>> public comment? >> seeing none, all those in favor? the post? -- opposed? march 17, 2010. >> public comment? >> all those in favor? the minutes are passed. item d is new appeals. the first case is case #6740, 32 peralta avenue. the owner of record is set jacobson. the action requested by the appellant is appeal of the order of abatement issued september 10, 2010 and assessment of cost be waived. we will first hear from the department.

>> the procedure is we will hear from the department first, and then the appellant. then we take questions, comments, or bottle from the department and then appellant. >> ok, you have seven minutes. >> good morning. i am the chief plumbing inspector for san francisco dbi. in the case of 32 peralta avenue we have fees of $2,018 for the complaint due to the fact of manhours, staff hours, hearings pertaining to the

complaint. a full of teetit when all the wl recently, september 22, 2010, the correction for obtained. the hearing -- we had a hearing office. the officer of the chief villain inspector. his recommendations were to have tended to apply for a plumbing permits and 14 days to complete work. that was on april 28, 2009. this work did not commence until recently september. during that time, not only were my man hours used up in investigating and in the

clerical staff, but the department of public works store operations went out there to clear stoppages, ran cameras to see what the stoppages were and to see who was responsible for this. we got a call in from operations telling us there was a break and intrusion in from -- that was causing the problem. they asked us to help them to notify the owner of this problem and request of them to make the corrections. we went through all the paperwork, sending every letter certified, everything we went through to get it pleaded. contents were coming from the sewer onto the sidewalk and onto the neighbor's property. that was the problem, sewage and that was coming up and out.

i am asking that to be upheld, fees required by staff. >> has it been repaired? >> yes, according to the permit, finally repaired on september 22, 2010. >> has everything been done to your satisfaction? >> according to my inspector, he says everything was corrected. >> what was the delay in getting any action between 2007 and 2010? the appellant states it was the responsibility of city to do camera work in the sewer and neighbor waiting for them. what is our process in that case? responsibility for identifying the problem? >> if it passes the curb into

the street, the city will go up there to make sure that there are no breaks. from what i obtained from sewer operations, they said there was no break. they informed us there was a stoppage, and that it was the responsibility of the homeowner to repair it. that is when we posted a home for on sanitary conditions. it continuously kept on happening, and that is when we knew we had a break. >> when did they come back to that determination about our lines? >> there with me. i just got this today.

-- bear with me. they had already gone out there and had made sure that it was not there. sewer operations have cleared but the problem still is reoccurring since 2005. that is when we got involved. >> i have a question. were there any other reports that resulted after the last inspection, last report in 2007? there is almost three years. >> we have been going back and forth since our notifications. once we got no response, we took it to code enforcement.

that is when we have hearings and all of that. hopefully, that is when you get a result. it did not get a solution there, so it went on and on. it might have been cleared from time to time, but the problem came back. >> where is the responsibility of the home owner and city to take over, and vice versa? >> the home owner is responsible from their home to the curb, and some people think it is just the house of trap. but if it is not at the curb, it will be whatever it takes to get to the curb and then another 1 foot outside. you're usually digging and making that connection. the city will bring in the main lateral and they will bring that piping to your location, and as a courtesy, will leave it to the current location.

they can request you are connected to the main bilateral, but the city generally takes care of that line from the main curve. >> the tree they are describing, it could have been a tree in the sidewalk? >> they are saying it is a private tree in the ground or sidewalk that is causing the problem. i do not know if that is the problem. i have not seen it. they are pretty good about this. >> it is pretty common in san francisco, trees growing into the sewer. >> if you have tracks operations, and earthquakes -- who once and that water gets to the ground, the roots find that water, it goes to that water source, and then it fills with in the pipe. very common. >> if there are no more

questions for the appellant, please. >> my name is bill wasko. commissioner jacobson is unable to be here today. i am going to address a couple of issues that were brought. this problem has been going on since 2001. the issue from the time the city gave mr. jacobson notice was about whether or not on the city side or on the property owner's side. i think that is clear. >> after mr. jacobsen -- we clearly it acknowledged there was a problem. you could see the sewage coming

out of the trap. the question is why was it coming out? was a problem with the jacobsen's property or city property? when the jacobsen were notified about the problem, he had a plumber come out and he said that the problem was out in the city lines. there was discussion between jacobson and the city about that. the city said we decided it is on your property. there was a notice of violation that said there was a problem with the house trap, but did not specify the problem. how is it effective? it is my understanding that typically if there is a problem with the house trap, sewage will back up into the house, as opposed to the street. that said, the bottom line here, after all these years, the work has been completed, it has been

finalized, it is code compliant, and the problem persists. the problem is not with mr. jacobsen's property. the problem is in the streets. the city has come out regularly since 2001 to clean up a line in the street because that is where the problem lies. mr. jacobson has no control over that. the problem the property owner has is he will now be required to spend $2,000 in liens, fines, work that was expended when he has no control over where the problem lies. that is in the street. mr. pacino, who did the work, can describe to you what he saw. he had the sewer department with him when he did the work. i think it will be a little bit clearer that this is not so

obviously a problem with mr. jacobsen's property. it is clearly much more a problem with the city's property. i have a letter from mr. jacobs said that he prepared before he left that explains what has happened over the years. at the back is a picture that was taken last week that shows this to which -- shows the sewage coming out.

as i said, this picture was taken last week. this was subsequent to the work completed and finalized. as you can see, there is still a problem. now i would like to have mr. patino come up and explain what he did. >> on august 18, i got the permit to do the work. i called for inspection, and asked the inspector to give me a correction notice of what he wanted me to do specifically. at that time, i did not know what they wanted me to do. he wanted me to replace the existing two way cleanout.

then basically when i was speaking with him, i called for inspections. i knew that the line was stopped. i took my snake, tried to clear it up. the inspector pulled up at that time. when i am pulling out the state, it got stuck at 8 feet. he had plumbing experience in the past and he said, is it possible it went back toward the house? when i pulled out the senate, you could clearly see there were some routes. -- roots. at 8 feet, that would have been going to the house of the

downspouts. so clearly, to pull out the roots, it was toward the street. i asked him at that time if he could get the city out there to clear the line. he got on the phone, got the city working there within a half hour. basically, the city worker got out there and started clearing the line but had trouble. he also mentioned that his snake got stuck at 7 feet. mine got stuck at 8 feet. basically, at that time, he continued. after making attempts to clear the line, he finally got it

cleared and the water started to flow. after he cleared it, he continued for another 15 minutes to make sure the line was cleared. at that point, i asked him, can get a camera out there? he said he would make a report and try to get a camera out there within a week. he gave me the number of ray matias, the person in charge of this. he said back in june, he tried to get a camera out there but was unable to get to the sewer line because of stoppage. i told him that the line was clear. would it be possible to get a camera in there? 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?