Commissioner williams here. And commissioner summer is expected, and we have a quorum. Um, next, we will have our land acknowledgment. Morning the abatement appeals board acknowledges that we are in the unceded ancestral homeland of the ramaytush, who are the original inhabitants of the San Francisco peninsula. As the indigenous stewards of this land, and in accordance with their traditions, the Ramaytush Ohlone have never ceded, lost nor forgotten their responsibilities as as the caretakers of this place, as well as for all peoples, peoples who reside in their traditional territory. As guest, we recognize that we benefit from living and working on their traditional homeland. We wish to pay our respects by acknowledging their the ancestors, elders and relatives of the Ramaytush Ohlone community and by affirming their sovereign rights as first peoples. Okay, thank you. Um next, for any members of the public that are listening in the Public Comment, call in number. Is 415 6550001 and the access code. Is 26644644212. And the Webex Webinar password is 011724. And to raise your hand for Public Comment on a specific agenda item, press star three. When prompted by the meeting moderator. Okay. Um, next on our agenda is item b, uh, remote Public Comment, discussion and possible action discussion and possible action to follow the board of supervisors remote Public Comment policy that eliminates remote Public Comment except when necessary, to enable the participation of people with disabilities. Um, first, is there any Public Comment on this item . Um, is there any remotely. Okay, im seeing none. Then. Uh, board discussion on that. So this is basically to determine on whether, uh, the, the abatement appeals board is going to follow that same procedure or not regarding remote Public Comment number two. Im aware that the board of supervisors made this decision because theres um, there was disruptive Public Comment that hasnt been our experience. And i dont see a need to limit remote access. Uh as someone who is here, surprisingly, with my child today, because i didnt anticipate his disability flaring up. Um, that line of what . When to make that request is not always as clear as maybe it looks like when its written on black and white. Um, i think we can revisit this if becomes an issue in the future, but i dont i dont feel the need to do that at this time. Okay. Is there any are there any other commissioner comments . Mr. Chavez . I dont have very much to add except that i agree with commissioner alexander to. I think its our responsibility as a public board to be as accessible as possible. And keeping Public Comment open online hasnt posed a challenge for us so far. If we can continue to leave it open. Commissioner williams. I echo, uh, prior statements and i would go further and say we should be encouraging remote Public Comment or any Public Comment. And if i remote Public Comment is whats feasible and possible for the public and it makes it easier, we should be encouraging it, uh, rather than restricting it. Any other comments . I concur with everything that was said. Shall we . Do we vote . Um. Emotion yes. There should be a motion. Um, no. A motion to continue with remote Public Comment. So, so moved. Second. Okay. So that motion is by commissioner alexander to and the second was by commissioner chavez. And well do a roll call vote on that motion. Um, president newman. Yes, commissioner. Alexander. Toot. Yes commissioner chavez. Yes commissioner. Shaddix. Yes commissioner. Summer. And commissioner williams. Yes yes. Oh commissioner. Summer. Oh, did you did you did you vote . I wasnt here for the beginning. Oh, okay. Its uh, this this was a discussion to as to whether or not to continue with remote Public Comment or not. And you were you were here. I was here for the. Yes. Yeah. For that then. Oh, okay. It was very brief. You didnt miss anything. Yes okay. Thank you. Then the motion carries unanimously. Thanks, everyone. Okay. So, um, next we have, um. Our item is. Is on what . Approval of minutes. Uh, this item is a discussion of possible action to adopt the minutes for meetings held on may 18th, 2022 and june 15th, 2022. Um just would like to read that the minutes were already approved and they were agendized in error. However, if anyone, uh, has Public Comment on this item, you can you can do so at this time. Is there any Public Comment . Okay seeing none um, the next item we have then is item d, new order of abatement appeals. The first matter is appeal number 691246 de vallejo street, block 0133. Lot 020. Complaint. Number 202286188. Owner of record and appellant is Justin Yonker. The appellant appeals the april 26th, 2022 order of abatement and assessment of costs on the grounds that he is in the process of correcting the cited violations. An appellant requests that the order of abatement and assessment of costs be reversed or modified. The hearing is convened pursuant to administrative code 77. 3, which provides that the building inspection commission, sitting as the arb, may hear and decide appeals of abatement actions pursuant to San FranciscoBuilding Code 105. 2. Before we proceed, the hearing, we will administer the oath. Um will all parties giving testimony today . Please stand and raise your right hand. Okay. Do you swear the testimony youre about to give is the truth . To the best of your knowledge . Yes. Okay. Thank you. You may be seated. Okay. The hearing procedures are described in Section Three g of the arb rules of procedures. The appellant and the department will each have seven minutes to present their position on. The department presents first, followed by the appellant after the presentations, we will have Public Comment. Members of the public have three minutes each to speak after Public Comment. Each party will have three minutes for a rebuttal. First the department and then the appellant. After rebuttal, arb members may ask questions of either party. The department may now present their case. Good morning, president. Commissioners. Uh, john hanson, chief building inspector, code enforcement. I will be presenting the appeal case today. For 460 vallejo street. Uh, the complaint. 