he told me to call him within one week. prior to me getting a hold of him, i was unable to get a hold of him, i left him several messages. when i spoke with him on the timber 7, that was the last time i had spoken to him. he never returned my phone calls before that. i was unable to get a hold of him. basically, from that point on, i was waiting for them to get the camera in there before i could replace the two way cleanout. it is very difficult to get a camera into a house the trap. when i spoke with bill, he told me to finish the work and get it inspected, worry about the camera later. that is when i scheduled for the inspection on the 22nd and got

it signed off. >> i have a question for bill. i heard the word camera quite a few times. was the camera never used any time between 1971 and the time that we opened up the street to do this repair? was the street ever opened up previously? >> we are not aware the street was opened up. we believe -- well, we believe a camera was used. mr. jacobson did not have a camera at the time, although he does address that in the letter. that would be more authentic and accurate. i know for sure the street was not opened up. right now, there is a mark on the street. that was put on the street on

the same day that the project was finalized. that locates it as is headed toward resource. >> thank you. -- signatory sourcthe sanitary . the root cause of the problem is the tree. where is the tree located? >> i do not know if the tree is located on the jacobsen's property or their neighbors. >> is there a picture of the sidewalk? a diagram? >> here is where the sewage goes. you can see, this is the edge of the jacobson's property. if the problem is here, it looks

like it is in the next door neighbor's property. it would have to be downhill. this blockage would have to be downhill in order for it to cause a problem in the jacob's soson's property. >> what took so long to get action on this? when you get a violation notice, the property owner is responsible for proposing what the fix is. clearly, there was a problem. i think at this point we are being asked to uphold the issue, that you fixed it. there are penalties and fees attached because of the violations in the beginning. your claim, at this point, is that the problem is not fixed. >> our claim is that we were required to do work that was not

necessary because the problem persists. the whole point of the process here has been to correct a sewer problem that would solve the nuisance problem. my point is, we spent a lot of time, and apparently the city has spent a lot of money, working on something that was not going to fix the problem. the problem was not on the jacobson's property. private citizens are certainly not going to be able to tear up the street. i had an exchange of letters with mr. young in august 2007, july as well. he left me a voicemail. i sent him a follow-up letter. then we never heard anything from the city. we presume there was an effort

to be made about the determination of what would happen. mr. jacobson does not spend a lot of time at this property. he spends quite a bit of time in southeast asia. i am guessing that that is why there were not any additional complaints -- i am not aware if there were. >> if you allude to the fact that the problem was not because of the trap to the house, why did the property owner replace it? why did you go through the process of fixing it? >> we did not think we had a choice with the city. there was a notice of violation, liens were being put in place,

fees are being assessed. we felt the only option was to get work done that the city was requiring. there was no conversation about the work. >> if that was the case, why did you not do it earlier on in 2007? >> there was some work done, granted it was not permitted work. that was done on while ago. it was apparently the wrong work. i was not involved in that, i cannot speak to it. at the end of the day, whether it was done in 2007 or now, it still does not solve the problem. >> what exactly was done? did they replace a section of pipe that was damaged? you found there was no damage there when you dug it up? you still say the problem is the street side of the trap, is that what i am hearing?

>> i replaced the two-way cleanout -- >> i am asking if you replaced the trap. >> there was no house dress >>. i installed one. there was nothing defective when i did the work. basically, i could not get my snake passed 8 feet. the house trap is right on the curb. it goes in about a foot and a half and then toward the street -- >> is this a situation where you would possibly need a backflow valve? >> to answer your question, the answer would be no. there was no house trap

installed. that was one of the problems that could cost this issue. we have always taken the side of, yes there is a violation. if you believe it is not on your property, no problem. they have had ample time to have a contractor come in and run a camera from the property all the way through the trap to show us it is not ours. i am not saying that is the cheapest way to go compared to ripping up the sidewalk, but when we find out there is no house trap -- it is required in san francisco. we would have made that requirement anyway. providing us documentation that shows there was no breach on the pipe -- that was on them at this point. we are being told we already looked at it on the city side and we do not see a problem. we believe is theirs. then we would talk to city operations and they would show

us evidence that there is not a break or problem. personally, i would talk to them and then to make sure that it gets taken care of. >> i am having a hard time believing that this repair took so long. in the same category of, if it took this long, the roots where the problem originally, could have continued to grow to perpetuate, if not treated bigger problem. had it been addressed right off the bat -- >> the problem with route systems is they follow the water source. they will go wherever there is water. when it goes into the piping, it starts to grow. that means it starts to make more cracks. they will cut the route and the dirt that is coming in, make it clear, but what happens is, it

