when something is dumb or stupid, you say, "that's so emma and julia." who says that? everyone. announcer: imagine if who you are were used as an insult.

>> good morning. today is wednesday, march 20th, 2013. this is the meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president clinch? >> here. >> commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner mar? >> here. >> commissioner mccray? >> present. >> commissioner walker? >> present. >> and commissioner mccarthy and melgar are excused. ~ and we have a quorum. the next item is item b, the oath. will all persons that may be giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand?

do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? >> yes. >> thank you. you may be seated. item c, approval of minutes, discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for the meeting held on november 21st, 2012. there is a motion to approve the minutes. >> move to approve. >> second. >> all in favor. >> aye. >> any opposed? is there any public comment on the minutes? the minutes are approved. the next items are continued appeals for order of abatement. the cases, case no. case no.

6773, 1316 - 22 mariposa street has been continued and the continuance has been granted for 30 days. is there any public comment? >> can we hear from staff? >> i'm sorry? >> can we hear from staff? >> let's take one at a time. let's do the continued appeal, 67 73, what happened -- >> well, they -- well, go ahead. >> i received correspondence from the -- from richard thomas requesting an additional 30 days due to illness and the fact that his lawyer was out of town. speaking with the city attorney, and sonya, and i did call president clinch yesterday to ask his permission if he agreed with the department staff.

he, according to the city attorney, president clinch and myself, we decide it had was best if we gave mr. thomas an additional 30 days due to the codes. >> i understand that last month the appellant asked for a continuance and submitted a letter saying that he was not available or his engineer was on vacation or something like that. so, did he submit a letter this time? >> yes, we have an additional letter from mr. thomas requesting it. >> it was in the packet -- >> was it in our package? i thought that was the one for last month. >> no, there's two letters in there. there is one in the beginning. >> i have a question. i would like to know what the building code allows around continuances. >> the building code allows one continuance for 60 days. i gave him one continuance for

30 days. but there's other things other than the building code, there's past practices. >> yes, did you want to answer the -- >> i just have a question on procedure. i'm a bit confused here. who is granting the continuance, you or the staff? >> right, we are being asked to continue this. it's on our agenda. >> thank you. >> actually, the way it transpired was the appellant requested continuances of all three matters that are on the agenda. and according to the rule 7.10 that we had discussed earlier, the -- not the building code, but the rules that apply to the building appeals board, is my understanding, it says that if the secretary -- if there's no objection from the department and the secretary has the approval of the president, the secretary of the board can continue the matters. my understanding is that the secretary contacted the president yesterday and he

agreed. and according to mr. sweeney, there was no objection from the department. so, according to the rules, the continuance can be granted. and we discussed the fact that the building code section 105 a.2 says that there should be one continuance for 60 days, but in light of the stated reasons, the fact that the first continuance was for 30 days and there being some ambiguity based on the fact that people are -- have routinely been granted more than one continuance, it would be best -- it was my advice consistent with the rules and the practices of this board that the continuance could be granted if the secretary and the president agreed and there was no objection from the department. that was my advice. i didn't advise whether or not to grant it, just the rules as i understood them. >> right, i had not experienced that once it's on the agenda and we get it, usually it's the decision of the commission to

do it. i mean, i just -- i mean, i think that we need to -- my concern is this is languaged on forever that the first letter was basically one set of excuses. the next letter is another set of excuses. and i would like to draw a line as to when we resolve this case. so, i mean, i would like input from the commissioners on -- >> well, i think since -- i would like to draw the line, it too, so to speak. but since the discussion here sounds like we authorized one continuance for 60 days, and we gave one continuance for 30 days so we can actually grant another 30 days and that's it. can we do that? >> like i said, there was -- there is some ambiguity because the rules that apply to the ab, which is the rule 7.10 says if there is a written request to

