spent a considerable amount of time looking at all aspects of this particular property and gave the property owner, considering the conditions at this site, from staff standpoint what were more than generous conditions. the property owner, if she does feel these are items that will meet the code requirements, should file the building permits to do so to ensure that the occupants of that space, the occupants of the rest of the building, the adjacent property owners, are protected. unfortunately this is the department of building inspection, under state law,

under local law,. >> you can see from my point of view it's confusing, i am being asked to fix ceiling heights that are now legal. how can i pull a permit to correct a safety department that doesn't exist? the smoke detegtors are fine, i'm in compliance already with the january 2013 requirements even though it's not january 2013 yet. the list you have here is inaccurate and second of all, the stuff that i haven't covered is pre-existing nonconforming use. i mean, those units have been there for almost as long as the building has been there. if you are talking about converting it to its original

use, you are talking about a tiny fraction of the time that building has been in existence and it was a hundred years ago. if i put in a garage, which most people do on their ground floor, that's certainly not converting it to its original use. what i have is much closer to the original use of the building than anybody else on my street does. the windows are all original unless the city approved the building without windows and they were put in later without permits, which is absurd, they are all the old original windows on the ground floor. there's so many things on here that are non-issues, they greatly predated my purchase of the building. there's not anything i can do anyway. if you want me to pull permits, tell me what to pull and i will pull them but i frankly don't understand. it's like a solution in search of a problem here. i really don't understand what i'm supposed to

do. and i have started reaching out to the mayor's office and i have started reaching out to my supervisor, supervisor olague. there are other people who understand these criteria of illegal units are being applied very inconsistently. i'm not blaming this on you, this is city policy. if there are no life or safety issues and these buildings are 75 years old, the building has gone through two major earthquakes. the sky has not fallen yet. i live right upstairs. i've literally put myself in hock taking care of my building. but i can't see what's wrong, it seems to me what's wrong is the policy. i need more time, i really do, to work with the policy makers to see if the policy can catch up with my situation with these

pre-existing nonconforming things that i had nothing to do with. or if there is a permit you want me to pull, please tell me, i'll pull it, but from this list which is mostly inaccurate anyway and you shouldn't be going from a list that is not accurate, i don't really understand what i'm supposed to do to correct any of these things. that's the problem. and my calls to the department, as people have confirmed, don't get returned. so i can't get a clear answer on any of these things. >> thank you. is there any public comment? >> miss roberts, you can have a seat. >> commissioners. commissioner mar, while i'm not inclined to grant a rehearing, here's the problem. this is another one of those cases where we were very clear the last time this came before us,

i think we were very generous in the amount of time that we gave the home owner and the landlord. we said, pull the permits, you have two illegal units, there's been multiple complaints and when this was put on our agenda, you know, i got more emails, more phone calls, about the fact there was illegal work being done here. these were some of your tenants, the former tenants, they were not living there a hundred years ago. they saw people coming in and doing work that our inspectors said it was not permitted. if you feel it's (inaudible) pull the permits, get it done, let us reinspect us. legalize those units, you won't have any problems. if they are not, if they can't be brought up to code, if they can't -- if the work can't be done, that's your responsibility. i think we gave plenty of time

and to me it would be a little bit -- we shouldn't rehear this just as a pro forma thing when there's nothing being done, when they haven't even tried to pull a permit. if there was work in progress and your contractors, your architect, your engineer, said, we need more time, we're doing it, that's different. we've always been amenable to it. but to come back here and say you don't have enough time, that doesn't make enough sense to me. >> well, let's see. the only thing i ask is that the documents that the appellant produced from the fire department electrical inspection, the department hasn't reviewed that yet. should the department review that? >> commissioner, we didn't see

any of the fire but it doesn't change, i don't believe it would change the overall nature of the notice of violation that there's two illegal units and they need to be legalized. >> yes, i understand that. but if you recall, i think our decision the last, when we heard this and then the decision that we made was we would allow the appellant 30 days to apply for permits to correct code violations that constitute a serious and imminent life hazard and 90 days to complete all work regarding that. i was just wondering would those documents erase this statement and if that's the case, the only thing left is no. 2, which is appellant will have 4 1/2 months it apply for permits for the illegal construction or the non-permitted construction. >> the first part of your question, it wouldn't change. i don't know what section of the building the work was done

on for the electrical permit. the fire permit, i haven't spoken to inspector wong so i don't know what she was looking at. >> okay. >> i mean, if you go against the rehearing she still has 4 1/2 months to either change policy, as she talks about, get permits to remove the units, or to comply. >> that would still stand, of course. >> commissioners, you know, i mean i really, when i see these cases i really am hoping for something we can work with you, miss roberts, on. what you are asking us to do here is rewrite the rules here and we understand your dilemma. there's a lot of buildings in town like that, that have that situation, but we have guidelines we have to follow. what we can offer is time and hope that we can come up with a

