including basketball, line dancing, playing ping-pong and arts can crafts. >> you can use it for whatever you want to do, you can do it here. >> on friday, november 16, the dedication and ribbon cutting took place at the sunset playground and recreation center, celebrating its renovation. it was raining, but the rain clearly did not dampen the spirits of the dignitaries, community members and children in attendance. [cheering and applauding] ♪ ♪ good morning. today is

wednesday july 15, 2015. this is a regular meeting of aidatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off electroning devices. the first item is roll call. resident nel gar, here. vice [inaudible] commissioner mar, here. commissioner lee, here. commissioner mu cray, present. commissioner walker here. the next item is the oath. all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. >> is there a translator? >> yes there is. do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated. next item is item c, approval of minutes. discussion and possible action to adopt the minutes for the

meetings held may 20, 2015 and june 17, 2015. >> do we have a motion? >> move to approve >> second. >> motion and second. all commissioners in favor? >> aye. public comment? any opposed? the minutes are approved. item b, continue appeal abatement. case number 6812, 938 [inaudible] working [inaudible] llc. attorney for the appellate zacksman freedman. the violation sited xhisted before the purchase of property and it is working to repair the conditions and

necessary approval before proceeding further. appellates argue all work has been performed. >> i ask a question of the city attorney? do we call both of the items on the ajunda together or take them separately? >> it is up to you. need to allot the time accordingly so the parties can present. they normally have 7 minutes so it is 14 minutes and then 6 minutes rebutal >> i think that is probably better in the interest of time. >> in addition we will also be hearing case number 6813 for 9308940 nob hampshire street [inaudible] attorney [inaudible] issuing order of

abatement [inaudible] existed before the purchase of property and working to repair condition and waiting approval from dbi. palt argues all work has been performed. for the record each site-side gets 7 minutes for a presentation but now get 14 minutes and. >> thank you members of the board. reez maer [inaudible] chief housing instreckt specter. we are looking at appeal item 6812 and 6813 regarding 938-940 hampshire street. this is a 2 unit building over a basement and this particular-these appeals before you are related to notices of violation issued

early january of this year, specifically january 21 and 22 of this year. the first item contained in that is appeal 6812, contained appreciately 20 items that dealt with maintenance throughout the building. in your staff reports you see a series of photo's that show the condition of the building. as you will hear later on the commission, you will address related issuewise respect to the same property. these notices of violation have-first let me say the current property owner took the title to the property early in january of this year, approximately i think the deed was recorded in january 15 of this year. so, when we went to

the directors hearing in april they did have notice. you will see on the documentation that shows the owner but when we sent the notice it did also sent to the existing owner of record and in deed on or around february 10 of this year all outstanding notices of violation were hand delivered to the property owners representative at the site and a reinspection occurred on or about february 13 in which the district inspector went through the building and addressed the violations that are on the notice of violation issued, specifically the one with 20 items was through those and found at the time of the inspection only 2 of the items were partially corrected and everything else is still outstanding. in the package

there is photographic evidence of thisism here is a time we took a photo at the site in may. here is a window that is broken so if it was fixed doesn't look like it so here is a sich tuation with respect to the that [inaudible] supposed to be fixed but they rp removed. if they were in good shape i'm not sure why they were removed at that point in time. that is one thing, another thing they said they thought all imets were fixed. the strapping of the water heaters and this is the same for both there is no strapping on the other one. there was a stap at the top. just things like that. we can go back and forth as to whether they were fixed or not but come april 3rd of the year the building was in such bad shape the department of building inspection said the

building had to be vacated. the building repairs were not commensurate for people to occupy this building. the one thing i want to convey is the property owners made poor choizs with respect to the contractors involved in the case. there were a permit taken out that was lez for the need oaf the repairs. after the buildic was vacated >> what date was that? >> after the building was vacated april 3rd they tried to pull a permit for 20 or 30 thousand. mr. [inaudible] now that he is involved is very helpful. the permit filed now is for 300 thousand. the issues we were having ongoing issuewise the contractors associated with this doing the appropriate work. the other thing to be aware of it shows the bad decision making. sinss

the building was vacated a contractor removered the front stairs so the stairway system at the building was removed. what this demonstrates and want this to demonstrate is the fact that poor chases are made and this is what we have been dealing with. they say something is fixed and it isn't fix squd the building is inl such bad shape it has to be vacated. this stairway system, this was taken this morning and the stairway is gone and sited in june by the building inspector. the stairway is gone. this is the type of thing dbi has had to deal with. here is another photograph. the stairs are gone. this is what we deal with, they say things are fixed and they are not fixed. when you look that's check list of the inspector only a couple things were addressed. there was one item with respect tohad broken

windows and a lock, but everything else on the notice of violation issued on the 21, of the 20 items they were essentially not repaired. we do believe based on this history it is crucial that this order be recorded so that when the exstense v remodel or repair is conducted, that check list is sital out there that who ever the contractor is at the time looks at that and make the repairs needed and insure those thingerize fixed. if there was ever a argument to be made a fr a order being issued so that is on there for all to see as a recorded instrument this is the case. that is sth first order, let's talk about the second. there are flee items on it. the property owner taking over in january having conversation in early february did have ability to

take care of these. mr. [inaudible] and their attorney has been involved i want to commend them for some of the things they have doing foohelp advice the property owner. that had to do with the exterior garbage, loft and sanitation and believe those itemerize taken care of. as far as issuing the order there, we don't believe it is necessary but have about 2 thousand dollars for each case for assessment of cost because we had to spend a lot of time to compel clients and believe that should be instituted. we are not as concerned about the second item because it was a few item squz believe it is taken, the first 20 items we believe should be issued based on the information and summary i have given you. >> yes.

>> so i have a question about the stairs. was that a violation? i don't see that as being- >> no that was not part of the notice of violation that is before you in the first item there appeal, 6812. i'm just talking about the fact that this is what we are dealing with. problems and poor decision on the part of who ever the agents are that are selected by the property owner to perform work. this is the type of thing we are dealing with as far as repairs and reinspection. they say things are done and they are not done and then you have permits taken out that are not commensurate with the amount of work to be done and you have this done after we had had a meeting with the representatives of the property owner and this happens after that. there are these instances where it is just a problem as far as decisions

that are made on the property own rbs part >> and it means those units are uninhabitable? >> yes >> at this point >> the order to haveicate is still in force and it is my understanding the build sg not currently acpied >> commissioners anyone have further questions? i just have one question. at the directors hearing for the first item, was it the new owner who or their representative who came to the hearing? >> yes i believe mr. bus cuvch was representing them. >> okay, thank you. we'll hear from the appellate. >> good morning commissioners. >> good morning >> um, i note mrs. [inaudible]

on the address of orders of abatement and not relocation appeal >> that is separate >> i'll reserve that separately >> for the next meeting >> very good. first i wanted to comment on the inaccuracy in the brief and i do apologize for those. i think the examples that mr. bosky demonstrated are relatively minor in the grand schemef things. a broken window and water heater that isn't strapped is not the type of issues we are here for this morning. i apologize for those. all i can see are there are miscommunications to us that made it to the office. what i do think is more important to focus on is theerts made by this property owner taking title to the property in midjan. at this point in time the property

owner doesn't have a permit and has been working to get a permit to address the issues. we have the classic catch 22 who has come into a difficult situation and can't get a permit to do the burke to correct these issues. start with the basic premise, which is the building we had the benefit, it isn't necessarily a benefit but the benefit for the situation that the units are note occupied so we can remove that concern from the evaluation of the situation. i think the commission should do that in evaluating this. the finding that exists in the staff report the owner had sufficient time to abate the haserdize conditions is incorrect. in mid-january this property owner took over, attempted to locate a contractor who would touch the building which isn't a easy tarfck, obtained a permit in

