is there anybody listening in we want to be clear with the public because the joint meeting will be, you know, note and if we have action items that's clear to the public so they can prepare and come speak and if we have informational items let's say to include the collaboration between the two departments and to clarify the work of either departments that is sometimes confusing to the public those things are clear. we don't want to put out on o an agenda $0.85 that's too much of what the public expects but if they come to the meeting they'll go away saved we take care of the items whether information or clarifying the roles of both

departments or whether it was policy discussion. that was i think was really helpful for commissioner president mccarthy and myself the planning department is concerned about the planning functioning and at the same time, if there's policy things that we need to collaborate on we'll make it manageable and doable. >> great question. >> i heard that contestant will look like informational items for the public and action items around changing policy and around what else. >> those are the board

perimeters that we discussed that's why we don't have a set agenda we're going to try to wade through an action item vs. an informational item discussion so before we have that joint meeting put out the agenda that's clear to all mranlts and public stakeholders that maybe want to come to the meeting and don't know what agenda and which things are going to be talked about in terms of substance issues vs. other issues. >> through the chair. small property owners and big projects is there a demarcation between those areas for discussions >> if there are.

>> it will depend on what's on the agenda then the players will decide whether or not detailing that'll go to the meeting. >> commissioner president mccarthy. >> it sounds like it complicated a process. i feel like if i can share age about the first meeting we had 3. there was one, you know, one meeting followed up in a couple of months and another one. that was helpful because the first one was used confidencely it was presentations and taking issues that had been identified and then getting presentations from both departments then at the end of the meeting there were follow-up requests then a

couple of comments coming back and change things from a discussion to an action item. ultimately those commissions operate individually anyway. one of the reasons why i brought this up as a possibility right now is we're in the tail end of our business reengineering and our computer well tail end if you consider 15 years there's a lot of that that is going to require and is requiring a lot of kwpgs between our departments ease implement that and role it out is crucial as we address many is of the issues coming up. for me the issue is when we're permitting we need to be able to give more specific information to the project sponsors. how long is it this going to

take where is it if it's in planning we need to know from them as well how long it is going to take pardon that sounds simple but it has not been. when we talk about the policies and procedures and how we cooperate the departments together in that. i also would love to include 44 in our discussion because we're the eyes of both the departments out in the need we're the inspectors and planning didn't have an inspection crew they have maybe 2 i think or something it's really they don't think our input a lot. so issues of change which use which aren't in the per view of dbi we are somewhat responsible

for or asked to be responsible for. so i would love to especially like in the eastern neighborhoods when i have industrial buildings that get redeveloped and then change uses to more of offices. there was many conversations of that in our eastern neighborhoods plan so getting on the same page with planning and getting information from them about what they would like us to look for and get them involved with and at what point. its becoming an issue in the eastern part of the city where we were displaying businesses and in some cases affordable housing and any number of other things we're seeing that new now. i'd love to be more conscious of that in our process.

so if we can somehow include that in our list of items that would be good and helpful >> commissioner lee. >> i have two points to make. the first one is about the possible topics. i think what's written in our agenda is a good start but i think we need to be a little bit more specific. i think those topics with too general for example, the first one about the permit turn around time and to treat the small projects and big projects differently but you how about projects under construction we discover later than that hey the project sponsor did something wrong and we need them to go back to planning that's another subject and how about

conditional permits if the attendant needs to move somewhere do they treat those differently too. we need to pinpoint those are we don't want to be too board. and the second point i want to make is that i think also that having a joint meeting not only helps us but i feel that it should be some direction for both departments to work together. so instead of the policies we should have instructions to make sure that the building department and planning department are working together maybe memos written out we know we're going to go through the process again, you know, that's the whole another part of why

we're wanting to have a joint commission meeting >> commissioner warren you think it's going to get up more specific but take more time so that going both commissions and staff feel comfortable with the agenda items. the other things i want to say is give the staff credit they've been working more 80 together and i want to give director dewey kudos pushing that in fact. not only by having the planning staff in our building but on the fifth floor and there's been a little bit = boeing but i think we're working through the bugs

