The record, in order
One chronology of what happened at the property, what was reported, what the City did, and what remained unresolved.
The cards below keep the major events and the underlying source records together. The separate City Record and Timeline pages have been consolidated here.
I sent the door hanger to the owner immediately. He said it concerned his windows and removal of their stickers. The later permit-inspection record identifies ROOF SHEATHING, records CORRECTIONS, and notes that a door hanger was left.
I wrote that I could not unlock the only gate, called it a hazard, and asked for an operable lock. He acknowledged that the lock had become difficult but said keeping the gate closed was the larger concern.
Moisture-damaged material, framing, and insulation fell into the occupied sleeping area. Within eight days, the City had photographs and a written description of the collapse, leaks, termites, wood rot, rotted windows, unsafe appliances, severe physical limitations, and concern that the home might not be salvageable. The owner represented that the work would be permitted and inspected.
A San Francisco Notice of Default was recorded while the West Hollywood ceiling was still open. After work finally began, the owner said the inspector could check it and later said everything was “safe and sound inside.”
The contemporaneous exchange documents trash bins placed at the gate and the owner’s explanation for doing so. I sent Rent Stabilization the messages, explained that the barricade prevented access to the outside, and described the conduct as physically intimidating. The City sent a tenant-harassment form and told me to contact law enforcement if safety was compromised.
I supplied the harassment record, the gate evidence, the safety history, and my original 2020 lease. The City referred the case to the prosecutor and told me to allow time for review. I did.
I was too sick and too physically limited to get myself out safely. When my father could come, I left. My belongings stayed behind. I was waiting for the protected way back that I had asked the City to provide.
By then, the City already had the original lease submitted with the complaint. The late registration did not match that record. Staff later said “not furnished” had been added to the correction record, but the final classification remained unclear.
The County submission identified animal waste, termite and structural decay, moisture, water-heater and venting concerns, electrical hazards, unsafe access, debris, and cumulative exposure. I added the certified mold analysis the next day. When I filed for protection, I had already relocated and used my new residence as my court contact address. My belongings remained behind.
I told the City that I could barely walk and needed an inspection because the home was not habitable. The City process and an eviction case then moved at the same time. I was told only about one of them.
During the February 20 meeting, the prosecutor displayed Barela’s inspection photograph and said he would speak with Peter and follow up. I still understood the review to be active.
The City stated that the roofing permit had never been finalized, the damaged ceiling required a separate permit, the reroof inspection did not cover the interior, and no water-heater plumbing permit was found. The request for an independent records-based determination was routed back to the division whose closure was under challenge.
He first asked to enter the guesthouse to adjust the HVAC units and check the filters. He then said that if I did not respond, he would post notice and “legally enter whether you get back to me or not.” I did not grant permission. After later returning under safer conditions, I found the eviction papers and learned that the case had been proceeding since February.
The City said responsive records existed and released none, citing an ongoing investigation.
The photograph was the simplest test of the closure. If Barela photographed taped electrical wiring on February 17, what did “maintenance completed” mean on February 18?
The entry was captured on camera and reported immediately to law enforcement. The Sheriff’s restoration notice later listed August 11 as the eviction date. On August 12, I was told I had through August 26 to contact the landlord and arrange retrieval of my belongings.
What the sequence shows
The City had notice of the collapse, the hazardous gate, the barricaded exit, serious illness, sanitation conditions, displacement, the inspection photograph, and the permit gaps. The sequence ends with the inspection evidence withheld and the central safety questions unresolved.