mid-march before [inaudible] issued the emergency vacate order. the permit was issued in mid-march and relocation issued in early april. by the end of march the owner noticed the tenants to relocate for repair squz the tenants responded by filing a lawsuit which they are entitled to do but complicated matters for the owner to move forward. april third, the department issued the order and further notice of evaluation shortly there after which begins or efforts and mr. nob efforts at getting the building fixed. may 8 the department issued further correction notice so it is something of a moving target for this propt owner to try to

figure out what needs to be done and get permits for fixing them. i think in the grand scheme of things and how long these issued persisted is a short period of time. i realize 5 or 6 months isn't a short period of time but if you look at the record on the property you see a complaint issued in 1994 for walls and ceiling surfaces that are damaged. kitchen or plaster damage. egress removed. bathroom damage, worn floors rear passage obstructed. these issued existed in 1994 so this isn't something that can be fixed in 5 or 6 months and apparently not something the department has been able to address in 20 years time and don't mean that to be critical of the de#35r789s, i mean to

demonstrate the severity of the issues here. that complaint resulted in a directors hearing in 1995 and what became of that i don't know, but what i can say is there have been several other related complaints and noitss of violations and orders of abatement and those remain in the record that re today remain a record putting aside the 2 we are here to address today, these are ongoing issues that are not easy to deal with. if you compare the existing orders of abatement with the list of items you deal with today you find overlap and i did find overlap and don't think it is praept to penalize the samitems. it was related to general nuisance and, paint

and plumbing issue. the is inappropriate to further penalize the property owners for the prior abatement that had the exact effect. in terms of deal wg orders of abatement, we believe we are diligent. mr. bus covich will talk about obtaining a permit which i understand it very close to happen. we agree the property needs to be fixed and would very much like to fix it. the property owner made more than diligent efforts. there are missteps along with the way but it is the difficulty he has had to deal with as anything else and don't think it is appropriate to penalize him for that. we would ask that the order of abatement either be resended or not be issued. >> thank you. how are we doing with time?

>> 8 minutes >> we have 6 minutes if mr. bus cuvich has anything to add. >> [inaudible] >> okay >> i'll be brief. i was hired 3 days before the april hearing. the conditions out there are not acceptable. the only reason i'm working on this case is because i think i can help t. may sound corny but i think i can help. the department is very helpful to do this but it is complex issue. there was a 95 permit issued to comply with the 94 complaint that wasn't finaled. the back stairs are not usable. the building can't be occupied with those back stairs. the building departments assisted in getting the plans from 95 and i met from planning and plannings

response is you can't rebuild the back stairs unless you prove the 95 plans were completed. i had to go back and get that 95 plan, file a permit to renew the 95 plans and then get those plans finaled and now i'm submitting these drawings which show the 95 plans so i can build back to that. that is a complication for the last couple months dealing with the back stairs. everyone is helpful trying to move it along. the back stairs are now permitted per 95 so i'm allowed to rebuild them to the 95 drawings without getting a variance. we had to bring in a structural engineer for the back stairs, so we are moving as fast as we can to get this back to be vack pieable but the key problem i got-the other issues are not satisfactory but

the back stairs are a hold up. [inaudible] we want you to remove sheet rock and that is one or two days worth of work. we have a lot more work in there. the stairs in the back is holding up the permit for inside because they want a master permit and on the front stairs, there was a complaint about the condition of the front stairs. i saw them, they were not safe. that complaint got superseded by another complaint and that second complaint didn't mention the stairs, but a permit to comply with the complaint is not grounds to rebuild the front stairs. that was clearly a mistake to do that work. if you have any questions i'm happy to answer >> commissioner walker and then- >> thank you for coming and speaking to us about this. what do you estimate assuming you can submit the plans and

things go- >> they are submitted. >> to do this project and comply with the notice of viivation what is a timeframe? >> the permit should be issued assuming planning doesn't change their minds since i talked to them and did what they asked me to do, we should get the permit some time next week, should. the construction cost, somewhere a couple hundred thousand dollars so it is probably 3 to 5 months worth of work and it needs 3 to 5 months worth of work. >> commissioner mar. >> when you said planning requires there to be one master permit- >> if you enlarge stairs in the rear yard--if you have existing stairs you repair the state housing act says the city and

planning can not prohibited you from repairing but you can't repair something that doesn't have a permit unless it expired in 95. >> does that permit to rebuild the back stairs which you submitted now, did hold up the other work that needs to be done? >> it is all tied together. i have the permit filed and fs with plang yesterday and will go back to see planning today. i have a appointment and think i satisfied planning concern i'm moving in the right direction. the intent was that 94 complaint had plans. that is what the building department wants us to build to. it includes all the rooms because there are more rooms than there are supposed to be and the back stairs. >> my question is, until you get the permit from planning which is hopefully next week

you can't do anything in there now? >> accept removing sheet hp walk and the contractor is concerned about stepping into this project without having the real permit and there are issues with the tenants that i'm not dealing with, that is them, i'm trying to get the permit and get it fixed. there are belongs in rooms that are somewhat of a issue too but that is their issue. >> commissioner nob [inaudible] >> so the tenants have been removered per our order. when was the building built? >> probably 1908. >> so the intention is to bring at least the occupants back who can legally be there, is that the-i know it isn't our jurisdiction but i am trying to

figure out- >> i'm rebuilding the building back to the 94 plans that shows 2 units. >> okay so that would be something that has to be worked out but that is a issue for us. i want to just say that we have-we routinely consider the fact that this is peoples homes as we try and accommodate the work to be done as well as-that is a consideration. >> people have rights. absolutely >> commissioner >> i would like clarification because it says in attachment 2 of what the appellate gave to us , it says some permits were obtained to perform works, plumbing and electric >> there is a building permit that says comply with 7 notices to violation. you cannot

rebuild back stairs that says comply with nlv. the building department said we don't want you to do anything under that permit other than removing sheet rock >> that is the 20 to 30 thousand [inaudible] >> that directed me to get drawings, architectural, structural, but that 94 permt was a glitch because it never got finaled so when i went to w the drawings to planning to rebuild the back stairs they said they are not permitted. that requires fire wall and 311 notice. they have been very helpful. we have been able to final the 94 permt so now i go back to planning and say now the stairs that are there now that need to be rebuild are now legal so now i can rebuild them

>> commissioner [inaudible] >> is the building built under the old code? >> just the layout. the back stairs and the room layout. >> okay. >> with minor tweaks, but the room layout is what theyant me to comply with on the drawings. >> the room layout is reflective-- >> in one thof flats they subdivide one of the rooms to add more bedroom squz that is issue. >> you are going to comply by- >> the bedroom layout per the 94/95 permits and plans >> commissioner walker >> there was a issue brought up that sense there was a nov issued in 94 that we are

doubling up or whatever, did the owner who purchased the building look at the history of the building and notice prior to buying it? >> i don't know. i'm trying to get it fixed so i can't answer that question. >> if the issues are not fixed then we are dealing with a whole new set of issues >> i don't know what they knew. i know when you buy a building on 3 r it doesn't have a list of existing notice of violation. i believe it has a list if there a abatement so i would look at the 3 r and see if there is a abatement order. if they knew that is a question for the lawyer. i don't know. >> okay. do we have any time left? >> i have paused it and started so there are 2 minutes left. >> did you want to add anything

mr. freeman? you still have 2 more minutes. >> can you answer the question of has anyone looked at the history before the bought the building >> as far as i know orders of abatement show up on a title report but in terms of the specifics i don't know what was and wasn't-- >> you brought that up as if it had anything to do with the current status of the building and i'm saying when you buy a building you buy as is and still have the issues. >> i understand that but what my point was different, my point was if the property and property owner is already punished for not having corrected these issues why are we punishing the property owner again for a new order of abatement for the same sue? as a matter of double jeopardy that seems wrong. if they have existing ish oo uzwhether they

know or not that order of abatement exists and don't need the- >> i think we have to go through the procedure because there is a new owner. >> i did have a question about the demolition of the fronts stairs do you know when that happened? >> i think it may have been longer than that but somewhere in that vicinity. my understanding is they were doing work on the interior and they essentially started to collapse. that is a issue in the order of abatement is the front stairs. that isn't a new issue either. any other questions i can attempt to address? >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> rose mary. >> we are doing public comment and rebutal. >> any members of the public

