Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority - Old - public_hearing

I can probably find. I

really stacked up with the law enforcement today. It's almost intimidating. Three of them in here. Right on the verge of intimidation.

I'll tell you what. If they'll make you feel less intimidated, I can I can second it?

It would be fabulous.

Yeah.

I mean, maybe take

your two friends. Nope. That'd fabulous. That's fucking

happening. K. So, JP, are you able to monitor the Zoom attendance as well?

Just in case later for me to join

us remotely.

And okay.

05:30. 05:30. Everybody's space at the table, please.

Call it to work with. Yeah.

Well, just give me a bit of this. Thank you.

As of right now, there are no participants using email. Okay.

Great. Okay. Well, 05:30. So as, the secretary to the commission here, I'll just, give a little introduction, and I believe I shared this information, with the parties. But this evening, we need to, appoint a a chairperson of the commission.

This is a ad hoc commission, established, from members of the historical advisory board. And so one item the first item of business would be to have the members themselves appoint a chairperson. Going forward then, we will have a presentation by the appellant for ten minutes and by city staff for ten minutes to present the case. All the information has also been in the staff report that was published and the agenda packet online, which you've had access to for over a week. And then, there would be time, for question and answer, as well as discussion.

And if the commission so chooses, you could also offer opportunity for rebuttal or closing statements, and then be asking you to take an action and have some information about the framework for that action.

Sure. So since this is

an ad hoc commission, that does not meet very regularly. I just wanted to remind everyone of the scope of this commission's review on appeal. I'm just gonna read it from my notes here. Under AMC sections two dash 17.4 a and two dash 17.5 c and California building code chapter one division two section one thirteen point two, the commission hears and decides appeals of the building official's orders, determinations, and other decisions as to the application and interpretation of the city's building codes. In reviewing the interpretation of a provision, the commission may also consider whether an alternate proposal for compliance better satisfies the true intent of the code.

Commission cannot, however, interpret the administrative provisions of the building codes nor waive applicable code requirements. That is the review is limited to the interpretation of physical and technical standards. While the commission is free to deliberate in any manner it sees fit, I would recommend that each issue be approached at a minimum to answer two questions. First, whether the provision applies to this case, and second, if it applies whether it was interpreted correctly or incorrectly as applied to this case. If the commission finds that an applicable provision was incorrectly interpreted, it should also consider and decide what the correct interpretation is. If you have any questions on the process, Steve and Eric happy to answer.

I've got several questions on the process, and I did email those to mister Buckley, and I did not get a response on those. I I sent him at least seven different questions, and there was no response. He sent me very vague answers when he did send me answers, such as the commission may. So, again, no definitive, framework for this commission. No answers as to how this would work.

It gave me no basis to prepare for this meeting. No answers. No nothing. I also presented mister Buckley with the fact that him and his boss are parties to a lawsuit that I'm involved in, and that I felt it was very inappropriate that he'd be the chair of this committee due to the conflict of interest. He failed to respond to that.

I've also emailed mister Davalos questions, and he failed to completely respond to all of those as well. They've given me no indication of how to clear violations, how to get this red tag removed, how to restore my occupancy permit, nothing. This has been completely vague out of the blue. And, again, you know, red tags are reserved for commit for situations which are immediately dangerous to life, health, and safety. Collapsing roofs, that type of a situation.

This does not exist in this situation. As you know, you know, we are, party to four different sequel lawsuits. Number five and six are on their way, and this is basic retaliation by the city against us. This is not my time here. I'm still asking clarifying questions.

Please. So, again, I've asked mister Buckley and mister Davalos several email questions, and I got no response from them. So, again, I'm at extreme disadvantage here today to be trying and speak. And, again, this is really my Latina business partner's business, but she is so intimidated by the police presence, by what the city of Alameda has done, by the threats by mister Davalos. I even had to take over the communications with mister Davalos because mister Davalos was treating her like he was she was his wife or something, yelling at her.

They were speaking in Spanish. She was misbehaving completely inappropriately. I didn't wanna throw that out there, but enough is enough. So I had to relieve mister Davolos of any communication with with my Latina business partner due to his inappropriate behavior, and yet here we still are. This is her only business. This is her only source of income. This is viciousness on the city's part. She is not party to these sequel lawsuits. She is not doing what I'm doing. I have other businesses.

I have other stuff going on. The city thinks they're gonna intimidate us and stop us, and this only encourages me. You're gonna free me up. I mean, I I I spent many years on a submarine. You you're not gonna intimidate me with this type of stuff.

So, you know, this is just layers of absurdity that the city continues to discriminate against my Latino business partner and try to stop building 43 thinking that it's somehow going to stop the sequel lawsuits and the exposure of such things as the misappropriation of funds for the Pacific Thailand's trust fund. So we've exposed many things. Many more things are coming. And, again, this is clearly basic retaliation. This is classic signs of a nineteen eighty three one nine eight three civil rights lawsuit.

I went to every city council meeting for four years and spoke numerous times. And since the criminal the false criminal charges against me, I've had to stop free speaking. So, again, you know, that's coming. The 1983 lawsuit's coming. I mean, there's no end to this. And, gentlemen, are you gonna be parties to this? Are you gonna participate in the city's harassment campaign against us? Nothing has changed at building forty three winery in eleven years. We inherited this building with these problems mister Davolos speaks of. The city was crazy to get us in there, the fifth member, founding member of, Spirits Alley, and nothing has changed.

Fire department cleared us two months before mister Davolos came along. Everybody cleared us before mister Davolos came along. Mister Davolos comes along acting tough, acting like he's the husband of my Latina business partner, Bosner, around yelling at her, making her cry. And now here we are at a hearing with a red tag on her building. Is this really for real? And, again, what I why I'm bringing this up is because I'm trying to figure out what these procedures are. I'm here today at an extreme disadvantage because I don't know what the rules are today. I didn't even know how this process was gonna work. Mister Buckley wouldn't ask my questions. Mister Davolos wouldn't answer my questions, and and here we are.

So how am I supposed to fairly have a hearing today under these circumstances? I ask you that one question before we get started.

Well, I can answer that.

I did. I I would like I would like the commissioners to answer that. I think, again, I think you're in a situation where you should not even be the chairperson.

I'm not the chairperson. I'm staff.

Well, so you shouldn't even be here, minister Butler. You're party to a lawsuit. You have an extreme conflict of interest with me.

I don't believe I do have a conflict of interest, but as city staff

Well, Mr. Davos tells me you're constantly whining about being party to a lawsuit with your

personal name

on it. I can

see I just don't

actually point the chairperson to manage Right. To any more substance, that would probably

be the most appropriate thing.

It's going to be my suggestion. I've laid out the procedures, and we're ready now to appoint a chairperson. Gentlemen, would like a nomination?

Does anybody wanna nominate somebody?

Or I do have to nominate you, Board member Hernandez, the third chair.

Any seconds? I second that chair. I won't oppose it, so I guess I need chair.

Okay. Unanimous consent.

No. Now

you are free to take

the call for me. Great.

So thank you for your introductory remarks. I think the question at hand was regarding other questions on process. I did not hear any clear questions on process. I understand that the documents that you read regarding how this meeting was going to be conducted was sent to you.

That was not

sent to me.

That's not true.

Well, I sent you I sent you an explanation saying that there would be ten minutes for your side and ten minutes over the city.

That there may be. You sent me a vague document where you did not know how this was gonna work.

Well It's under the

discussion of the chair. Meeting.

We're gonna go on the assumption that that was shared with you. It was shared with us. If it, if it wasn't received by you, I'm, like, apologetic, but I trust the city staff are doing what they say they are doing and that their email records are not allowed. So, I'd like to call the meeting to order. As first order on our agenda, we have a public comment period.

So that public comment could include comments from folks here in the room if you would like to be recognized to speak, or there may be folks that have called in Zoom. So generally speaking, we take in person comments first. So I'm not sure if anybody here is interested in speaking or making a short public comment about the agenda items, but now would be a time.

Should we sorry. Just to clarify, are we going to limit that to a certain are are we doing a three minute?

Yeah. We typically do a three minute. I don't, you know, see a reason not to start with that. If there's a long list of people that wanna meet or speak, then at least it gives us an opportunity for a number of folks. So I think there are This is just good agenda. Is just public comment. So is anybody here? I'm looking at the folks sitting in the room interested in making public comment.

Yes. We can kick off. So,

yeah, we just wanna get for our records who you are and your name. Thank you. Thank you so much for that.

Okay. Speakers. And they'll still have a second chance to comment after this once we get into the agenda item?

Well, again, the agenda, as laid out, we have a call to order, which has already happened. Now we're gonna enter into a follow-up comment period where whoever wants to speak in the room or online will have three minutes to present, you know, a statement to us. Then we're gonna go into the hearing portion. We're going to use the agenda that was just laid out, which is we'll give you ten minutes to essentially talk about, you know, your case from your side. We'll give the

city I would I go see, that's not common that I would go first. It would always be the city laying out their case first before me. Yeah. So you'll each have ten minutes. I would go I would go second historically.

And then we'll have an opportunity to hear both sides, ask clarifying questions. And then at that point, we can deliberate and make some assessments as to essentially the two questions that we are here to answer is, does it apply, and is it correct as far as, you know, what we're seeing. So that's the agenda.

As Linda, small comment, this is our microphone, so please speak in this general direction so that you're picked up. And anyone on Zoom would like to speak, please raise your hand.

Okay. So with that, let's hear from any in person speakers.

I think we have one.

So if you could just announce your name. There are people apparently joining us via Zoom just so and I I think they should be able to see you. But Yeah.

