the board, were going to be talking, whatever the decision is here today. Our involvement is not going to end. Were going to still be involved and working at the longterm resolution of the tenant matter. Mr. Patterson thank you. I want to get both statements in and then we can make a decision. Mr. Patterson, how important is it to you that we lets say, for example, we were to offer you another continuance for x amount of time and not uphold today, how important is that to you . I want to give you your fair share at that. I think it is important because i want to commend you for coming back with a good step forward, and i want to keep that spirit going. Maybe you could explain to us why it is so important that we dont uphold today and give us reasons as to why we might consider that. Thank you, commissioner. I guess there are really two reasons. One is the issue of fines and penalties that may accrue during this time when we cant move forward. And the other is financing for construction. So to actually do the work, my understanding is that if it is held in abeyance, it doesnt get filed until the deadline. So we make the order now. We hold it, allowing you to do the work and resolve it, in which case it is not filed. Right. And the fees is an issue. And it is one that i brought up. Right. The fees are certainly an issue. And even if it is not recorded on title, i would think there still needs to be disclosed to lenders there is an order of abatement. And the fees would be fairly nominal and terms i could have to ask the staff what daily possibilities wil which would be accruing when we cant move forward. It is wrong to penalize someone when they cant move forward. I appreciate the idea of a continuance that gives us time to try to work this out. It would be better than upholding an order of abatement, even if it is held in abeyance, which is better than recording on title. Thank you. Just for the record, the timeframe of continuance from your side would be . How quickly can we get a resolution . Were standing here, and we have an offer that weve made, and ms. Lang didnt like that unit. And maybe a cabinet can be added and that solves the storage concern, if that unit is still available. I request two months. I think that would give us enough time to really make a good effort at it. If that unit is no longer available, well look for other units. One month is tight, but wed appreciate anything you can do. Commissioner walker . We gave you a month. Im just saying that part of what the continuance was last month was to allow time to do a resolution. And so the thing is that i would uphold this anyway because my understanding i mean, maybe our attorney can tell me to answer that question of when we hold an abeyance, does it still exist and we have to disclose and all of that. I cant answer that. But maybe we can get a my understanding is that the abeyance period, the department wouldnt record it until the period ends. It wouldnt show up in, like, a title search. But i cant say whether or not they would have a duty under real estate law to have to disclose that to a lender. Okay. The issue for me is that im serious, you know . Thats the deal. So thats why i would make the motion to uphold the order of abatement and allow a timeframe to actually create the resolution that is shorter than i guess as long as the permits were filed to do the work, that included some sort of resolution, we wouldnt need necessarily 18 months, but a period of time. And, really, while the resolution is going on, not do penalties and fees. Okay. And im not specific im talking about it, so i think there are some details to work out in there. So, fellow commissioners, are are there any further comments to this discussion . I have a question sort of offtopic about the stairs. I would like to have somebody go out there with a trained eye structurally, and i dont know if that means somebody from d. P. I. Can go out, or if the owner has to hire a Structural Engineer and vouch for them. Depending on which way we vote today, does that prevent us from doing that . Or can we do that regardless of whether we uphold the order or not . Because of the imminent danger thing . Thank you. I would like to the stairs are important, if you have firefighters coming down the stairs carrying somebody, we want to make sure theyre very solid. Im very concerned about these stairs. So can we have someone look at that, and does that change what we decide today . Well, if i can please, go ahead. There are two legal terms that we work with in our department. There is a life safety hazard and a serious and imminent hazard, and those are different. Any time we see a violation on the stairs that emergency crews have to use for a second means of egress, that is automatically a life safety hazard. When i see that propped up like that, im scared. I dont hike that. Im not willing to go as far as say that it is a series imminent hazard because there are other implications, like evacuating the building. It is a life safety hazard, and it is not a serious i imminent hazard. It is serious violation. And it has also been cited by the City Association they are aware of it. We can have other people take a look at it, as much as you would like, but it has been cited, and theyre going to have it signed off with engineers and engineers looking at those plans before the item can be abated. As a followup, we could include in the motion that all life safety issues are resolved in the interim to the satisfaction of d. B. I. Correct. Any other points of discussion . Okay. Is there a motion . So i move to uphold the order of abatement and hold in abeyance for six months, during which time any life safety issues are resolved while the tenant is in the building. And that fees and penalties are halted hence forward suspended . Suspended, hence forward. The City Attorney . Hi. Can we get clarification from the department what fees would be accruing in that time period . Okay,. What is at issue is the assessment of cost, not penalties. I think there is a monthly monitoring fee 5 a month50 a month. What are the costs that have accrued to date . About 3,000. So in the scope of this project, that is quite nominal. Okay. And do we have the capacity to not have these inadequate fixes, like a blowing tarp that would be a life safety issue if there are leaks or anything that is i mean, i dont know how we describe that, but. Well, if in the course of this month trial period, that was the best they came up with, i would like to be sure that anything that are Health Safety issues are not treated quite so lightly and inadequately. You mean all of them are life its a problem. Theyve been living, you know, with mold and whatnot, and it isnt healthy. So there just needs to be a resolution. [inaudible question] as opposed to what, three months . I dont care about time. Im just trying to whats wrong with saying just to have all of the violations corrected . Well, there is some window stuff that is probably more in the bigger picture. So certainly the leaks i mean, like i said, they have a solution they submitted that is way more than what deals with our violations. So thats not in our purview to determine what happens there. But we do have someone living there in the interim that is affected by what were doing, one way or the other. So im trying to do a resolution that allows for time to do a resolution and remedy the immediate life safety issues, including stairs and leaking and allow time. And whether it is three months or six months, you guys i dont care, but my motion is that, that we collect the current fees and the rest is nominal at this point, so. But we hold in abeyance for a period of time to allow this to mediate, hopefully. Mr. Sandimasu, are we giving you enough direction and clarity as to how we can eliminate yes. Maybe our attorneys are better to ask that question. Upon the order of abatement, hold in abeyance for six months, assess fees uphold the assessment uphold the Current Assessment of fees assessment of costs. And costs and. They dont need to add anything else. As an aside, i would like to have an update on this at some point from everybody, to see if would you like to state a basis for the motion . Thats presented. The facts presented do support that there were violations, and all of those facts are part of what was given to us. And the order was properly issued. Intraorder was properly issued. That motion, i would like to second. Again, i think we all have great concern for the family that is living here. We have people with disabilities, seniors and a child, all of which cause us great concern. And to the extent that our goal is to enhance the quality of life for all residents for as long as theyre there, and, hopefully, provide the greatest incentive to equitable and speedy resolution that is satisfactory to all parties, i feel this resolution is appropriately seconded. We have a motion and a second. Ill do a roll call vote. [roll call vote] the motion carries unanimously. Our next item is item e, case number 6869. Mariah mullcha, action requested by appellate, additional time due to bankruptcy. The staff would like to come forward . Good morning, all. Mim the chief building inspector for Code Enforcement. I understand in 2018, a complaint was filed with this Department Regarding windows that do not open, no secondary exit, outlets do not work. An inspector was assigned to the case and performed a property Profile Search and found this to be a mixeduse building, two stories, commercial and residential. On october 4th, inspector mulcha obtained inspection for the property, and a complete remodel with a full kitchen and bathroom, without the benefit of a Building Permit or planning approval. In 2019, a final warning letter was issued, and the case was referred to Code Enforcement, and inspector mulcha found that the owner did not comply with the notice of violation. February 8, 2019, Code Enforcement prepared the case for a directors hearing on march 5th, 2019. On march 5th, 2019, a notice of abatement was issued and pointing out that the owner did fail to attend the hearing. A conclusion based on the facts submitted, Code Enforcement believed that the order of abatement was totally given, so they want to uphold the order and impose the assessment costs. I want to point out this is the second time this property has been in violation for the exact same conditions. Back in 2000, the second floor was actually converted to a residential use, which there was a notice issued in september 2001a permit that they had to file for for the changes on the second floor. This is another complaint for the first floor now being converted to residential. So did the top unit go through yeah. The top floor got a certifcate of final completion. This is pictures of the kitchen. Thats the first floor . Yes, thats the first floor. Have they been guided to do an a. D. U. Process . Yes. The owner actually came in and filed an application, but it was just an application, and they never did anything with the application. Got it. As you can see, for the log on the complaint, the tracking system, this case is almost a year old. So they were given enough time to go through the planning process, and if we did give enough time for the owner to comply. The second floor was converted into residential yes. After the notice of violation correct. The notice of violation in 2001. Is it the same owner . No. There is a new owner now. Is it Owner Occupied upstairs . No. Its all rental . There are two tenants at the property. Okay. P th would the appellate like to come forward. Thats a drag. The appellate is not here. Any Public Comment for this item . Okay. Seeing none i would move to uphold second. Based on the order was correctly written, and it is in violation. Assess all fines and penalties. Is that motion okay . Yes. Did you say uphold the assessment process as well . Yes. All fines and penalties. Hes learned quicker than me. Im trying hard. [laughter] there is a first and a second for this motion. Ill do a roll call vote. Ill second. [roll call] the motion carries unanimously. Item f, general Public Comment. Is there any general Public Comment for items not on the appeals board agenda . Seeing none, motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor. Yea. We are now adjourned. It is 10 26 a. M. , and well take a fiveminute or 10minute recess and reconvene at the building good morning. Welcome to the november 20th, 2019 meeting. I start off congratulating the staff attending the community event. The director and d. B. I. Staff provided detailed information on programs including seismic retrofits, a. D. U. S accessible business entrance as well as responding to questions about building safety. Also thanks to the director for hosting the departments annual allstaff meeting october 31st, where commissioner walker and i attended. We provided a view of the d. B. I. Programs and the accomplishments of the hardworking staff. It includes the update on the new permit center now under construction at 49 south vanness which we will have more update on that and impressive numbers of inspections the past year. The commission joins director in thanking and applauding the d. B. I. Staff recognized for many years of professional service to customers and to the city and county. Throw employees have over 30 Years Service including director hughie and Deputy Director sweeney. Another four are celebrating 25 years and seven are celebrating 15 years of city and d. B. I. Service. The department and city benefit tremendously from the highly skilled and experienced employees. The commission joins the director in thanking you for the outstanding performances. The d. B. I. Employee Recognition Committee received nine nominations for employee of the quarter, three that includes july, august and sept. We selected Senior Inspector paul ortiz for his outstanding performance. Thank you to one of the citys newest building also. If i may, commissioner lee, who is going to do the certificate . No, we dont have it . Yes, i have it. If we could do the presentation and take photographs, that would be great. Thank you. Police say a few words. I am the senior electrical inspector for San Francisco. It was a real pleasure to serve the city. I have been with the city for about 24 years and i have gotten great training and leadership and it was a real benefit to learn from all of the experience that was here when i first started here. My road has sent me to see a lot of things that occur in the city, and i have been blessed to be able to now have the souper supervisor staff. I want to commend our leadership because they see what we need practically, logically in the field, and that is pretty much how we are able to assist the public with leadership that understands the complexities of every day enforcement. I would like to say that i have to take my hat off to our hiring people because they have hired some really capable and qualified electrical workers to become electrical inspectors. I see a very Bright Future for the division, not just because of qualified staff but because of the leadership. Thank you very much for the recognition. What we do comes from the heart. That is why we do well. Thank you very much. [applause] madam secretary, that concludes my announcements. Any Public Comment on the announcements . Item 3. General Public Comment. We will take Public Comment on the matters not part of this agenda. The time is seven minutes. I would like to talk to seven but i think you only get three. I am working on it. The average is four. I wont exceed it. I am jerry donal. I am about the revocation of the Building Permits at 3426 22nd street. I learned that d. B. I. Revoked the Building Permits for 40 projects over the last few years, and half of the projects had them revoked by the board of appeals or Planning Department. This means the 22nd Street Project is one of about 20 projects where d. B. I. Revoked all of the Building Permits. Issuance of the permit letter caused me to improperly conclude the owner of 3426 did something wrong. The violations were minor. The top portion of the spreadsheet summaries the 13 violations, more than half are questions whether something was disclosed in the architectural plans. My analysis caused me to send a memo requesting all of the permits for 25 17th avenue across the street from our house be revoked. Yoyou have a copy of the memo. The bottom portion show serious violations that occurred at that address. 2,517th avenue is illegally occupying two lots for two years and 10 months. This is justification for revocation of permits. Other violations include removing a three story bay without permit, jacking up four story house without shoring permit and submitting false architectural plans. Violations at 2517th heavy exceeded the permit revocation standards applied to 3426 22nd street. I will keep you appraised of the response to my permit revocation request. I used the tracking system to prepare the memo and observed only two complaints in the pts system for 17th avenue, but there are 11 in the Planning Department excel system. There is a lot of nonsense going on at d. B. I. , and it isbics responsibility to put an end to it. You have two very different projects before you. Please review each project in detail and evaluate if d. B. I. s actions were correct. A public discussion of d. B. I. s handling of the two projects would be a good first step in addressing d. B. I. s credibility problem. Thank you very much for the time. Any additional Public Comment . Seeing none, item 4, commissioners question. 4a increase the staff. Commissioners may make inquiries to staff regarding the policies and practices and procedures of interest to the commission. Commissioner walker. To the point of the Public Comment just presented, i do think consistency i