who wish to-- >> get in line if you want to-- >> everyone who going to speak, please line up. >> [speaking spanish] >> good morning. my name is luteesia, i'm a tenant counselor and organizer [inaudible] i'm work ong the tenants with repair issues since december december 2014. the property was owned by [inaudible] during the time when we filed the complaint in

december. my understanding work under [inaudible] purchased the property in january, mid-january and the tenants spoke to a representative of theirs, told them about the repairs. we wrote letters about the repairs and i just don't understand why there has been no action. there a roof collapsing, i do not feel safe walking on the back stairs and now you have 20 people, 22 people without a roof. [inaudible] sro's having to rent rooms, sleeping in cars. you have people without a home. it has been 6 months sich the purchase of property and it is since mid-prl when

the tenants were forced out because of the conditions of the properties were so horrendous that the city didn't feel it was safe for them to be there. how do we holds these people responsible and get the repairs completed? that is what i'm here forime rrb here to advocate for the tenants. many latino immigrants struggling to also send money back home to families because now they are having to pay 600, 700 dollars for a hotel room before they were able to share a room in the home. that is all i want to share. if you have any questions i'm also free. >> thank you. next. >> my name is [inaudible] i'm a attorney for the tenants that were living at 938-940 hampsure. i want to address

issues [inaudible] first of all, when working group purchased the building there were leans on the property for the issues many issues that you are addressing today so they had knowledge of the deterioration. when someone buys a building they are responsible for repair issues and anything that needs to be taken care for the tenants in the property. the second thing is the permit that mr. freedman mentioned that were served with the notice to vacate in march or april, a day before we filed the lawsuit against working [inaudible] those permits are the ones mrs. bosky mentioned that were inadequate and only addressed the minor issues in the property. they don't address the major issues including the back stairs and sale rring clamshs. when they say they aurmd pulled permits they are not mentioning the fact that the permiterize not for the mu kwlorft work you are

talking about today. the next issue is they say they can't get permits, but they just removed the stairs about 2 or 3 weeks ago, so while they express concerns they can't get permits it doesn't stop them from doing things illegally anyway. further, they consistently stated in their appeal then in their support of their appeal brief, they say the tenants are getting in the way of them doing the work necessary. the tenants have been out of that property for 2 and a half month squz not allowed back in the property with the exception of 2 or 3 times 2 of the times court ordered because the clients were forced to leave. the clients are living in hotel and can't store their property. the clients are not in the way,

the tenant are not in the way. there is nobody in the property to get in their way. nerks they talk about the permit that they want to get for the majority of the property and how this old permit that was pulled in 1995 prevented them from doing this work. i believe building inspector [inaudible] signed off on that old permit in june, approximately a month ago. when i asked why that was, it is because the contractor asked them to do that because it was in the way of getting the necessary permits to do the work now. it has been a month and no work is done. i don't know why it will take another week to start work when this place is vacant for 2 and a half months and signed off on the permit. also want to mention at a court hearing we asked the court to order access to our clients because they couldn't get in after the

landlord locked the building and the clients had no way to get their prairpt. the attorney they had represent them mentioned they want ed to keep the tenants out because the tenants might squat in the property. despite the fact the tenants were still legal tents of the property. after the court order was given the day before the tenants were allowed to get their stuff out, the landlord or somebody had both bathrooms completely gutted and all the kitchens had all the appliances removed. they were making sure our clients had no way of living in that property and we asked to have access to the property they said they can't get in because the stairs are eare moved. i ask you to question why the bathroom, kitchen and front stairs were removed and nothing else has been done. i'm sure my time is up so just wanted to thank you

for letting me speak. >> thank you. next. >> next speaker. >> the public comment is 3 minutes but you have translators you can get double time. >> [speaking spanish] >> good morning my name is john carilous and i am a tenant in the unit. they had us vacate and we are just wondering

-wandering around. and we want today know if we were going be able to return quickly because the money we earn is not enough to be paying hotels. and we are hoping that it is repaired as soon as possible so we can return to the unit. i have been a tenant since 2005 and since the new owner bought the property they made us vacate and i don't know why. and the

new owner that arrived also didn't want to fix anything and i don't know why. and we have been vacated from-a while but we have been afraid to say anything because we feared we have to leave the property so we have been living in those conditions for a while. and we have our personal items in there and we can't have access to them and we have been having to purchase new things that we need. for that same reason they removed the stairs so we

wouldn't have access to come in. that's it, thank you. >> thank you. next, please. >> [speaking spanish] good morning, i have been a tenet at that unit since 2004 and since the last 3 months we have been out of the property and we are requesting your help to so we

can return to our home. and we are hoping things are repaired because we have been to hotel to hotel andilately we have been in one hotel for a month, which-they fix their home so we can return to our things. and when we vacated

the property, they told us it would take 1 to 2 week squz it is taken 3 months now and we are begging for your help because i don't feel it is fair we have been living in a hotel. and that's all i wanted to ask for, just for your help. thank you. >> next, please. >> [speaking spanish] good

morning, my name is [inaudible] i have been living at the 940 since june 11, 1998. when i arrived there everything was better, but things are-- [waiting for translation]--

since the owner died, another person came by and we've been having problems. they just come by and charge their fees. we ask them to fix our water. we had cold water and we were taking cold showers and for a while we were not taking a shower. later on they would just come by and charge for their rent and nothing would happen. afterwards we found out they sold the property, a representative came by to talk to us, but nothing has

happened. after the owners purchase they told us we needed to vacate and it would take about 3 weeks like the other lady mentioned but woe have been living in hotels. i found a little room and paying 650 dollars and still don't have a bed. i have to sleep on the

floor. all our personal items are still at the property. we haven't been able to access it. we just took out some clothing items so we could continue going to work and that is all. thank you. >> next, please. >> [speaking spanish-waiting

for translation] good morning, my name is [inaudible] i am here to talk about the situation we have. there have been 3 owners in the property

since i have been there and all 3 have sent just the representatives to collect the rent. the first one second one and third one-the second one and told the lady talk today the third own, i always asked her to repair the problems and i wonder why the owners never show their faith so we can see who they are and talk to them. they should come by and say, i'm the owner so we could talk to them. and all of us have

always been on time with our rents, we have never been late with any of the 3 owners and eve wn a money order we have to pay it. asked her to repair the problems and i wonder why the owners never show their faith so we can see who they are and talk to them. they should come by and say, i'm the owner so we could talk to them. and all of us have always been on time with our rents, we have never been late with any of the 3

owners and eve wn a money order we have to pay it. um, and i'm here to plead and demand that things are fixed because it is not fair. it has been 3 months, all most 4 and i haven't even been able to go in and get a shirt because we are not authorized to go in. we don't have anymore money to pay hotels and now i'm living with 3 orfore people and i sleep on the floor and i'm not embarrassed about it. that's it. >> thank you. next, please. >> [speaking spanish-waiting for translation] >> good morning my name is

[inaudible] i have been living at the 940 since 2003 and have the same issue as my other partners. myself, i don't have enough money to live in a hotel so i have to live in my car. that's it, thank you. >> next. >> good morning my name is diana mar teens and work for the mission sro collaborative. april 6, myself and my supervisor [inaudible] and my coworks frank rod regs and [inaudible] came to the residence of 938 and 940 hampsure. the front stairs were so worn down it was unsair to walk in the building as was the back deck. the ceiling in the haulway and bathroom were falling down and in one bedroom

the tenets had to put up a embrella over the shower so the dirty water didn't drip from the roof as they use the restroom. the tenants had to come up with temporary [inaudible] while the owner ignoreed the fact the building was falling apart. down stairs the conditions were worse. i saw what appeared to be abestoes exposed. as stated earlier, the walk ways and walls and ceilings were so worn down it was extremely unsafe to walk or live on the premises. brureracy and paperwork isn't a exkoos. it has been months and months, there must be something done because it is incredibly unjust to have these tenants

living in something compareable to tenement slums so please please do something because the tenants have been nothing but respectful to their home, but they have not been given the respect and the-nothing has been done to help them live in their own home. as they said earlier, they are separated from each other now and it is completed uprooted their lives and making surviving in the city of san francisco even more difficult than it already is. thank you. >> any further public comment? >> 6 minutes of rebutal time.