So starting off, my name is Marco Serta. I'm the son of Estella, I just wanted to start off by kinda sharing a little bit of what I'm gonna speak of, not just on these two very enterprising individuals that, you know, obviously, I've known my whole life and I've known for quite some time as well, But, also, just to comment on the disheartening impact that this has kinda left on how it's interpreted in the community when a city is not backing or gives the sense that they are not backing a business that is so involved in it and in the enrichment of bringing, people together. For as long as I've known, both Todd and Estella have done everything in their power to try to make this business a successful business, but also very welcoming to the community. And as I mentioned earlier, they have the tenacity to really step up to the challenges that go, with that, with maintaining their doors open to the public and also, you know, as recent with COVID and the pandemic, but still being able to find a way to prevail and to be resourceful with what they have. But it is very disheartening when I have to repeatedly hear from Estella that she seems overwhelmed in this battle where it's not similar to some of the other challenges in maintaining new business, and where she feels very intimidated to even speak here that she needs to ask me.

It's very, regrettable and very upsetting. So, of course, I'm here to speak on behalf of that, but also to just really implore the city of Alameda to really try to reconsider the approach that they have given off to Building 43 and all of those that are involved with said business. It's just that I think I could speak for a lot of people and a lot of people that are not here that they just feel very let down. And the two individuals that have to bear the brunt of this are sitting right here by me. And, know, it's very sad that for two people who are willing to fight tooth and nail seem as if they're backed into a corner right now with no visible sight of coming out.

And so I'm just here to comment on that and hope that things can change for the better, not only for them, but just to give off that example that the city is here to support its small businesses and its minority owners as well as people that have served and been a part of this community for a long time. And I think, you know, hopefully, that this can start the ball rolling in that direction. And I thank you for your time, and, yeah, I will allow other people to speak if they could.

Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you.

Are there any other in person comments? Let's

speak this online.

K. Well, I would say that we can close the public comment period,

so we have further speakers.

Agenda item three is the actual hearing. So as we laid out, we'll be giving initially ten minutes to each party to present the facts around or perceptions around their side of the case. Jennifer, do you have a timeline? Do have time. Okay. Cool. Yeah. If you could you could be managing the time. Oscar, are you presenting on

behalf of the city? So I guess

we'll recognize you as the first speaker.

Just to make sure that I keep on. Alright? Good evening. Thank you for your time. My name is Oscar Davos.

I represent the city as the city's bail official. My position is an appointed position by the city manager. One of the requirements that I have as field officials is to have a certification as a field official. I am also certified as a fire marshal with to the International Council, certified as a building inspector, plumbing inspector, electrical inspector, mechanical inspector, as a building plans examiner, as a building court specialist, and has to hold a certification through the Riverside County Sheriff's Department and the penal code eight thirty two, which are the matters of arrest. I'm well aware of the codes that this city has entrusted me to enforce the building codes.

And so related to this case, I provided you a code summary that is 20 page long that outlines all the case. I provided you a 198 pictures that we took, lawfully obtained. I provided you a a 111 exhibits that are show the due process, posting notices, warrants to inspect the place, and I also provided you photos from the public. Now I understand I only have ten minutes, so I'm gonna just introduce the documents to give you an overview of the case. We first, called to attend, alleged violation of people urinating in public.

So that triggered us to investigate the business. And when we investigated the business, we found online that they only have one restaurant facility. And then that they were using porta potties to do the outdoor area. At the time when we discovered the violations, the restaurant was, labeled women's only, which is also an alarming situation for us to investigate. So I'd like to just, show the grounds for the appeal that were presented by Mr.

Hinckman. It says that the 04/24/2025 inspection violation notice is procedurally defective and legally insufficient. The notice fails to conform the required enforcement standards like consistent formatting and miscitations to applicable codes in multiple instances. This structural procedure favors the privacy of Town Winery LLC on proper notice and due process. Also, it says detailed in our May 1 response, the list violations are resolved, never apply, or fall under the city's jurisdiction.

You will find that on exhibit s, and I gave you a little tab number one. Also like to refer to exhibit a of the same document, which is the appeal. And the page number two actually says response to violations listed on section 1.2 of the report. It says sites one by one, plumbing, electrical, mechanical. No upgrades have been made by us in the facilities, including the bathroom and kitchen, the first way kitchen, where preexisting lady installations, the only change was the replacement of the original lady's sink with a winery sink, which we don't have any records of ever being permitted.

Accessibility, exits, the states of the fire code govern secrets, and no accessibility violations have been cited. I provided you evidence that the place is not accessible, that the entrance to the building is two and a half inches tall, and so, therefore, it's not accessible. The outdoor area is not also not accessible. There's a stage out there for performance that is not accessible. There's a messaging that the public has been utilizing.

We have evidence of that because there's photographs that I provided, and it's not it's not accessible either. Restaurant facilities, portable toilets have been provided as a temporary solution. The place has been operating for over ten years with portable toilets, and the California employment code section four twenty two point one states that the the a facility needs to have enough toilet facilities to be able to provide a healthy environment for the for the people. So now I would like to also point out the exhibit two, which addresses the the issues that mister Hickman stated that the document is not structurally done properly. It doesn't cite the sections.

If you would look at exhibit q on your document, section number one, I highlighted the section for you. Section one is the case narrative as the violation determined, and I will go to number two. I also highlighted that for you. It says violations determined, then it cites the violations one by one. Then page three actually cites the sections of the code violated, and I'm gonna get your attention to section one five point one, which are permits required.

Section four point 22.1, which I just talked to you about. Section one one four point one, down below the required actions. So the allegation that the the documents did not include the sections is not correct. And if I can use my time to introduce this last part is I'm gonna read you a couple of sections of the code which were cited in every note that was provided to mister Haitman. Section one zero five point one permits required any owner or owner's authorized agent who intends to construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, demolish, or change the occupancy of a building structure or to erect, install, enlarge, alter, repair, remove, convert, or replace any electrical, gas, mechanical, or plumbing system, the installation of which is regulated by this code or to cause any such work to be performed, shall first take an application to the billing official obtain the required permit.

I'm gonna refer you to section California building code eight one one four point one on local acts. It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, or corporation to erect, construct, alter, extend, repair, move, remove, demolish, or occupy or occupy any building, structure, or equipment regulated by this code or cause the same to be done in conflict with or any violation of the provisions of the code. At last, I would like to see if you have any questions that I can answer.

That's what I was gonna suggest. Said, yeah, this one. Have a chance to Yeah.

That's what I'm

me a moment. We're gonna give

you another ten minutes. Looks like maybe you have have some

Perfect. Documentation. So here we go. Here's documentation for each of you. On the the second two staple pages are an email chain for your reference here. On the first page, I talk about additional information in addition to my letter that mister Davalos has already given you, and I left you lots of room here to take notes on there on this. I further expand on the concepts where mister Davalos failed to perform his duties. So here you go. And then a quick little blurb from Alameda Point. My time's not starting yet.

Just let me get this passed out, and I will be ready to roll on that. Here's one for each commissioner Thank you. As well as one for the record. Here we go on the record over there. And so the first thing I would just like you to call call out attention to are we starting? Let me actually start my timer if you could. That would be great. That'd be fabulous. So I'll do it at the same time here.

One, three.

Okay. Hold on. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

Okay. I'm ready. Yep.

Okay. So let's start out with the first thing, this Alameda Point info. Just look at the highlight part. It will be located across street from Rockwell Winery consistent with other adjacent wine and spirits uses and the adaptive reuse and long term vision for Alameda Point. As you all know, this long term vision has now changed, and they've now thrown us under the bus. They begged us to come here, the fifth member of Spirits Alley, and now they're pretending like Spirits Alley never existed. There's only three original members left. With us gone, that'll be down to two original members. They've tried to turn it into Tech Alley, block the views of shipping containers, and do everything else. So we've been filing seat with lawsuits to prevent, which this is not going to stop.

I guarantee that. So then let's look into, what I have done. In addition to all issues noted and all requests for relief, I would like to emphasize the following. So you all saw my letter. Mister Davlos gave you that. It's all in his packet here. First of all, let's refer to mister Davolos' investigative inspection report. He is wrong. When you write an inspection report with each alleged violation, you have to put a code citation after the violation. Mister Davalos is stuck in the past thirty years ago with all his citations, all his regulation regulatory training.

He should know better. Right here, here's his section one narrative and violation determine. He has a violation right here. Why? Remember when plumbing, mechanical, electrical, and building have been performed throughout the space without the required permits and inspections. Where's the code citation? Alleged violation with no code citation. This is not how you write an inspection. This is completely wrong. He has failed here. How do I know what the violation is? How do I know I even had a violation? He goes on through basically 13 alleged violations here without a single code citation. Then down here in the end, he has section two, and he lists four code citations. So where do these code citations go with?

Which of these alleged violations? I mean, this is amateur. Mister Tavalo, she sounded so professional, and you give me something like this. This is junk. Thirty years ago when I was an inspector at Conster Costa County Hazmat, we got trained professional inspectors. This is not how you do an inspection. This will never hold up in court. You cannot write a violation without a code inspection. Right here, off the bat, this throws out this whole case. We should just stop right here. This is done. This is junk. It's over. Mister Davolos did not give me a proper inspection. We should just stop. Give me back my occupancy permit. Take the violations off of my building. Enough's enough. This kills his own case just right here. Okay.

So failure to cite code citations with each alleged violation. I said he cited a group of code citations at the end of the report with no reference as to which alleged violation they reference. And then also as mister mister Davolos noted himself, the ever changing nature of mister Davolos alleged violation. Just as I correct what I think he is alleging, mister Davolos changes his violation strategy. He went through this whole theory about how I needed this ventilation system for the wine in the barrels. I removed all the wine and took it to my Foothills facility. I thought I was done. Mister Davilo said it himself, you even thought you were done and all the violations were cleared. He thought he had us on that violation itself. I went through all that effort to remove all the barrels containing wine, no more wine in the facility, and the next thing you know, he's on to this next violation group.

These porta potties he speaks of, they're legitimate, professionally maintained porta potties. We have more than adequate bathroom space in the facility. Mister Davlos has been going on with this red tag threat ever since he couldn't pin down these other violations. He went to this red tag threat. He even said it again.

