of actions can be pursued rather than a judgment lane. not all violations of local law could be pursued in that way. >> i would like to ask if whether the category here, the difference by the public on the violation and this not only is a health safety issue but also on the light category because it seems to run a parallel course that's violations that require capitalization of costs. at a certain point, if there is negligence by the public, the proper agencies goes and then

makes the correction. it goes into this whole category of the tax lien and judgment lien and it would be great if you can or the director can may be at the next meeting make some categories of what are possibilities of where code and a or a legislation or policy adjustments can be made necessary to correct this. we seem to be continuing to do the same thing over and over again and we're not getting any results. given we are at a point of this negative direction, i would like to neutralize it is not get into a category that would move both the department and incentivize

property owners, especially those who are not going to look toward selling their property but in the long term can say keep doing the improvements. i'm not going to do anything because i'm never going to sell my property therefore you're doing my work for me. >> we would probably bring in our code enforcement team which is one of the groups within the city attorney's office. we may have a number of attorneys involved and have different experience, so it might be to meetings out. >> at least a global by which we can get our arms around it and from there we could work out the details because the legislative policy would be something we could enact or enforce at some targeted date in the future. >> i would be a little bit

leery of getting into the construction business. you would have to have the backing of the city management and let's say we got out there and spent $100,000 and we would need to be able to do their refunded back from the general fund, otherwise this could get too big and get out of hand and we would end up having to raise fees to cover it and i believe the customers are paying hi-fis enough at the moment. we have to be careful how we tread here. it is something that should definitely be explored.

>> is there any public comment? >> it quick question. >> you were talking about getting access ability to the building. what does it take to get a contractor in there? does the share of have to escort them? >> we have the right of entry if we have reasonable cause. of us having the right to get in there and the door being opened are two different things. west month -- there are practicalities to this. you have to get a contractor. he has to come out there and i would imagine we would have to get multiple bids. you would have to get three people out there and get the bid

and award him the contract for what ever it is. i was out on mission street at the tower theater one month ago during the time of high wind that we had enough fire department and police department were there and we had stainless steel blades -- that is what you actually called the signed portion and it is wrapped in sheet metal and it is painted. it came loose during though wind and it was threatening to come down. fire would not go near it. police are providing security, so they called us. i go out there and i don't have any safety equipment. i called to people on the list. neither pick up, so i called the third and finally got somebody. he told me it was seen good

tamayo and most of his crew was out. he made some phone calls and we got a bucket to assess and we managed to put some straps on it. is that way today. but there is a lot of practicalities, all lot of coordination that needs to be done. we are not in the construction business. i can see there is room for improvement and room for a repeat offender for a building owner that has clearly shown no ambition to fix the problem. if you could see the boiler, it is probably the original boiler and this building was built in bed 1900's. that the boiler should have been replaced 20 years ago. looks like something that should be in a museum. i was surprised when i sought.

-- when i saw it. >> just keep in mind that each year, we notify all properties that have not paid their initial fees from the code enforcement process. there are about 150 properties being notified right now. the average fee might be $1,500. any of those who do not pay, it goes on to the property-tax bill. not all of them will be in default. a good portion will be captured. with regard to those vacant buildings, there are 20 properties with nine times penalties assessed because they did not register their building. there will be lanes and if they

do not pay, there will be a total of 123,000 assessed that would be spread on to their property tax bills. i'm not sure the director may be aware, but some of the moneys for the vacant building ordinance may be going into that demolition fund. as with deputy director mentioned earlier, the fund was totally depleted. but with this new ordinance that may have some funds available, that may be part of the discussion. >> i have a question. would you be able to, in working with the director, come up with a summary of the last five years with amounts on an annual

basis how much we are lean and how much today on the cumulative costs we are out of pocket? what we are having to carry this -- it is money that goes out and we have no way of recouping. >> we would be happy to do it. >> biggest -- the costs out of the department are salary and label -- the salary and labor. we have not gotten anything outside of the one case where we have called in another outside contractor and a road someone else for doing work. the costs are department all costs that need to be assessed for internal work that has