>> members of the board a couple things with wespect to the statements that were made by the property owners counsel. he talked about minor items, well, we need to redirect the fact that most of the things they talked about are not before you today. the collapsed ceiling and stairs and those types tof things are part of a different notice of violation with a order. the oitem that are before you with the notice tw 20 items are the types of things if the property owner had operated in good faith could have made these corrections so that the haptabout could have been bet frr the people in the building. if you look at the notice of violation and you are deal wg repairing windows , a stove, sinks rodent infestation, repair a floor covering, i

showed a photograph of that. these are the things before you, not what they mentioned. those are already dealt with with aprieveiates order. the property owner in february had a opportunity a deal with it. they hired early in february a 3rd party to give an assessment. we know from the december notice showing the ceiling collapses if they looked at the property they know what they are getting into mpt with respect of those items i have to mention them. what repairs did they do? they didn't want to spend a lot of time or money. one is have the address at the front of the building cht this is what the inspector saw with reinspection. this is what they put up there. this is indicative of what is happening when we went out there and these are items they could have fixed and wouldn't have

effected the other issues they need today plan for such as the stairs, and plumbing and roof collapse. that is what is before you today and because of that behavior we are saying that an order should be issued to make sure it is on the record so when they move forward everybody understand what has to be done. >> commissioner [inaudible] had a question >> you mentioned preerfbious violations. i don't see that in the packet. >> those notices of evaluation are not before you but they brought them up to give information that will be more of a benefit when the next item comes up for the appeal before the commission but that isn't on this noticeof violation. this dealwise issues they could have made repairs on. >> commissioner lee. let me see if i restate what i think is happening. there is a notice of violation for the

back porch but that is in the process of being resolved before the department and not before atoday? >> right >> what is before us is a notice of violation for 20 iletms- >> and that is the first item on the appeal and there is a second we are not as concerned about. those twonet items in the packet- >> i have a follow up question i asked [inaudible] it permits that are mentioned attachment 2, are those permits addressed or going to be address ing the notice of violations? >> some of the items. >> you have not verified that work has been completed is that correct? >> no that isn't correct. when we went out we verified ont 2 items were partially completed >> so most are not completed >> that is correct. they could

have repaired them and didn't require a permit. >> that is why it is before us today. did [inaudible] say the permit he is pulling for the stairs or porch in the back include the permit which would include the work on the 20 items? >> it will from the standpoint they'll have to make repairs from that standpoint. >> but there are separate permits for the 20 items >> there was a permit pull in march that stated it was for all notices but that was inadequate permit for job evaluation and scope of work and the fact it didn't have plans, it was a over the counter permit. mr. [inaudible] when he came into the process and at the time he indicated he worked with staff because a previous contractor tried to file permits and this one he filed is going through the process is a forum 3 permit

i believe with the plans and it is 300 thousand dollar permit, but again that is mainly addressing things from the other notices of violation associated with the property. >> you are telling the 3 permits, the building electrical and plumbing are enacterate? >> the first permit chs inadequate all the other items we mentioned. >> commissioner mu carthy >> so rosemery to address the counsels question why it are double fined we are talking about 2 separate violations >> 2 separate notices >> that doesn't hold water [inaudible] >> no it is the fact we had to spend the time because they know they should have looked at and seen ceiling collapses but hired a third party vendor and

gave us a copoy of the report so they know thingerize going on with the building. the second notice of violation in early january we gave in february are things they could have done that wouldn't impact the other items. yes, that needs to be done but you have a situation where the flooring and strapping and windows, the mold and mildew and rodents those are things they could have done to develop a plan for the larger issues and nothing was done and that is why we say this order should be recorded. >> just a follow up one of the things-can you explain to me at some point whether it is supervisors or organized they cant remove their personal items from the building? >> there wasa rangement made and will let the property owners

explain that. we issued the notice of vacate we were not made aware the fact people had vacated until the hemth department let us know so there was an arrangement made to when the occupants would leave. at one point the tenant told us through attorney the property owner wasn't letting them in because he felt to do so is a violation of our notice so we signed a declaration saying they can go in in a safe matter to get their personal belong ings. what happened since then is something they would have to tell you but we dopet prohibit that as long as it is done in a safe manner but the ability to do that is comicated by the fact additional work is done without permit. that is-the message isn't getting through. >> that is answered. one of the speakers testified there

was 1 to 3 weeks-do you know who said that? was it-- >> thank you for raising that. at the time that the department of building inspection issued the notice of violationordsering the building to be vacated, i did have a conversation with the tenants attorney indicating the work was such that it was going to take longer than 3 weeks so people should not have a expectation they are getting back in their soon. that may be something that they-a conclusion they came to but that isn't the message dbi was giving. i want to make that very clear. >> commissioner [inaudible] >> i wanted to clar fieify, we heard from a couple tenant that somebody from the owner team i guess-- >> i couldn't speak for that. >> commissioner mar. >> cheer inspector you may have

answered this but want to be very clear on it, the contractor mentioned before he worked with planning to get a larger permit, so what you are saying is that a lot of the nov's could have been addressed by other permits, they could have done the work on the ceiling and plumbing violations and electrical violations, they could have done that and left the variance and the reissuing of inback permit. leave that with planning and moved ahead and done some of the other things? >> no what i'm saying is that the notice of violation before you today has nothing to do with those items, those are in separate notices and have orders of abatement and a permit is necessary to [inaudible] and some of the items before you, most of these items having to do with flooring and strapping, having

to do with mold and mildew and rodent infestation. making those repairs, most of that didn't require that permit and the main inhabitability issue that could have helped the quality of life of the people occupying. it wouldn't have solved all the problems but most of those things were doable before we had the directors hearing at the end of april. they could have done some of those things and when we went out none of those things were done. they didn't call saying they are done now and come back out. in april 3, the building is vacated. that is what i'm saying, that is what is before you today. the other information is useful because you'll take it up in a few minutes, but now what is before you is a order dealing with that particular notice of violation. >> commissioner clint >> i do think it is germane

the other violation because if both sets of stairs are decrepeed you don't want people going in through the stairs so a owner would want to repair them at the same time i would think. >> here is the dilemma and that is the property owner bought a occupied building and it is their responsibility to make sure their repairs are made and come up with a plan to deal with all the other items. when we looked at this in february they had the ability to make repairs because people still lived in the building dealing with these issues so why not deal with the mold and mildew and rodent infestation-what does it take to screw on a number of the building so you don't put it on the piece of paper. this is what we

confront and it is occupied building. the property owners knew it was a occupied building. that is what we are saying. >> commissioner lee. >> okay, so if commissioner clint is saying that the overall, the main-had permit mr. baus cuvich is trying to seek will solve everything and if we just correct-the property damage and correct the current notice of violation that are before us, that is okay, but nobody can occupy the building, right? >> the building cannot be reoccupied until all the notices of violation are complied with. now we say we can have the property owner abate the deficiency and notice of violation before us today and that is acceptable to remove the abatement order for that one, right? for that one

issue? >> the one with 3 items or 20 items? because he is going to do the overall repair we don't need a order on this one? >> no no no-what i'm asking is, if we uphold the order of abatement we compel the property owner tooz fix the 20 items on the notice of violation for that appeal, right? or that order of abatement? but that means there is still no stairs in front or back, is that correct >> absolutely. my opening comments is the reason we feel strongly about the order being recorded is because it is list of a component of what has to be done. the stairs and plumbing and collapsed seal areering are on other notices

of violation. there is a overall amount of work that's needs to be done, my concern is as they do it i want to make sure we get all this done because my understanding is we are deal wg the same contractors. mr. [inaudible] isn't doing the work, somebody else will be. that is my concern there is a order in place saying while you do this work, make sure this is done and think given the history and record and testimony that is a legitimate request. >> you feel resolving the 20 issues won't take 3 or 4 months? >> to deal with the building overall? >> no >> these issues would have taken 2 or 3 weeks to do most of them, yes. >> i just want to clarify, it is a follow up to commissioner

lee's question. if we uphold the order how much time does the [inaudible] feel is reasonable to get all the work done on the 20 items before us? >> my recommendation is uphold the hearing which means it would be-what you are doing is ratifying the orders the hearing officer indicated they wanted at the end of april and you don't have to modify t. you can say we believe it should be enforced and effect and that would direct us to report it. >> i just want to follow up that even though this sounds like 30 days or a month or 2, we want to make it clear, even if they resolve these sitting 20 nov's which is part of commissioner lee's question, it doesn't mean the building is habitable? because they don't have front steps or rear steps.