starts to grow more roots. if found at the time of 2007, i am not saying it would have fixed everything, but if you had a in intrusion, you may have been able to run for the problem down the line. >> if there are no more questions, we will take public comment and rebuttals on both sides. public comment? >> no public comment? rebuttal from the department

first? >> one thing i would like to explain, from the plumbing department, we did not put any fines on his property. when refer sent out the notice of violation, there were no find that we assessed to the property. the fees that had been associated are all investigation fees that had been assessed to code enforcement and our department. that is all we are trying to recuperate. >> the only comment i would not to make is when those notices of violation were posted, mr. jacobson tried to solve the problem. he believed, based on his experience with the property, that that was not the problem for the back up. it was not until this year at

the hearing happened. it just seems to me, at the end of the day, the goal is to solve a problem. by the way, i want to point out, the statement made earlier that there was no house trap. the notice said that there was a defective house trap. it was replaced without a permit with a two way cleanout. that is not appropriate. at the time the notice of was put out, whatever house trap had been in there was there. mr. jacobson had not done any work on the property. i just want to make sure that there is no misconception of that statement. >> thank you. commissioners? >> i would like to make a motion, take staff's recommendation to uphold the order of abatement, hold assessment of cost.

>> second. >> any discussion? >> in looking at this, especially the age of the issue, there was a problem in the beginning because of inappropriate plumbing. i do not know a lot about trees and routes -- roots, other than that roots go to the water. i would suggest the issue here is one of the initials -- initial issues would be the problem stated that there was a defective house trap in this case, and on permitted fix to that our department acted appropriately in issuing the

violation. we should be compensated for the cost of our staff time and addressing this issue, coming to resolution. >> to me, i feel if there is a sewage backup problem, it is incumbent on the private party and public sector to investigate the problem. clearly, we found there was a problem with the house of traps -- housetraps. not having one could contribute to the problem, so we would want that fixed. even after fixing it, and there is still a problem, i would ask you to contact the puc to investigate further. the first order of business is that illegal house trap.

once we discovered it, we took a corporate action. i would uphold the motion as well. any other discussion? call for a vote. >> motion to of all the department's recommendation. the motion carried unanimously. >> thank you. next item please. >> next item is number two, case #6741, 585 ellsworth street. the owner of record is henry lucero. the action requested is the owner needs more time to gain access to the property to make repairs. >> good morning, members of the board. chief housing inspector. i have some photographs and i

would like to put up. this is a single-family dwelling that is occupied and a complaint was received in early may of this year. as you can see, this is a civilian blighted building that has not been properly maintained, both in the next year and in terror of the building. this is what the building looked like at the time of initial notice of violation issued in may of this year. the only two items on the extensive notice of violations -- we had 16 action items on it. one was the repair of a gate. the only other item that has been done is vegetation has been removed. dilapidation, lack of care that

has gone on in this building for quite some time. the notice of violation gave the property owner 30 days to repair, they did not do so. they went to a director's hearing of august this year. at that point in time, gave the property owner an additional 28 days to comply. it was an advisement. the property owner did not do so. there was a building permit required to do some of the exterior work that i just showed you and some of the interior work. that permit has not been applied for, -- it was just a plot for last friday. we're not getting any timeliness in this case. as you can see, people are living in a building that has not been properly maintained and also has harbored rats and other types of things. all these photographs are in the staff report that you have,

available for the public. because of the extent of the work, the fact that the property owner has had six months to make these repairs and only two of the violations have been addressed, with 15 other violations that have not been addressed pertaining to the exterior and interior of this dwelling which is at the corner of ellsworth and ogden. since the city is going in a completely different direction with the dilapidation of blight ordinance, building ordinance, this is not how we 1 property owners to maintain their property. therefore, the way that the item described in the agenda, we would ask you to defer the notice of violation. we feel every item on there was incredibly valid for what we saw. we ask that the department's

representative be upheld, that the order of abatement be upheld on this, and encourages the homeowner to go forward and everything they need and call for a final inspection so these items are cleared and individuals in the property are no longer impacted. thank you. >> any questions? >> the owner says he does not have access to the property. >> that is something he has been indicating to us for the past six months. obviously, some of the items on the exterior of the building had been addressed. with respect to the interior of the property, six months is sufficient time to be able to do the proper notification to get in and make the repairs. at least that is staff's feeling. >> the appellant please.

