we will give the commission the support they need to make things happen in the field. the small business community, which is the community i come from, the developer community has been difficult. i have talked to many people of experience many of san downs in this town, particularly when it comes to how the economy is doing, and they have never seen anything as tough as this. i want to make sure this department never has to deal with that again a. that would be one of my main goals to secure our future there. it looks like we're on the rebound here. the smaller developers will beat of a huge factor in rebuilding this town. i want to make it user-friendly. obviously we will have a lot of agendas that need to be processed that started many

years ago. we have a catching up to do. i hope to be able to serve with full capacity and do what i was sworn to do, and that is to make one of this the greatest cities in the world. think you -- thing here. ank you. commissioner mar: i feel the most important thing to do is continue on the path we started, which is to get the permit tracking system up and running and alive so we can run together the various departments. so that it would be much easier whether it is homeowners or contractors pulling up permits so they know where it is at, and if there is a problem, they know where the problem is so they can deal with it. i think that kind oof thing

should be our big goal to streamline it and make it easier for everyone. >> any further commissioner comments? the next item is item five, a general public comment. we will take public comment on matters that is part -- within the commissioners jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. >> good morning. many of the steep coy name is s. >the reason why i am here, and also commissioner walker, i was here back in january with the some of my board members regarding code violations. the deputy city attorney is here, but she is not in that

role anymore, so we are moving at a snail's pace because of the issues that are frustratingly in my neighborhood. when i was here mr. sweeney asked me to send out a letter regarding the issues are brought up. there were a couple of issues that have been going on for over a couple of years. one of the addresses that i did not put in the letter, and this has been going on for almost 25 years is a guy that lives there but his mother owns a house. she passed away. she was so frustrated the house was not being finished but she moved to hurt childrer childre'e and passed away. she used to be a member of our

association and asked me several times to write supporting letters in his building permits and i refuse to do so because the neighbors were so frustrated. this is not going as smoothly. one of my board members that was here it did you worry her father just passed away. immediately the new numbers put in a huge picture and paved over the whole front yard. i am really frustrated. i am more frustrated with over the weekend i received to emails from members who are threatening to block the house up for sale and moved out. that is uncalled for. one of our past newsletter editors and his wife were so

frustrated with all of the illegal building and violations that they moved out of the city. i am for you that we need help. if you want all of the addresses of the issues we're working on, i would be happy to provide them to you. >> any additional public comment? >> i live in bayview. i am the president of bayview residents improving their and our rent. we have members who took off work to come speak to you about a particular concern which is 4801 third street. i should mention this picture has changed.

dbi has had this building many times. it has been an eyesore for many years. it is right in the city center. and the plaza is a bit of a misnomer itself. it as a city street, which is a whole nother problem. right around the plaza, the city has spent $38 million to improve the area. opera house, which is the jewel of the bayview and right next to it. $38 million around the vicinity to improve the bayview, but you do not notice the beautiful infrastructure, because all it goes to is the structure, right in the center of the plaza. it has been there for over 20 years. the department has taken back fines put on the family.

i believe like $6,000 worth that were put on the family. congratulations, mr. mccarthy. it is a good day to be here to ask you to put this at the top of your agenda. and i know what you were mentioning earlier, code enforcement, this comes from the building. there will be lots of building done on bayview as soon as this building is addressed. thank you for your attention to it. take a good morning. -- >> good morning. i am a new affordable house owner. i live third street on the bayview, just across from the structure that my friend just talked about. because of this eyesore, it is a cover for criminal activity.

the police cannot see behind it. people go and feel free to commit crimes there. i asked you today that you deal with this building. there have been at numerous complaints. numerous going out, but nothing has been solved. at what point will you really deal with this blighted buildings? think you for your time and attention today. -- thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. let my name is robert davis from the bay view also. i have a spreadsheet that is 35 pages long. i would like to discuss three things today. the first one is the bishop white building and the city's

inability to collect the nine times multiplier for buildings like that in the bayview in the rest of the city. according to the spreadsheet there are over 209 buildings that have been cited for not being registered as a vacant building. if you applied that time 765 times the nine times multiplier, that is $1.4 million. if you take the city newspaper number, which there are over 600 abandoned buildings that are not registered, you can multiply that times 765. that is over $4 million in uncollected fees. the second thing i would like to speak about is the notice of violation process and how broken that process is.