>> we have a notice in place that deals with that. you can modify that order my recommendation is upholds the hearing and we would record the order with you notice of decision saying that and nothing changes as far as that is concerned. that is my recommendation. >> because people are miss led and don't know by who but want to make sure they don't get further misled by a decision we make here. >> thank you >> the appellate needs rebutal >> okay. >> thank you. we share in a lot of the sentiments you heard from the tenants and from misbosky and want to get the property fixed. we believe it should be fixed and diligently working to get it fixed. we don't deny there are issues and we have knowledge of them. what we think is inappropriate

is for us to be penalized for taking missteps if we in tentionally disregarded others. i think the approach by mrs. bosky is given someone with a broken leg a band aid saying here, fix it. there is no point to a order of abatement to put a new window or a number on the door when the building remains uninhabitable. the efforts of the property owner are focused on getting the property habitable again and that is what the commission should be focused on, a approach that gets the property habitable. doing all these things as xhengzer mar noted and a couple others as well, the order of abatement doesn't make the order habitable. it is unfortunate situation and if is a 20 year history the defarmt is dealing with. it is beyond me why this remains

after 20 years that we are still dealing with the same issues and have to really question is the property owner the one who should be punished for this or does the department not share responsibility for allowing these condition to perpersist for these individuals saying they have lived here 5, 10, 15 years with conditions. i don't think it is appropriate to punish the person [inaudible] gets the permit from the department starts doing work and told you need to fix this and need to fix that and every step of the way the property owner attempted to do that and continued to get permits and spend 10s of thousands of dollars to get permits to fix this property and make it habitable and have to deal with thereare 24 occupants living there before who may not be able to come back but that isn't a situation we created.

[inaudible] i don't argue, the tenants are preventing from doing the irk with, but there are belongings that remain in the property and we offered to pay to relocate those belongings so we can move forward with the work. we offered to do that without obligation and as far as i know that remains out standing and not responded to. we are willing to move forward but there are imp pediments to be able to do these things and think the commission should focus on the big issues as we have been and do think if you look that order of abatement that exists that was recorded as--let me see here--order number 2015-11822. you find some of the very ixues we are dealing with, the plumbing

paint and general nuisance and we are considering a order of abatement and that is inappropriate to punish the owner [inaudible] >> i just want to make something clear. if someone took out the front steps to keep the tenants out, that would be despicable and i quit the job. that isn't what happened. the property owner thought and i told him that didvent the right permit. they thought the notice of violation permit that referenced the condition of the front stairs was to rebuild the front stairs in wood. you can't build back in wood. conversations with planning said they have to go in [inaudible] i'm dealing with trying to find tur ozo steps because that is what have to go back but they thought they

could rebuild them in wood. it wasn't to make it difficult for the tenet, this is the property owner trying to do something too fax and fix something simple like wood steps they could do right there and that was a bad decision but that was not a attempt to keep the tenants out. that was a attempt by the owner to do things too fast and it didn't work out. thank you. >> thank you. commissioner walker. >> so this is been before us for a while now and i think we sort of discussed our herd a lot of the explanation about the comicated set of violations and i just want to say that when you buy a piece of property, you buy a piece of property and all of those things attached to it including

tenant and notice of violation problems and i feel like we have probably taken too long to get these issues resolved and left people living in conditions that are totally unacceptable. i actually would like to make a motion to uphold the department decision, the hearing officer decision and not hold an abatement. the issues related to the permits going forward can be dealt with accordingly. i think we are on track to make this, a place people can live in again. hopefully that happens sooner rather than later. i feel like we have done all we can to try and move this forward. >> i just want to remind you you is 2 separate orders of abatement so recommend you take 2 separate votes and consider

separate motions for each order of abatement. one is the 20 item ortder and the other is the 3 item order. >> you are making a motion >> i'm making the motion for the first and the second, exactly the sameordser. can i do it that way or do it verbally? we heard them together so- >> it is appeal numbers 6812 and 6813 but the commissioners may want to take separate votes. >> i think we may want to take separate votes because the department said the second is taken care of. >> i agree >> we need to uphold and [inaudible] >> i think from the first one, i want to address the appellates comment about being punishing the owner. i don't think we are going to make a decision because it is a new owner or previous owner or multiple owners. i think we

are basing or decision on the property itself regardless of how money meno owners were. the solution the current owner is proposing to take right now addresses a overall issue, but it is [inaudible] they could have chose to address this abatement order with a superate permit and then the stairs and the other items with a second permit. i'm not agreeing that we should give them time because their intent is to correct the problem with the overall permit. i am in favor of upholding the abatement order and supporting the department. >> are you seconding the motion? >> yes. commissioner mar. >> we are dealing with this separately and this is regarding the first order. >> just for the record, the

order of abatement are 2015-20761. commissioner walker, that order has 7 days to complete all work provisions. it wasn't clear if you were modifying that or upholding that >> upholding that >> just as a point of clarification, i see conditions here that are going to prevent them from getting that done for example the personal items in the building and we haven't seemed to address-for example if they say we can't get x and y done because of the personal items in there skn i'm hearing both parties are agreed to remove the items. i believe he wants to cooperate. are we doing that or not? maybe counsel if you can come up-and could we tie this as a part of

the condition? >> just to address what mr. freedman said btd the offer to fray moving personal items out we are still discussing that. there isn't enough detail tooz make a decision and present it to the tenants for them to decide because the money is still an issue. but we do-the tenants do want their stuff out and do hope to come to something soon. just for the record that offer was only made to us last week. >> i'm glad the offer is there but you do understand that will possibly be a road block as to why they can't move in sooner because of [inaudible] we are trying to be smart about this. >> wree looking to get this issue resolved as soon as possible. >> okay. we reflective of-some is done within 7 days and how do they do that in 7 days when

the issues are still outstanding? i am not trying to camp icating and want to uphold the decision here--yeah. >> one of the things that i think needs to be taken into consideration is the notice of violation was written in january. the hearing officer looked at this in april and what is essentially means if the city sues for simple penalties that can be taken into consideration the amount of time. at this stage as far as 7 days, i know there is a problem with that, but it is basically sending a message to the property owner at the time it was occupied you should have done the work. the fact that there are other issues the building is degigated to another level is separate. you is the ability to based on the testimony here and based on the testimony at the directors hearing to merely uphold the

directors representative and that order would be issued and still center the ability to go ahead is and deal with these issues. it isn't penalizing them again, that is the process and we don't assess more assessment of cost. there is basically for the amount of time. it only comes into play if the city then sued them for failing to respond in a timely manner the courts can take that into consideration regarding civil penalties for section 2 of 4 of the housing code. i don't believe 30 days will put them in any better situation with respect to what you heard. that is why i say if you feel more comfortable fine, but i do believe the hearing officer should be upheld. thank you. >> commissioner mar did you have one other question? >> yeah. to be clear on the