2022 861. 88. This is, um, four story, Single Family dwelling. Uh, the violation relates to work exceeding the scope of permit. There are a number of items, including possibly merger, uh, fence greater than, uh, nine foot six and nine foot nine, um, proper line windows were removed and relocated. Garage door was widened and front facade stucco was removed and replaced with horizontal siding. A new building entry door installed, uh, the roof deck, uh, barriers were removed, opening up the roof deck to the entire roof. Uh trees stairwell windows were installed. Uh, the elevator shaft enclosure door, uh, does not have the required doors and the rear stair has been changed to cantilever steel stairs. Uh, the directors hearing took place on april 26th of 22. And in our abatement was issued at that time with the following conditions. 30 days to obtain permit and complete, including final sign off and pay all csvs a permit was issued, a filed on may 19th of 2022 that has not completed the plan. Review process, and to date, that permit is not issued. Um. So staff recommends that you uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment of costs. So i am available for any questions you may have. The appellant may now present their position. Uh, good morning. Thank you. Members of the board. Im tom tunney of reuben. Jason rose. Im counsel for the Property Owner whos actually peter iskander, whos here. Hes going to speak as well. You have Justin Yonker was the filed the appeal on peters behalf, but hes not the owner of record just to clarify, um, really, you know, we dont disagree with much of what mr. Hinson has said. Um some of the details, uh, of the alleged violation is perhaps one thing is this is a two unit building. Its not a Single Family dwelling. Um, mr. Iskander is going to provide you with a little more detail about the project, but i just wanted to address what we think is the bigger and Biggest Issue here. Youre probably asking, you know , why have you gotten to the point of an order of abatement and this hearing and it has been years. Um, we, as mr. Hinson stated, we submitted a permit to abate the violation and address all of the items and as is, uh, normal procedure, that permit was routed to planning immediately. Um, and then we started working with planning. Um, weve planning had its own process that it needed to go through issued, um, neighborhood notice of the permit, discretionary review. Uh request was filed, which means a hearing at the Planning Commission. And we went through a process with planning, uh, where they had scheduled and then postponed, uh, at least two described review hearings. And thats the last we heard from planning. We weve tried to follow up and havent heard, um, the staff at dbi today may know a little bit more about the about where things stand with planning, but were waiting for planning to schedule this discretionary review hearing, uh, which would then allow us to move forward with the permit. Then we go back to dbi and go through final review plan review at dbi. Um, so with that, ill stop there. Thats probably even more detail than you needed. And let mr. Iskander introduce himself and then were available for any questions you may have. Good morning. Member of the board. Um im going to read, uh, so im peter iskander, the owner of four 6462 vallejo. Uh, we acquired this two unit residence in 2014 to accommodate our expanding family with the intention if eventually housing my elderly parents, um, over the subsequent 4 to 5 years, we secured permits, collaborated with various skilled builders tradespeople to finalize the project. In 2018, uh, following numerous inspection by sf dbi, we obtained a certificate of final completion in 2018. The project proved to be more stressful for our family than anyone could ever imagine. Uh, nearly causing a rift within our family union. At one point, we contemplated splitting and selling our, um, uh, newly constructed home. But fortunately, we navigated through these challenging times and opted to retain our homes. Um, shortly thereafter, we received a notice from Planning Department regarding the items that were approved but did not go undergo planning staff review. This item include facade restoration to the original wood siding fence along the eastern side wall, and new garage door, and the front door. We diligently addressed all the discrepancies and followed the scarf recommendation. From 2019 until january 2022, when planning staff scheduled a scheduled for board of hearing, it must have been like the second or third time this has been scheduled. Um, these items encompass, uh, enlargement of the second kitchen. Uh, as recommended by the staff and then, uh, further notification, uh, 311 notification, uh, approximately about two weeks before the scheduled hearing in january 2022, our hearing was postponed again. And weve been in the same spot since then. Um, despite our our efforts to communicate this, when we received the abatement notice, they may have been misunderstanding. We filed a. 2022 05194663. In front of that, you have a copy in front of you, which states abatement of nov 20 2286 188 um, about a week after filing this pa, this pa was sending to Planning Department and then the current status indicates that the permit is being reviewed by planning, um, planning has not