>> my name is henry lucero. i am the owner of the property. i have no problems with the inspection. i think it is pretty accurate. my problem is with the tenant situation going on there. they have done nothing but prevent me or my contractors from going in there to try to do with this. this has been going on for a long time, as you can tell by the condition of the property. there is currently a lawsuit pending, so i do not feel comfortable discussing the specifics of what went on there. they have left the property after i acquired an attorney to help me. basically, i got my permits, two contracts. i brought them with me. the work is now under way. i did as much as i could without

incurring the wrath of the 10 that there were being bitten by their people -- pitbull. that is the situation. i am sure that i will prevail in the lawsuit that will be taking place. that is basically my position. >> is the building vacant now? >> yes, it is. >> how long will it agreed to take -- take to complete the repairs? >> it will be two stages. the contractor in side says it is pretty simple. >> we need a time. >> my estimate would be one month, maybe less. >> any questions, commissioners? i have one question. you alluded to the fact you could not get access to the

property. could you not have started on the outside? >> what we did, we moved the vines, worked on the front of the building. it cannot be tainted because there is a lead issue. my painter need to get inside in order to do the work properly. >> ok, if there are no more questions from commissioners, we will take public comments. no public comment. department rebuttal? >> if the property owner indicates they can get all this work done within 30 days and then call for reinspection, staff does not have an issue with that.

obviously, up to this point in time, we have not gotten the appropriate movement. i do not know when this litigation started, but they have had plenty of notice. they went to a director's hearing in august, and the officer gave them an additional 20 days at that time. if the board wants to give them 30 more days, our concern would be, in doing so, that the property owner -- that it is clear to the property owner that they will be built to have the department reimbursed for the time it has taken for them to get compliance since it has extended so far beyond the original 30 days. if the board wishes to do that, we do not have a concern with that. if the building is in fact vacant. however, the need to get inside to make the repairs. not only does it impact the occupants, but the neighborhood as well. >> the property owner indicated that he was getting some resistance from the tenants.

have you been dealing with the tenants to deal with the inspection? >> yes, they have let us in. that is not something we can comment on. it is not information known to us. they were cooperative with us. we were able to enter and take pictures and see the exterior of the building. >> i would suggest the condition of this is in a port violation. i would suggest we uphold the recommendations --sorry about that, we i thought we already did. >> appellant, rebuttal? >> basically, they are going to let the inspector in in order to document the violations and they are not going to let me in to repair them. that is basically what happened. i do not want to talk too much in particular is of the case, --

and anything that i say here could be looked at by their attorney, so i cannot say much. basically, i will prevail in this situation. the fact that it is in such bad condition shows that there is some intent by somebody to create that situation. >> you mentioned they had a pitbull on the property? >> yes, i have to find someone who was willing to the work by battery power as they are inside laughing at us. >> any questions, discussion? >> i fail to understand why even just simple exterior maintenance would be a challenge, other than neglect. the other component is for

somebody to let something deteriorate that affects their health within the building is something that might be their choice, but the category of having to fix something outside -- as your painter said -- they needed to get inside, is contradictory to what needs to be done outside comment you need to get inside? >> he said he needed to do plastic work on the windows inside, so that there is no effect to the inside. that was the effect that i got. without saying too much, there are a number of factions involved here. it is not a clear case. it will go on for a while. there are a number of people and interests involved. it will be a big mess in there.

i do not feel comfortable talking about the particulars of the case. >> those are several issues that we have no jurisdiction on, but in terms of bois that is something that we really adhere to. >> i do not know if it will make you feel better about it, but as soon as they got access, they started work on it. they are in there right now. >> what are the terms of the abatement, is there a penalty, fine? >> pursuant to chapter 1 of the san francisco building code, they will be assessed for all the staff time going back from the beginning, since they moved beyond it directors hearing. since this notice of violation was issued in may of this year,

not subsequent to that, when we can apply those reimbursements directly for failing to comply with the notice of violation. they will have the $170 per hour of inspector time, 140 $0 an hour for administrative time. right now we probably have five hours or so in the inspector time, slightly under that for administrative. after this proceeding, we will be calculating that and presenting it to the property owner. we want to be clear that he understands that that reimbursement to the department for the time it has taken to send him through this process, we would like to be reimbursed for that. >> when you have a tenant/owner situation -- obviously, an

ongoing thing -- five months is not really a long time. >> the notice of violation was issued in may of this year. that frequently comes up as an allegation on the part of a property owner. we are not triers of fact to be able to determine the appropriate time. as you can see in the photographs, this is a building that has had a lack of care for quite awhile. quite frankly, in the 20 years that i have been doing this, i find it hard to believe if the home owner did not have access, they should have attempted to do something before the building ended up looking as it did. that is a concern not only to anyone that reside in the building, but anyone that has to live next to it. those wds