You thought I you thought you were back in compliance. So mister Davolos failed to clearly explain anything in this process from compliance to red tag avoidance to reinstatement of office occupancy permit. Please note attaching a chain between mister Davolos and myself, 05/1525 through 05/1925. Mister Davolos completely fails to address the issues I raised and does not respond to my 05/1925 email at zero 07:31AM. Number two, red tags are reserved for issues that are immediately dangerous to life and health, such as collapsing roofs.

These issues do not exist at Building 43. Mister Davos is acting under fire marshal authority for this red tag. He does not appear to have the support of the fire marshal as this agency inspected us two months prior to mister Davos, and minor violations were corrected and cleared by the fire inspector. We were additionally inspected by the base reuse manager, and no violations were found. We have effectively been violation free for all eleven years we have been in business on the point.

Three, unequal treatment is rampant on Alameda Point. There are several real safety issues that exist on the point, and others have never been threatened with red tags. Natale Energy built an illegal 10,000 square foot, 25 foot tall outdoor test facility in 2017. They routinely dump thousands of gallons thousands of gallons of dirty test water directly to the storm drain and have no storm water permit. This has been going on for years.

I recently sent mister Davolos a video of one of these thousand gallon illegal illicit discharges done late on a Friday afternoon. Natel has not been red tagged. Wonky wonky kitchen next door has numerous illegal electrical safety violations at the facility. The rear yard has numerous storage violations. There are shade structures in front that are permanent without permits unlike our temporary ones. The food trucks are spilling grease and food waste everywhere and routinely perform vehicle maintenance adjacent to the storm drains. Oil spills are everywhere. Where is the red tag? There are numerous other examples that have all been documented and given to mister Davalos. Sail drone.

They they have shipping containers converted to living quarters and offices. They're not been red tagged. Those are all illegally done. Where are the red tags? Four, this hearing process is unjust and does not comply with my due process, our due process. Pleased to see the email chain between mister Buckley and myself, 515 through '5 28. Mister Buckley fails to address questions and concerns that I raise and completely fails to respond to most. He uses words like the commission may set and fails to supply me with the process and rules of how this hearing works. Mister Buckley is a party to a lawsuit I'm involved in. I went over all that.

Mister Tai is a party to a lawsuit I'm involved in. Mister Davos mister Davos talked extensively to me and miss Valgrana about how his boss, Alan Tye, was on his case at every Monday morning meeting. He said he couldn't figure out mister Tye's obsession with building 43 winery until he found out mister Tye was named in one of the sequel lawsuits personally. Mister Davilos repeatedly apologized for what he's being forced to do but stated, I have no choice, as in my job depends on it. Five, a majority of the pictures mister Davilos added after the red tag and other inspection protocol.

This is another inspection protocol by mister Davilos or actually the responsibility of the city. The main breaker panel to the entire building that he points out. He has 10 pictures on that. That's the city's responsibility. It's the breaker panel to the entire building, the front and back half. I don't control the back half. The alleged lead based paint, that's the city's responsibility. The torn down gutters. We had the tweakers, and they're stealing all the copper gutters on the base. Everybody's getting their gutters replaced, and mister Davlos is giving you pictures saying, I haven't maintained my gutters.

There's numerous pictures. I'm gonna spare you all the pictures because he put 200 pictures in there. By the way, after the red tag and after the inspection, which is illegal, mister Davos continued to build this case. After he red tagged me and gave me inspection, mister Davos continued to build this case, which is highly illegal. He did not furnish me with none of this until this hearing, so the majority of those pictures are actually the city's responsibility.

So mister Davos is a case builder after the fact. He should lose his license for that, and he may lose his license for that when I'm done filing all the complaints with all the boards that he talked about. So you can't build cases like this and build the case after you throw the red tag and after you write the violations. You need to write a violation, cite a code citation, and give me the evidence. You can't just write violations with no code citation and then throw pictures and evidence in there post fact. Right? So mister Davos has failed to give you any evidence. Just this in itself kills this whole thing. I want my occupancy permit back today. I want concessions.

I wanna be paid for the lost business. I want all this back. Miss Villagrano deserves this. So six, it is clear that this red tag issue is another tool the city is using against us in the ongoing retaliation, discrimination, and harassment campaign against us. We've been closed down for three weeks and have lost significant business, including a wedding. These actions have been devastating for the Latin community, which is relying on us. Is this commission going to be a part of this? Are are we now going to be participating in this harassment campaign, all this illegal activity? What we can't figure out right now is this reference to the city, we and the city. Who who is the city?

Mister Turner, who is the city? We can't figure this out because when you look up mister Hickman, miss Villagrano, miss Sheehan, when you look us up on the agendas, well, there are no agendas. There are no closed sessions. There are no direction being given by the city. There's millions of dollars being spent on us sending sequel lawsuits, and there are no closed session. There is no direction being given. Who is the city? Who is the city? Are you gonna be a part of this? Because if you are, you're now personally committing yourself to this illegal activity.

Millions of dollars are being spent on us. In January alone, Pharrell Lebron, a private attorney hired by the city of Alameda to help handle one of our sequel lawsuits, they were paid $245,000 in one month. Millions a month are being spent on us, and there is no clear direction as to who's giving direction. No agenda items. No closed session. No direction from the city. So I wanna know who is the city? Who is we? Who are you? Who is doing this? Oh, I think I got through it. Questions, please.

Thank you for your time.

Appreciate the time.

Do you wanna take a moment just

to review? I was trying

to look at some of this during the presentation, but I would appreciate just a moment to go through some.

What what date was the the red tag issued?

May 15.

May 15. Okay. Thank you. Great. Discussion.

Either of the parties.

Sure. So maybe this is a question for mister Davos. So the for us So the original building permit that's cited in the report, that was a pre inspection permit? Yes. Could you describe to us a little bit how that first, in other words, how can a certificate of occupancy be granted that be granted based on a free inspection?

That's the same question that I had. But, yeah, the building was able to operate ten years like that. Now if I get a complaint and I am required to investigate it as the current building official, I have an obligation to public safety. So when I investigated the the the building, I discovered that not only did it have any, like, suitable plumbing facilities, but there was other issues that that could endanger the public. So

And do you know that the original zoning certificate that allowed for them to operate the business. Did that that was indoor only, or was there an

outburst appointment? Appreciate that question. I really appreciate that question because February 17 was the last signature on the certificate of occupancy. And around April 4, something like that, the the planning board approved outdoor seating, which automatically increased the occupant load because now you put in at least 60 people outside. Yet we only have one bathroom.

So the the I I I read the use permit, and their use permit has specific conditions that says, you know, if we if we grant you this approval and you need a permit, you need to go get the permit so you can be compliant with it. So, technically, the use permit expired by limitation in 2017 because nobody ever came and obtained the lawful permit and submitted plans to provide proper plumbing facilities and the use of mezzanine and add exit to a kitchen and all those facts. So

So sorry. Two other questions. I'm just trying to understand. So the other is does the use for food outdoor entertainment? Or from what I understand, there's dance lessons that are occurring. Right? And that is so is that part of your business, mister Eckman, is that you that you offer dance lessons on special occasions, or could you explain what that entails?

Well, that's just a small bonus prior to the bands is that somebody does dance lessons, but that's just a half an hour prior to the band. And so that's very, that's not really part of the business model. That's just a bonus that the promoter does. And, you know, I would like to also note that this kitchen you keeps referring to is just a three compartment sink to wash dishes. When the navy was there, there was a single large sink, and all else we did was change it to a three compartment sink. So there's no kitchen. There's no cooking facilities. There's no oven. There's no nothing. There's a three compartment sink.

Mister Davolos keeps on talking about a kitchen and a mezzanine. The mezzanine he speaks of is for not in use by the public. That is my personal break room. And I even went as far as after mister Davolos keeps on bringing it up, I've been told him that I will no longer use that as my personal break room. So we put a sign up there saying no entrance, no nothing. So he continues to bring this up when, as you can see in my responses to him, I told him that I will no longer be using this. So mister Davalos keeps on bringing up to you guys today stuff that is long in the past. We've we've agreed that I would stop using it. It's long corrected, and yet he continues to talk

about it.

Fair enough. And we'll think, what is this?

Thank you. So the the question that I had, the reason I was asking about the music and for the dance lessons and and music, it it sounds like you have music as well. Right? That's it. Right?

There's a temporary stage, and there's temporary sales. Those belong to the promoter. Mister Davolos keeps on speaking of those as well, and those would be taken down by now if he didn't red tag us. Okay. Understood.

So the the question I have, mister Phillips, is is the music and the dance. That would be something that would require a use for. So it use would it require in order to have live entertainments?

Yes. Outdoor activity requires user. Okay.

And there is no use permit currently for that?

There was a use permit. There was a use permit, and it allows outdoor seating. I don't think it allows the entertainment.

It it I'm sorry. It it was For outdoor seating? Yes. But not for the particular

I think that's right.

So that's been going on

for eleven years as well.

Fair enough. Yeah. And so then

and we are talking about a red red tag here. ID LH. Immediately named collapsing roofs and stuff. Understood. Not not Latin bands singing salsa and La Bamba here.

Right. So the the question that I have for you, so there are two from what I saw in the photographs, there are two entrances and exits from the building. Right? So there's a there's a single door which exits through the area that has the three compartment sink.

Correct.

And then there's the roll up door. Correct?

We in eleven years, we have never been open without the roll up door open. The roll up door is 18 feet wide, and it is unlimited egress. Understood. And the fire marshal appreciates that. Those are the only two

openings into in and out.

So That is because it's a because the building is cut in half in the middle, which eliminated the back entrance, and that's the city's issue, not mine.

