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 weeds are not chopped back until we rode a notice of violation. that definitely has an effect on adjacent property owners. the photographs that you have show rat droppings and other things like that. if you want to extend the time frame, we would just like to see some finite closure. this has not been going on for a period of time. >> let us make a motion.

>> i would like to make a motion to uphold staff recommendation and give the property owner an appropriate amount of time to do the work. 30 days to 60 days, before it goes into effect. >> and what additional cost? >> i believe that we have a right to recover costs related to the violation. the place is kind of dilapidated. we have a right to carry the costs on that. it is not about any other civil issue that might be between the owner and the tenants. >> was there a figure on the cost? >> not at this time. probably at least five hours of inspector time and a bit less in

inspector cost. hourly rates are 170 for the inspectors. 140 as the amount -- >> can we do this? make a motion to uphold the abatement order? if in 30 days the notice of violation of fares are not completed, and if the property owner does not come to the department for reimbursement costs on the fees, can we do that? dwight s. bad as what we just did. the laying of issuance before 30 days pending. >> pending getting paid? >> i believe that the language

indicated before is that you would of hold the hearing officer -- he would not hold the hearing officer for 30 days. >> -- you would uphold the hearing officer for 30 days. >> assuming that the work is done and the fees are paid, we will cover our costs. >> seconded. >> than the second? >> we are clarifying the motion. >> is that 30 days from today's date? >> may i ask that point of clarification? is all work to be done as verified by site inspection for the finalization of the building permit? >> precisely. >> has the owner obtain all of

the necessary permits? >> is their emotions in the second? >> the second. >> [roll call] >> the motion is unanimous. >> thank you. next case, please. >> case #three, the owner of record and the appellant is evelyn y. it. the appellant is requesting that the metal gate at the exterior rears there's a remain on a temporary basis. >> good morning, commissioners.

this is the case of 129 scott street. a three story fully occupied building. the department responded to complaints received -- >> what is the zoning? >> the zoning is right here. 3. 82 unit building. the department responded to complaints received on the 18th of september from the complainants. the district inspectors were not there. on the 21st they issued a notice of violation. basically seven items were listed in the notice of violation, completed with the exception of two. referred back on the seventh of may of this year.

the directors hearing was held on the 20th of may. at that time the representative issued a continuance, giving the property owner additional time to comply with two items. the second being a notice of violation. item number 7 was verified to be completed on the 17th of june. but not item #2, dealing with the gate on the rear stairways. the case was again referred to directors and was held on the first of july. at that point the representative director issued a 28th day of advisement and abatement. at the end of 28 days, it had not been cleared in a notice was issued.

i would like to point that the picture if i can. -- point that the picture, if i can. -- . point hat the picture, if i can. you will see that the violation notice was 1005, which states that has to be a landing on both sides of the metal gate. at this time i would like to request that the hearing officer's in the affirmed comply with the notice of proper permits and either remove the metal gate or provide proper lending support. at this time, the property owners' stated that it was a temporary fix only and intends

to remove the gate, but we have no idea what that means at this point. >> could you let us know the number of the unit on the top floor? >> that would be 129. >> all right. >> any other questions? copp>> of all of the other violations been taking care of except for the gate -- have all of the other violations been taken care of accept for the gate? >> yes. >> we will hear from the appellate. >> my name is evelyn y. it. i am the owner and i have a tenant that is causing problems for me. always at work and calling the

police, very destructive. he lived downstairs, under the stairs. he would go upstairs. i had to install cameras because he was destroying my property. one time i was working with an electrician and i left a letter on the front landing so that he could have access to the light fixture. when i got home a letter was not there. i asked him if he had seen the letter, he said that he did, it had disappeared. the reason that i hired the international game company to since i wrote -- install the gate for me, we knew what action had to be taken as far as permits.