construction process, the 7 days-we can deal with all the nov's-even if they get people in there they need a temporary stair to go in and out of the front to work on the windows and do the flooring, and i think that is possible, they can put in a temporary for people only to have access to the property. i just want to make sure that 7 days is realistic. i'm not sympathetic to the new owner for the problems they face because they knew what they were buying which includes the tenants, i feel we moved-it would have been better if they addressed these issues while the tenants were in place, but that isn't what we are getting right now because the department didn't move on some of the original

nov's fast enough. i would have liked to have sat a year ago with the previous owner sitting in front of us with all the tenant but that isn't what wree given, we are given today with all the tenants out. what we are given today is the new owner. i feel like while i'm not sympathetic to the problems the new owner faces because i agree with commissioner walker, they should have known what they are buying including the physical problems and the tenants in place, but at the same time these nov's are not new. i don't feel they are new and go back a ways. >> may i-one thing i think that one should understand as far as the hearing officer looking at this as, the department doesn't-when the hearing officer is exercising the power

of chapter 1 a of the building code to issue a order, when they give a 7 day order they are saying we don't want to give more time. we'll put a timeframe on it but believe you had sufficient time and you can appeal it. there is a time on there, but it doesn't mean if you didn't start the work when you receivered the notice of violation that we'll add more and more time. the city was sued a long time ago with respect of issues 30 and 60 and 90 days. when the commission was created is much different. most of the notice of violation don't go beyond 30 days. we work with the individual if we are working with them and making progress. as i said that isn't what happened here. if you feel comfortable as far as a 30 day order that is your prerogative but so you understand when a representative of the director of hearing officer is giving

that they are basically saying, i don't think giving anymore time is going to really do anything because they didn't start that when they were supposed to. they didn't do that process so that is the reasoning beyond that. while some issues may have gone a while, this is a r 3 occupancy so we have to be invited in. when we were invited in we were rigorous in our response. this isn't a apartment building doing a routine inspection, we have to be invited in. maybe penal in the past didn't feel comfortable making complaints but i tell you with the 20 thousand billings we have the district inspector spent a lot of time trying to deal with the issues at this location and went above and beyond to try to address those. >> right now we have a motion on the floor and seconded. commissioner mar did you want

to make a amendment to this motion? did you want to amend it? >> no. i feel the same way as our chief housing inspector does that it is a statement the departments we have that i would like to reinforce. >> uphold theordser of abatement in 6812 at written? >> yes. >> there is a motion and second. is there public comment on the motion? sorry, we'll do a roll call vote. president [inaudible] yes. vice president [inaudible] commissioner mu carthy yes, commissioner mar, yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mu cray, yes, commissioner walker, yes. the motion carries unanimously to item 6813. >> again, i move we uphold the director-the hearing directors

decisions on appeal number 6813 and uphold the order of abatement. >> second. >> there is a motion and a second. roll call vote. president malgar yes. vice president clint, yes. commissioner mu carthy, yes. commissioner mar, yes. commissioner [inaudible] commissioner walker, yes. 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. >> [speaking spanish-waiting for translation]

>> so, i h like the other partners said, i have been living in the building since 2005 and in 938 they haven't made [inaudible] the units are always the same way and never changed. everybody pays for the room in which they are in. we always paid this way. that is all i have to say. >> next speaker please, thank you. >> [speaking spanish- waiting for translation] the revision

that are made in the own, the person that was the owner i'm the oldest residents there and he did those revisions. i'm a witness he was the one that did that. no one else made any type of revision, just the owner. and about the checks that were sent, i received one in my name and with that money i paid for the hotel where i lived with my partner. my partners check did not have any

funds, they didn't honor when he went to--we bought food with that and then after that we had to pay from our own pocket. >> anymore more speakers on this item? seeing none. >> no further public comment. commissioners deliberation or rebutal? 3 minutes for rebutal for the appellate. >> thank you. it is a fundalmental question that needs to be considered is does the commission want to be involved in the determination in the future. is this something dealt with as a [inaudible] or something the

commission should be decide or wants tobe deciding as aimateer of its possible and until that determination is made proceeding on the ad hoc determination is a [inaudible] how future cases are handled and without having consulted the commission in the first place. i think that is a dangerous course for the city to be marching towards and strongly disagree with mr. [inaudible] characterization of what they did in berkeley with the same set of rules. the problem with calling this due process for the owner is there are penalties available under the health and safety codes and tenants claims as a result of us allegely not paying the proper amount and didvent guide ens in the first place of what we are spaunl for. that is due process is understanding the

rules. when you buy a piece of property you understand the rules not the rules get set out after the fact. the health and safety code exist but the departments determination is the first we are aware of. the determination of 2 versus 12, we have 2 units, the city rorbds dictate that and mrs. bosky referred to it that and the department records referred to it that way. there may be 12 rooms but there are 2 units and that is how the determination should be made. there are no residential units that exist, but there are none dictated by whether there is a separate rent check issued or payable to the landlord. i do want toclarify the issue of the checks and relocation payments issued. initially thrfs discussion between the parties when the issue arose about coming to a form of agreement

and the berkeleyords nns sets forth a process for this to happen. the parties start today dethat on our own and were not able to come toa grument checks were issued by the landlord before this was confirmed and payment on those checks were stopped when the parties rch not able to come to an agreement among other reasons for the fact theyment wanted 100 thousand dollars on top of the 30 thousand dollars the department ordered here today. payment on those original checks were stopped and payment was issued for more than 30 thousand dollars based on the 25-12 ordered by the department per occupied room which we understood there to be 11 occupied room and the only thing we were disputing is the 12 room we don't believe was occupied and we miscalculated. we urge the department to revisit the course in the

commission to give the time to do that. the money is paid that is due. there may be additional amounts due under the rent ordinance but that isn't the commissions roll to evaluate those. that something you can take into account and the problems will be addressed by relocation of the rent ordinance when the time is appropriate for that. we ask the dermation be suspended or the department understand we paid 30 thousand dollars pursuant the order and find the determination of 2 versus 12 units isn't necessary for the commission to make here today. thank you. >> commissioner walker did you want to-- >> do we have department rebutal? do you need to say anything else? don't we get rebutal too? >> yep >> i don't have much to add from earlier comment. i think the determination clearly

indicates the departments position. you did hear testimony though that it was the proper owner helped dictate how the payments were made in the rooms when we did inspections we did find that there was evidence that all the areas were occupied. eerfben a area as we noted in the exhibit to areas that were not supposed to be occupied so from that stondpoint i think it is clear and think it legitimizes our position with what is in the notice so do believe this should be upheld. thank you. >> okay, we'll start with commissioner walker and then commissioner mar. >> before you begin deliberations the first item on your agenda is to make a determination as to jurisdiction under chapter 77. you entertain a motion first. >> i believe we have jurisdiction. i believe the

state code-the state building code is administered by the chief building officer- >> are you making a motion? >> i'm talking to it. the chief building officer enforces the state code. any decision by the director can be appealed to us. i move that we assume jurisdiction >> second. that is based on the charter position d 3.750-4 and section 77.3 section b of the administrative code. >> correct >> a motion and second. do a roll call vote on the motion.

president mccarthy, yes. vice president mar, yes. commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mccray, yes. commissioner melgar, yes. commissioner walker, yes. commissioner clinch, yes. the motion carries unanimously. >> okay. now deliberation. >> we don't have to take public comment on anything else? commissioner walker we'll start with you. >> so, you know i feel like we -this is a complicated issue because there is legal units and the actual units occupied. the testimony that i heard causes me to support the directors action in determining that there was 12 occupied units, each acting independently. there was 6 on

each floor. people wrote check zs separately, there were walls built. not by the people in there. so, i don't feel that there has been evidence provided for us to overturn the directors decision on that basis. i also have not heard evidence contrary to the determination of the utility deposit issues that are being appealed by the project sponsor either, so i am supporting the directors decision in this and deny the appeal. that is my position. >> commissioner mar >> i have a question. i heard contdictory things from the paument whether they were arguing whether it was 2 rooms

versus 12 or 11 room because if you paid the fee on 11 rooms to me that is a lot smaller of a question that is before us. right? because the appellate said that the fees were paid based on the 11 rooms, is that right? >> not clear about it. there are people that said the checks were canceled. i think we have to determine whatever the number is, not 2 or 11, but is it 12 determined by the director. >> so i just want to get clarification, what is the appellate arguing for, 11 or 2 rooms? >> come up to the podium there are a few [inaudible]

