the work done, if we can get this done with your guidance we maybe able to get this done. >> that is contractor provided any evidence that the workers that will doing the work are trained and certified per her request? >> that i would have to let them respond to. i just got the documentation right now. perhaps they can answer for you. >> the document is included. >> are you a worker also? >> i'm a general contractor, not a painting contractor. this

conversation is extremely complicated. there is a lot of language that's been used in this situation. that puts me in a very difficult position because we've been talking about lead repair and renovation per the state of california and e p a and hud and abatement and remediation. those are all different things. i'm not certified to do abatement and not certified to do remediation. i am certified and my workers to do repair and renovation within the state of california and city of san francisco. typical disturbances of lead base paint and prep and removal of drywall and trim come up repair and renovation. basement is a different procedure, designed to last

over 20 years. it's not a maintenance issue. remediation is beyond that. i'm not certified for that. i'm a repair and renovation contractor and i have never had an issue with my certification or my work. >> i'm only asking if your workers are properly certified and that's all i'm asking. >> i don't want to hear personally if i'm doing the work that the state doesn't feel that i'm working within the confines of the law. the truth is in san francisco, with the building department as it currently stands and with the state contractors licensing board i have all the qualifications necessary to do this work and the training logs as the epa requires and all the circumstances will be done. >> i believe this and i do know

about the laws about lead. if you are certified. >> i'm certified as personally as a supervisor and my company is certified. >> you told me that your workers have been trained. >> they are trained as as supervisor i log their training but they don't personally need to go to the certification class. >> but not your certification bus there is a training for them. >> no. there is an 8 hour rrp certification that is given to one qualified employee of the company. that's me. >> not your workers in >> they are not legally required to be through that training. >> they have not done it? >> they have not done it because i am legally allowed to train them and as their supervisor i have to maintain all the best practices. >> okay. thank you. >> one quick question. the

photo that miss sang had of that worker was he one of your workers? >> no. just a guy. not one of my workers. >> thank you. any other questions. any other public comment? >> previously i don't know how we can uphold the basement on this issue because there is too much quarreling going on and fortunately it looks like there is continuance. i think this is going to be resolved. >> we tried our best to get this taken care of it. it really needed to come to the board. my recommendation is that you give them 3-6 months. this is not a remediation, not

an abatement and if the property owner provides her with abc and d and there should be a commitment on her part and if we could not get concurrence it would be up to you whether or not you want this case to get closed because we can't get cooperation. it's a rare instance and we want to say this is an exception, if we can't get that concurrence, there is a possibility that case can get closed administratively if we can't get that cooperation. >> we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. thank you. >> so what would those ab and c items be? >> providing the documentation she's requested with the certification and she provide access to her property. >> i would like to point out to

the commission that she has already received the certification. we are just giving you a document with the certification. you heard the testimony from the contractor that he is certified and meets all the requirements. it may not be the requirements she thinks he needs to meet. that's the issue here. if you structure your order so to her satisfaction, that's not conducive to progress because there has to be some objectivity here and just because she feels that she needs something and that can also change as it has because originally she just requested certification. this issue of california state certification as opposed to epa certification just came up last week. there is nothing to prevent that from

continuing. so what it is that she's requesting cannot be left nebulous. there has to be some guideline issued by this commission that makes sense and reasonable and legal. >> we don't have that jurisdiction. >> i would just, we can only go as far as we can go within our administrative purview in what we can do. we can also just not grant the continuance. so that's sort of our leverage. so from where i'm sitting i would advise that you be more flexible. you could do what's legally required what is the bare minimum which seems like it's what you are doing. sometimes when we are emotionally invested in something and there is a conflict it's difficult to take that next step. it seems that's required. perhaps you should step back. i have never

listened to you before but it seems that you have done a lot of attack that doesn't need to be. i'm wondering if you are going back to miss sang and come up with something that she can live with. it seems to me that mr. -- sends a worker to an 8 hour training would cost a couple hundred bucks seems like your client would pay for it and that would do it for miss sang and that would also involve the cost for putting the trels back. perhaps you have been through all of this before from the rhetoric that we've heard. it seem like you are stuck. perhaps putting in writing for something that goes a little bit beyond and come back in a month and see if that doesn't work, we'll take the