i came in november. at that time over 10 inspectors had gone out since 2004 there were 30 letters, post. tenet letters were addressed. since november 16, the day that i came here and spoke about it, three more inspectors have been out. the paper work shows all of the violations on the property, as i put a star next to everything that has happened since the 16th of november. another list of open violations and cases open. all sorts of things going on. the end result at that address is the third of march the building caught fire. over 30 people were displaced a resulas a result of that fire. i think the city can do better

than that. we have seen these properties and the debut -- bayview. the third thing i would like to mention -- >> wrap up your comments. >> the third day i would like to mention is there are three departments covering the white in san francisco, and there seems to be no fault line. you have the dbi, dpw, and the department of public health. these issues are clarified. there is a blight ordinance. the problem is, where do the department's top and handomeone? if you get down to the corner of third and fourth, there is a perfect example of applied it

business. there is a container were people are living. there are parked cars, abandoned cars. but where does it pick up? from the deep ph. where does the deed ph pick up? from the department of public works. -- where does the dph pick up? >> my name is quincy vladim er. >>it hasthis building has fecitd lighted for a number of years. structural soundness is for jerkily concerning. and offices have also stated the building is used as a shield for

criminal activity and would like to see reduced. it is used not only as a public urinal, but at least four people to defecate on a regular basis. the department of public works spent a great deal of time and money cleaning that building. it does not make sense the building is allowed to remain under unsafe conditions for so violation and give the building, but the department seems to be very unwilling to use the tools at their proposal to bring the property to code and a reasonable amount of time. an example of this would be $6,000 in fines for apparently no reason. it does not seem to make sense. i want to ask the commission to

look into this matter and take aggressive action against the owners. thank you. >> think you for your comments. -- thank you. >> any additional public comment? item #6, appeals pursuant to section d3750.4 of t city charter. appeal by joseph butler. 6a, discussion and possible action regarding the building inspection commission jurisdiction pursuant to section d 3.750-four of the city charter

over this appeal. b, presentation by parties including witnesses. c, the liberation possible decision by the building inspection commission to approve, disapprove or modify the decision or determination being appealed. >> can you tell me what you mean by the procedure? explain the timing, i think it is seven minutes. seven minutes for each side, and public comment. each side gets three minutes for rebuttal. commissioner mar: the first thing is to decide whether we of jurisdiction over this issue, correct? take a correct.

explain to us what is actually being appealed. -- >> correct. >> the appellate is alleging the appellate bill to render a decision within 15 days of the request to do so. options are upholding it or -- you can find it that the director did not air or abused her discretion and not rendering of decision, or may find -- >> thank you. >> ok, thank you for that. any comment? i think we will go straight into this hearing if there is no more commissioner comments? ? commissioner mar: i would like to hear from somebody on what is it? to me, it sounds like this is not a determination or lack of

determination. it sounds like to me it is just a letter to the director asking the director to answer. maybe there was not a response. >> we've been working with the deputy city attorney. the appeal was expected, so the commission does have jurisdiction over this. you have to hear the department side and then hear the appellate. >> i think that is correct. >> my understanding is we do have jurisdiction. >> good morning, commissioners. i was asked to do a staff report. i would like to read some parts of that, because there is a lot of information.

the building of 550 jersey street is a single-family dwelling. the date of original construction is 1900 for according to city records. the building -- underwent are remodeled in 2011, which was approved under permit application, and then renewed permit application 201102250973. the building has undergone all the requirement inspections, except final inspection. a final occupancy issue was issued december 21, 2011. final sign off has been given. dpw as i not want the inspection. a final building inspection will be performed when permit application 2011 at 09023798 has

been approved and issued. that is a structural provision, which is currently under review at the planning department and to be reduced by eighviewed by . on the following pages, and i expect you all have it, there is a description of the process and is up to date. i think at this point, that is it. >> we will probably have more questions at the end of the hearing for you. thank you. at the request of a contractor of a contractor -- construction company called ground zero, a meeting was arranged at 9:00.

