Fwd: Times for 2313 San Pablo field inspection? 3 messages

Transcription

1 Erin Baldassari Fwd: Times for 2313 San Pablo field inspection? 3 messages Keenan <dkeenan44@gmail.com> To: Erin Baldassari <ebaldassari@bayareanewsgroup.com> Wed, May 10, 2017 at 7:50 PM Forwarded message From: Keenan <dkeenan44@gmail.com> Date: Tue, May 9, 2017 at 5:31 PM Subject: Re: Times for 2313 San Pablo field inspection? To: "Loo, Wing" <WLoo@oaklandnet.com> on the one hand, dreams are often the only avenue available to regular people facing a system that for all intents and purposes seems rigged. I mean I would never have gotten a single building permit, CUP or anything else through the city of oakland without sticking by my dreams.. on the other hand what lives in Acella can be much closer to a dream than anything approaching reality, except for the crucial fact that the Acella nightmare can have distorting, at times disastrous effects on our reality: Cf. the W.I. Thomas theorem, "If men define situations as real, they are real in their consequences." At the least I figure, we can still count a sense of humor as something the worthy servants of the city of oakland can occasionally manage to deliver on for the benefit of its hapless public I realize how quixotic my protestations might seem but for now the windmill tilting will continue until morale improves ;) On Tue, May 9, 2017 at 4:27 PM, Loo, Wing <WLoo@oaklandnet.com> wrote: Hi, I am surprised you are applying logics to the City Of Oakland. I will reply within the next day or so. Have a good evening and conĕnue to dream. Wing Loo From: Keenan [mailto:dkeenan44@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 09, :57 PM To: Loo, Wing Cc: Ranelletti, Darin; Cappio, Claudia; Tom Dolan Subject: Re: Times for 2313 San Pablo field inspection? Hi Wing, 1/6

2 Thank you for making this change of status to "referred" which is an improvement over "verified". It sounds like you are still being frustrated by the Acella system, and I am sympathetic to that. This being the official record though, the Habitation complaint does still need to be changed to "no violation found", "closed", or similar. Being a public record, the only status that is acceptable is one that is that is accurate, because in this and many other cases it impacts the affected parties far beyond the internals of the Building Dept or Acella itself, such as lease compliance between tenant and landlord. IE, existential concerns in which accuracy is paramount. As we discussed, the conditions needing repair that you noted, unrelated to habitation, were ironically the same repairs that the complaint you were investigating prevented me from pulling a permit to fix. These conditions had been identified by us proactively long before your visit to the property or the Sheriff's complaint which prompted it. So I guess I don't understand why having now made a second enforcement record relating to the staircase etc, you cannot simply close the habitation complaint? By way of analogy. Lets say I am on my way to a mechanic to get a broken tail light fixed. However I stopped at a DUI checkpoint, and given a breathalizer test. I'm found to be entirely sober, however, the officer notes the broken taillight. Following the logic of the current system for building complaints, because this 'other violation' of the broken tail light was discovered, in the DMV's system I am also found guilty of the DUI. For some reason, this record of the DUI can't be changed, because the broken tail light was discovered at the same time as I was checked for the DUI. Even though the two violations are in fact not remotely related. Then when I arrive at the mechanic, I find the ticket for the broken tail light actually prevents me from getting the taillight fixed, which is what I was on my way to do in the first place. To my mind that's pretty much analogous what we have here. I couldn't file the repair permits because of the habitation complaint, which in spite of no habitation, remains on record because you noted other items needing repair, which were the same ones I was on my way to fix. I certainly don't blame you personally for the inefficiencies of the current record tracking system, but if it is not possible for a qualified Inspector to change the official record to reflect more accurately, please let me know who in the building department might be able to, since this is an issue that extends beyond this one complaint and affects many parties. 2/6

3 On Mon, May 8, 2017 at 9:25 AM, Loo, Wing wrote: Morning, You are right. Our Accela system is not perfect. I have opened a new complaint # to address the construcĕon issues, the missing post and rear stairs. I cannot change the inspecĕon result because other violaĕons were noted. I did change the status to referred not non acĕonable. All of this are explained in the comments. I hope this is saĕsfactory. You are right that I am extremely busy. Wing Loo From: Keenan [mailto:dkeenan44@gmail.com] Sent: Sunday, May 07, :51 AM To: Loo, Wing Subject: Re: Times for 2313 San Pablo field inspection? Wing, Following up on this. The habitation complaint is still listed as 'verified'. This needs to read 'No Violation Found'. I am confused because I thought you said FPBs inspection reports to this effect (not noting any habitation) sufficed and you did not need to come out. Are you just really busy (I have no doubt) or is there something I am missing? Please let me know what's going on. As I indicated to you in person, this baseless complaint is actively blocking life safety improvements to the property as well as putting these tenants in jeopardy with their lease. So this is a big deal, and we need to act expeditiously towards its resolution. I can't just let this go. The same fix needs to made to Omnis record of which I have also made numerous requests for correction over a period of months. It is not right that such unfounded black marks put community centers in jeopardy like this and this sort of delay puts spaces at confused risk which it seems to me is counter to the aims of your department. We are on the same side here, because I am implementing life Safety improvements called for by both Inspections and all other AHJs. If there is some reason this cannot be addressed please let me know Monday. I had to bring this to the attention of the Code Changes task force that I sit on because I am being pressed as to what is holding up the improvements. Best 3/6

