the motion carries unanimously. item 3, general public comments not on the abatement appeals agenda? seeing none item f motion to adjourn. >> we are journed. we'll take a 5 minute resess and return for the building inspection commission. we are ready to begin

the meeting. good morning, today is wednesday july 15, 2015. this is a regular meeting of building inspection commission. i like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president mccarthy, here. vice president mar, here. commissioner lee, here. commissioner mccray, present. commissioner melgar here. commissioner walker, here. commissioner clinch, here. we have a quorum and the

next item is president announcement >> welcome everybody to the july 15 big meeting. where have some announcements. i want to thank director hewy for taking step tooz remind the own ers of the roles of [inaudible] as a result a balcony collapses. director hewy along with [inaudible] disribted a press release that ask property own rb to 234 spect decks for safety. thank you for leadership in staff [inaudible] ordinance as it pertain tooz deck and balcony safety and to conduct a outreach to the residential property owner. this resulted in director hewy being interviewed by local tv station was a great opportunity to impart safety tip tooz the deck and balcony safety once again

the public and i appreciate that and sure we'll talk about more more next steps from the director. [inaudible] i also to want roir technical service staff. senior building inspector [inaudible] for partitionpation and supervisor tang providing the [inaudible] of legislation last week to require mandatory disabled access for places of public accommodation. this legislation was annoyanceed during a press conference to conside with 25th anniversary of americans with disabilities act. this legislation will following the foot steps of the mandatory program. also congratulations to director hewy and communications directors lily [inaudible] for [inaudible] announcement for mayor lee and supervisor

christensen awarding 100 thousand to had community youth center and [inaudible] both located in china town to conduct seismic safety and post dejaster response out reach to residence in china town. this is the first of its kind and get to be re--nob first of its kind and introduced to all the other neighborhoods. thanks to [inaudible] of housing inspection service and [inaudible] of the record management division for attending the ownership expo last month. last month where more than 500 attendees consisting of tenants lands lords and new owners learned about dbi and the resources we have available including

housing inspection and [inaudible] i also want to thank plan review services staff, suzy song, derek chung, joseph [inaudible] for representing dbi at the real estate expo on july 11. thank you for director hewy for presenting at the outer sun set parks meeting where supervise rb tang and more than 50 resident were in attendance to learn about dbi. i want to end to [inaudible] nominated on outstanding staff membersism nominations may be e-mailed to william straum and needed as soon as possible to go bat the dbi recognition committee may review and select our second winner for 2015. that

concludes comments >> any comments on the presidents announcements? seeing none, item 3, general public comment. the [inaudible] that are not part of the agenda. seeing none rks item 4. appeals pursuant to section d.3750-4 of the city charter. appeal said working [inaudible] represented by jackson freedman regarding property at 948-940 hampshire street and directors hewy determination of benefitschper sunt to 17975 of california helths and safety code. palt appeals the directors april 24 determination that each of the guestrooms at 938 kw 940

hampshire [inaudible] required to pay relocation benefits under a[inaudible] appoint of 3119 dollars and each person who is able to demonstrate that he or she had been living in the one illegal guestrooms for at least 32 consecutive days is eligible for the portion of the rolosation benefits for the room they occupied. department failed to make necessary findings under 17979.4. the dreth rs determination was not timely or the dreblther aired in determining there are residential units at each of the property squz the director aired in determining the amount sufficient for utility service deposit. the department--or the appellate. the appellate

can come and you have 7 minutes for your presentation. >> madam secretary for public comment and what is the timeframe? >> it is 3 minutes and if there is a interpret it is 6 minutes. >> thank you. first with respect to relocation payments ordered, not sure this was made clear in the brief, but at this point in time the owner paid the occupants more than 30 thousand dollars in relosationpairment pursuant to the department said order so did want the commission to be aware of that. there is a small amount that is in dispute as to whether there are 11 rooms entitled to money or 12 rooms but i did want to clarify

based on our-not with standing our disgrument with the order we paid a significant portion of what we believe to be due at worst. first with respect to the determination of causation, the health and safety code requires the local enforcement agency to make a determination at the time of ordering the payments as to whether the tenants or guest caused or contribute today the condition. that was not done. that is not a part of the order that was issued and in response the department feels the determination was implicit in the determination. the heblth and safety code requires determination to be made explicitly but there is information that is in the record that undercuts the departments determination as to causation. there are a history of complaints on the property and if you look that #cu78

plaint in particular that dates to 2009, the complaint is called in by a unknown complainant, access is refused once in 2009 and 2011 and 2012 and again in 2012. i think that fact shows there was some fact the department should have considered in terms of contributing to the conditions. secondarily in response to our offer to pay the furt thousands dollars and the payment of the 30 thousand dollars, the tenant have demanded of the landlord more than 100 thousand dollars to be paid to remove their remaining belongings and [inaudible] rather-well, she did a nice job of describing the discussions we had to date but the personal property that remains there at this point in time we have asked to pay the