and kudos to planning staff they're coming to our advise committee meetings. so something like that is laying the basis for those more detailed questions as well. >> i concur the goal is to wrap up as commissioners maybe commissioner walker go ahead. >> i also and i noticed the fire department earlier here i want to make sure we include the fire department and health department officials. if not you been, you know, with us at least part of the conversation because they're so integral in our permitting process. and there's we can have delays around that with the fire marshall so just make sure their

officially part of our discussion >> right. >> not the commissions itself but the staff. they were - those departments were there at our first joint meeting they presented so we could ask both the planning and dbi if something comes up what do you do. responding to issues that have come up. many of us from our constitutes or the public they have hiccup in the process to try to identify those things to smooth them out so everyone is working from the same script >> after sitting down with them i haven't had a chance to take a look talk with my constitute but if we are successful we should be cognizant if we take our few

items and try to encourage this on a yearly basis so what we can't get done this year we can do next year. what's more important there are other issues to be discussed. i'm hoping the goal is to meet again commissioners if you could e-mail your top two or three and maybe we'll obviously come back and agree on that but that will be helpful. my sense is we need to have our worry about list what do you think. they'll put their worry about list together and maybe we'll have a date we can come up with a date so the goal is to get it done with within the next five or six months >> really. >> well, no just to agree on

the agenda i think could take us a couple you have round. >> 3 months. >> okay. great i'm not going to open myself you been u up but 3 months grace definitely it should be showing that's encouraged on a monthly balances but my sense is commissioner castillo. >> if you have any thoughts send them into us and we'll sit down and process them between the 2 of us the vice chair and if everybody is happy we'll go forward and see. >> great. >> but i'm duly noting get it down sooner than later.

>> may i start. >> yeah. >> okay. i notice that in my last few abatement appeals we've heard issues where tenants and property owners disagree on who's allowing assess in and who's not i wonder a could a we develop a program that might mitigate some of the mysteries mini could we do something to keep both parties let's say for

lack of a better word honest interest boo do we know the fact it is true that someone isn't granting assess are do we know for a fact someone tried to get in and couldn't maybe it could mean having one of our nonprofit organizations to be a witness to the fact maybe or something like that. >> great idea. >> i don't know where they may come in at the directors hearing level whether there's a discretionary send it 0 a third party i'm just throwing it out there we're going to see more landlord/tenants disagreements that be great if it was resolved

quibbler. when we do receive a complaint and when we respond and go out and inspector do we invite the pretender that we're going to go out and allow them to accompany us? if we receive a complaint and say oh, my bath tube is clogged up and we respond with an inspector do we tell the property owner we're going out through to respond to 0 complaint what you like to join us something like that? >> i believe the way it is now the tenant calls to make a complaint and housing or building or whoever makes the appointment with the tenant to go out and inspect it to get the

landlord involved or the owners representative we have to have more information at the time when we take the complaint who is the owner and the number or the address it's an extra step we have to do. >> i'm not saying we have to accommodate the owner but they should think invited and it's up to them to join you or not. that might help oh, someone's going out through to look at my property >> we try to get anti between twenty-four hours this might impede it. >> that might be not a good thing the tenant might not want them involved before the documentation that happens quite

a bit so - >> i mean because this is something we can schedule for the agenda but it seems that reasonable if there's issues that come up during our processes, you know, issuing notices of violations where there's where the landlord is claiming he can't get into fixtures it we might bring in our groups because we have about tenant and landlord representatives. i know when we use them they're really successful so i encourage us to use them more for this type of thing. i think it would help >> i agree we can set for after the hearing us housing or for any, you know, conflict between the owner and we can have them revel it to reduce the number of

cases like this. >> absolutely they might not do the appeal but resolve the issues that's a great idea. >> (inaudible). >> could i suggest that maybe because of the possible delay in the business very engineering because of the personnel we have an actual agenda item when we heard the testimony on the agenda item we're counting on the system being up and running. >> i think she had some meeting

next week with a timeframe. >> maybe at the next agenda i have a full on - >> you want the stakeholders here. >> sure why not. >> i guess it's based on the act it's going to be delayed again so we'll have it but make sure with commissioner walker it's going to be desolated and not on the timeframe. >> just another item and maybe would follow this it's to follow up with the grand jury suggestions and report the staff is dealing with it but there was two parts to the grand jury re789sz one say was to staff but to the brt. it would behopeful us if that bp r or whoever the consulate is

with our incisions there's policy things points b r.c. could have done better not just the staff but if we could discuss that with them that would be helpful >> so it kind of would enpuss with the other cities implementation are questioning we just a strange city that can't get this done or is there this normal. >> yeah. >> okay. >> (inaudible). >> move the minutes of october 16th with all necessary if any corrections. >> second.