Understood. Okay. So then,

which is why we keep and we agreed that with the city a long time ago, a former base reuse manager, maybe even the city manager now. I'm not sure. But the the goal all along was to leave the 18 foot roll of door open no matter what, which eliminated all these nuances. Right. The the 18 foot roll of door is as wide as the space.

I gotcha. Thank you. Mister Davalos, the other sorry. I don't mean to interrupt.

No. I I I appreciate it, mister Sanchez. I appreciate it.

So the other question I have for you, mister Davalos, is so for a business such as this, should there not have been an application to County Health for the development of the department of the department department If I were applying for a building permit to over this particular tasting room that included dishware washing. Are they not subject to county health approval?

I don't I don't believe that they are because I I inquired with the county before. You know, they have a they serve food, but it comes from food trucks. And then they have the outdoor use permit to respond to your previous question. It's actually in in the in the report that I took this right out of the use permit, in public hearings to consider a use permit to allow outdoor seating and extended business hours for an existing wiring. Allow me to point the other seating will occupy paved area from the building for close extended hours from 10PM to midnight on Fridays and Saturdays. Senate is under permitted business at seven hours to 10PM, seven days a week. The project site is located, at.

So miss mister Sanchez, if I could clarify, I think I have some information for you. Yep. So back in the beginning when they were so excited to get Spirits Alley going, they made it clear to us that with the winery permit with the winery permit itself directly related to your question about environmental health with the winery permit, we got the bar. We got the three compartment sink, and we got, everything else we needed to run a basic winery. Barrel storage, bar, and a three compartment sink.

The bare bones necessities to run a winery was which is what we got with the Alameda City winery permit. That is what we were told when they were so excited to lure us away from our fabulous location and a building that we owned in Pittsburgh, California. I wish I was still there. I wish I never came to Alameda. It was the worst business mistake I've made in my life. Pittsburgh is a fabulous place. So here we are, though.

Here we are. Yeah. And I asked I asked the question, mister Edgar Hickman, just so you understand that I'm not familiar with the. And so I'm trying to understand based on my experience and the type of work that I do, the steps that I would take to get to a brand for to open business like yours. And so that's what I'm trying to clarify.

The winery permit covered that. We're a very basic business like Mr. Davlo said with food trucks covering all the environmental health issues. So all we really needed was the winery permit and the outdoor city permit, which actually we got twice. After the one he talks about, he didn't discover the second one, but there was a second one in which we actually extended another three feet and wider 10 feet wider to the side. So we actually got that outdoor city permit twice.

Yeah. I guess.

And I if I may have the opportunity to to answer complete my answer. One of the big issues is that when, you know, you make a change, you make an alteration, you add more people, you extend a use permit that triggers requirements in the building code, that didn't happen. So, you know, when so a difficult case, if we go investigate a case and we find the violations, we close the case. But in this particular case, we found a lot of violations, and we don't have a lot of evidence of records, permits that actually cover the use and operations of the current business.

And so the so if if we take mister Hickman and his word that he was given the. That's the plan. So if I were applying for a building permit to let's say, Hickman closed this and I were to open the exact same type of business there, would I be required to at least devote a certain percentage of my budget for my tenant improvement project to making the building accessible, starting with an accessible entry, accessible path of travel, accessible restrooms, so and so forth until I reach. Sure. So

Yes. So, you know, projects like that are based on the threshold valuation. You know, the DSA has a threshold of a little bit over 200,000 to do require full compliance. However, when you do a change of occupancy, if you had a factory or any type of storage facility and you're gonna convert it to an assembly, then it it is implied that you have to provide the minimum plumbing fixtures. And a portion of those plumbing fixtures have to be accessible for people with disabilities, and you have to have the minimum requirements to enter the place and to facilitate accommodations for someone with disabilities.

Otherwise, it's considered discrimination. And so there is an unreasonable hardship in the code that allows a business to, let's just say, that it used to be a winery, a legal winery, and then now they wanna do some improvements, but the the valuation of the project is not exceeding, but it's not exceeding. They're only gonna do, let's say, $50,000 worth of work, and so it's unreasonable to require them to do full compliance. And so in that regard, they will file for an unreasonable hardship. They can only do 20%, addressing accessibility in the following order, access to the place, accessible entrance, and then so forth and so on. But in this case, we we don't have any.

So I I think I'll ask questions. If

if I could respond on the access, we do have full access. We do have a full bathroom that has full access for handicapped ADA. We have ramps. We have staff devoted to helping people get in, and we've had these extra bathrooms. The plumbing he talks about us not having, we've had those since the beginning. So we have two professionally cleaned, professionally maintained outside bathrooms, porta potties for people that don't have disabilities. So there's three bathrooms on-site, and we've had that since the beginning. So, again, this facility, this business has not changed in eleven years. All these things he speaks of have been static since the beginning. Mayors have had their campaigns.

I mean, city business you know, all kinds of leaders have been there. You know? All official I'm not saying that makes it right. I'm just saying that everybody has been to our facility and seen it and been there, and nobody has ever said anything until mister Davolos came along. The fire marshal was there two months before. The base reuse manager was there three months before. Mister Davolos comes along because mister Tai is on his back about shutting us down. He said so himself. Every Monday morning meeting, mister Tai is on his case about what's he gonna do to shut us down. He he told me himself when he thought we were friends, and he thought he was gonna explain away why he was doing these dirty deeds to miss Villagrano.

It is fundamentally wrong what the city has done. We have done nothing wrong here. And let's remember, we're at a red tag hearing. We're not at a petty hearing about some plumbing fixtures. Those don't warrant red tags. Red tags are for collapsing roofs in very dangerous situations. You know? A meth lab facility cooking in the back, that kind of stuff. This is a red tag hearing, and we're nowhere near red tags here. What he has done is vicious and part of this retaliation campaign against us. We need this address. We need our occupancy permit, and we need compensation to get back on track.

I just

wanted to follow-up on that question for mister Davos. With the red tag in place, what violations that you noted are are still present that haven't been corrected that still warrant the the the red tag being being in place?

So the code requires for a building to be considered compliant or not deemed unsafe. It cannot violate any of the provisions of the code. I understand that seems to be a really strong statement, but that's what California law says. Know, I just interpret the code and follow the code. I I don't, like, I don't write the code. And and so, in in that particular instance, we we gave them the tenants the opportunity to comply. We told them, keep the rollout door open. You know? Limit the occupant load to 49 people. Do not allow anybody on the mezzanine.

And so, you know, we we said that last year, and then in January, we had somebody taking a selfie on the mezzanine. And we are talking about a place where alcohol is consumed. People that don't have the ability to be, you know, self preservation. And and so they're they put themselves to danger. Now we don't really police these twenty four seven, so we have to have systems in place to make sure the place is safe.

Now regards to what sections are still there, the fact that, you know, the the change of occupancy never occurred with proper documents so we can address accessibility to make sure that the wiring is safe, that their exit in is adequate based on the number of people that can attend the business. All that are the facts that leave the place unsafe to be occupied. Now the reason why the the certificate was revoked wasn't because it was issued an error in 2014. I mean, they were allowed to operate for ten years. When by the time this came my became my case and I have to investigate it, I have to do this for fairness based on the on the facts that I have in front of me, not penalize it for opening ten years ago and not having these facilities.

No. I'm looking at it now. I go to the place, and I give them the benefit. I requested access to the inspection because maybe their records are not there, but the place is fully compliant. But I go there, and there's the place is not accessible. The mezzanine is not compliant. So we have all these issues. So I I don't know where to go from there except to require plants because that's what the law requires. Right. Okay.

Thank you. Other questions? So

I think Mr. Dalois said the key point there, he said, I do not write the law. I just interpret the law, and this is his interpretation. And this is a false interpretation. Again, these are reserved for immediately dangerous to life, health, and safety. This is not within those conditions.

I would just like to say this certain extent and not to I'm sorry not to contradict you, but I in my opinion, not in my opinion, egress is an issue. And if you don't have accessible, egress, then it is an issue.

It's an 18 foot wide roll of door.

Right. But if it but it doesn't meet egress requirements.

The fire the fire marshal said it did.

Not in the building code. So if if if you look at the at the height of the thresholds, they're not compliant with ADA standards. So, therefore, I would say, in my opinion, to answer your question, Arthur, is that if if you have so let's say you have employees in the building with a roller door closed and there's an emergency, and your only exit is through a door that has a threshold that has no ramp on it, then that

is The main door the main door has no has no high threshold. The main door

is is I saw there is. And so

No. No. No. The the man door the man door has it's a regular man door

with no issues whatsoever. More than a half inch. Right? And so a half inch is what it

is to answer your question.

So I don't I don't believe so. And we don't have any employees. So maybe It's just the two of us.

So maybe we'll say it differently. Let's assume that I understand, mister Devil, was to to know the code well enough to know whether the doors are compliant with EPAS or not for accessibility as well. So in an emergency, then those doors are not compliant. So if you setting that standard, I guess, in my mind is that is a huge code compliance issue because it is your egress. So, yes, the door is wide enough to get a big number of people out, but but not having a compliant threshold means that only fully able people can get out safely and unable white people cannot.

So, therefore, you are creating the safety issue. Either that or you're discriminating against unequal people and saying people that are disabled can only come to my business outside.

Are there are there records are there records of complaints? Patio is

not fully accessible, then, again, you're just your situation is discriminatory against.

We definitely don't discriminate at Building 43. That's the last thing we do at Building

43. But that's the way that the code is written. And so I guess I would just like to not in defense of Mr. Delbos, but to give you my point of view on that is that if you have an exit an entrance and an exit to a building that are not compliant with the ADA standards, then having a compliant restroom doesn't doesn't work because how does an unequal person access that restroom?

I believe that's complaint driven, of which we have no complaints.

It's not complaint driven. It's code. It's it's well, all all of the attorneys speak to that one, but it is in the building code. Right? And so and then the fire department, while they do govern parts of egress, it's in it's coupled with the building code as well. So they're not independent, like, documents that work in Canada. And the fire code that is is not the water. So, again, I I just want you to know that, I guess well, anyway, I

There's two emergency ramps right there next to the door that have been there for eleven years, and they've never never been used. But they're

But compliant. They're not compliant is my understanding.

