very labor insensitive.

>> you raise a very interesting aspect which is the only way currently, for the department of building inspection to obtain penalties, for a code violation of the housing code, is through litigation, and setting a case, either to get a stimulated agreement or a judgment through a court, and that is also in section, 204 and everything else, is reimbursement for costs rendered and so you have to have, or you have to have taken a certain action to bill a

property owner. >> is there anything legislative that we can do to fix that. >> there is, you could look at that very definitely. >> and you could look at the possibility and i have mentioned this before and administrative penalties for certain cases and problem though is that currently it is not something that you can do unless you issue a citation, or you go to court and get an agreement, so, one of the things that we find is that the property owner knows that we are pressing, and that we are there and we are asking the questions and we want to see the progress, generally that gets a better effect for us so that we can the cases resolved and that takes time to do and because we have a certain, relationship with this particular property own and her we realize that this was what seems to work for her, others don't need this kind of intensity and that is that the

problems is that our best code enforcement tool and but it is labor intensive, now, the other aspect, in addition to penalties, is going in there and doing the work. now i don't recommend that in most cases unless there is a hazard and now you are going into the business of being a property owner and manager and if you go in and fix the existing buildings and you do it in such a way that there are problems and you expose to the cities and there are liability issues there and we do in limited instances do this if there is a hazard and not necessarily heat or if we are looking at a single heat appliance and not a central system, and as there was in this particular case study and quite frankly, you would go through a lot of funding very quickly, if you started to do this, and so, you would have to develop the criteria as to what, when and why you wanted

to do that and you will have to recover that, it is a possibility and it is currently absent the shortened time frames that we are getting to these quickly and the other thing is that i have mentioned is that it is a valve or something breaks and we do have to get the property owner to fix that and it is a very rare, instance where we have gathered enough information to be able to say that you property owner must replace your entire system and that requires, a lot of fact finding on our part to be able to do that and we have done it, but, that is a low instance and in this particular case study, there is hot water system, had to be replaced because it was so antequated but the heating system is not quite there. and so, we have to have a

history over a period of time to be able to compel something like that and convince a judge that that is necessary. now, if a case is just has a heat violation is that a city attorney case, typically it is not, it may be, but generally the judges want to see more than just heat especially when on the second or third day, the property owner had a license contractor out there doing something.

>> what are the problem land lords verses the people who have novs once in a while and they do the best effort to fix it and move on, and so i think that as we do better, sifting or whatever, categorizing of the various types of novs we will get a better idea of which buildings, which land lords, are kind of serial, and long term problems. and i think, i think that would help the department, because our main thing is that we want the nov abaited and we are not into creating problems and there is not as many long term problems as we think, but the long term problems, stair us in the face every month and i think that is what frustrates

the commission, as well as the public. >> we have to put those properties out manually now and i will give you an example and the one that showed up with heat violations was 308 turk and that was as you recall, a city attorney case and it was resolved but the efforts with the city attorney, a property owner, change, etc.. and so, we do, isolate those but it is much more difficult, to do and we have to do it manually now, whereas under ecela it will be a lot easier to get that data and so we are looking forward to having the tools to be able to instantly see what the patterns are, which we can't do now. >> okay. >> commissioner lee. >> i am just speaking from my experience, and not as a

landlord, but on dealing with the heat issues. do we take into account of how heat is provided for the tenant in the interim? meaning, yes, the building heating system may be broken, but what happens if the landlord says, okay, in the meanwhile i will provide you with a portable heater. do we take into account those kind of actions when we cite the property owner? the reason why i bring this up, is my father called me this winter and said hey, my heater is out and he says that i need some help to find the contractor to fix my heater and my first thought was, well, it is cold in sacramento, and so i am going to go up there and bring the portable heaters for him and have him use that while he is trying to find a contractor and then the second point that i want, and the

second thing that i was thinking is that i was trying to help them find a contractor up in sacramento. and i was actually talking to some realtors. if you have a policy, you can call the home owner and they can find a contractor for your father and that sounds like a good idea and my point on this is that could we require, these property owners, to have such a policy, in place, so that if there is a problem, they need to call those, and the home warranty or the builder warranty policy and get a contractor there to fix it

