Now, the property at 1215, 29th avenue is developed a Single Family home. Its quite long and dense and it only provide an overview and be available for any questions. The first enforcement action regarding units on this property was a d. B. I. Complaint from the ground floor in 1999. That enforcement process moved slowly. There were other compliments filed over several years. The Property Owner filed a new Building Permit in 2014, nine years later to remove the unit. That permit was issued but never completed. Theres no evidence or documentation that the two illegal units were actually removed. Planning Department Engagement began in 2018 when the complaint was filed. The department obtained documents from 2011 and 2014 that clearly described two illegal units out ground floor, which at that time that the Property Owner did not dispute they were working with d. B. I. To remove those illegal units. In 30day notice for owner movein in 2018, the landlord stated she was occupying in illegal unit in the garage since february 2018. The department requested to conduct a site visit at the subject property. But the Property Owner declined. The original notices were mailed but not received about the Property Owner because the Tax Assessor Office listed the wrong address. That was because the deed listed an incorrect address for the Property Owner. The department relies on the tax assessors information for all notices. Once that issue was identified and corrected and updated notice of violation was issued in in 2. The Property Owner requested zoning administrative hearing. The Property Owner denies the existence of the two illegal units and declined a site visit. After that hearing, i paused release of the final determination because the Property Owner and tenants were involved in litigation in California Supreme Court that may provide additional documentation to the enforcement case. The judgment supporting documents were released on february 4th of this year. The jury did find in favor of the tenants of damages 270,000. The case documents included testimony from the landlord confirming the property contained two illegal units. Given the abundance of documentation, the landlords testimony under oath, the denial to allow a site visit and other documentation, it was issued on march 2nd of this year. Just quickly, there was reference to the landlord and Property Owner being told that there was moratorium on the enforcement of illegal units. That was not anything that was communicated from the Planning Department. Im not aware any moratorium of any department on the enforcement of the illegal units. We are complaint driven enforcement body. If there are illegal units or unauthorized units, we do move forward ton that enforcement action. It is maybe point out that, the requirement to legalize these units instead of automatically just remove them was adopted and took effect in 2016. That is something that has changed and since 1999 when this enforcement issue began. Again, im not aware of any official or unofficial moratorium on the enforcement of illegal dwelling units in the city. With that, i will conclude for now. Again, im more than happy to answer any questions you may have. We have a question from president lazarus and Vice President honda. President lazarus i think that you mentioned there was a permit issued in 2005 that was not expired and Nothing Happened until 2014. Would the department not be tracking that, therefore allowing that situation to stay as it was for nine years . Am i missing something . Im happy to respond. That time period from 1999 to 2018 all the enforcement process was through d. B. I. There was kind of contact between d. B. I. , especially the Housing Inspection Division and Property Owner. I cant provide all of the conversations and actions that were occurring between 2005 and 2014. There was additional action during a time that did eventually result in appropriate the Property Owner filing a permit. That permit was issued but never [indiscernible] president lazarus thank you. Vice president honda i havent seen you in a while Zoning Administrator. Look like you lost some weight. That was my question. [laughter] have a good one. Good to see you. Thank you. We will now move on to Public Comment. Is there anyone here to provide Public Comment on this item. Please raise your hand. I dont see we do have somebody. Someone name mark. I will move into the panelist room. You will be seen on video. Can you please spotlight mark . Are you there . Yes, can you hear me . Yes, we can. Please go ahead. My name is mark. I was the attorney in the lawsuit with mr. Chongs office. I represented the tenant, disgruntled tenant that ended upbore veiling. Im here if anyone has any question about what the testimony was. Ms. West filed a public declaration attesting that there were two illegal units there. I only say that because i read somewhere where she claimed those were day rooms that she just use on her own. There were tenants that actually testified at trial that had rented those spaces. Im just available if there are any questions. Thank you. I did want to check in, mr. Duffy want to say anything about this matter . Are you there . Yes, im here. Welcome, i pole i apologize i missed you. Im available for questions. There are some d. B. I. Issues. If commissioners have any questions for me, i do have some d. B. I. Records with the violation and some Code Enforcement action and im available if anyone want to ask any questions. Thank