>> the chief housing order is the each room paid a certain amount and paid on the 11 rooms claimed by the tenants. we think the determination there were 11 or 12 is a error but we paid to minimize disruption in the interim while we pursued the appellate rights >> does the 11 rooms include the room in the basement? >> i don't think it does. we just based it on the fact there are 11 rooms occupied by the tenants. >> it is my understanding in thetume the room in the basement was paying rent to the landlord. does it include the basement? >> the payments were made-collective the payments were not individually to the

individual rooms so took the 11 rooms claimed occupied and paid on the claim. >> perhaps the tenant attorney can answer that. >> i'm trying to get at how much money is oweed. >> sorry, i forgot your name. please state your name for the record again, please. >> [inaudible] attorney for the tenants. to answer your question, so the dbi determination of 12 units we believe is correct. the issue here or the confusion is regarding the fact there are 12 units that have been occupied and one of them at the time the determination was made, there was one room that was not occupied at that time because somebody had moved into another room. there were 12

yoounts and were occupied for the majority of the past 20 years but one at the time was determined it was a inhabited space and people were living there but it wasn't currently occupied. there are 2 issues because one is the determine aition of amount of money oweed versus how many units there actually were. >> let me-the person who had been living in the 12 units moved where? >> moved into another room. >> in the same- >> i think either they moved into another room or it was the person who moved out because of health issues. >> if they moved inoo another room they are perhaps getting a double payment? >> no because there wasn't payments for 12 units, there was only payment frz 11. it is the difference between what was paid versus how many units and

it was not a unit in the basement addressed t is 12 units between the 2. >> you are happy with 11, right? >> we say there are 12 actual units. >> i think that is a different issue, right? >> yep. okay. commissioner lee >> can i have the appellate clarify something? the appellates they paid they had checks that were canceled, can you speak on that? >> both sides? >> sure, there were actually 2 sets of payments and that is where the confusion is arising from. when the issues first presented them sevl squz the department order to vaiicate were issued payments were issued. the landlord believed were were terms, the tenants

disagree. the landlord stopped payment on the checks and issued payment frz more than 30 thousand dollars as replacement for the funds, based on the 11 occupied rooms and its belief these utility deposits were inappropriately calculated. there was a initial set of payments made, stopped payment on those, a subsquents set of payments prp issued to replace those and if the tenants didn't receive those this is the first i heard of that having been in rel regular communication with counsel so that is surprising to hear the second set of payments were not received by the tenant. >> i'm sorry, the payments were sent? >> the second set of payments were sent. >> when were they sent? and you center have the date?

some time in april. >> commissioner lee, you is to understand we are hearing conflicting information. i think what commissioner lee would like-come back up counsel. >> it is confusing. what happened is we came to an initial agreement for it tenants to move out and the landlord agreed and wrote checksment we presented the check tooz the clients. the agreement is the tenants move out the next day, after they moved out the landlord canceled the checksism we went to court and the time between they canceled the checks and we went to court they ishude without telling more checks and dropped them at cocounsels office and didn't tell us that was happening. a bunch of things ensued as a result of canceling the checks and at some other

point they gave a check for a different amounts. they never artic yailted how they came windup the articulation for thumounts they gave so all of what you heard is true. there were checks issued, they stopped payments on the checks, the checks were cashed at check cashing places, the check cashing places called our clients over and over and calling my cocounsel because they were drawn off his account and after all this started they dropped off other checks, another check that didn't cover the amount they initially gave us. we were going after them for that and then they gave us another smaller check. it never matched the amount we first agrud to. the who whole thing is-i'm not sure-it was not the amount determined by dbi and never a amount that made sense. >> commissioner malgar.

>> i just want to understand the nuts on bolts. the check is made out to you as counsel and then do you issue check tooz the tenants? yes, my co consal did and they cancelled the check. >> so it is uonly the hook plus the fees the bank issues plus aurfb cost the tenants incured and the second check was for a lesser amount? >> that is correct. >> commissioner clinch and then commissioner walker and then commissioner mar. >> it is a follow to commissioner malgars question, so the second set of checks, have the tenants received those? >> they received the first check. they got the money from the check cashing places and we were responsible for reimbursing for the insufficient

. there is a whole problem-there is money then red here right now and some clients also just never got money because by the time they- >> my question is were the second set of checks delivered to thetenants? >> they went to cover the first checks because the first checks were already cashed at a check cashing place. the first checks as mrs. malgar was stating, the first checks were made out to cocounsel, so he put that in the trust account and had to write the checks individually to thetenants

because the conlsal at the time for the landlord just wrote the checks directly to my cocounsel and because sthof time frame the tenants were supposed to be out within 24 hours of the checks so we had to write the check tooz the tenants, they went to the check cashing places and they cashed the checks and then started finding out there were insufeshant funds because the money in the cocounsels account bounched because the lands lord cachbsaled the checks. the tenants got a initial payment, some of them not all because some didn't immediately go and cash the checks. when we did get good checks from the landlord that wnt to cover the bounched checks they gave the first time, didn't cover the fees. didn't cover the full amounts because they didn't give replacement checks in the

amount equal to the amount that bounched. >> that helps but i want to make it clear that what we are talk bth is just the fees for the emergency relocation from dbi, not-and you guys are continuing to fight about the in the

rolocation money. so they just gave a lump sum and never clarified what the follow up checks were for and didn't give an amount or breakdown. 3 4 f1 >> thank you. there is no motion on the floor. commissioner walker do you have a comment? >> i have a couple comments. this case seems complicated and don't think it is that complicated as far as i can see. also note with irony if we were talking about llc and it was talking at [inaudible] living in over crowded condition it wouldn't have

gotten this far. i think there is a rosen why there is not a lot of president. i think san francisco does have pretty stringent rent control ordinances that people mostly respect when investing in disstressed properties. there is reason for that and i would really like to be on the record of the commission of sending a strong message about what our expectations are are as a city. i think the real estate is very valuable in san francisco, it is a big business to invest in property, but there are rules and there are human beings who live in these properties and they need to be respected to their rights. >> thank you. >> commissioner walker. >> i agree 100 percent commissioner malgar. i think

that when people purchase buildings it is a god good thing, but there is a responsibility to look and investigate what you are buying. we have very strong rent control rules of the city supported by a pretty large majority of our population and effecting just as large a population in our city. i think that i would like to make a motion to uphold the directors actions in both counts of both the assessing of emergency relocation fees and in the amount for the utility deposit returns that are included and that along with the motion we request a clear accounting from both the

property owner and the tenant representative to determine how much is still oweed. >> i 2nd that motion. >> i recommend the motion include that the commission will consider and adopt written findings at your next meeting setting for the reasoning for the decision. >> that is very good. it is a important issue and i would like to have assistance from our counsel to craft the findings based on our discussion here. >> so the smogez uphold the directors determination from april 24, 2015 with written findings to be adopted at the next meeting? >> yes. >> the motion and second. have a roll call vote on this. >> president mccarthy, yes. vice president mar, yes.