>> i. >> (inaudible). >> so moved. >> second >> i. >> (inaudible). >> the minutes of the regular meeting (inaudible). >> move to approve. >> second. >> i. >> opposed? seeing none, (inaudible). >> item 12.

>> move to adjourn. >> second. >> i. >> (inaudible)out. >> hi, i'm japanese with the san francisco public utilities combination sometime people call me sewer girl our systems has served the area for 1 hundred

and 50 years we're planning you understand public health and our environment don't think that so come in down and see how >> good morning, today is wednesday, march 19, this is the regular meeting of the abatement appeals court, please turn off all electronic devices, the first item is roll call, president clinch? >> here. >> vice president melgar. >> here. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> here. >> commissioner mar? >> commissioner lee. >> and lee is expected commissioner mccray? >> present. >> we have a quorum and the next item is b, the oath. will all party giving testimony today rise your right-hand?

briefly states that each appellant and the department in this case. we are on to item c, selection of officers for president and vice president i would like to make a motion to leave the same structure as president and vice president . >> second. >> second. >> okay. >> and okay. thank you. >> second. >> thank you. >> and we have a motion and a

second to on for president clinch who remains the president and vice president melgar, and a roll call vote on that? >> commissioner clinch? >> yes. >> commissioner melgar? >> yes. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> yes. >> commissioner mar. >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mccray? >> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> and the motion carries and congratulations. >> congratulations. >> and go on to item d, continue to appeal, the orders of abatement. case number 6783, 1450 green street. owner of the record, anne hector. attorney for the appellant, adam clammer, the action reverse the order of abatement and just one moment. >> i just want to clarify, if

you are going to hear the two appeals together, i just want to make sure that everyone is clear that that is what is happening. is that your intention then? >> that is fine with me, if we did it that way last month. >> so. >> the department's presentation and the appellant's presentation regards both matters. okay. >> members of the board, good morning, chief housing inspector and i have little to add from last month and the hearing on these two particular appeals and i think that these very specific directions from the board, last month's meeting was to give the property owner and the occupants 30 days to resolve their issue and come back and report their progress, and i will tell you that we attempted a reinspection last week and this was with the contractor on site and i don't

believe that he could hear because of the work that was ongoing and he could not hear the inspector that was there and there were a lot of phone calls from the site, but the inspector did not gain entry but since a lot of this was more extensive to the other specific things that the property owner needs to provide you, at this point, i have little to say except that to hear from both parties, and they can then inform you what progress that they have made. and then, from there, you know, we made our position clear, but if, they are close to getting this resolved, we are more than happy to work with all of the parties concerned on that. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning, allen, on behalf of mr. adam clammer and it is my understanding that appeal number 6783 and 84 are being heard together and i am going to keep this brief and so

mr. soriano can further speak on the issues that i am go going to address. but, the theme of the few minutes that i am going to talk about is substantial progress, as requested by the board at the last hearing. and we have worked hand in hand with the plaintiffs and their council and as we advised you in our supplemental report, dated march 12th, the plaintiffs in this case, or the tenants in this case have moved out of the subject apartment on february 25th, 2014, and our client for the landlord has provided the other half of the relocation expenses, to the tenants. and in addition to that, during that procedure, of them moving

out, our clients in the property owner mr. clammer has had the tenants personal property claim pack removed pursuant to the analytical and the recommendations of the restoration of the management company which was one of the requests that the board put forth they last hearing, in addition to the substantial progress that was noted on the two pages in our supplemental, and our march 12th supplemental report that was provided to the board we have had the further progress at the property, including at this time, all plumbing repairs of the property have been completed, and any, and all major window repairs have been complete