you mr. Duffy. We have a question from president lazarus. President lazarus just to follow up on my question. Was there series of actions or activities between 2005 and i guess 2014 and even subsequent to that . The case with 1999 d. B. I. , there was a notice of violation. There was a case that went through Code Enforcement. It was dealt by inspection service. We had action from the building Inspection Division and ultimately wind to Code Enforcement there was order of abatement on the property im looking at over the years. It was referred at one time to city attorneys office. Doesnt look like they took it up. I concur with the voting permit. Theres no inspection history. The permit got renewed in 2014 to take up that work again. No inspection history on that either. There are notes that the Property Owner did meet with our housing inspection regarding how to comply with the building violation. I did see notes from 2014. Did give them advice on what needs to happen. There are still active complaints from the d. B. I. And planning as well. President lazarus thank you. Thank you. We will now move on to rebuttal. Mr. Chong. I believe there was another person who will speak. You have three minutes. This is norman chong again. Were not disputing the history of the permit history because its part of the history. Its what it is. We are contesting the characterization of christy west testimony. My understanding was that the unit was at that time not occupied by any tenant. The testimony at that time was reflected the use at that time. Were not denying in the past it have been rented out. It has. The upstairs tenant, the lawsuit involving up stair tenants is currently on appeal. We dispute. Thats another story. I dont want to waste time talking about the feedback on that trial. The bottom line is that we are attempting to comply now. There was a misunderstanding related to whether or not christie west, there was a requirement that she move the units for that time period between 2005 and 2019 when she got the notice from the Planning Department. The Building Department and Housing Division [indiscernible]. Christie west still under the impression that the moratorium still existed. What im saying, were trying to comply now. Wwe will try to get this application in. Were trying to comply regardless whether or not the appeal stays or the decision is sustained. Were pleading with the department or board of appeals on financial grounds. [indiscernible] she may not able to file the permit if she has to pay the fees first. The goal here to so get compliant. Were trying to do that. In order to do that we need some indulgence. If the decision reversed, it doesnt mean it cant be brought again. We do intend to continue with the permit process. [audio breaking] [indiscernible] im working at the property. There has whole series of complaints on this property. This owner has taken care of. At this point, were looking at huge penalties. Well hear from mr. Teague. You have three minutes. I have a question. Vice president honda i have question for counsel. Your cliented this in 19 purchased this in 1982. Has been renting out illegally since 99. Shes benefited from 16 to 17 years minimum of illegal rent. Plus more than likely since her purchase in 1982, she was probably doing the same as well. Thats not true. We have a question. Thats absolutely not true. Excuse me, ms. West. You need to wait for Vice President hondas question. Vice president honda youre asking for leniency, you have been illegally renting this unit for 21 years now and collecting rent. Why should we indulge that . Ill start off. As far as the rental history for the property, that is the question that answered by christie. I dont have knowledge of that. Basic reason is that, the money that have collected in the past gone to maintain the property. Its not gone to build new houses or anything else. The current status of the situation is that it would be punitive in nature to Vice President honda okay, thank you. Mr. Teague. You have three minutes in rebuttal. Thank you. Just provide little bit of information. Whenever theres an enforcement issue relative to unauthorized dwelling unit, theres a requirement that space and that unit has been used in the past as a separate and independent living area. If its not currently being used that way, thats not relevant to the determination of whether or not it is an unauthorized unit. It needs to be either legalized or removed conditional use authorization. Regarding fees and i want to clarify, the only amount of fees that are due to the Planning Department from the Property Owner for the fees for time and material, cover the cost of the enforcement cosenforcement proc. Thats 5000. The penaltyings up to 250 a day. Theres a lot of due process in our enforcement procedures. As was mentioned, specifically states, that the Enforcement Program is meant to bring about abatement and not punitive. We have not assessed any penalties on this violation. Moving forward, if the violation is upheld and the Property Owner does not take the appropriate actions and continue with good faith action to abate the violation, then, of course, penalties could accrue. To that point, i would like to clarify that this was issued prior to the shelterinplace order in the city. Weve always been very open working with Property Owner on abatement. Were working with Property Owners now under the Current Situation with the pandemic and the continued shelterinplace. It is a balance obviously