the contractor had to projects, remodel on 2513 avenue, as single-family dwelling. 1100 and 002 clarabell. there was a request that we stop doing subsequent inspections for enforcement. the contractor made it clear they were being used to harass and the way the building progress. this discussion that lasted for about 35 minutes between myself of a contractor. near the end of the meeting, there was a request to do follow-up inspections, and we could not deny any complaints made to this department. with the reading -- meeting was finished, the contractor requested myself to assist and renew a project on jersey street.

a horizontal position raised to 2 feet was a large railyard edition. the deputy director of tainted filled out a permit that became the 2011 to 25 a 0973. this was the only permit filled out on february 3. in the course of assessing the customer and filling out a permit application, the wrong stamp was inadvertently used by staff and myself. the contractor made it clear no work had been done to the previous permit. if you look at the permit, it talks about the building that goes from one story to story, and the one story of the base and being eliminated and had

become inhabitable. line 6. line 2b shows the project value of $106 million. the contractor was told verbally and in writing. the contractor was told verbally and in writing to proceeds of to city planning to obtain approval. when it was brought to the attention of dbi staff that they did not get city approval, it was referred on august 3, 2011. on august 152011 planning requested that the list the revoked billing application 20110 to 2509734 jersey street. in other words, they review jersey and allowed it to continue.

permit application 2011 is a permit to start work to the addition for permits renewed by dbi. in the case of 550 jersey street, new permits based on the building codes were obtained. we have to from electrical. #20110711761. a 61, 20110330941. in addition the 2011 building permit was told. -- was pulled. a mechanical permit was pulled.k

into it. the alberhe himself said as a ld said every analyze the structure and determine if it performs to the structural aspects in terms of the 2011 building code. all special inspections have been completed. the under current section code can take the role of special inspections for his or her projects. they would be required to submit an overall compliance report. that is what you see before you. the engineer record clearly stated that his staff had formally required special inspections in the final affidavit. this report was written december

19, 2011. later on about the check process. the deputy director, tom huey. >> thank you. good morning, commissioners. at this stage i think we would hear from the appellant. can you restate the time frame again. >> the timeframe is seven minutes. if we have any questions, we can call on you may be on the rebuttal. you have seven minutes, please. can we hear from the appellate? please state your name for the record. >> good morning, commissioners. i am a member of the little house committee and advocate for good government and an appellate come along with mr.

butler. this deal concerns a new contract for a final inspection on a project. when in fact no work had ever begun on the original permit expired for nine years. the new permit was issued without complying with the mandatory conditions imposed by the building code. we're here to oppose the failure to issue a determination on the back of code violations presented to her, and to request of building inspection commission to reimburse the statement of the permit. the errors made by the executive and regular staff members in issuing the permit were brought to the attention through complaints made in july and august. there was no resolution of these complaints by the staffwith no r was again accosted on february 3

for her determination of the effects of the alleged code violations. she did not reply. to her credit, she did provoke a credit as having issued an error. this is very important, because inspection records show no work was performed on the prior record. no work begun means it was not tested. this would have allowed the project to be entitled coming in to be billed to the 1997 building cold, which were in effect when the permit was issued. a new application to filing a full reviews by building and planning department to the current codes. presently director date reinstated a permit because christine e-mailed of the planning department had no objections to reinstating it. she erred when she wrote in her letter to the applicant that the planning department had requested dbi list replication.

the planning department and not ask for that. more importantly, she ignored her own original reason for that the revocation, which that no work had been performed. this fact never change. the permit sheet issued was blamed on incorrect information supplied by the applicant who describe all work complete. this fact alone is sufficient not to reinstate the permit. director day has failed to acknowledge many errors in the processing of the february application, including the failure to ensure the proposed work reforms the requirement of the 2010 building code issuance of two almost identical valid permits come a failure to identify who is currently the property owner, and failure to require the original permit be transferred to the new owner must agree to the conditions of

the original permit. the risk of failures is detailed in exhibit 2 of the brief. ms. butler will continue the presentation. thank you for mentioning all of the code enforcement issues that you plan to be looking into. >> president mccarthy, the morning. my name is joseph butler, a member of the american institute of architects and insull prior to a record for partnership and business here for 25 years. we are the appellant in this case on the screen, if i could is our exhibit 2. the san francisco building code is quoted here. when one wants to commence work on an expired permit where the work had not started