provided us with any further planning. What to do . The Building Department at the same time is issuing further notice to abate and further enforcement. Um, we are cooperative. Were eager to resolve any discrepancy that may exist. Please provide us guidance. What to do on the next steps. Um. Um, yes. Okay. You may be seated. Okay thank you. Well now have Public Comment. Um. Commission secretary, is there any Public Comment . Okay. Online. Okay okay. Well, thank you. Well, uh, do the Public Comment in person and then online. Okay. Go ahead. For 60 vallejo street. Yes thank you. Okay good morning. My name is jerry dratler. Im not prepared for Public Comment, but i know this project well. Mr. Iskander is a contractor, so he knows better for 60 vallejo street was offered for sale for 13 million. I put a Swimming Pool on top of it. Um, i am told by a well known Structural Engineer the weight of a Swimming Pool with water is equal to almost to the weight of the building. So were looking at some pretty serious stuff here. It just goes on and on and on. So id like you to consider that, um, when you opine about his request. Thank you very much. Okay. Uh yes. I think i dont know. Is there any additional Public Comment online . No. And no additional Public Comment in person . Okay okay. Then yes. So the next we will, um, well have the rebuttal. Um, the departments rebuttal for three minutes. Uh, just to, uh, agree with the appellant, it is a two unit building. Um, i misspoke there that its a Single Family dwelling. What led me to that is, um, this concern that the two units may have been merged together into one unit. So but i do stand corrected. Its a two family dwelling and no other rebuttal. The appellant is available. If you have any rebuttal. No. Okay uh, seeing none theres no rebuttal. Then um, it could be the board discussion. Or questions. If you have any questions. Commissioner williams. Yeah. Uh, well, im wondering if the appellant could address, uh, mr. Rattlers, um, comment about the Swimming Pool on the building and the construction. There is there is a jacuzzi on the rooftop thats been permitted, and its fully permitted. Thats not an issue of notice of violation. Its not a violation of planning nor building. Department its something that he has a personal issue with. Maybe, but hes not one of the neighbors that i know. But its fully permitted. We have fully permitted that. Its not. No, no, its not its not planning issue. Its a jacuzzi. Commissioner alexander touched. Yes, i have, uh, so this violation was issued because years of work without a permit, not work that exceeded an existing permit. Is that correct . No. Or um, the violation was issued for numerous different items. Many of the items requiring additional information, additional explanation, additional drawings. We provided those things as, um, if you look at the best page to look at, its probably the page in front of you. Okay. Yeah. You can check, um, our. Im sorry, our, um, abatement appeals board secretary, uh, matthew green, hed like to chime in on this, uh, is it on now . I cant hear you. Okay okay. Yeah. Good morning, matthew green, representing the department of building inspection and serving as the secretary of the abatement appeals board today. So there were several Building Permits that were completed in 2018 on this notice, the violation is from january of 2022. So there were no active permits at the time. So, um, both correct. It was done without permit, but its beyond the scope of the original permits. Okay. Its unclear whether the work took place between 2018 or 2022 or was, um, mistakenly signed off in 2018. But the conditions today do not match the approved permits that were completed in 2018. Can i ask another clarifying question . So there seems to be some issue between planning and permitting. And so in 2018, there were permitted plans. It sounds like correct 2018 that completed correct. Um, that um did not match the work completed. They there was work done in excess of what was approved by planning and correct. Correct it wasnt in excess. It was uh, some items in planning view that it should have been reviewed by planning, but it didnt get the drawing, didnt get routed through planning. So those items include like the facade change to the original, for instance. This is a question to the department. So were those items included in the original plan set that was approved by planning . So the notice of violation is. Can we just clarify who is speaking for the department . Is it. Oh, i apologize okay okay. Just want to make sure to make the record in conjunction with what the secretary just said. Um, the last completed permits were in 2018. All of the items that are listed on the notice of violation that are listed on this abatement appeals report, all of those items i called out there are no permits for any of those. The conditions and the roof. Uh, there was a permit in 2018 for a minimal roof deck. They removed. Roof is now being used as a roof deck. Okay and so there are no permits for anything that we call out in the notice of violation. They all exceed the scope of the original permit. Okay. And all of or some of those things also, though, require planning sign off. Absolutely. Yes and they filed two permits. But those two permits are not going to the plan review in a normal fashion. It seems that theyre they were filed to stall the process. Theyre not moving forward. Okay was the work that was complete and done to the code standards. So there are three permits that were signed off in 2018. They they were signed off because the work described in those plans was done to code. They were signed off. But after that they did all this other work right, exceeding the scope of those permits. Then t