to go we can definitely filed a permit, but the actual completion, i cannot see that being done in 60 days. there is a lot more to that than what we're going to save. i am just putting this out. if i could have clarification that she has 60 days to file a permit, and if that works takes five months to do, that is not -- how could she be held accountable for that? >> going back to the code section, with regard to serious and imminent danger to life, health, or safety, any order of the building the official shall provide any modification of the order of the building, and work to create -- correct each such hazards to be completed within 90. with respect to violations that are not bound by the abatement

appeals board to constitute a serious and imminent hazard, and he did scission modifying the order -- and the decision modifying the order, any such decision to be completed within a reasonable time, not to exceed 18 months. it is the conditions you tried to constitute serious and a minute hazard to life, health, and safety that have to be begun within 30 days and completed within 90. it is conditions that are light safety hazards but not found to be serious and a minute that you get -- you have to begin within 60 days and the work is not to exceed 18 months. and it is about whether this serious and a minute, and i would have to defer to is that to say whether this is serious

and imminent. >> the safest thing to say is we do not know, because we do not know what is on the other side of the wall. we have not heard from many experts. this is robethis is a four-yeare and should have been done prior to coming here. commissioner walker. commissioner walker: i am willing to work on the timeline of doing this complete project, but the problem is if there is a fire and people buy, it is on us. there is people dying. -- but the problem is if there is of fa fire and people die, it is on us. that is why it is in the code. i feel like this is a serious

issue. i feel like this is a serious issue. maybe the other stuff can hold and give more time, but that is problematic. >> 30 days to commence work. 90 to complete? >> that is correct with respect to life safety hazards found to be a hazard to any person or structure or property. i think you are mainly concerned about the people. >> without being the experts, we're going off of staff recommendations. it seems like we have to air on this side of caution. that would be my feeling as far as the life safety hazards. we can agree to the 4.5 months on the illegal units issue. >> just to clarify what the decision is.

she has 30 days to fix it. to start, in order to do it properly, to hire a contractor within 30 days, or to vacate the unit, to not use them as rental units. because then nobody will be in a minute. we are deciding that they need to be evicted. it weighs heavily to put someone in a hazard. i also take it seriously that we are essentially ordering the landlord to at not rent this is

your net to someone who is occupying it. i just want to clarify that. commissioner walker: i have sympathy for the tenant that was put in in march or april of this year while the notice of violations were active. and many others probably. at some point we have to deal with the help safety issues. i have the same complex around getting rid of units. but i have a bigger conflict with the potential for people being injured, because there is no compliance with the code. it is a hard situation.

>> if she were to hire a contractor to go in and do minor investigation as to what may be back there, they might be able to give us assurances that we do not have in the hazard, but because we have never gotten to that point with this property owner understanding what she needs to do and doing it, that is where we have been. i do believe hiring a contractor can address this. she cannot do a lot of work it she will not be able to legalize herself. if we can get a contractor and there to take a look, what is standard practices, etc., and give us more information,

because we cannot go in an open walls to take a look at something. she has to have that done through a contractor. with permits, she could do that. that would help us understand whether the units are occupied or not. >> i have a problem with that. i do not think it is right if we cannot see something that isn't imminent hazard, we will have to have them open a wall to prove something. i do not think that is right. if we see something that is imminent hazard, we should set up for them. i do not think that is right. >> would you are talking about wiring put in without any kind of permit, that is what deputy director sweeney was talking about. >> we do not know what the hazard is. are other hazards, is the electrical wiring is a hazard,

that would, under the code, be included. if not, it goes with the later permits,, but has to be looked at. >> i am sorry i did not bring might electrician with me, because i have never been through this. he trained with david green. she has worked on some of the buildings. i would be happy to bring him in here. >> that is not the process. we need to be able to see it. this is part of the problem. you need to go through the process, and you need to deal with the issues. this is just the law. even though it might seem unfair, and emotionally i can relate to feeling under attack by folks that are little off their rockers, but that is beside the point. there is a set of laws that

everyone has to follow. you need to deal with the process. as you can see we are trying to work with you. you do have to do the things you have to do. i actually wanted to hear from so you could spell it out what exactly does that mean? what you just said in terms of getting a contractor and there. does that mean that we vote on the motion currently on the floor? say we give her 60 days, and the benefits of the doubt that it is not an imminent hazard, or do we go with -- can you spell out what that means in terms of the process? >> the language in 1a, talking about a serious or imminent hazard, it is talking about the degree to which we would issue