4 On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 11:46 AM Keenan wrote: Hi Wing, Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter and updating the complaint description, it is deeply appreciated :) I don't want to ask for the moon, but I noted that even though the description has changed, the Record Status still indicates 'Complaint Verified' wrt a Housing Habitability Complaint Therefore, might it be possible to change this status as well, to 'Closed' or 'No Violation found'? As otherwise I'm concerned that from the perspective of 3rd parties such as property owner, Planning dept, etc this 'verified' status would nonetheless indicate that habitation was in fact discovered. With regards a followup field inspection, to be honest, we are all volunteers with other day jobs... so as I already have to take time off work to meet with inspectors for site visits, if you're satisfied with Fire's conclusions for now that will allow us to focus our energies squarely on moving these life safety improvements through plancheck. I have no doubt that calvin, gary, dexter or whomever is engaged in plan check for this property will pass a vigorous eye over the proposed improvements. And of course, when we have the rough, we will naturally be more than happy to again address any other material condition on site that might raise concern on the part of any inspector. It has been challenging to find the time to properly accommodate the roughly 50 vulnerable properties we have worked to bring into life safety compliance since December, so again your attention to this matter is sincerely appreciated. Let me know if its possible to update that status to 'closed' or 'no violation found'? On Mon, May 1, 2017 at 10:52 AM Loo, Wing <WLoo@oaklandnet.com> wrote: Hi, 4/6

5 I have changed the complaint descripĕon so there is no reference to a live/work condiĕon. There s no need for me to go out again based on the fire inspecĕon report unless you find it necessary for me to see with my own eyes. In which case, Thursday, 5/4 at 11:30 will work for me. Wing Loo Specialty / Combination Inspector Bureau of Building Inspection Division 250 Frank H Ogawa Plaza, Suite 2340 Oakland, CA Office: wloo@oaklandnet.com From: Keenan [mailto:dkeenan44@gmail.com] Sent: Monday, May 01, :31 AM To: Loo, Wing Cc: Maria Elle; Garrett, Flanoy; Ayse Sercan Subject: Times for 2313 San Pablo field inspection? Hi Wing, Thank you so much for meeting with us this AM re: the recent Housing Habitability Complaint # for 2313 San Pablo, that we discovered has blocked our ability to pull permits for planned life safety improvements to the structure called for by our most recent fire inspection. (Had we not tried to pull these permits, we would have had no knowledge of the complaint.) In the meeting this morning, you indicated you verified the habitation complaint not due to any discovery of habitation, but rather because there was a locked room(s) such as of Hiphop for Change community group at the time that you could not see. What times this week might work for you to come out for a field inspection when this room is open, in order to clear this up? As we indicated this AM, the complaint of habitation in this volunteer run community space, which provides critical services to the surrounding population on a volunteer basis, is without merit. In most cases of complaints of community spaces after GhostShip, we have found that it is the property owners, seeking to redevelop, who have called in complaints as a means to void leases. We believe this is the case with these tenants. Fwiw, I believe the non presence of habitation can also be corroborated by FPB Inspectors Garrett (cc'd) and Davis, who have been out to assess life safety conditions at this site over the last quarter. 5/6

6 By the way, wrt the complaint description, 2313 San Pablo is not known as 'Afrikatown', which is a name for the neighborhood as a whole. Rather, the name of the entity is Qilombo, which is written in large letters along its frontage. In any case thank you for your time and let me know what times might work for you to come out? / Keenan <dkeenan44@gmail.com> To: Erin Baldassari <ebaldassari@bayareanewsgroup.com> Wed, May 10, 2017 at 8:38 PM Hey erin, I know this is annoying I'm super sorry about this, but I didn't get permission from Q. or Metro to publicize my efforts on their behalf to you.. so if you can hold off on publicizing anything from this for now until I get their OK? I should be able to get that soon. Or if there's some way to anonymize the actual spaces for now? They know Im advocating for them at the city, but I really should have checked before fwding to a journalist. I think they'll be ok with it but I have to check or they will lose trust in us.. sorry about alla this thx [Quoted text hidden] Erin Baldassari <ebaldassari@bayareanewsgroup.com> To: Keenan <dkeenan44@gmail.com> Thu, May 11, 2017 at 9:31 AM Hey Like I said last night, everything was off the record. So, there is nothing to publicize at this point. I would need to speak to you and Tom again on the record this time to get quotes, etc., as well as speak to Qilombo and Metro. But, at this point, there is no story. I'll keep you posted. Cheers, Erin [Quoted text hidden] Erin Baldassari transportation reporter Editorial ebaldassari@bayareanewsgroup.com bayareanewsgroup.com Over 5 million engaged readers weekly 6/6