right away. >> if it is installed with a permit and now a lot of times a property owner is not going to use that appliance and as the permitted heat source because of the title 24 issues and because they want a more efficient system that is more encompassing than a portable heater, and some of the examples and the housing authority buildings where they are in the process of completely redoing the heat system as in the mitigation measure, we have talked with the housing authority, over the years, and as far as providing

space, and two tenants while the new systems were put in because we all know that it takes some time to put those in. and those are then, and the legal heat sources that are required by the code and it is an interim mitigation measure that the occupant while the system is going, is being installed, provided that it is used appropriately and you know, that it is an approved, appliance and that it has the proper clearances for what the manufacturer requires and so that we have recommended that, while, systems are being repaired, but ultimately they can't take the place of the ultimate heat source but we do encourage that if the time frame looks like it is going to be extended. and that has come up on occasion with the housing authority buildings and senior housing authority buildings, and other buildings in a privately owned apartment buildings etc. and so we have made the recommendations as to

the interim measures and the aspect of the policy is a very interesting one and i see the director nodding because on the elevator issue, that is another thing that he came up as far as the warranties for parts and appliances which was an excellent idea on his part, so, definitely i would be more than happy to research, obviously it is not in the code right now, but it is definitely something to look at to maybe help the property owner for that rainy day when they may be faced with something like that. and i will be happy to research that and get back to you. >> i actually calendared it today because i did know that there was a complaint met and it kind of resonated with me and i understand, and i just want to say that i really want to compliment you for walking us through the process and i think that it really kind of, and because i know that there are two worlds here and trying to get everybody to do the right thing and particularly the world that you live in and i kind of do like the way that you approach us because the

construction of what it takes to get things done and so on i think that you are being kind of street smart on how you approach and trying to be effective in collecting the fees and so on, and i do know the legal system can be not necessarily the best option, particularly not after sitting in the basement and or the legislative committee there and it is difficult, and i know that the challenges that we have and kind of come to the conclusion that you have to be smart in how you approach these issues. and i think that it is interesting, too, that we are having this and i think with the elevator, and we are having this kind of working group, it kind of falls into that same category and it is really the human issues where the people are trapped in the building and the people can't sleep and the building is too cold and so on, and so it will be interesting to see the out come and what the working group comes up with there and because the elevators are extremely difficult projects, and i think that it falls into the category, and so, maybe, we could find them

and find the findings and tie it into this, 2011, i did know that you have updated this and obviously this was a real problem before and this was the best program that you could come up with right now, the 551, that was over what period? >> that was from january first 2012, through december 31, 2013 and so it was the following two years after this was changed. >> the total complaints that have come in. >> yes. >> and you ended up with about 36 and have gotten. >> and currently still, open, for various reasons. and right. >> and some of them may just be billing and we are constantly working on those, because after we have issued an order abatement and then the question is where do we go from there and so manifesting that in front of the property owner and knowing that they are accruing time and there is a bill continuing and we are there asking what is happening etc. and actually gets the case resolved, and it is not

perfect, but it is the best tool that we have to use, and because it seems to be the most effective. and we are always looking for other ways to improve this. >> yes. >> and commissioner walker? >> yeah. i agree, that this is one of those issues like the elevator and it becomes a life safety issue very quickly. and so, maybe you all could talk about having accelerating penalties. because i actually think that, you know, if they are going to move by getting one fee, they will move twice as fast. and if that is what moves people. and i think that it does. and i mean, and if it can be legislated and then, we don't have to and it does not get triggered by filing any law, you know, court action, i just saying that maybe you all could talk about it in that group because in both of those cases, with the elevator and the heat,

it is serious. >> yeah. >> so, i guess that my point is the working group would be that they are going to come back with how to fix these elevators and the quick and the efficient manner and what the consequences are, if you don't. right? >> and so i guess, to commissioner walker's point if they come back, and say, you know, heavier fines is the reason, and that moves the people and or whatever, and we could look at that, as a part of updating this. and i don't know what it takes to change your fine process, and so i don't want to open that conversation right now, but it is probably complicated, right? >> legislation, right? >> as it happens, i do have some proposals. if we want to move in that direction, it would require