next step. at least i have not heard that you have gotten there. >> you are right. it has happened before. we have gone through this process again. we'll do it again at your request. you are right, we are stuck. that's the frustration that you are sensing that's coming from me because this is not the first time that we have addressed this issue. as i have indicated to you in our apply and exhibits 2, 3 and 4 we did most recently, this is not the first time, not the second time, we did most we would

like to see certification and 2, how you plan to propose to paint that wall, will you besetting up scaffolding and have your workers set up that wall and timeframe, >> we would like to see certification and 2, how you plan to propose to paint that wall, will you besetting up scaffolding and have your workers set up that wall and timeframe, and no. 3, i would like to see if there is a plan to remove and replace the trels when you are doing the painting. i think those are the three items. >> all of those three items have already been provided. you have for copy of certification before you and also was in the e-mails contained in exhibits 2, 3 and 4. the certification,

the numbers, also now, if the workers themselves we can identify workers who are going to be on-the-job assuming that we are going to have the job in the next couple of weeks, obviously we can't tell you who the workers are going to be if miss sangs rejects that or if this project gets down to # 6 months from now. as far as the trels we are going to replace it at mr. engelberg's cost. you can't paint some of that wall because the trels prohibits it. >> i need to make one comment. it's ridiculous to ask us to come to an agreement because it has not happened. the only progress made last week is that butler on her behalf asked her

to remove the trels. her response was she put wiring around it so it was totally impossible to remove it or move around it. she's going in the opposite direction of what you want to do. i can tell you after 15 years to asking to us take any further steps negotiate ing with her in good faith is a waste of my money and your time and your money. >> that puts us in the position to have no choice of pursue the negotiation of violation. if you are stuck. >> we are stuck. >> we are not saying we are deciding one way or the other right now. we would like to see if you can make one more effort to reach out. that's all. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> i kind of got side tracked.

i thought we were moving in the right direction. i understand the tensions are high. so just quickly i understand you have done a lot of the work already, that's good. so resubmit that work as mr. lee pointed out as a good effort. wrdz to the appellant, we understand your concerns, we've listened to your concerns, we've asked them to recap the concerns even though they feel they have already dealt with them before and we ask you to do that within a time frame. i will agree that 3-6 months is far too long to ask for this. i would agree with a shorter period of time because a lot of the work is already done. with that i would just troll that, i don't know how you feel with the timeframe. with the interest of moving this along and most have the outreach has

been done and then at that point if there is still resistance, we can make some goods decisions with regards to this. >> we will do, we will make our best faith efforts to resolve this issue prior to your next regularly scheduled hearing. hopefully we can come back here and report to you and that we have in fact resolved the problem. >> thank you. commissioner mar has a question. >> i know this is frustrating for you too. we can't go back to 15 years. i would ask that both sides, i see from the department's point of view, mr. lug an it's totally qualified to do this work. if he's the

contractor, resubmit it again. even if you have done it, redo it again. with all those caveat, the time is important. maybe we can allow a shorter period of time to get it done at least start the work. >> miss sang, it's in your best interest to cooperate because if it is dangerous paint it is falling on your property. it's in your best interest. i'm sorry, you've had your public comment. thank you. we've had your public comment. we have another speaker. >> good morning. how about another idea. paint both sides. let the doctor pay for both and

it would be cheaper. paint both sides, her contractor, 3 bids, end of story. >> so, what is the timeframe where on the motion. what do we want to decide here? next meeting. let's see some progress. time is ticking. next meeting. maybe 15. >> okay. we make the motion and second so we can call to continue? >> move to continue. >> who seconded? >> seconded. roll call vote. >> a roll call vote to continue this item to our next meeting. president clinch, yes, melgar? yes, mccray, yes, lee, yes. the

motion carries unanimously. >> thank you very much. case no. 6777. 6777 owner 1325 portola drive. sophia u new, 2 # 19 dlong street, san francisco. >> at that time this was a vacant lot. the violation, was removed without permit. on

august 14 of 2012, an basement was issued with conditions. a permit was issued in july 15, 2011. that was to install. that work is not complete yet. if it were completed it would clear the violation. staff recommends that you uphold the basement and that concludes our report. >> thank you. is the appellant here? hi. good morning. >> i am here to explain some of the problems that have been on