Well, they they they are they are ADA compliant handicap ramps for just this situation that we bought eleven years ago. Mister Davilo saw those. They're right next to the door. They're right there for an emergency, and we've never had

one Well, for an emergency, so the the building's on fire.

Well, it's a it's a con it's a concrete it's a concrete building. So, I mean, I'm not so sure that and it's, you know, pretty short compared to the size of the door. But okay. Okay.

So I guess in my in my case, I think that it was why I was asking that question, mister Davila, was because the very first if you if you do a tenant improvement project, there is a certain amount of your budget that you have to set aside for improvement standards and accessibility into the building. And the number one thing is always approaching the building.

So this was approved by the city eleven years ago.

So I understand. So that's the it doesn't remove the fact that the violation is still existing. It may not have been enforced through.

But the the the viol the alleged violation, there's no code citation next to it, so we don't know if it's a violation or not. So if we're looking for reasons to keep this red tag in place, we're we're doing a great job here. But, I mean, if we'd like to resolve this and get this minority owned Latina business back open and back on track, then I think that's the wrong path to travel down. So if you if you guys are just here to to back the city and continue this harassment campaign, let me just No. Take some more pictures of you guys, and we'll just get on with it.

I'm coming at it not from the standpoint of trying to but I guess I'm trying to elaborate maybe and explain from as a as a building professional how I view safety in my opinion. So I Sure. I believe that that is where Mr. Davolos is coming at it from as well. And in terms of it's you're you're describing the situation under which building can be done safe, and I feel that that to me is one thing that you're overlooking is that your that your entrances, your only two entrances that exist from the building are unsafe from that from the. So that's that's my you know, that's my.

Okay. Well And I and I would say Eleven years later.

If you, you know, if you were to I I think that there are fairly simple resolutions to that problem that would probably go a long way towards alleviating your your, issues and Well,

why why I tried to get those out of mister Davolos, but he insisted on the red tag instead of answering my questions, which is why we're here. We should have been able to resolve this without the red tag. But, again, mister Tai is, quote, unquote, on my ass from mister Davalos every Monday morning. My job depends on this. I'm sorry for what I have to do to you guys. So he's in a real situation. You know, he talked all and all about the good fortune he had getting this job and how he felt it was, you know, a gift. And he's had four gifts in his life, and this was one of them. So, you know, he really loves his job, and he he really loves the pay scale. And I I think he feels he has to do whatever he has to do to make mister Tai and the political regime happy.

But, again, I believe it's illegal what he's done and way premature on the red tag, not to mention, you know, retaliation, discrimination, harassing.

I I have some questions. So I I hate to cut you off. No.

Not at all. It's leisure guys' show. We need to,

be mindful of time because, we're already past, our allotted time. Mister Davos, I have a couple questions for you. I just wanted to hear from you. Is there anything from your point of view that would prevent the business from approaching you with a change of occupancy permit to align what the current use is? And as a follow on that, are there any barriers or any reasons why they couldn't also bring to you permit applications to fix the outstanding noncompliant issues? Are there

No. Every document that I provided has required actions in it, and the required actions are to submit plans for plan check, which is a normal process of a tenant improvement, which gives us the opportunity to review documents that are code compliant that shows addressing every issue. If they're not gonna use the messaging for for private or public use, if they're gonna use it for storage, that's fine. There's requirements that need to be addressed to to like, calculate the load that is gonna be put on the storage. If they're they're gonna have two exits or just one exit, they cannot pass through, like, closets or storage or kitchens or any sort of that, and all that is reflected in documents.

You know, for us, when we use the certificate of advocacy, we don't police that every day. We don't go there on the weekends. What are they doing? We don't do that. You know, the the business establish themselves. They provide the documents. We review them, make sure they're compliant. Inspector goes over there and does it. Signs the cert the final, we issue a certificate of biopsy. That's it.

Now if you change the use or alter the use in any way or do unforbidden construction, everyone will go back to square one because you violated provisions of the code. So, no, from the beginning, to answer your question, chair, we provided the if you submit plans for plan check, no problem. And we went and even more, we we allowed to continue to operate under certain conditions. But at one point, we seemed like there was not gonna be any compliance. So to eliminate the unsafe condition, we issued the red tag.

Got it.

Got it. So there is nothing that, at least from the city side, your from perspective, that would prevent them coming forward as an occupancy change permit or permits to correct any substandard or noncompliant issues?

No. From the building division and court enforcement, no. No. Have you know, this is this is the same type of case that we do ever throughout the city. Nobody has the same opportunity to comply. Standard business.

That's news to me, Mr. Hernandez. Well, that's not how it was explained to me before this. Again, we haven't even been told what the violations were because I have no code citation next to the alleged violation.

So I have a follow-up question for you then as well because I I think we heard pretty clearly that there is an opportunity to correct all of this.

Okay. So That's the first I've

heard that, but I'll I'll go with that.

I think it's it's good news.

K.

So that being the case, are you willing to work with the city to, a, file for an occupancy change so that it's essentially in compliance with your current use as well as work with the city to file permits to correct issues that are not compliant.

We are definitely willing to do that. I would say the one issue at this point, though, is fundage. He did this, I believe, deliberately right at the beginning of our event season that was well publicized. We've lost a wedding. We've lost 10 events that happened. We've had to do refunds. So we are extremely tight on money right now. I believe you cannot charge rent on a RedTac building, so I believe that will be a little bit of relief to us. But as far as hiring engineers and paying for work, I believe we're gonna need some help. I know that the city has helped all the other tenants.

Ironically, I believe we're the only tenant on the point that is current on their rent. Everybody else on the point is behind on their rent. The boys and girls at Astra are way behind on their rent. They just got another nine month deferment. I mean, you name it.

Everybody else out there has received deferments, help, you name it. We need some help. But the city will help us and give us some deferments and compensate us for the money we've lost that we can put towards this, then, yeah, we definitely can do that. If they're gonna start, you know, serving us with three day notices because rent's due tomorrow, again, I don't believe you can charge rent on a Red Tack building, mister Turner. You know, if they're gonna start their their typical game of now trying to evict us because rent's due tomorrow, then, you know, we we have a serious problem here.

But if they're willing to work with us and and, you know, we will jump through the hoops to get this done. But for the first time, Building 43 is gonna need some help. Everybody else out there has got all kinds of help. They've been late. They've had rent forgiven. They've had, you know, you name it, rent deferments, all that. Building 43 is current on rent. We paid all our rent. No deferments. No forgiveness. No nada. We're gonna need a little help.

But an answer to the question Yes. Fundamentally Yes. You are willing to bring forth permits for occupancy changes and fixing things that are noncompliance. That that's great news

as well.

Yeah. I mean, this has been a great place to do business. I just don't know why our relationship has deteriorated at this point. I mean, as you can see from the Alameda Point info, I mean, they were just in love with us. You know? We had a big ceremony out there in the point with mayor Gilmore, and we had a big group hug. And we founded Spirits Alley, and we've been rocking along ever since even with the loss of Rockwall and

and everyone. I I do I do wanna just We've

been soldiers for the cause. I've always been a soldier, but I've particularly been a soldier for this cause. We've done a lot for the point when nobody else wanted to be there. I mean, they begged us to come there. As a little business, they needed us.

Thank you, mister Hickman. But, again again, just trying to be sensitive to folks' time on a 06:30, people probably start to get hungry. So, you know, at least when I look at the inspection report, I'm looking at the timelines around the emails. A lot of times elapse both from when the business was, you know, first started. I'm seeing through the narrative time elapsing since February where there's been a lot of back and forth, but not a lot of action on your part. So I'm hoping that if you are serious about enacting those changes, that that could be done quickly.

Well, we were closed for the winter. Yeah. We we are closed during the winter. So we literally just opened up in the May, and you red tag us.

Right. So, again, I'm not, you know, I I don't understand your business, you know, or the ebb and flow of it. But if, if there's an opportunity for you to correct those things, I think the city can act quickly. I do believe there are expedited processes with the city. Am I correct, mister Davolos, that there are expedited ways to get permits reviewed and, in theory, approved. So, you know, the the ball is definitely in your court as far as, you know, how quickly you can take action on that.

So Yeah. I believe I we can close most of it. I mean, one of the pictures shows you, he wants to engineer on a security camera. It's a fake plug in security camera. I mean, if I don't wanna engineer a fake security camera. I can just take that down. Right? Yeah. Can I just take that down, Oscar? Yep. And then it's gone. I mean, I could just I mean, if it's 200 pictures, I think, like, 10 of those might be my responsibility. Maybe none of those are my responsibility. I think we can get right to the bottom of this and close this out. May the RAM. And then why not give me permission to have the porta potties? I mean, he at one point, he said he was gonna do that, and now he's talking like, no porta potties. So, again, I don't see why we can't have porta potties if we have one good handicap back.

Yeah. My perspective is the city staff, the building official, they're entrusted and well credentialed to interpret the codes, enforce the codes. So my personal reading is, you know, I think just to revisit the question of what we're we're here to look at is do these things apply, or and are they correctly outlined in the case? I I think we're hearing that, yeah, a lot of these things apply, and they are correctly outlined. And it's just a matter of how we can create the compliance, the changes.

Some of them fairly simple, like, hey. We'll just take down the camera so that you can get back to business and back to making money and back to being part of the community that you wanna be part of. I mean, I I hear it from your son that you care about the the business, you care about the community that comes there. It doesn't need to be a fight. It just needs to be about let's fix the things that need to be fixed. And, well, and I'm sorry to hear that, but I don't I don't see, at least in what I've read, things that are like, oh, wow. You'll you'll never fix that.