sum of 100 thousand dollars to remove that property. i think that in and of itself shows a substantial contribution to watt we are dealing with and the department didn't make that finding so it makes it defective. whether authority was properly exercised, the finding is signed fwhie chief housing inspector, not by the director. we believe that that constitutes authority that belongs to others and believe that decision should have been made and should be made by this commission after taking public comment and authorizing the chief housing inspector to make that type of determination. there does want appear to be precedent for these rolocation squz how the amounts are calculated but there is precedent in other jurisdictions as close as berkeley. berkeley has a 10

page ordinance for this purpose in particular, chapter 1384 of code of how the calculations are done, what does and dozen constitute a residential unit and the payments done and the process. it starts with department giving notice and the tenets making request for a certain amount based on how long they have been there and they replacement housing and utility cost and ongoing obligations on the part of the landlord as they come due. this avoids the issues the tenants have been here to tell you about and instead of having the bftd of the process this landlord has paid the amount asked of him but now is receiving a litany of complaints we more money for this and more money for that and the department rather than providing us with a process for working all these things out initially up front without

these disagreements having had a opportunity to prevent themselves we reinthe position of being the bad guy because we are not meeting the demands as quickly as they come in. i think what needs to happen is a ordinance should be put in place in san francisco after taking public comment and by consideration of the commissioners for a clear direction how these things get done in the future so we don't have these disagreements. in terms of what has happened thus far in this case case, providing a hearing after the fact isn't due process. due process is priding tonight and guidance in advance of the determination being made and there was no reason why there couldn't have been that process in this caiss. these issues presented themselves as early as 1995 and notice of violation again in 2009 and 2014. there

is no reason there couldn't have been the process for the landlord to come in and engage in the process with the commission or the department and have clear guidance so we are not stuck with these disagreements we have here today. the real ishee wree dealing is do wree have 2 or 12 units here and that is in and of itself a problem with the process because we don't have clear guidance on what is a unit or residential unit as the term is defined in the health and safety code and it isn't defined in the health i safety code so the department is apparently decide to refer to the housing code and if that is the departments policy then i suppose that should remains the department policy but i think it should be made by retch rnlss to similarly situated state codes like the building code which it define residential units differently than defined in the housing

code. without there being process or guidance for this, the ad hoc determination by the deapartment is improper and violation och the property owners due process and creates a lot of disgruments and misunderstandings and problems you will hear about and this could have been avoided if the department brought this forward to the property owners attention through a proper process with proper guidance on how these things are dealt with. what we ask at this point is commission suspend enforcement of the order. without proper guidelines for impitation and have public comment and adopt things in place like berkeley [inaudible] so we konet have the problems in the future. thank you. >> questions that i can address, i'm happy to do that.

>> the department-7 minutes >> good mornings [inaudible] chief housing inspector. the notice of determination of benefits is based on the provision provided by state law and in drafting the department of building inspection did take the counsel and the attorney and the document itself i think speak frz itself regardsing issues that the property owners attorney addressed and specifically the state law does not require that a local ordinance be adopted to implement it and it was appropriate for the director to allow his des ignee to issue this under his guideants and

again in conferring with the city attorney. also, with respect to due process, that is what we have before you, that is the appeal process we have now. the property owner knew what the notices of violation were. we just had a hearing that i think demonstrates all the due process associated with the issue of notice of violation in the city and county of san francisco and with respect to determination och units, the state leaves that up to the enforcing agency. let's get into that because we did do a plan for you. we used a previous set of plans so we could draft this for you. >> is that exhibit b? >> yes, i believe so. if you would like to draeckt your attention to that. when we did that inspection we found the units were broken up. we did

base our determination on that. the state law doesn't proclude us from doing that and that is what the aquil use of the building was. with respect to the first 4, you had 4 bedrooms, one of which appeared to be split in hamp so we based on what we saw. >> thank you. >> that was the first floor and respect to the second, we based it on the total number of rooms there. they convert #d the living room to a sleeping room so we based it on that. there is nothing that procludes us from doing that and feel it was adequate gibbon that was the use of the time. with respect to timeliness, we felt we rch timely and the state law provision does not [inaudible]

of responsibility. that is our rebutal as well and this is a provision in state law that is very specific that says that the enforcing agency can do thisism . here we are and the property owner is exercising his right tadue process so we believe based on what is in the reasoning and the document itself, the notice of decision and benefits, that it clearly indicates what the information was and that we felt we properly executed that tool and we intend to use it in the future in those appropriate situations. >> commissioner walker. >> can you--i appreciate you going through the details on the issue of the relocation fees, can you address the issue of the utilities deposit?