solution, but obviously we are still at the same place as we were when we first talked some months back. we really wish you all the best but i can't keep kicking this can down the road here. we have to at some stage address what's in front of us and it seems like it's a planning issue and if policy is changed that's going to help you, that's great. we probably would welcome something like this so we don't have cases like this in front of us. i do believe your testimony, i believe you purchased this building and you inherited a lot of the issues that we have, but it doesn't change where we can go, where i vote on this today. thank you for coming here again today. >> so the matter before us is to reverse, is the request to reverse the order of abatement. that's what we're voting on, right? >> to grant a rehearing. and

if you grant a rehearing, then there would be a new hearing. the purpose of this is for the appellant to present new evidence or legal error sufficient to --. >> let me ask one last question. if the evidence, if the material that she produced today from the electrical inspector and the fire department, if those were satisfy the department regarding imminent life safety issues, would the first item be crossed off and then we say she doesn't need to apply for a permit for those? >> we don't know a lot of things. we don't know is the sheet rock that she talks about, is it 5/8x which is one hour. >> good point. >> the 7 foot, i think she has wrong, habitable room is now legal at 7 foot 6. there's a whole host of codes. >> okay. i make a motion to deny the rehearing request.

>> second? >> second. >> i will call the roll call vote on the motion. i'm sorry, public comment first. is there public comment on the motion? are there any other members of the public? a roll call vote on the rehearing request. (roll called). >> the motion carries unanimously. the next item on the agenda is general public comment on items

pertaining to the abatement appeals board. seeing none, item h, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> is there a second? >> second. >> we are now adjourned, it's 3.16 pm, in approximately 5 minutes we will begin the building inspection meeting.

. >> if our comments and whatever wrk we need to do, we could be as efficient as possible it would be greatly appreciated by everybody. just a few announcements. we got a thank you letter to the dbi staff, del rosaro from the permit department gtd a thank you letter. dbi staff were very helpful to mr. chin's reopening of his new business, ming khee restaurant, a good example of the staff doing their thing it make sure that smaller business got reopened again. i know the

mayor's office was very happy about that. the small business when they are in this type of trouble it's great that we can help out. another 4-alarm fire unfortunately took place. as a consequence of that severe damage occurred, the director issued two emergency orders for the demolition of both, one west portal and one at (inaudible) west portal. the orders had 15 days to file for a required demolition permit and take other specified steps to comply with that order. as of today, one west portal is underway and we're expecting the order of 9 to 15 west portal, which we got an update they had a meeting about that today, they have submitted a private engineer's report that documents the building is repairable and thus may not

need demolition but we will give an update on that. as we did during the earlier ocean avenue tragedy, dbi is working closely with the property owners, businesses and the mayor's offices and other city departments to expedite recovery from the west portal fire and i know a lot of the staff members had to spend some extra hours over the weekend to make sure that things were going well. we appreciate that. i went by and saw deputy director sweeney hanging out to see if he could help. it plays well with our community that you are out there and talking during these difficult times. the director and deputy director, ed sweeney and also i was at this meeting, there were a few names here, met with supervisor jane (inaudible) on monday to discuss legislation that she is considering that amends supervisor david chiu's vacant building ordinance. it was a productive discussion and we look forward to working with the supervisor to finalize her

proposal amendments with review and recommendations and that will come in front of us, to the code advisory committee and the bic eventually but just another good example how when everybody gets together problems get solved and can be a good outcome for amendments for legislation, particularly the board of supervisors. supervisor kim also worked with dbi housing inspection staff on new legislation addressing the additional department of hub health action steps to deal more effectively with the bedbugs infections which we read a lot about that in the papers. the supervisor is most appreciative with dbi assistance with the drafting of this ordinance. dbi chinese-speaking volunteers will be at another community outreach event from 11 am to 2 pm, the chinatown resource fair. if you are in the

vicinity please stop by and be good to see people from the department. that, madam secretary, concludes my president's announcement. >> is there any public comment on the president's announcement? seeing none, item 3, general public comment, bic will take public comment on matters within the commission's jurisdiction that are not on the agenda. >> good afternoon, commissioners. >> before we start i'd like to read the ground rules. any personal comments regarding the staff will not be tolerated. >> my name is spencer gosh, i have been a building inspector for 30 years. i would like for people who have problems with the department to come to

public comment. as with all my previous appearances before this commission, i do not wish to be here. i am here because of your continuous and repeated failures to address the problems within the department. i with prefer to not work in the toilet of a workplace your actions and inactions have made. i have previously complained about the racist and bullying in hiring and job assignments. you have done nothing. i have previously complained about the confusion created by not having policies and procedures. this confusion costs the department millions of dollars annually and collectively our customers even more than that. you have done nothing. i have previously complained about the illegal transfer of funds from this department to politicians so the department is impacted to the point of inoperatability, you have done nothing. i have previously complained to you that this advice is in error and you are the governmental body