going with -- >> your name? >> my name is sophia new. this was a vacant lot, a brand new construction. there were so many mistakes done by either the permit, the building department, planning and all that. it has come to a point where it was an appealed by my neighbor and rean appealed and it was a very very time consuming and administrative part. so, we attended those board of appeals and the same place here and the neighbor just kept using the same complaint that well, you know,

they built according, not according to the an approved plan and the building inspectors whether there and it was built according to the plans and when we were on the third floor, the contractor was building it, he said, it's blocking my 5:30 sunset light or something like that. those have been addressed. i thought those were very i would say not so substantial complaint, but we went through it all. last month was the last appeal. i thought it would never be an appealed because we didn't revise anything but we had to go through same thing all over. now it was unanimously

approved. so we should be able to continue, but with this abatement we don't understand. when they issue a permit and i have the letter for that, i should not be penalized for their mistake. you have some time if you would like to keep speaking if not we can move to the department rebuttal. >> are you done with your testimony? >> well, i would like to know whether this is a valid penalty or i have the right to appeal because in the first place, if it's been approved them we

should be able to continue building it, finishing it instead of every step of the way, there is and the city would always go against the owner. >> we can have the department speak and maybe the department can speak to that a little bit because i think there is more to it than that and then you will have a chance to come back again after the department. >> i do acknowledge that there was a permit appeal and it was recently reinstated. that permit being an appealed had no affect for this violation. why we are here today is to encourage the property owner that even to permits maybe an

appealed they are not impeded from completing the work and the permit they have should appeal this violation and hopefully they do it as quickly as possible. there are inspections outstanding and they can complete those and then we don't have a concern. and also understand the reason why they may have been an appealed was because the door was removed before the permits were graded to full permit and maybe some of that atmosphere was cleared in the community. aside from that we hope they complete the work on this permit and if they provide the permit we close the case. >> isn't the issue before you

the permit was granted for shorting has been installed. >> we need special inspections cleared and showing that obtain a final inspection. >> okay. she's pretty close? >> yes. maybe that because the other permits were an appealed maybe there is some they weren't allowed to work. really they are. >> really what she has to do is schedule an inspection? >> yes. >> the work has been pretty much done on this violation? >> yes. according to her engineer submits the project and those clear and get the final inspection and that would resolve the matter. because the work hasn't been do that you with hold the abatement and

allow her to pay the fees. >> yeah. >> so how much is the fees that she owes right now? $1007. >> that's because the contractor proceed without the contract in place. >> the cost. >> okay. commissioner mccarthy. can i look around here a bit. it was in plays. the shorting was in place and put out there. >> i'm not aware if there is inspections in adequately counseled if it done or if it's done correctly. >> all right she can, the job

can start, the other phase of the job right now, is that correct? >> from what i understand the house have complete. >> i know as i drive by it everyday. i was wondering why it was sitting there. so, my concerns are that we have a shoring that is in place that we have no proof of inspection, we have no inspections, no set of plans or no engineers here today. i'm questioning is it your understanding that you have done any background check. >> if we pull the abatement today that will be able to complete the work on the requirement and when it's signed off we know there is no longer unsafe condition with regard to that area. >> yeah. i'm kind of weary about the fact that we haven't

had some professional here reinforcing the fact that shoring has been installed. we have no real back up. >> i'm here to represent the department, not the other side. >> dual noticed. >> there is no other questions, we can ask miss new to come back with your rebuttal. >> yeah, actually i have the job card with me and everything is instead here that it has been inspected, all the plumbing for the foundation and everything is done and we are in the 3rd floor and still it gets suspended. >> miss new, do you understand that this is specifically for the shoring of the soil that was taken away? not for everything else. this is specific. >> the shoring part of it

because of this statement, yes you could start building. >> it has to be properly inspected. you need to close the loop on that. >> yes. this is the card for the temporary shoring. and we paid the permit, i don't understand why my contractor did not communicate with the city in inspectors although the signature are on-the-job card. miss knew what is prevent ing

you or your contractor stating the work is done? >> i didn't under that. part of it because i hired him to do the job, but because it took so long, like even for the planning department to come up with something, the height of my neighbor and the present project, it took them a year to correct even just that particular thing oovment because they are 2 different projects. >> yeah and when we got it the follow day it got suspended. i don't understand that. i should always have in written form when somebody complains and not through phone that it's suspended. i just got the