occurred on a complaint today. there is not any outside many code to anyone else at this time. the repair and demolition fund has not been funded in the last five years and there is a money as a result of the funding we did when we defunded the surf fund. there's about $300,000 in that fund, but if we start expanding it to repair every vacant or blighted building in that city, we would expand that fund in the first two or three. we have to be careful about prioritizing where do you want to expand any fund out of the repair and demolition fund because it's meant for emergency purposes where we call in contractors on an emergency basis such as the emergency

with metal on this fine bladed coming off. that was declared an emergency and he could use the funds for that. it is that type of situation. >> thank you. public comment? >> thank you for discussion. the primary function of government is the health and safety of the citizenry. i'm talking about -- there was a notice of violation that was given 24 hours. i'm talking eight days without heat. five days without hot water. seven days without any electricity, no lights, no refrigeration, no nothing. i handstand there is a cost

factor, but the cost factor to someone's life and safety is your primary responsibility and of the responsibility of the city of san francisco to protected citizenry. there has to be a prioritization of the process, but somewhere along the line, eight days without electricity, the inspector may telephone call to the landlord. how long does it take before something is done by the city? it's not an enforcement agency. our reporting i notice of violation and goes nowhere. >> thank you. >> good morning.

thank you for this discussion on complaints. last month, i was here to express my frustration over the lack of a timely response to investigate my report of and permitted worked next door and calling jack hammering the concrete foundation and excavation of the dirt. only after the new rear astaire's -- only for the new rear stairs being built. there was no nov for the basement with electrical lines and plumbing lines dangling in the air without any support. these safety issues remain today. my experience has been dismal with few items with permitted work. two and a half years ago, i reported the illegal horizontal

edition of the house next door and providing date photograph of its under construction in 1984. no permit was sound for the structure. it has never been inspected. as of today, there is still no nov for the work. i have a photograph of it being built and no permit has been found for it. the amount of investigation was consistent of leaving a message while you were out notice which was on the house while the house was a registered vacant building. no other follow-up. that was one year ago. over two years ago, i complained about a kitchen remodel and it was down to the steads. i reported it to an inspector

who was at the property, standing with me, looking at the invisible external plumbing and mechanical events. these events and windows had been boarded up. very clear work. the case was opened and closed without any investigation in the complaint was resolved with case closed, pending further notice. violations so obvious that it should have been issued on the spot. i renewed these complaints this year in writing and not receive a reply nor has there been any follow-up to what happened. if you want the public to trust you are protecting us, you must properly and timely investigate our complaints. that includes getting out of the car and looking around and not just leaving a notice of please call on the vacant building. when there is no permanent and -- and it is time -- thank you.

i'm going to leave you some information on the back up of some of the things i have presented. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. to commissioner lee, it's one thing to have nine times the permit fees and ca go to the board of appeals and have them kickback. everyone who gets a notice of violation turns into a lamp at the board of appeals. when it's time to argue that penalties. a little cooperation might make enforcement a little easier to incentivize. my client -- i cannot believe as an architect i can go to a job site repeatedly and see violations as plain as the nose

on my face. they don't get much plainer. the department does a great job. there is all sorts of code enforcement and a big staff and director hearings. i have been to several and scene of process work. but at this address, there is a cone of silence that cannot be heard. this property has this protection around it. i cannot explain it. i am an architect and i practice in the city. if my job site look like that house, i would be fired. there is work going on at that house without permits. there has been for seven years. this department has utterly failed that woman. she has spent tens of thousands

of dollars trying to get your department to do its job. how did she get compensated? why are there so many complaints? if you have a horizontal addition in the back that has never been permitted, the first thing you have to have on the permit is the notice of violation and work that would make the scope legal. that means it has to get to planning because it needs 311 notice. somehow, these applications all come in as over the counter and none of them acknowledge the legal horizontal addition, none are expected to, they all get taken in through intake and computer holds are dropped so that permits can be issued over the counter in the next day they're put back on. there is something going on. someone should find out what and

make sure this is not something that gets repeated or becomes the norm for how the department works without a rudder. we heard today that the department has no rudder and there are no directives telling them what and how to do. it has to come from somewhere. from a policy board. >> thank you. >> i think you already spoke on this. >> the inspectors to come out -- >> i don't think you can. >> thank you. >> ideal a lot with nov's and it

is hard to send someone out for a job to see what's going on. you are hearing one side of the story, not both sides. i do not know the case, but i think you ought to look both sides of the story and see what's going on. i do know i have been a regular customer since 1975 and i worked all lot on these cases and they are tough. i have had to go through all sorts of issues to take care of these. i just don't know what's going on with these folks, but i will say from my experience, they've been doing the best they can considering the calls that come through with complaints and many of them are not even legitimate, just neighbor against neighbor. >> thank you.