Like, that's It's it's nothing like that. That's why this is so bizarre that we got a red tag because this is not to that level, which, again, you can understand why we feel that this is about secret. We you know? Well I know I know mister Turner here way too well. I've seen him way too many times. He's in department twenty three.

I have to tell you I'm not familiar with your lawsuits.

Yeah. I honestly am not.

You're gonna wait for the Netflix miniseries. It's coming up. Gonna be good. It's gonna fully describe it all

to you. I am a general contractor, and I work here in town, and I have seen buildings red flag for lots of different things.

Yeah. Mainly Not for this.

Mainly for not having permits when you're doing work that should have a permit. That's mainly what I've seen.

Well, I haven't done any work in a lot

of years. Anyway but, you know, we have to entrust the city to steward the safety of the housing stock and the building stock and the commercial structures of our community. That's their job. So at least as far as I'm reading this, you know, there yeah. There are things here. Yes. They can be corrected, and I think they can be corrected rather quickly. Maybe some simplies. Maybe some will have some cost. Maybe some will just be taking down a camera,

you know, five minutes better. Maybe I could leave my fake security camera up. Maybe. Again, it's it's not If don't leave it plugged in and the light runs the doesn't blink if I don't leave it plugged in. So But Then it doesn't work as a fake deterrent.

Yeah. But, I mean, that that's what I'm I'm hearing. We're already at time, well past. So what I'd like to do is close if that's okay with the rest of Sure. The board may. Oh, before we deliberate and decide,

we should offer opportunity for public comment on this item. Oh, we haven't done that.

Sorry. Are there people online or in person that have public comment regarding the hearing itself?

At the bottom. Are

there any hands up? No. No hands raised online. Are there any other public comments from folks in the room?

Well, I'll take something. So,

you know, we've known people for a few years since the pandemic, businesses. Have you seen the loss of blackball? You know, like, it's sad. And so they're they're so creative in what they do. People come from R and D to living for all our events and stuff. And so I'm not everybody. I'm not cool. It's me. No. I'm legal.

I'm not cool. It's to work. I'm safe for everybody. These things we fix, obviously. Right. We'll help them. Your, you know, their their customers will help them. We'll do whatever it takes to make them.

Great. Thank

thank you. It includes solutions to combat. We all get along. Right? This is all I get along. Yeah. So I mean, just on the gas. And they're kinda.

Thank you. Thank you.

So if I just wanna add something that I've been buying my tongue, not to say, and I'm sorry if I lose my coat here. So for what I hear from you is that I'm gonna share is the way you present it. I appreciate, you know, your help so far that I can see you were waiting to help. But the way you presented is, like, all those 13 items and the report have been unattended or we didn't respond to it. We done it.

We done it. To, I would say, 10 of them. That's why he keep mentioning the I cannot even say the word. Mezzanine. Upstairs.

Since day one, I make it clear to him that we do not allow public upstairs, that I have it set up just because in during the holidays and Christmas, I have corporate events, and I have them set up just in case the corporates need a room for a small conference or video presentation or anything like that, but I haven't used that. So I make it clear since day one. I don't know why he is repeating that. And this and I'm sorry if I'm not as savvy in these cases, but I don't know why he's repeating that. And then the second visit, he saw the sign.

I don't know how he and I asked him, how do I fix that? How do I stop you for saying it's not allowed? It's no code or whatever. He never responded to. I mean, do I build a wall right there to prevent people to go upstairs? I have a sign in top of curtains. Nobody knows what's behind that curtain. Mhmm. They see the the rooms upstairs, but these people's been coming for years. Ask them if they've up there once.

No. When we have our private events, everybody wanna be where the crowd is. They don't wanna be out there. It's it's like they can't see nothing from them. That's private rules. So I make it clear to him. I don't know until this point. He's still repeating that. I'm surprised. And like I said, maybe it's me. I'm not a savvy. Maybe it's me. I how are we gonna resolve that? I don't know. To me, it's been resolved.

And here we are. He keep repeating that. How many times he repeat that today? Three, four times, maybe five? So that's and I mentioned that just to give you an example of how or you can get maybe a better idea of what is being going on. I spoke to them at council meetings about this whole situation with my business. I met with the the city. I don't know what this who the city is, and I tell them what was going on. I and it's like, nobody wanna support us. Nobody wanna support me.

And, I mean, I went and speak for myself, not for mister Kidman. I spoke to him, and he already explained why I stopped talking to him. So at one point, he was willing to help. Oh, yeah. And oh, yeah. He even came and asked for the events and everything, and then next we know at the right time. So wishy washy, somebody will say. So I'm sorry if I don't explain myself at all. I will we'll be here for two more hours if I if you allow me to say everything that I have in here. I'm so frustrated.

I'm so humiliated, and I'm so harassed. I retired from my thirty year government job to dedicate myself to this business. In those thirty years working for the government, I never ever experienced cumulation, harassment, and discrimination. And I have all of that here in Alameda with my own small business. Thank you.

Thank thank you for the comments. I'm sorry you have that perspective and perception. Are there any other comments? No one else online? No. There's no other things.

So if we could direct the city about deferments, the money, not trying to three day notice us, give them direction on we need to be helped to get this corrected. Well,

thank you for those questions, but I don't think that's in our purview or in our power to tell the city how and what to do as far as the enforcement of codes. We're good. We're here to look at what we talked about at the beginning, which is as far as the code violations that have been noted, were they correctly applied? Do they exist? It seems like some of them may have been corrected for at least the statements that we've heard.

All of

all of them, maybe. All of them, maybe. And that would be wonderful for you. We've also heard very clearly, I think, from both the city and you that there is an opportunity to correct any outstanding mistakes that were any outstanding noncompliance issues, both as an occupancy or specific things like electrical or entryways, etcetera. So, obviously, it's in everyone's best interest to do that as quickly as possible with the least cost as possible so that you can get back to business.

And then I'm I'm sorry if I wanna add that. Oh, and the reason why we are so concerned about the rent and because it's due tomorrow is because, believe it or not, little bit of history, because I'm pretty sure you you guys are not aware of that. In December, I was late two days. On the seventh, I was served with five days pain or queen. In history, what business had that in two in the seventh of the month?

I I can't

Just a little bit of history.

I can't

speak to that.

Sorry. No one if you

look at public records. And we heard numerous times at the council meetings how many how many businesses have so much help when it comes to the rent. But as I was late two days.

Thank you for that additional information. So if the city is

gonna continue with their usual antics, this was all just a big waste of time here tonight. There's Hickman,

I'm But So If you would allow the rest of them.

I'm done. That's all I have to say. Thank you, mister Hernandez.

Thank you. So as far as us and our deliberations, are are there any other things that you guys have questions about either for either of them or final thoughts so we can come up with

None specifically. It sounds like just a point of clarification for mister Turner is we so in each of these violations, we have to make a determination individually. Correct? To approve or deny, or is it all the violations as a whole, or how does that how does that work?

You can do it altogether if you're going to deny or grant the appeal in its entirety. But if you're gonna do it in part, I

would recommend breaking it up. Into individual ones. Okay. Fair enough. And yeah. So I don't to answer your question, I don't have any any further need for clarification. And I I do I guess I feel like maybe taking them on individually makes more sense than than as a whole, but I don't know if you guys have.

Chair, we did reserve three minutes of our time, and I wanted to just use maybe thirty seconds of it to flag. The question here is what was the what were the instructions for how to remedy all of these situations? And those are laid out in the queue on the last two pages in the notice that was posted for. So that's all I have. Thank you.

Did you have any other questions?

I don't. I'm I'm I I just wanna say I I'm I'm feeling more positive about the the fact that that I think this can this can come to a resolution that could

come quickly

if these if these issues are addressed. As as a small business owner and as someone who loves living here and doing my business here, it's I'm I'm

feeling more positive about this.

Thank you.

And I I appreciate everyone's comments.

Thank you. As far as the idea of taking these one at a time versus in mass, there's some discussion on that.

It it feels to me that taking them over time would just be more would be easier, and that would also allow us to section. Or required actions should be section three.

Can I ask one question? This seems a little bit onerous at this point to go through these individually. I'm definitely not advocating doing them all as one thing. It could you makes could there be a third option where you direct us to work together in the next thirty days to resolve all of this? Is there something like that that could be said? Because that's what I'm hearing from you guys. And now I'm hearing direction to do something else, which I think is kinda defeat what we've come to and what Mr. Brito just said.

Well, if if I could respond to that, my understanding is that we are here as a an ad hoc, advisory board to make a decision as to whether or not these, code violations were correctly noted by the building inspector and or not. It's not in our power, although I would say we're all in definite agreement that we encourage you to come to the city quickly, earnestly to correct these issues, and we think it's all correctable, and you can get back to business soon. But as far as what we're here to do, like, I can't change your rent. I you know, like, it's just not in our power.

I'm not necessarily asking for that. I'm I'm just saying

Normally, think that sort of changed the the procedure by which, you know, how in other words, the result of this meeting is purely as as Hank is saying, as the chair is saying, would be for us to interpret these items and whether they're applicable or not to your case.

Okay. I can appreciate I can appreciate that. So then I guess my one input to that would be okay. That with each of these one through 13, I have no code citation with each one. So, again, I would still fall back on that that these violations don't exist. K. But I'll leave

it at that. We would encourage you to to move forward under the assumption that the violations do exist and that you should work with the city to correct them or confirm that you don't exist. The codes. But they've been cited. That one.

So And you look at the We need

to operate under that assumption.

Have a section where it shows all the violations.

Excuse me. The sheriff is speaking. I I can't hear.

Thank you. Sorry.

K. I I think he was just pointing out the violation. So, again, I I would pursue resolution under the assumption that these things have been noted by the city. We're gonna go through them one at a time, see if we think they apply. Regardless of that, go to the city, work with them to either confirm that, yes, they've been fixed or no, they don't exist, or yes, they do exist, and here's how we're gonna fix them and when so you can get your business back.