>> that-i know the property owner has a different take on that. we did include a e-mail based on the information that we received. we used the formula under state law and contacted the utilities and included the e-mail from the information that they provided us. we calculated that based on that it was straight forward. the property owner came up with something else but recall if they gave you information as to who they talked to and how it was calculated. we got one contact persons name which we put on that e-mail which is from my senior inspector [inaudible] and that was at the time we made contact so that is why i included that in your package. >> thank you. >> public comment? there are 3 minutes for public comment. if there is a interpreter, 6

minutes. you can come up. >> lisa [inaudible] i'm the attorney for the tenant. i justment to address a few points that mr. freedman brought up. he talks about a demand for 100 thousand dollars for relocation money. he fails to mention the fact that was relocation money due andoing in our opinion under the rent ordinance under section 37.9ax 11 for substantial rehabilitation. that is unique and separate from the health and safety code relocation money determination. these are complete separate issues and the issue stit isn't addressed by working [inaudible] also, they have repeatedly mentioned

there is no precedent for the city in voking 17975 which is state law. it doesn't require anywhere in the statute that a city idopt it. it doesn't say precedent needs to be set for a city to invoke it so there is no reason the sate of san francisco neets to adopt this law and codify it to a local ordinance to be invoked by the enforcement agency which is what the statute states. further more, mr. freedman refer tooz the berkeley rent ordinance and how it works over there. the rent ordinance or relocation money she referring to in the berkeley rent ordinance is not a cod fiication of health and safety code it is akin to our 37.9 a

11. had they provided the are location money with the notice they gave that they had the permits for, there would not be a current demand for 100 thousand dollars plus. comparing to the berkeley rent ordinance doesn't make any sense. if they want to do that they should compare it to had 100 thousand dollars for. berkeley doesn't have a cod fiication [inaudible] there is no bay area jurks diction that has a cod fuication of this law. i could be incorrect but as far as i know there is not. in terms of due process, due process seems to be being addressed herement the city invoked his state law and now the appellate is having the chance to be heard and the possibility of this decision to not be followed through by the city. the other thart part is saig dbi has known for years of

the existing problems. working dirt know about the problems in january and had the ceiling not collapse said in april [inaudible] the tenants wouldn't have a safety and hazard issue that they need to be removed in 72 hours, so i think ample notice. >> hello again, my name is liteesia and i'm here to speak a little on the issue of the units. each bedroom provided separate rent payments through the landlord. perhaps 2 or 3 people sharing a room but the tenant have no say in who got to move into the property. they were not roommates splitting rent, they provided

separate rent payments to the property owners. each had their own agreement with the property owners when they first established a tentancy. second of all, i am unclear as to what relocation payments mr. freedman was speaking about. there were relocation checks issued at some point and canceled and thetenants were harassed by the check cashing places they went to because they were asked to pay back the money they were cashed because the checks were canceled. we ask that you consider this situation with relocation paim squz the fact that the tenants had their own room and had no say in who could come in and provide a separate rent payment. these are considered separate tentancy. even if it is one unit, 5 bedroom, each

pays their own rent, that is a tentancy. >> can i ask a question >> commissioner walker, please >> nobody has been paid the relocation fee? are all the checks issued canceled? >> my understand is the checks issued were canceled. >> okay, thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> [speaking spanish-waiting for translation]

>> it is true i, they did cancel the checks. i was one of the ones that deposited and the bank called me that i had to replace the money and it is not possible. and about the rent that you have been speaking about, they know it is true, everybody pays rent separately and they know because they received the money orders from each. so, the few

repairs that yoi can see whether they are windows and floors and items like carpeters were done by the tenants taking care of their house as if tfs their home. we paid and tried to do things with our own slries and paid for the room down stairs in the basement because that is where my cousin was living. thank you. >> good morning once again cht my name is diana mar tezance and work with mission sro

collaborative. i want to talk about the relocation and how important it is that the tenants get paid every cent that they have spent on having to find their relocation rchlt it is incredibly expensive to relocate in san francisco. evethen sro rents are squierocketing. the penalty frz the owner must be upheld and tenants receive all relocation benefits. currently this close niche group of tenants have been separated into different sro rooms and some different hotels and as you heard earlier this morning one had to live in his car. they have been uprooted from their home kw their lives deeply disrupted. we work with many sro tenants at the mission sro collaborative and there are many concerns that effect the sro population including

safety, security intimidation from sro management, pests and this is just a few on the long list of issues sro tenant have to deal with and the new tenants have to deal with through no fault of their own. the fact that the tenants have 938 and 940 hampshire had their lives disrupted and split up and moved is incochhensive. this isn't a matter of money they lost for living in the sro, but the emotion, physical and mental strain of living in the sro, sleeping on the floor or sleeping in the car. that is all i have to say about that and i really urge you all to think about how much of a toll not just it has taken on their pocket books but also in their physical being and emotional state. thank you.