Should happen to the fees. I dont know if we can say that. Im concerned about that. I guess you could express your desire and emotion, but its not going to be legally binding on the appeals or the department. So would we uphold the existing fee or remain silent on it . I think you have to impose the assessment of costs. Or you could reduce it, if you wanted to. We can reduce it, but we have to assign the fees. Okay. I dont think we can again, i think we can say what our desire is or we can say in Public Comment what our hope to the resolution is, but it needs to be binding. To the chair, this is throwing the baby out with the bath water, but if we reduce the fees now with the notion that were being proactive in having these others come together, well take that risk that everybody is going to come to a conclusive decision. What were interested in is getting resolution. We have the autonomy now to come out in front of it and say, heres what were going to do to help the case. Now the parties need to get together and figure it out. I dont know if that resonates. We dont do that normally because we always hang on to that kind of scenario, but i dont see any way out of this other than both parties getting together. Can i ask another question of council . To our council . Yes, of course, commissioner. So if we reduce the fees to just cover the costs of our Department Staff with our action at the Planning Commission and or i mean, i dont know who else would be able to appeal it to the board of appeals. Can somebody else add it . Im trying to say that if were losing the housing, and the Planning Department allows that, theyre going to put on their own mitigation for that, right . Correct . Im not sure i understand your question. I understand her question. I think shes asking my translator. We approve the order of abatement, and we give a 60day stay. Im making this up for the purpose of the question. We reduce the fee instead of nine times. Commissioner walker wants to know if they choose to go to the Planning Department to revert back to commercial, is there a way the landlord can be penalized. That was her question. Thank you. Were offering a bridge upfront, which we normally dont do. I think were looking for a solution, which i dont know if this body has the jurisdiction to make that call. Exactly. We dont. To try to incentivize them. From the look on your face, im thinking there is not a way to do that. Its incentivizing something. Reduce the fees . Or dont. I think we should discuss the fees. Just because other commissioners are shaking their heads. I appreciate that commissioner mccarthy is trying to incentivize and show support for this moving forward, but i do believe having the fees in place and held in abatement at this point adds to the incentive to constructively and seriously engage in resolution. I think that everything thats been said today and now is that our whole goal here is to see a swift resolution to this that creates legal, safe, artist housing wherever possible and protects it in this use, if that is possible. I think it is supported by leaving things in place, pending the resolution. Commissioner lee . My question to the City Attorney is do we revisit this in 60 days, the fees portion . Is that possible . I dont think we have a procedure for that. Once you make a decision, thats the end of it. Gotcha. You can continue it to another meeting. At least one more. Okay. Commissioner walker . The planning process reviews all of this, right . Yes. So they can take the whole so if we hold it in advance for 60 days, they file a permit, then they have to pay the fee, correct . I think they have to pay the fee to get the permit. To get the permit. To get the permit . To receive it . Or to start the application . Well collect the fees at issuance. It could be at the Planning Department. Commissioner mccarthy . Im kind of putting myself in the Property Owners shoes here. Theyve got to make some hard choices here. Im just kind of offering an olive branch here saying, please, make the right choice here, and, by the way, we have the autonomy to do that. Hes here asking for a fee reduction. I think thats good. Were doing it on that context. I dont think we can reverse that decision afterwards. I think we make a decision, as a commission, to try to incentivize. I think that was the word used. I think this is going to be resolved one way or the other, you know. I dont know who is going to prevail, but i think were here trying to say, please do the right thing and preserve this housing. By the way, well help you out with the fees, Property Owner, right now. Get this legalized. Commissioners, you could continue the matter for 60 days. If the Property Owner is saying he thinks some resolution could be reached during that time period, you could continue it for 60 days and have him come back. If the permits have not been filed at that point or theres some movement thats made that you can consider whether to reduce fees at that time. You were saying continuous 60 days. I was going to say make a decision today and revisit it. And thats a different story. Everybody just keeps accruing. The fees keep accruing. Well, if thats the compromise, thats i think we have two options on the table, trying to get to the resolution. One is we uphold the order of abatement. With a stay for 60 days. The other is we can continue this matter until our january meeting, which would be the same time period. We can see if anything has shifted. If not, we can just make it a flatout determination. The fees will continue to accrue, but that could be the incentive, possibly, for resolution. At that time, we could reduce them. So youre saying that the appellant right now can voluntarily just go ahead and do everything now, as soon as possible, before the 60 days . I think thats the message we would be sending by continuing this order and while we continue