So do you wanna start on 1.2?

Yeah. And and so, actually, the the code section to administer was. You would see the first one for section. Section five. Section 5.5. But section five. Yes. Violations.

So

that list of violations that would be and it lists the current sections.

Code violation form, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, building operations. We have the sink, dishwasher, electro connections, and lighting, occupancy load, and the mezzanine as well as guardrails. So just run down the list.

Sure. I I can go.

Unpermitted washing sink. So I saw pictures of the sink that didn't look original. Say that applies.

And, mister Hickman, you mentioned that you had replaced

I think that

was there. Think it's the dishwashing machine system that was installed.

Dishwasher is a portable dishwasher maintained and, it's just basically plug in, and it goes into the three compartment sink drain. It's a portable dishwasher maintained by a professional company. It doesn't belong to us. Okay.

But it's but it's still being used to that's what you're using for dishware washing.

With the three compartment sink, that's a little tedious. Yes. Okay.

Yeah. So I would

So this is the first I've seen of code citations with violations. So, again, this was done after the fact. So this is, again, this is illegal when it comes to inspection. So I'll play I'll play along, but this is

is

highly illegal. This is highly illegal. But I'm gonna play along, but I don't appreciate this one bit.

We're just looking over a list. There's nothing illegal.

So so here's the okay. So so what do we need to do is make are we gonna make a motion on each of these as we go?

We could. That sounds easiest and most official. We'll move to each one that applies, does not apply. You can do that. Yeah. Okay. So number one, uncommitted washing sink. Do I have a motion? Is it applicable or or a motion to the effect of has this been correctly cited as a potential violation?

I would say

yes. Alright. Second.

That was part of the winery permit getting the three compartment sink, and that just went where the existing sink was. So I would disagree with that.

All in favor, aye. Aye. Ayes have it. Number one. Number two, unpermitted dishwasher.

No. Code violation number two. So that's second page. Right? So the code

Oh, code violation number two. Sorry. Primary entrance only identified exit to the business was served to

be expected and inaccessible. So

not an approved exit.

Yeah. So, again, I'm I'm I think I always voiced my own concern. The the I guess one of the things that Mr. Davao has makes clear in all of his statements is that your your occupancy is determined by the use of each space within the building, including the outdoor patio, because your overall occupancy is what determines the number of restrooms that you have to have, the number of exits that you have have, those exits. That's all code determined.

And so I think that you're you're expressing how are you to know that. Well, I I didn't expect you to know that, but I think that's that is my recommendation to you would be to get with a design professional that can give you guidance and help you. Because when mister Douglas when I began to read his inspection reports, I could right away understand the code sections that he was referring to and what the issues were. And they may not be apparent or obvious to you. I don't expect you to be an expert in the code, but they do apply to you, and they do apply to the business.

And so that is where, I think, in terms of going back to the chair's suggestion that I think you're you're really close to being able to get out from under this, but I think you need the help that you need is to get with a design professional who can help interpret these things for you and make recommendations and work with building official to resolve how do we make sure that mezzanine is in compliance, for example. The reason it keeps getting mentioned is because it's one of your most dangerous conditions. And you said that Now

open to the public.

And you say that it's not open to the public, but even if the two of you are using it as a meeting room or the three of your just your employees, you're still not in compliance because it's not

We see we seized that. For that. We seized that and made that clear.

Because that's that's where somebody could help you to negotiate that with the city and and cut through so that you're not wondering, what do we do? What do we need to do? Maybe it's just a permanent sign. It doesn't mean and I I think that that's where his job is not to tell you how to solve a problem. His job is to tell you there is a problem, and then it's for you to hire the help that you need to have the solution to that problem.

So so how many people we had in here? He keeps on saying we've exceeded the occupancy, and we we don't how many people we had in there?

Well, that's the whole thing is that your design professional can help you determine what your occupancy is about. But how then determine the number of restrooms that you need to have, the size of the exits, etcetera, etcetera.

Well well, when the navy said it, there's a sign posted on there that says occupancy load 49, and now it's been increased by 60 with the outdoor space. I don't believe we've ever exceeded a 100 people. Again, this isn't the Okay.

The moment to have those discussions because the meeting will drag on. But but, you know, we're trying to give you some just good advice as we go through this. Correct.

So I would say that in in my opinion or I would vote in favor of this violation applies.

I second it. Through the chair, if

I may, proposed language may be motion to deny the appeal as to code violation number two on the basis that there was no error in the application. That's a bad match.

Yeah. I'm I'm happy for it to be recorded that way, whatever the correct language is, so that it's clear that we're we're saying that we believe this was a correctly noted violation. As in, it does we were not granting the appeal Right. On that that item.

So we do wanna be specific that we're moving to deny the appeal. I know. Yeah.

I didn't so the motion would be to deny the appeal on code violation number two. All in favor? Aye. Aye.

So I'm just curious if we're gonna let them, like, illegally write violations and then put code after the fact and pictures after the fact and violate everything. Why did we even die? Well, what's the point of this if we're just gonna play along with the city's game and continue to do illegal acts?

Mister Hickman, again, I'd just encourage you. Please let us proceed with this. We understand your perspective. We hear your frustration. But right now, we're

You can't fathom my frustration. You just can't fathom it. You can't fathom it.

I can't fathom it, but I can hear it. You can't fathom it. And I I don't need to hear it anymore right now because we have this business to get through. We're trying to help in a productive way get you resolution. So the sooner that we get through this, the sooner you can get on to the things that need to be done, which will be hopefully very simple to get back into compliance, get your doors open, and get your customers back through the doors.

So code violation numbers three and four. I do believe there was some back and forth on this one as to whether or not the barrels were or won't storing wine or if they were

or

weren't so many barrels high. I don't know if you

Yeah. I guess this is one of those that's a little bit difficult because it's you know, there's documented evidence online that there was a time that they were stacked much higher than they are currently. And so if it's not a permanent storage issue, then it's just hard like Mr. Dell will say, it's hard to release.

So it

feels to me a little bit more like the owner is being alerted to the fact that if you store that amount of stuff, that can generate a code violation. Yeah. But I don't know whether it's

But it it may not be currently a violation. Yeah. At the at the time, it seems like it clearly was.

It was not it was not at the time of it. It's like, I removed all the wine, and they're stacked too high. They're gone. This is long gone. Long gone. Long gone. There's real violations throughout the point, as Mr. Douglas knows, at all the other wineries. It's real violations. They're really dangerous.

So I guess it in my mind, they may not you may not they may be in compliance already, but that it is an enforceable violation, I would say yes. Yeah. But it's dependent on the height and the and the weight. Right. So that's okay. Right? So yes. And so without without knowing exactly what the current condition is, but, again, to your point earlier, this is one that's it's an easy fix.

Yeah.

So so we're making a motion.

They're empty and too hot. I just changed her. Dollars. That's it clarified.

It's been about two and a half minutes, and I'd

like to use some of

the time to clarify this if I'm allowed. Sure. I'm here so I don't receive my time. I just wanna emphasize that when I issued a report on 04/24/2025 based on inspection on 04/23/2025, I actually responded to which one of the sections of the violation, and I put in the action that needed to be done. For example, on the barrels, I said, most of the barrels have been relocated.

Then we stated that the remaining barrels contain only small amounts of water to preserve them. Although this matter is under review by the bill official, the plan check-in here, this shall be included in the requested plans. So for every single item, I provided an answer from the report because I wanna give them the ability to take care of everything and give them guidance. But the guidance is not just for them, for the design professional to address these issues. Because if we document that they're gonna have two barrels high, and then later on, we see online or they have stacking 10 barrels high, then it's a violation. So the way we make sure that things are done is we document that on the plans, which we'll have.

Got it. Thank you for that.

I'm not

bringing wine and barrels back to Alameda. I never ever ever again without a loss. It's not happening. Fair enough. So You lost that business

from me. Yeah. So I would I I would move to deny the appeal on the basis that if the if the if the barrels if you wanna store barrels, there's nothing that says you can't. You just have to design for the loads that you're impacting on the bill. That's all. And there's and that there's no there's no current storage problem. Perfect. Fair enough.

This will this will be an easy resolution. Yeah.

Fair enough. If they're not okay. So that yeah. So I would vote that both violation three and four to deny the appeal on that basis, and it sounds like it it would be nonissue for it. Do we have

a second?

So you've denied my appeal when I've already corrected it?

For the determination that we're making, it's not whether you're in compliance or not, but whether the violations were appropriate at the time that the inspection was conducted. The barrels were gone when the inspection was conducted? Not when the report was written.

They were No. They were gone. They were were gone. When when he did the final inspection, they were gone. He keeps on talking about the small pile of water. One cup, so the barrel said you have. And that one cup of water got absorbed into the barrel, so there's no water.

So so this will be an easy one for you to resolve as

I thought we already did.

Resolve it. So I gotta hire a design professional to write a line item on my barrel. Money's tied here.

I prefer not to.

I I understand.

So how about giving me this one, please?

We're not in a negotiation one by one.

Because we keep the suspension, the problem was solved.

And that's great to hear, but that's not what we're here talking about. We're we're looking at an appeal on whether or not these were correctly noted violations.

They were they were not correct. Right. This was not a correctly noted violation.

These We we we understand your perspective. We just voted, and we think it was correctly noted.

So this will be easy. Pictures I sent him before he came, but they were emptied me holding him up with one hand. I sent him to Mr. Douglas. I didn't him

up when he was there.

She lifted she lifted him up. He knows better. He's lying right now.

Thank you for the comment. Code violation number five.

So that was upheld or denied?

We denied that one. So code violation number five, which is about the exit pathways and offense.

She's not on our property. I have no idea what she's talking about. I made that clear.

Yeah. So this is one where I I was unclear after even after seeing the photos of what that path connects, and so maybe you could elaborate for us what the path is. Sure.