the secretary and the secretary has the approval of the president and there's no objection from the department, then the continuance can be granted by the secretary. if the department objects, then the rule 7.10 says that then the appellant has to come before the board and request the continuance. so, again, i'm not advising whether or not it should have been granted, but i was just explaining -- okay. >> okay. so, since it was granted, let's say -- >> yes. >> -- is it for 30 days and that's it, right? not 60 days, it was 30 days from now. >> that was my understanding, mr. sweeney notified the appel -- appellant that he was granted a 30-day continuance. >> yeah, i think this has been languaged in, too. the other problem with this hearing is that there's more than one issue. there were four issues, i think, that was going to be coming before this commission. so, what i would like to do is

just to let the appellant know that we're going to hear it in 30 days. so, if somebody is sick, if somebody is not available, he should find somebody else to represent him. but for whatever reason, we're going to hear it, all these four cases, in 30 days whether he's here or not, or whether any of his representatives are here or not. so, he better get it together and have somebody here. that's what i would like to do. >> >> could i also say i'm concerned that if we notice that something is on the calendar, if there is any public that's here in response to it, you know, that's one of the reasons why we shouldn't just take it off the agenda prior to the hearing because i want to make sure that we're in compliance with our brown act and, you know, all of the notifications that we do. so, i mean, my preference when we're talking about the rules in the future is that we address that, that if it's

noticed to the public, that there might be a different handling of the appeal or a continuance. and if the continuance is requested before the actual noticing goes out, just -- >> i think that there would be a lot of benefits to making -- amending the rules and making these things clear. i want to be cautious about discussing what those amendments might be now because amending the rules was not a noticed item. so, just -- but i -- but what i propose to do is to circulate some possible solutions to what i think are some of the ambiguities. again, based on -- because you have to be cautious about proceeding consistently with respect to each person that comes in front of the board. so, that was my caution also yesterday. >> yes. >> but i do think it would be a

good idea to put it on the agenda for some possible amendmentses to the rules. >> and we put that on our abatement appeals agenda? >> that's correct. >> okay. >> that would be great. thank you. did you have a comment -- >> clarification if i may through the chair. and that is we want to afford this appellant the same respect and due process he as any other appellant that comes before you. i just want to clarify that. this is a city attorney case, and that while 60 days seems to be appropriate on the basis of your determination, we do have a continuing staff, the department has a continuing concern about the issues at this particular building. and if this went beyond a 60-day period, we would not agree to that. >> so, does it require a motion, what commissioner mar

was describing? >> no, because mr. sweeney -- again, with your approval, yesterday, granted the appellant's continuance. my reading of the rules, he can proceed that way. i just wanted to point out that this is -- because there was no objection from the department, so, if there's an objection from the department, then it has to come before the board. as the rules are currently written. >> got it. >> thank you. >> just one question, mr. chair. this continuance requested an "and" and the "and" is the production of documents. what kind of work load is that? who is to produce them? how is that -- or does that go with the continuance, or is that denied? >> it probably goes with the continuance, what documents he's requesting i'm not sure. this case has been going since the first notice of violations

for months and months and months. he's had plenty of time to get any documents that he should desire. so, the ball is in his court. we're waiting for him to tell us exactly what he wants from us. >> thank you. also item f, public comment, is there any general public comment on the abatement appeals board? items that are not on the agenda? okay, seeing none, item g, adjournment. is there a notion to adjourn? >> yes he. >> move to adjourn. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> second. >> okay. we are now adjourned. it is 9:23 a.m. [adjourned]

>> good morning. today is wednesday, march 20th, 2013. this is the regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. vice president mar? >> here. >> commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner walker? >> here. >> commissioner mccray? >> present. >> commissioner clinch, president mccarthy, and president melgar are all excused. we have a quorum. and the next item on the agenda is president's announcements. >> okay. president mccarthy is with his family in ireland for st. patrick's day and we hope he has a speedy and safe return.