it, the order of abatement is still there. Is that correct . So if we choose to commissioner constin likes this. If we continue to the february meeting, the fees continue to accrue, correct . And the order of abatement stays in its current state by the continuan continuance . Its continuing. And we could, at that february meeting, if we do that, we could right, we could just uphold the order of abatement. Whatever the fees are, say, sorry, you had your window. Were starting with staff and department. You could do that, yes. Commissioners, do we want to postpone this until our february meeting . I move to continue this until our february meeting. Second. Theres a motion by commissioner walk tore continue the item to february meeting and commissioner constin seconds it. Vice president gillman. Yes. Commissioner lee . Before i vote, i do make the comment that i hope that the appellant understands that were extending you 60 days but sort of informally. You asked for 60. Were going to give it to you. And please do the right thing within those 60 days, even though were not vote on the issue. All right. My vote is yes. Commissioner mccarthy . Yes. Commissioner walker . Yes. Commissioner yes. The motion carries unanimously. Our next item is item e, new appeals order of abatement. The action requested by appellant, reverse order of abatement because appellant is not working and unable to fix the violations and is selling the house. Members of the board, good morning. Chief Housing Inspector. 418 persia avenue is a Single Family dwelling on two floors of occupancy. The appellant filed this application on october 2nd. The notice of violation had been subsequently issued because there was a lack of a heat source at this property. This notice of violation occurred as a result of the City Attorney task force inspection. There are three open notices of violation at this property, and the heat notice is what is before you today. However, from the time that the previous Property Owner made this appeal, the property has now changed hands. We were able to verify that. So currently you do not have jurisdiction over the new Property Owner. Were in the course of notifying, or renoticing, the notice of violation to the current owner. Weve made repeated attempts to contact the appellant, the previous Property Owner, because chapter 1a section 102. 5. 7 of the Building Code says anybody may make the appeal, and that could be the previous owner. Weve not been able to contact the previous owner. We believe he filed this appeal for the purposes of preventing an order from being placed on the property while it was for sale, and it was no doubt in escrow because the property changed hands on october 19th. We were able to determine that within the last week. It takes a couple of weeks for that to show up for us to be able to see that. The good news is the current Property Owner is making inroads into correcting these. Weve issued all the current notices of violation to the current owner as required by chapter 1a of the San FranciscoBuilding Code, and the inspector in charge has been at the site with the Property Owner and their contractor, as far as the other two items. Theres an illegal unit and an issue that deals with maintenance items throughout the building. A permit was filed by the previous Property Owner, a plumbing permit, to install a gas heating appliance. I believe the current owner is now following up with that or a new permit to be able to address putting the heat source in. So that is what would be before you today. So my recommendation is twofold. If we do have anybody to speak to on the item, and i wasnt able to determine before you began, if the Property Owner is here or a a tenant, you could continue it until they could be renotic renoticed. I would like to withhold on that unless theres anyone here to speak on the item. We also use this hearing as a mechanism to push on the new appropriate owner. Thats the other reason we were not able to take this off the agenda. We couldnt get the old property o owner to tell us whether or not they were going to withdraw. In any case, were glad its before you. We hope to push it toward the direction of getting resolution. Great. Is the previous Property Owner present . Whos named in this action . Is the current Property Owner here . Can they speak as the appellant . You can call them up here. Im going to call the current Property Owner. If they have a representative with them or counsel or someone who is assisting them. Are you the current Property Owner . [off mic] do we need to administer the oath . This is the oath of office to you. You can come to the podium. Do you swear that the testimony youre about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge . Yes. Hi. Hi. Im the new owner. Do you want to state your name . My name is jennifer we lived there for three weeks. October 19th. Im very new about everything. I take over the property. Can you speak into the mic a little bit . Thanks so much, maam. The property had a violation, and i tried to follow up and correct everything as soon as possible. I already got the permit to fix the furnace, heater, and plumbing. Yes. But i have a little bit issue with the tenant. So the tenant wont let me in the property and wont let the Housing Inspector come in. They pushing us away. They dont let us in. And the day i come over to get the key, the tenant attorney come over and say they gave me the letter that he needs 55,000 for the tenant. And i told him i dont after i bought the property, i dont have any more money. The day that i have appeared today, i didnt even have the letter, so the tenant called me. The attorney tenant called me. I thought he sent it to me. He told me that you give me the money, and i wont show up at the appeal. If you dont, then i will be show up, and you gonna have pay more. So im very i dont even know what i have to do. I