responsible for the department of building inspection and its malfunction. i have urged you to seek outside counsel, both to correct your erroneous legal advice. i will be filing formal xlaipblts regarding the city attorney and i continue to urge you to seek outside counsel. your willful failures (inaudible) while i now have to far formally recognize your impotence, i see you people as little more than criminals. which brings me to the mayor. this commission is the mayor's

puppet show. our dishonest, lying mayor who has been informed of these problems and does nothing. once again, i urge you to seek outside counsel. my purpose is to is no longer to expect any action on your part, i am here to reiterate what some of the problems are and confirm your unwillingness to perform the duties to correct the problems. i show my due diligence at this level and will now take further steps to correct your failings. thank you for listening, see you next month. >> i am john (inaudible), building inspector. i would like to say congratulations to our building inspection team. thanks to you, your leadership, we have the highest morale we have ever had in the department. we have just one

disgruntled employee out of 250, approximately. i think that's a pretty good track record. we hear that particular individual month after month here inviting others, they are not showing up. i am not aware of any. keep up the good work. thank you. . >> president mccarthy, honorable commissioners, my name is irvin comminsky. i am here to request that you take an interest in this case and help me address the problems and my tenants so we can solve the issues that the building has. there is one item i think may be ripe for your consideration and that was an order of abatement that was

posted on april 18th and it probably should have moved to your commission for consideration and the 2655 folks have filed plans on may the 7th or 2nd, i believe, and i've seen those plans now and unfortunately they have languished in city planning for all these months. and the good folks in city planning have requested additional information which has never been forthcoming and the plans that i have seen, i have challenged because they are simply inaccurately portraying the existing realities on the ground. i think this is going to go on for a very long time. i'm in my fourth year in trying to get this thing resolved. my retaining wall is going to continue to rotate and it shows a greater rotation than it did a year and a half ago. the problems all continue as yet

another winter approaches. the single biggest problem that we have is that as these violations were brought in one by one, secretly on the part of those folks, they are attempting to resolve it in the same way by simply reversing the process and trying to take item by item before the building department by trying to get it permitted and christened the red headed child. unfortunately this has to be looked upon as a entity because it all functions as a system with regard to the retaining wall. not only is there the soil pressure, all my engineers have worked out the issues that my hundred-year-old building that was built in 1912 as one of the first apartment buildings in calhollow and is on the 1976 historic asset list, that gravity wall, retaining wall, cannot sustain the kind of pressure that has been brought on it by the

nonconforming unpermitted structures. and the kinds of estimates of the pressure, both the lateral pressure and the monen pressure, the lateral pressure at 1 foot height of fill is over 210 percent and over the moment frame it goes up to 250 percent, as i think i've written in my notes. the point is we hope this doesn't come down. there is an over 20,000-pound planter on it with 6 foot trees. none of this is really visible on the plans that were submitted to city planning and when i point it out to them they are rather amazed, they are, gee, that doesn't show it. i hope you can take an interest in this case and help me resolve it. >> thank you for your comments. >> is there any additional public comment? seeing none, item 4, update on the department's issuance of and response to notices of

violation. >> good evening, commissioners, ed sweeney, deputy director of permit services. since our last update of the condition of the complaints and notices of violations, like i told you before, we abated approximately 2,000 either or complaints or nov's and that was the easy stuff, that was the low-hanging fruit, that was housekeeping, it was us going back 10, 15 years ago and finding permits that had been taken out and not

finaled, a lot of duplicate nov's and what have you. so now we come down it a little more difficult stuff, to make the changes what we did is we first what we do, instead of having one director's hearing, we made one just for housing, one for building. rosemary of course will speak for housing inspection services. what building did is we tripled the amount of director's hearings going forward. we put additional staff into code enforcement to go after the first and second notices of violation that seemed to be languishing and push them forward. on that note, one of the inspectors we put there, he is out ill due to a knee replacement. we expect him back probably in november, december, january.

we do have one extra person up there working and as the amount of inspections decrease we can put probably more inspection staff assigned to it. we are also waiting for civil service exam which we figure will occur sometime in late november for the 6331 position, which is building inspector. that process should probably take 2, 2 1/2 months. we're expecting by january-february to hire more building inspectors, one of whom we will assign to code enforcement and again that person's primary responsibility will be to push these first and second notice of violations forward and capture more directors hearings, more orders of abatement. other than that, i'll let rosemary give you the his

>> thank you, i just want to complement ed because the report you just got is nr someone who is now the deputy director over another division, yet he is keeping track of this and being as helpful as he can with this and i commend him for his leadership. with respect to the housing division, i want tolg back to some numbers i gave you last year so you can see a comparison. when i first reported to you the number of open cases that we had in the housing division back in march 26, 2012, was about 4,891 cases. we have been reduced that today with respect to that time frame to 3,359. that's a reduction of about 1500 cases and these are the cases, everything that's in complaint tracking up