an emergency or something where we think it is an imminent hazard. since we have no plans and do not have the information, the benefit of doing any kind of plan checking, if she were to give us a set of floor plans, information from contractor, and to take a look at the smoke detectors, we might be able to fashion some interim remedies in situations like for you have done this in the past, but it would require is more information from the property owners. file a set of plans, get a contractor out there. it may be an electrical contractor or plumbing contractor to take a look at this and file a permit to it we show those components are safe while she is going to the rest of the process. >> i want to clarify so that we in the motion are following the letter of the law and at the same time being reasonable about

what she can do. as of right now we do not have evidence there is an eminent hazard, because we have not looked into the walls, but they very well could be because they were done without permits. the motion on the floor right now -- >> i would put the burden on the property owner to release be able to -- commissioner lee: i feel if the property owner is going to go through the process, the whole issue of the electrical in the walls will be resolved by that time. >> we would not be having this discussion if these four vacant units. she would have all the time in the world. the problem is they are occupied unit, and that is my concern. >> that is mine. i believe the motion should be, identifiable, life-safety issues

need to have a permit issued within 30 days and completed within 60 days. maybe what we do is have an inspector go out prior to it to determine that. i do not think we can avoid that. a lack of egress could be imminent hazard. >> in 90 days the work is supposed to be done, but we can evaluate at that time? a review and 90 days? in 90 days? >> we want to see a good faith effort. we want to see something done. >> 30-94 serious an eminent hazards. -- 30-90 for serious and imminent hazard. >> a dignified life-safety issues, or permit filed for 30

days and were completed within 90, and we will reconvene this issue in 90 days. that we will give the appellate six months, 4.5 months to submit a permit for the illegal units. anyone want to take exception to the 4.5 months? >commissioner lee: i want to clarify that if things are being held up and planning, and you get the plan and they're getting back to you, then it is working through the process. they are slow, it is not the owners' fault. >> can we also include the issue of the fees. we did talk about it at the beginning of the meeting being attached to her good faith efforts. >> 25%. >> 25% of actual?

ok. >> could we put an end time that we could modify but would like to have this done within a year? and if there is a delay in planning -- >> one year for it to be resolved, and to be about you -- as we go through the process, and would like to give the appellant one final say. >> i am going through extreme financial debacle to is right out. if you could give me a little more time before i have to start spending money on plants or anything like that. i am in danger of violating its if you put it to shore. if you just give me more time, i can comply. >> we wanted 6, so the compromise is 4.5

>> if there are life safety issues, we cannot. we are legally bound. >> i do not think there are. >> when you file the building permits, rosemary will -- >> how much does that cost? >> deputy sweeney can help you with that. it is not a great cost to you. we want to help you with the cost to hopefully the department with the $2,000 on the books right now we will probably tight end. 25 percent. i would say 50 percent, we can compromise on 50. commissioner walker, that would save you money. >> think you. ank you. commissioner walker: i am

reluctant to do that only because it has been four years. >> 25% -- >commissioner walker: i will go to 30%. >> i thought it was lower. >> i'm good with 50. >> can you clarify what the motion is? i am not entirely clear. i also want to indicate the options are to uphold the order as it is to modify. i just want to clarify that. take of the motion is to modify the order of abatement to allow for health safety -- imminent

health safety issues to be permitted by 30, executed by 90 days. the legalization of the units and other code violations of 4.5 months to file a permit, and the year to complete it. we are willing to revisit the schedule if there are delays in planning. and, if all of the deadlines are met by the appellant, then we will reduce the fees by 50%. if not, the fees go back to their original and continue to accrue. >> the order of abatement will be held in advance? >> in advance for a year. >> second on that? >> second.

crafty. you all did good. [laughter] >> roll call vote on the motion? [calling roll] the motion carried unanimouss unanimously. item e, general public comment. any general public comment on issues related to the abatement appeals court? seeing none, item f, adjournment. all in favor? any opposed? we are now adjourned and the

building inspection commission will adjourn and approximately 10 minutes. >> good morning. today is wednesday, june 20, 2012. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item is roll-call. [calling roll] we have a quorum. the next item is president's announcements. president mccarthy. >> president mccarthy.