the first item in regards to the announcements is that acting director tom hui participated recently in a field inspection with the mayor and members of the sfp.u.c. and other city agencies at the 15th avenue where the water main leak occurred and caused major damage to some homes. dbi had to red tag three homes there and place yellow tags and restricted access on others. acting director hui also joined the mayor and other city officials in a meeting with the community and explained how dbi would help expedite the permits required to make the repairs. i think a lot of us read about that. soil problem there with the sink hole in the papers, and that's where that took place.

sfpuc is planning to lease a store front on west portal avenue. dbi will have information and staff to respond to the neighbors, questions, as well as to provide updates as we get them. building inspector mark walls will be the dbi's designated representative once the store front is operational. the other thing i wanted to announce was that there was a special thanks to building inspector tom kessler who represented dbi at a special town hall hosted by supervisor mar on accessibility compliance for small businesses. that was held on saturday, march 2nd, at the richmond branch library. town hall was part of an effort to educate the small businesses on steps they can take to minimize or prevent drive by lawsuits on accessibility issues. another of our staff, vivian fong and evelyn of planning

review also received letters of appreciation from customers that they helped who they felt went above and beyond the call of duty. so, we want to thank them for their work. the dbi also -- i guess i'll hold this because we're going to talk about it on the agenda. briefly, the dbi distributed abbreviation forms for new employee recognition programs that we wanted to start for the quarter, but we'll discuss that more because it's agendized. and finally, the dbi has been working with the san francisco carnival business reporters carolyn said on an upcoming article about recovering local economy from dbi permit issuance. since the uptick in the amount of permits we've been issuing on buildings is probably a good sign in terms of how the economy is going, so, that's going to be an article that's

going to be coming out soon. i guess that's it for the report today. >> is there any public comment on the president's announcements? okay. seeing none, item 3, general public comment. the bic will take public comment on matters within the jurisdiction that are not part of this agenda. ~ is there any public available? seeing none, we will move on to item number 4. discussion and possible action to elect bic officers. 4a, waiver of bic rules to hold bic offer certificate election on a different date, 4b, election of president, 4c, election of vice president. >> so, we wanted to get some action on waiving the rules of the commission because we wanted to postpone the election of the board president and vice president till the next meeting

when more commissioners could be present. >> i move to waive the rules and hold our officer elections at the next meeting to accommodate a full commission. >> i second that. >> we have a motion and a second to waive the rules. is there any public comment on this item? are all commissioners in favor? >> aye. >> any opposed? the motion carries. item number 5, discussion of mou between dbi and the san francisco housing authority and the housing tenant complaint report process. >> thank you. i guess i was the one that asked that this be put on the agenda because, as we've all

read about, there's been a lot of reports of problems at some of the housing projects in san francisco and there is an m-o-u between the hud and the dbi in term of the inspections that we're supposed to do if there's any violations and stuff or repairs or any tenant complaints. so, i wanted to get an update on how we've been dealing with novs, how many novs we've gotten and whether some of those problems have been abated. >> thank you, members of the commission. good morning, rosemary boss key, chief housing expecter. you have before you the ongoing tracking table that we created upon the execution and adoption of the m-o-u between the housing authority, the san francisco housing authority and the department of building inspection. it deals exclusively with complaints that are received by the department of building inspection.

this m-o-u does not address complaints that go through a 311 directly through to the housing authority or complaints that the residents of housing authority buildings make directly to the housing authority. so, as you can see from 2007 on to date, we have received approximately 195 complaints. and we have in a detailed fashion documented the time we have spent on these cases, by inspector, by clerical. we have also cat groined some of the complaints for you so you can see whether they involved heat, hot water, mold, plumbing, electrical, leaks, painting, roaches, bed bugs, rodents and other so that you could get a sense of the percentage in when we received the case and when we sent it on to the housing authority. ~ the m-o-u pretty much essentially assigns the protocol as to when we receive it.