this is an issue thats been going on for some time. We do to make sure theres good faith effort. We are working everyday, Enforcement Programs, to acknowledge and work with people on enforcement issues and the real constraints they maybe facing now due to the pandemic. My house was inspected by the city. Please, theres no speaking at this time. Are you finished mr. Teague . Yes, thank you. Mr. Duffy, did you want to add anything . No, im fine. Thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted and as a reminder, the standard of review is used for discretion. That was my next question. Commissioners . Im not persuaded to that level. I will concur with that. Commissioner swig i would concur. The concern theres been multiple violations that have gone unabated for many years at this point. I dont think there was an error in abuse on the part of the department. Anybody care to make a motion. Commissioner swig . Commissioner swig i would agree. Vice president , you want to make the motion . Vice president honda ill make that motion to the deny the appeal on the basis that there was no error abuse. Sorry, theres no questions at this time counselor. Okay. We have a motion from Vice President honda to deny the appeal and uphold the n. O. V. That the Zoning Administrator did not error, abuse or discussion and it was issued. [roll call vote] that motion carries 40. The appeal is denied. That concludes actually, we do have item number 4, the requester contacted us and is having internet problems. He requested that we continue that item number 4 to next week. I want to confirm if that would be okay with the Zoning Administrator as well. I dont have any problems. We do need a motion and a vote to move that item . Whats our schedule look like next week . We have some cases. Ill make that motion. Should be fine. Okay. We have a motion from Vice President honda to move this item. Item number 4, rehearing request. To move it to august 19th on that motion. [roll call vote] any Public Comment on this item . Thank you. My apologies. Any Public Comment on this item. Please raise your hand. I dont see any Public Comment. We commissioner santacana saying yes, president lazarus. Commissioner swig . Yeah. In motion carries 40. This item is moved to august 19th. That concludes the hearing. Thank you. Good evening. Welcome to the august 12 meeting of the Police Commission. Please call the roll. [roll call] i a quorum. Chief William Scott is here and chief of staff is here with us tonight. Thank you very much. For members of the public who wish to make a comment on any of the items on the agenda the phone number is 408 4189388 access 146 1876545. The board of supervisors meeting is still happening right now. This is viewable on sfgovtv. Org. For anyone who would like to watch it live, it is streamed on that website. Members of the public please mute any devices. Sergeant junk blood. This meeting is televised by sfgovtv. Please dial the number on the screen and enter the access code on the screen. One more housekeeping item. Members of the public and presenters there are three different English Proficiency reports tonight. After the sfpd report i will ask sarah from d. P. A. To start so they can be heard together. When members of the public are able to comment they will have her presentation. Please call the first line item. 1. Adoption of minutes. The meetings of july 1, 8, 15 of 2020. Motion . Motion. Second. Please call the roll for the vote. We need to make Public Comment. Members of the public to make Public Comment online item one for adoption of Minutes Press star 3 to raise your hand. We have one caller. You have two minutes. This is mimi clausener. I have asked you to separate the chiefs report, dph directors report and commissioners reports. You refused to do so. The sunshine ordinance restricts combining of discussion or action items independent from each other and must allow public testimony on each item for discussion or action. Specifically, section 67point 7a agenda requirements regular meeting said at least 72 hours before the regular meeting policy body shall post agenda containing meaningful description of each item of business to be transacted or discussed at the meeting. The statement is for discussion only. A policy body shall post the agenda on the internet site 72 hours before the regular meeting. Since it has been several months i have to conclude you are discouraging meaningful Public Comment. I ask you what is so threatening about hearing from the people you are supposed to be representing . Can everybody mute themselves . Thank you. This is to note briefly. This is something the previous commissions looked into and specifically made a decision about. This commission is waiting on advice on this specific issue as well. Any more callers . No, that is it. Next line item. On the motion for the adoption of minutes. Commissioner da jesus. Yes. Hama stocky. Yes. Elias. Yes. Brookter. Question. Taylor. Yes. The motion passes. Next line item. Consent calendar. Request for approval to accept donation of 244 backpacks from the park quell foundation to be distributed to communitybased organizations b magic and mo magic valued at 2,440. D. P. A. Document protocol Quarterly Report. Are we just voting on this. We are just voting. Do i have a motion. So moved. Second. Any Public Comment . Members of the public that would like to have Public Comment online item 2, consent calendar hit star 3 now to raise your hand. There is no Public Comm