moving chapter 8, and chapter two of the housing code and making our current director's hearing process more robust because that will be the hearing for that and also it would be done but one of the things that i thought that we really should look at and that is, right now, the order of abatement is a diluted code of enforcement unless the property owner is trying to sell the property or take money out of the property. it really is, and that is not what it used to be. and so one of the things that i thought that we should be doing, is. creating a form like we do for the appeal before you. and this says that you property owner when you have been schedule to go to a director's hearing and you must fill this form out to tell us what you have done so that when you come into the director's hearing you are better prepared and we help you to become better prepared and we say on that form that if you needed a contractor and have you contracted with them and have them bring it with you if you started work, bring the photos, what is your action

plan, so that when you walk into the director's hearing you are a lot more prepared and we have helped you be that way and so you walk in with that form filled out and the hearing officer, can then discuss the knitty gritty of what is outstanding and right away that is one thing that i think that we can do to improve the director's hearing process and we have brought the property owner and so we have not made it as meaningful as we could and that is just one of many things that i was looking at and then you could possibly entertain the notion, of having administrative penalties, asserted at the stage where his representatives said yes, i am going to issue an order, because, your property falls within a very specific set of criteria. and meaning that there are, and there have been a history of that particular building or that property owner, or by safety issues, and you know, there is a set of amount of criteria that you could use to define, for, not every property but properties that have demonstrated that, something like that. is necessary.

and so these are just some things that you could look at and i had those at the back of my mind as we moved through the elevator situation. so that i would be more than happy to come back to you at that point and i am sure that the director will as well and whether some of those possibilities will work. >> good morning, commissioners i want to add, and the heating issue that was under mine last year and i talked with the supervisor, and how to deal with it. we, in the process, you know, we want to do something, and unfortunately it is so wrong that it is not a good time to do it. and my idea is besides the penalty, i believe that (inaudible) is the best way to do it, one idea that i have is encourage the owner to come in to get the permit, and we wave the fee for the boiler or for the heating system. and encourage them to do.

and other, creative process. but, right now, the urgency is to finish focus on the elevator first, by the end of the year, you know, with the year we will have a committee and then we will work on that and we will work on that for the heating. and then to announce at the state and then to warn the owner and the tenant that we are trying to work it out. and believe you know, we are working on it, but right now, the elevator is the most urgent thing than the heating will be coming next. >> i think that we are all on the same page here and i think that the ultimate goal is to get there, that is good, the good information just on it and a good presentation, thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any more comments, or questions, commissioners? >> okay, go to public comment? >> public comment on item five?

>> something that was not held and it was canceled and under the assessment of cost and the assessment of cost is not a penalty and so therefore it becomes a tax deduction to the landlord. a fine of not less than $500 or more than $1,000. and the other point on that is,

i was in the building for seven days and the nothing happened and the inspector was there at 9:00 in the morning and i have to say that they do a wonderful job, and that is where the process stops. 94 percent of the cases that were closed within what time frame were those closed. and were they within three or four days or were they three or four months. we just know that 94 were closed and my case was closed. and but it took 7 days they

have to do something to enforce the code. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi, commissioners, henry. and there is no doubt, that these hotels have old systems in them, and when you come to the boiler you try to find a part for them and you buy one part and it takes a while to get it ordered and it was available and then you put in that part and another part goes out and then you replace that and then, instead of continuing think, that i am not going to try to make excuses for the owners about this but it is not a quick and easy fix to deal with this. and housing does a great job ongoing out and addressing these items and it is one of those things that are old systems and when you talk about the elevators, and with the

older elevators. and it just start adjusting when they start. basically replace the whole elevator system and which means that actually it is not just fix them up but also, they are out of commission, that could be two or three months, and these are not easy things to solve, and a lot of folks have gone out there and that have put in new the elevator system and the boilers in and don't have to have a lot of owners that don't have to deal with it and again, i want to mention that it is not an easy quick fix for both of those items. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any further public comment. >> okay. >> agenda item six? >> commissioner, because i know that we are on time here and a lot of people in abatement, and

we could probably skip that if it is okay with the commissioners? >> okay. >> and move straight to items 7, this was continued, do you want to give a brief update. >> we are not going to address that. >> and maybe, might i suggest that we continue the rest of the items until after the abatement appeals and then catch up? >> i like to see if. we could do item 7 now. >> i would actually like an update on the planning commission meeting. >> i am okay with that. would you okay to take item 7:00. >> and do the rest after? >> that is fine. >> okay. >> we are moving to agenda item 7:00. >> we are always accommodating. >> discussion and possible action regarding our proposed ordinance, recognizing small business month in may of 2014, amending the planning code and building code to