tell him that i have no money, no more, after i bought the house. And he say that you have to do the refinance to get the money out, but i called the agent, but they say you cant because you just bought the property. You cannot do the refinance cashout. So i got so i dont even know what i have to do, but i followed the rule. I try to fix the property. Everything. I got permits and contractor doing the work. We try to correct everything. So please tell me what i have to do. Thank you so much. Thank you. Is there Public Comment . Hi, there. Thank you. My name is tim kelly. Im an attorney for two of the tenants at this residency. Im very glad this is happening to try to get some clarity. My tenants position is very simple. Theyve lived in a home for quite a while that has been substandard and hazardous, and repeated efforts to ask the landlord, the previous owner, to make repairs have gone largely ignor ignored. It was mentioned earlier that the landlord appealed and the thought was that was in order to close the sale. They did a similar move with my tenants in that they said they were entering into a buyout negotiation in order to keep them from filing a civil suit based on a rent board finding that they owed money and announced that the house had been sold. So ive spoken with ms. Tran. She says she was not aware of any of this. In that case, she has our deepest sympathies that she was sold sort of a lemon of a house with numerous problems. My clients position is simply they want to make sure the repairs are done swiftly and that they are clearly communicated how and when theyre going to be done. Ms. Tran mentioned that the tenants were not eager to grant access. Theyre happy to grant access. They just ask that 24 hours notice be provided, and it wasnt. I have repeatedly reached out to ms. Tran and her attorney, and i have gotten very intermittent and difficult to comprehend communication back. Her attorney has not responded to my last two emails or answered any of the questions we have, but we simply want to do whatever can be done to ensure that these repairs happen swifty and that the house is not hazardous. We are provided with basic information about when and how thats going to happen. I will quickly point out my clients are of the opinion, and strong suspicion i dont want to engage in paranoia here that the previous owner and current owner are in collaboration. While i dont have evidence to speaker on that, it was mentioned that the home was sold in october, and the mechanical permit that the new owner submitted seems to have been filed by the old owner. So i dont know if thats just a carryover or if its indication of that, but i hope we can get some clarity. Thank you so much. No, i dont have a question. Basically, i wanted to clarify that we could get our inspectors in to move this forward, essentially. I mean, were not going to take an action here necessarily anyway. Rosemary, do you have a rebuttal or anything you want to add . Is there any additional Public Comment first . Im seeing none. Rebuttal. Thank you. Theres an entry thats citing a different permit. There may have been a different permit filed by the owner. In any case, we see some movement by the Property Owner. As i said, she has met with my inspector shortly after taking over the property. Right now, the first thing we want done, obviously, is to get that heat source in the building. Then were going to be dealing with other notices of violation that, as i stated, are related to the illegal unit and the other maintenance items. There are two other notices of violation. Were reissuing the notices of violation against this Property Owner because while they could comply, we cant compel compliance unless we do that, and you would have jurisdiction over the current owner then. Great. As i said, this just changed hands. My recommendation, based on what ive heard, is to recommend at this point in time to continue the item at least to the next meeting, if you so desire, at which time the current owner will be renoticed. She has a copy of all of them, but they have not been issued to her, which is important. She did get a copy of todays hearing as well. That was delivered. So at that time, then this would be the notices of violation would be reissued to the current owner, and then we could report back on the status of what is happening with the heat source. Again, that is the only thing that has been appealed to you so far. Okay. Commissioner walker . After the notices, then, it does still need to go to another directors hearing . Is that the possible. Yes, because of the way the code is written. The way the code is written, it would have to go to another hearing, but if you would like to continue the item so that the Property Owner and the staff would report back to you, i would encourage that because that helps me. I encourage the Property Owner to continue in good faith to get the item done. Then, should we need to take further Code Enforcement action on all three items, we would do that concurrently in a parallel system. Thank you. Youre welcome. To the chair, rosemary, this is just a procedural question for you. When Properties Exchange like that and theres existing notices of violations, it doesnt appear it comes out in the Due Diligence of the buyer, correct . Theres no we dont have any kind of say when the property exchanges, oh, by the way, theres notice thank you for that question, commissioner. Properties, commercial and residential, frequently change title with open code violations. Now, a Residential Property would typically require a report of building record, which should technically indicate to the owner that there were outstanding notices of violation. However, if none of those had orders of abatement, there would not be a recorded order as in this case. None of those open cases prevent the Property Owner from selling the property to some