president mccarthy: in this the interest of time, i will forgo those announcements. >> present mccarthy, vice president mar, and commissioners, my name is tom. i have not been able to make meetings, because it has been a busy year and this position. i wanted to let you know who i am and reconnect a little more. i have been a fire prevention and investigation for 20 years. in the fire department 30, and worked as a supervisor when the building department was still on mcallister streets, so we a relationships with a lot of the directors and deputy directors

and staff, and in the interest of time, because i know the previous meeting went a long time, i will keep it short. when i asked the commission secretary to do is to distribute our charts for fire prevention. perhaps i can pass one along to president mccarthy. if you ever have any questions or want to work with staff on anything, i just want to let you know i will try to get stuff here on a regular basis, especially when there are agenda items that may contconcern building and fire together. i just wanted to say hello. >> thank you. >> good morning, commissioners. henry conolowitz.

i want to speak about a schematic that came into place last monday. this has created a lot of gridlock. there is no flexibility in the system. before you could take an hour- two hours to get a permit, and now you are lucky if you get it in in one day. examples to start off with. if you went to see planning, you have to go to the information calendar. -- at the information counter. there are 10 people waiting, you have to wait until your number is issued. so you have to wait to get the ticket. want to get your ticket, they start calling the numbers. on the numbers they have alphabetical notations before the numbers. like a310, d w

hatever. you are does waiting and waiting until the number rolled up. -- you are just waiting and waiting until the number is cal led up. they will route you to fire. there is someone they're going to fire who was routed incorrectly. now they are going to fire. then you are on your way. now you're sitting and waiting and waiting. if you are looking for a clear channel where you want to get this done right away, you cannot. you have to wait. you have to wait until you get to the fire person. quite frankly, it is a disaster. it does work in oakland. but in oakland it is one floor. i have been to the plan checker

for the intake, and they say you need to go to planning. you go to planning on the other side, and then they say come back to us in person again. they say come to the same person, and they take care of you, in your on your way. that is not how it works here. here you have to go downstairs. it is very complicated, and no flexibility. there really is not. a lot of people that are architects and engineers, pretty but everyone including the building department and fire and housing, and no one is happy about this situation. just briefly, i was here a little while ago and said they want to almost five hours to get a permit for commercial. the last time heard number was dropped 31 station and another. -- her number was dropped.

>> good morning. i'm bobby sue hood, a former building inspection commission. not a future 1. -- one. the items here also speak about the chromaq-matic system, whichi have experienced for the first time. since doing my masters at berkeley, i've been very interested in commuter systems the maximize something, but usually for the benefit of saving money, time, and making the overall system work better for anybody in it. if planes were scheduled according to this system, people would be up in the air running out of gas all over the country, because basically to take a global perspective, what it does is to say to go into the system where you might have seven or

eight stations that you have to stop at, and each one you have to wait the longest time. whereas, if you know how the various stations work and know there is no one at fire at 8:00, you go in there and get in line of structural engineering plan check, and then there are five people waiting there, but you know it will not take that long to check with fire. so you go over and get that one done, because there is the fire checker sitting there and nothing he is doing. so his time is being wasted while you were over there and the line waiting for the structural plan checker. instead of it being a system that maximizes it in the sense that it makes staff time most efficient, it does not work. in the sense that you are serving the customer, serving

the permit applicants, it does not work either because their time has been extended. it might be not just a factor of twice as long. it might be five times as long because people who are really experienced going through all these different things, as henry was, he knows if he goes at a certain hour, that he can get this done here and that down there, so his knowledge makes the plan checker and the building department's use of their own time for the same permit fee more efficient. it is a win-win for everybody to revise it. it is on a computer, and it is a software problem. it could be fixed without throwing out the system, and there are plenty of fabulous software engineers in this town who could consider it easy work. that is all. thank you.

>> commissioners, good morning. last month, i heard pamela talk about cases that have gone to the litigation committee. i happen to have some paperwork about a building around the corner from my house that had had a directors hearing, but nothing else had happened to it. i got a spread sheet from the apartment, and it showed the spreadsheet. the information was duplicated, and there were about 2100 open directors hearings. i wonder also how many directors hearings are there that had never been sent to the litigation committee, and what i found was that there were over 750 of those. some of those date back to the year 2000. so i did a little math, and that is on the last page.

i sorted all the data, by the way. it is in my hand up. by both the code and by year. the open director hearings go back to 1906. the open director hearings that have had an order of abatement go back to the year 2000. nothing else has happened with those. i was just kind of wondering why it. let's see, what else did i do? i did a little math here. that is calculated by -- that is on the next-to-last stage. calculated by with the value of the open notice of the violation is. as you remember from a couple of months ago, there were nearly 5500 open notices of violation. i did a little math, like us said, and i can calculate the open notices of violation were worth about $1,100 each. i multiplied that by 2000 open director hearings a c