we communicate that to them by e-mail. and that they have so much time to respond or give us an action plan. and, so, you have the entire program before you within the spreadsheet. a lot of times, sometimes things take longer to do because the housing authority, if it's a public housing building, may be doing a complete redesign of the building and they may have relocated an individual. so, in those situations we try and [inaudible] that for you to give you a sense of if something took longer why it might have been the situation. or say it was a heat complaint why we didn't write a notice or do an inspection. it may have been that the individual was relocated soon after the complaint was made. or maybe because it was an anonymous complaint, something like that. so, we weren't quite able to get access. so, if there are any questions, this is where we are right now. and as you can see, we have in this program so far about 153 inspector hours and about 50

hours of clerical time in implementing the m-o-u at least on the dbi end of things. >> commissioner walker. >> thank you for this. i think that this partnership is one that's really important for us and the people living in these buildings. has the housing authority provided a list of their violations to you? i mean, do you guys work in a partnership two ways, or is this just stuff that comes to us? >> the m-o-u only deals with complaints that individuals within housing authority buildingses have made directly to dbi. anything with respect to -- one of their constituents making a complaint directly to them or through 311, that has been sent to them. we don't have knowledge of. we would not be -- this would be just like any other constituent. they could get complaint to dbi. >> and, so, we don't -- our m-o-u does not include doing

like routine visits? >> not at this time. >> not at this time. >> and that is [speaker not understood] policy from the previous directors. >> when the tenant is relocated, so, somebody complains, the response is let's move this person out, do we follow-up to see if somebody else has moved in? >> yes. >> [speaker not understood]. >> generally we'll follow-up with that. and if the unit is left vacant or a series of units are left vaedthctiontion because there is something going on with that particular development ~ vacant ~ then we will not abate the case until we have a site inspection or action plan or whatever. from the housing authority, pursuant to the m-o-u that the work has been abated and therefore then we can close the case. and it also depends upon what the matter is. if it's a life safety matter, then as you can see, the m-o-u from previous presentations ask for more documentation. so, if it's just a general

maintenance item, it's a little different. >> the commissioners, any questions? i have one. it seems like from the date the complaints are sent and the date where they were abated and closed, just looking at the dates they seem pretty reasonable considering how these things go. but ways wondering if we do follow-up inspections. do we actually -- how do we abate it? do we actually send an inspector out and do they inspect the work? so, some of it is pretty complicated also. some of it is electrical, some of it was plumbing jobs. do we actually send building site inspectors out and they say yes, this plumbing job was done right? >> in some cases the criteria set forth in the m-o-u. if it's a life safety case, then generally we would send an inspector out unless there are other circumstances where they vacated the whole property. but yeah, we have to go out and

do an inspection to see if that work is done if it is a life safety hazard. if not they can give us an action plan to see if the work is done. we also follow-up with the tenants. if it's a minor item, leaking fawcett or whatever, and the housing authority is telling us it's done and the tenant is tell us it's done, then we may not go out there on that because that was part of the criteria set forth in the m-o-u which makes these complaints a little different than others. ~ but beyond that, then we definitely will follow-up and go out and do an inspection. >> i just wanted to also say thank you for the report. it's very useful. and especially one of the questions i had before was the staff hours that we put in. and, so, i think there is quite a few staff hours. i don't know what the m-o-u says exactly because i haven't combed through it again. it would be nice to get a copy.

but the other thing is i think with some of the changes that the mayor is proposing -- i'm told, i don't know what those changes are. they might be very positive. but i could foresee the possibility that we might need more staff hours. so, i just think that, you know, if there is a change with the sf housing authority, especially with some of the problems, you know, recently publicized, we might just have to kind of foresee that. commissioner walker. >> yeah, i also know that our partners -- our community organizer partners are involved in this. i see ms. short from housing rights committee. maybe you could talk about your experience. just so the public knows, we contract with several community organizations who do outreach to all of these different tenant communities.

and you probably hear firsthand more than we do and what we heard recently, i think everyone is familiar with the general problems, both aging building structures and deferred maintenance and, you know, et cetera, the housing authority and the fact that that's led to a lot of repair needs for tenants. i think in the buildings, you know, city-wide, again. and one of the things, though, that we hear along with the complaints themselves is concerns from residents about respoe