>> additional public comment? item #6. >> our chief plumbing inspector was unable to be here today, but he wanted to let the commission know we're dealing with over the counter plan checks for some of the wilder systems that currently and we are managing to do them, due to the simplicity of the system is being proposed, if they become more complex, we will look at charging a planned checking fee, but at the current time we are issuing minimum permits for the gray water system to encourage people to actually install the systems. >> is there a checklist week have by which we could check

off that we had made preliminary reviews so that when they come back later on, if they want to pursue the next stage of fulfilling what they want to objectively go beyond the preliminary review, that's where the meter will start running? >> what he is doing right now is giving a list for comments on their plans so they can come back and correct it when it is ready to issue. if they decide to install the system, in some cases they cannot be installed due to the nature of the property. but in most cases, he will make suggestions and give them notices. >> the department conducts pro bono front end by extending

professional courtesy sets that later on, if they want to take it to the next level that they can act upon it with hot and form the material as opposed to just trying to find out how and what they're going to do? >> yes. the puc is asking for another station to be installed so they can inform the public of their programs. that will be beneficial to the department. >> will that be on a designated date as opposed to a full week? >> they are asking for a permanent station monday through friday. that is a great help to the department right now. >> and that personnel, that is basically on their dime? >> yes. we have to personnel on site

right now and they are asking to be able to add a third so they can expand their programs and expand the explanation counters. >> i think this is a good movement in terms of letting the residents who want to put in a gray water system no what they are confronting. i was wondering if there could be something where there are questions about what moves from a simple system to a more complicated ones so that the homeowners and contractors will know this is what they are up against said they know they have to come back and deal with a more costly system? >> we have the gray water installation manual that will be published and is under draft form right now. it describes the various systems. >> thank you.

>> any public comment on item number 6? >> item #7, get proposed new it ministry of bulletin. for waiving a special inspection requirements for signs and awnings. >> good morning, commissioner and directors. these bulletins were written in 2003. their records search at that time, the awning and sign craft unions president came to our department complaining about special inspection requirements for very small awnings. the job could cost a thousand dollars and may be cost

sometimes up to $1,000. the cost is prohibitive to get the job and close the job. that was the purpose at that time, how this bulletin came about, just to make sure we look at the reality, to promote permits to take out the awning and craft metal industry. since then, the bulletin was written around 2003 and it has been set all this time. since then, we have to code changes and i want to have our structural committees review them one more time before we adopt it.

i want these items to be continued until the next hearing. >> >> you say this is going to go back to the structural committee? >> it is a bit extreme for single-family homes and residential properties that, under this. >> there should be two sets of rules. i know that a lot of these canopies and they require tie downs and all that other stuff. that would require special inspections and i'm sure our engineer would attest, but this would be a financial burden of and small businesses and i'm glad it is going back to the

committee and i hope they take that into consideration. >> i think by next month, i should have it crafted for review. >> will this establish more specification or standard of performance of what they can do or need to do, but not necessarily as more vague guideline without being assessed a fee? >> i think from the small canopy, when the weight was so small and if they over design it, they have more anchored than is necessary. i don't think we need to have more special inspections to be performed on that. we have to look at the hazardous situation. we don't want to have a sign on a very high elevation and a

collapse. we have to take a look at the canopy. and overdesigned item could be validated by the contractor rather than special inspector. we are looking for the means to help out the awning and metal craft industries so we can hopefully come up with a process to not have costly special inspectors that prohibit them from getting the permit. >> use a 2003 was the last time they came before the is structural committee? >> yes. >> what happened since?