So when we're missing the complaint, we, you know, we're told that there was an insertion place on that area of that walkway. And when we went there, we confirmed that. We took photographs. When we went back to do the reinspection on 04/23/2025, we noticed that it had been removed, but it was just left on the floor, you know, as an obstruction. So for us, if you have a violation, you remove the violation. You don't make a temporary fix or remove the violation. So if the intent was to remove the obstruction completely, is it would be to remove that obstruction now from the floor. It was just left there on the on the floor. So

Not not by me. That was completely removed, placed elsewhere. There are people out there thieving, tweaking, and stealing all night long, stealing gutters, cropping pieces of wood, the climbing wall and steel gutters, and. I have nothing to do with that. It's not my property.

Thank thank

you. On somebody else's property. Yes.

Could I

ask responsibility.

That at least hold your time as much as you can. We we really wanna try to make sure this.

I'm not that won't be occasion.

Code code violation number five. Do we have a motion?

I I motion that this one still stands. It's just based on the fact that it would be an easy easy fix. But according to the the It's not in my profile.

And it's in the back of the

It's in the other It's

in the back of the building.

The other half of the building, not ours. This is not my responsibility. I'm not cleaning up their trash.

Access to that.

I'm not cleaning up

It's not our our

Oscar's trash.

So he didn't specify. It was he mean he forgot to specify when exactly he done the exodus, and I tell him him personally that he went there. Nobody access that through that hallway right there.

It's the security have

their own door and the access through the back. Our customers are in front. So just to give you a bigger picture.

This this gate that's it's it's not even lying on your

It has nothing to do with us. No. It's the security company contracted by the city. This is on their property. Mister Davalos knows that. He's reaching. It's like the fake security camera. Mister Davalos just is reaching. This is not on our property. This has nothing to do with me. I'm not cleaning up this trash. So no thanks.

Mister Davolos, is there, so that gate that was removed, I understand that it was left in place and on the ground is an obstruction. But that path, is it an exit from this building or from the neighboring building?

I think the question was for me, if you don't mind. I believe that you know, I really cannot confirm if it's a it's an exiting path, but it's it's a pathway. So, therefore, if anybody puts an obstruction of pathway and okay. So they remove it but leave it on the floor, then, you know, as as a court enforcement officer, I I have to request for that to be removed. I don't know whose responsibility it is, but when we received the complaint, that was installed by by this tenant. So, therefore, we ordered this tenant to remove it, and it wasn't removed completely. It was removed from the obstruction but left on the floor, still created obstruction for anybody going in there. Okay?

But it was installed by by the folks at forty three that was installed by

But, like, I cannot, like, I cannot, like, prove that. No. How did we completely

It's not on our property.

It has nothing to do with it. This is Mr. Davila's fantasy here.

The the statement says maybe part, so it's not certainly or uncertainly. So I would grant the appeal on this one based on what I'm reading. It's inconclusive. Yeah.

I'd I'd be inclined to do so as well, but not only because it doesn't seem that it's a safety issue that it's not blocking egress for either another tenant or this tenant. So it seems like it's less applicable. Again, I agree with Mr. Devils that, you know, if if if the egress were mapped for this building, then that would be probably not fine. So do you any pretty great submission?

I I motion to to grant the appeal on code by mission five.

All in favor? Aye. Aye.

Aye. Code violation number six.

Bathroom. So I'm I'll

second that. No.

All in favor? Number seven, courts.

If I may real quick, these were only used because the city's electrician cut off power to a third of our buildings when they were trying to figure out how to separate the building so the city's electrician cut off power to a third of our building. We couldn't figure out what the problem was. We finally figured it out, so we had to use temporary cords while we figured out why a third of our power was missing. We finally tracked it down to an issue that the city's electrician did, and we restored that so there's no more extension cords being used. That's great. And Mr. Davalos knows that.

That's great to hear. Cords were observed, I believe, in many of the pictures.

Yeah. So I I would say that I would deny the appeal on the basis that, yes, nonpermanent wiring is is a good violation. Yeah.

Here it says they were observed, removed.

Very, very easy thing to confirm.

He he confirmed it right here. And seven, number one, chords observed removed.

If I may So when I went there, we observed that many of the cords were removed, but some were just unplugged, which, you know, you leave the scene. You plug them back in. And we provided photographs of that because those photos that we provided you are from the inspection on 04/2325, when we haven't been to the property. And I did say that no permits course, However, no permits were found for the electric wiring, lighting, and secured light camera installed on the outside of the building. Please include this in the requested plans.

Yeah. There were there were obviously electrical fixtures that had been wired recently. And if there are no permits, they were unpermitted. So so we have a motion. We've all

agreed on that one tonight. We do

agree. Eight, nine, and 10. So mezzanine, stairway, guardrails, obviously, advertising. So I think this was pretty clear from the photos. The guardrail is noncompliant. The stairs are noncompliant. Or yeah. Motion.

Yeah. We moved to to 98018910.

Second? I second. All in favor? Aye. Denies. Code violation number 11. This is around the permit. I think we've heard a lot about this. And, again, I would think this is easy enough to address

through paperwork.

Do we have a motion?

Yeah. I'll move to the.

Second. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Code violation number 12, plumbing fixtures for occupancy and use.

Yeah. So

can't be used to satisfy

required plumbing fixtures, but. So I think John is clear. Yeah.

They can for temporary for three month periods, I believe, which is all we requested. We were told yes and then told no, then told yes and then told no.

Do we have a second? I'll second.

All in favor?

Aye. Aye. Peeling paint for violation number 13. Obviously, lead based paint is a reality on the base. Yeah.

It was unclear as to where and what extent to what extent that existed. I know it existed in some spots. There was other spots that looked freshly painted to me or more recently painted, and I didn't see it.

So, mister Davalos, this is one that I had a question on in terms of is there is there an obligation or a tenant in this case to ameliorate the passwords?

So according to the the landlord because I inquired with the landlord because when the tenants told me that that was the landlord's responsibility, I ordered them to take care of the matter. They told me that after the leasing agreement, the tenants are responsible for maintenance of the space. So I really cannot comment on the leasing agreement because I just follow the road. And so if I see paying on a bill that is pre 1978, I just have to assume the worst case scenario and order whoever it is responsible to take care of it. If it's the tenant or the landlord, somebody needs to alleviate that situation. If

it's a

paint chip, also somebody to drink,

then it's a a problem.

Right. But we don't know that there's lead. There hasn't been any testing. We're just No. Observing feeling pain.

Right. The feeling pain is the building is older.

Probably. Present. So Yeah. Probably.

We say potential because we don't.

So you can say that's our responsibility all day long even if the lease says that, and that's in a legal provision of the lease. That's the city's responsibility, the landlord's responsibility. So good luck on that one.

Thoughts? I mean, obviously, it's, if it's limited areas, even just painting over it to stop further peeling Yeah. It's it's such a simple fix. It's not like they're being asked to, you know Scrape the hole. Scrape the hole. Yeah. You know, it's just stop for the peeling of paint. Yeah. It's pretty easy through encapsulation. Whether or not there's lead is is really not known because there is no testing. It's an assumption. So

Again, legally, California, landlord's responsibility, I'm not interested in addressing your landlord's responsibility.

But, again, that's not what we're here to talk about. So, I mean, my my initial thought would be, like, yeah, there probably is lead based pain, but we can't know that for certain. It's just probably. Yeah. So I I

I don't know. But I guess so if you were if you were doing a project like this in your work, you would be

able to do like this. Oh, I would test it before I would drill a hole.

You know, before I would requirement as part of your TI. Yeah. So I I would say based on that, then it is applicable in that sense. Right? Right. That we're just doing the tenant improvement where we have to do the lead the lead testing, And then whether the abatement is on that or landlords for them to cash out.

Yeah. Based on this scope of, you know, penetrations or, you know, there's minimal allowances, but it's such an easy thing to fix if it's just the photos that we saw.

Yeah. And if it's tested, that's probably

Then even better. Yeah. Okay.

So what so

are we

I would make a or someone can make a motion to deny the appeal.

I'll make a motion to deny the appeal on that. One second.

Hold on

a favor.

Aye. Deny.

Number 14, stage platform, performers, patio shade structure. Again, this is around the change of occupancy. I guess it's sort of interrelated.

Mister Davila, on the shade structures, am I correct that those are two steel columns that are supported in concrete? So it is a permanent structure. I mean, it's been installed permanently. Right? Yeah. So, I mean, it's

pretty obvious. Yeah. Let's see. $30 shades from Amazon will get

taken down routinely by the promoter.

But but the fact that they're embedded makes the makes them a permanent structure, regardless of the material.

The holes were put there to hang up signs, like, ten years ago. So the signs have been there.

They're permanent. Yeah.

And then somebody hacked on there to put the shade structures up.

So It's a change of use. I I don't see how that could be.

Sir, if I may, I provided in the evidence a photo from 2015 when the business was established, and there was

nothing Correct. Till 2016. So so in the end, there those structures require a building permit and a use permit, and then they're part of your use permit. So that's the so they are structures that were built without permit, and that's that's where the violation lies.

Yep. So

Easy enough to fix them. Yeah. Exactly. Kinda

like that 10,000 square foot, 25 foot tall, so be in town.

So do I have a motion?

Yeah. So I move to deny the appeal.

Do I have a second? I second. All in favor? Aye. Denied.

And then I think that is the last one.

So in summary, we denied the appeal on the call but five, which we granted. So that's correctly reported. Let's see. Closing questions, comments, concerns. Thank you, all yours.

And thank you, mister, for your patience today. I think it's important to know.

Well, there was some patients dealing with this. Yeah.

It's rough here. It's unfortunate that you guys didn't see the big picture here and do the right thing. But, you know, it's about what I expected. I was hoping the female on your board was here. She's really sharp. I like her. She knows her shit, she and gets it done. But I didn't expect to see her here tonight. So thank you, gentlemen.