commissioner lee, yes. commissioner mccray yes. commissioner melgar yes. commissioner walker, yes. commissioner clinch, yes. motion carries unanimously. we are on to item number 5. discussion regarding water saving devices and process for on demand water heaters including recommendations for gray and rain water. >> good floon commissioners my name is steve punely chief plumbing inspect. was asked to speak today but some of the gray water, black water now,

reclaim systems. different types of water types. rain water collection systems we have in san francisco on water heater kwz what wree tying to do in san francisco in order to help with the drought and energy wise. when it comes to the on demand water heaters just quickly, like to explain a few things. on demand water heater run on energy and high gas, larger gas lines compare today what we have now, so 23 somebody is row lacing the water heater they have to increase the gas line to have leck tistry and change the sflus and it is a little more expensive. the problem with on demand water heatericize the size of thewater heat squrz the price and location and that they do run on power. if you have a earthquake like [inaudible] in 1989 where half the marina didn't have power

for 3 or 4 days you wouldn't have hot water. the recovry isn't there. you don't have storage as well. on demand water here're is coils, there is no storage. electric water heater is the same thing, you have coils that go out and one is on. it isn't as fast as gas so gas is the main water heater you see installed throughout the city. on demand water heaters are popular because one of the most expensive things in san francisco is space. real estate becomes prime, so you do see a lot more direct water heaters used. in europe when on demand water heaters started xing out they were used at point of locations. they were not in the garage in the house, they were outside the bathroom near the kitchen, inside the kitchen area. i have a family that have homes with that sote up with that water heater.

the energy is less and in the location of the ekitchen near. it makes sense to have. one of things i try to advocate with our inspector squz builders doing large remodels is something we spoke about was restirkulating systems for these types of water heaters coming in: you see more people putting recirculating lines and pumps and how to distribute the water so you don't wait 20 minutes on the third floor for a shower. it is a waste of energy. you see the industry coming to make that happen. one that came out not too long ago is something you put under your faucet and hot and cold side with a pump that is on a timer or temperature that passes the water through that's

gives instant water. it works at my house >> it fillathize pipe up- >> it passes the warm water to the cold water system so you just by pass that and it keeps the hot water going. at my house it works. maybe we need to take a look. [inaudible] >> you may need a permit. >> it make as lot of noise >> i don't have that issue. when it come tooz the drought and i know we had commissioner lee was at the work shops we did about 2 weeks ago, and it was talking about gray water, reclaimed systems, how to use rain water more efixantly. the

questions brought to us were straight forward and easy but we were able totell everybody how to make their systems work. suggestion we gave out is come and see us 1660 mission on the third floor and ask for the plumbing commission and show your system and drawings and how you plan to install them and we'll guide you low the process. we have worked with the puc as well and outreach on different types of systems and how to get everybody involved in collecting the storm water once we have rain in san francisco. how to reuse the laundsry water and take it to the back yards because we don't want to see brown patches every where. a lot of our systems could be used to that. we are

looking at people who use gray water system, filter it and take it into the house. more comeplex system. labeling and piping and how to disperse the water. with dbi and tom hewys help and pr with lily and bill straum, we had that what we moved forward in order to get puc involved in how to get everybody tupe date and up to speed on what to do next. we do have a lut of homes were the work is done. we have homes biment for 50, 60, 100 years where nothing has been done. we are trying to help people to collect the water and size for the backyards and worry about overflow. safety ish sues and how to use the water. that is where we are at now.

>> any questions >> commissioner walker >> i requested we be proactive not just in letting people know about this, but in researching how-because of the drought, there is a different priority where maybe electric-like residential hotels i don't think you can have gas, you can only have electric as i understand in those type of buildings. at some point when water becomes so scarce it may make sense to be doing it. i'm hopeful that we can come up with plans like we do, like we have done with the seismic problems where we actually lead and because we are in a area that is experiencing severe drought, i want to spote and encourage our department for

coming forward with really sort of state of the art solutions to this >> i think over the past 6ory 8 years we have moved leaps and bounds above a lot of other jurisdictions trying to get more communities or areas and residences involved in collection and use of just not just laundry water but rain water and other sources to try to make it better. there has been a lot of bending over backwards i say to make this happen. there is a lot of stuff-i don't agree with that come through and fought certain things and there are reasons for it but have seen the good and agreed to make things work to make it happen. for instance, we had a rain water system that wasn't

permitted-now [inaudible] and up in sacramento and now they want a permit for it. they are 50 gallons and way 500 pounds, it falls over and kills someone. overflow, where does it go? we don't have a acre of land between properties , we have 3 feet or 3 inches and that water goes to the neighbors property and you have a problem cht those are the basic things and where we made chairchgs over the years >> chief plumbing inspector is right. we want to encourage anybody to consider implementing a gray water in the house to contact our department, contact and see what can be done because some of the things that you ask i may think is common knowledge or not common knowledge but we won't even consider. for

example, i learned you can't keep rain water forever. there is a limit and there is a safety concern and we don't want gray water spilling out, we want to regulate it or inform the property owner they need to take steps to make sure the gray water is used praerply and appropriately and doesn't cause harm. >> damage or health concerns. everybody has a different way of doing things from the nice lady at the work shop that says she takes a bucket and puts it under the kitchen sink recollect to the person that thought they collected the toilet water can use it for something else. they don't know the answers. send somebody down and talk to us and we'll direct you the right way. we are not here to stop you from doing it, just make sure you do it the right way.

we have done the outreach so far and do more and any outreach we can make [inaudible] bill straum is involved in getting in contact with the puc. it may put outreach and work together as a happy family. >> it would be great. i know when we want to encourage facade improvements we wave fees or have grants attached to it, so i would hope that maybe we can look at that. i don't know if our department can do, but encouragement and incentive to do that. >> there is one out there with the puc, which is if someone have a rain water system the barrel is provided and attachment squz the fee for the permit would be reimburseed with the puc and that is a grant they are going through now i believe. i don't know if it is solidified but it is something they are talking

about and it was a great thing and people behind it are pushing for it because they want to make sure the systems are done correctly and track where they are so if people need assistance and just something we can watch. >> i think it is smart to see the field as it is coming and come up with standards based on san francisco's particular lot lines and all of that and just like the puc had that effort to give out low cost rate barrels, i wonder what we can do to be proictive and insure there are standards. last year you unveiled the system to have standard plans for decks. i wonder if there is something

similar that we can do-not endorse a particular product, but rather types of products for example collection of rain or gray water and having like a saq sheet for folks. you have to strap it and make sure it doesn't go on your neighbors property. those thingerize helpful >> that is there. we worked together on that- >> people don't usually go to the puc >> they come to me and we direct them to the site. we do have handouts available as well and worked to give them the basic ideas. as far as picking product and placing product or telling this-we don't do that and won't do that, we can't. puc does have programs with vendors they use for their

barrels or materials that they have. we technically can't do that so i can't say we use this overthat. that doesn't work well and you wouldn't want me to do that. what we have them now with puc having outreach and what we worked together with and what they have for q and a that they have all the facts that are thrmpt that guideline is already installed and they came windup up with a new 1 with rebate squz has a sheet of how everything is laid out and designed. >> anything else? >> director. >> yes [inaudible] what we can do is link our website to puc and they can answer all those question because they are the expert. we are doing the

permit only but they have the fund-commissioner walker mentioned about a grant and how to wave the fee. >> that would be great and to-like when folks come in for small permits maybe hand them a little sheet about what options are available for this to get them think about it if they are not already. >> i think i just spoke with lily that one thing that is something that is very simple to do that we can get, we can have a link that lichcks them to site. if you look for this, here is a link and go there and you have that information so somebody is directed there. >> great >> if they call it is pretty straight forward >> thank you. anything you need to strengthen your program- >> i appreciate that. thank you very much. >> [inaudible] >> any public comment on item

5? seeing none, item 6 directors report. 6 a, update on dbi finances. >> good afternoon commissioners taurus [inaudible] deputy director of department of building inspection. i haven't included a report because june is the end of the fiscal year so we are clouzing out and reconciling revenue jz have a couple of po's that are closed. normally the controllers office will be complete city wide by midaugust so i expect to get a report to you hopefully by septon fiscal year june 2015 which is the year end on fiscal year and then i'll have the july report for you next month. >> thank you. >> thank you deputy. >> item 6 b, update on recently enacted state or local

legislation. >> hello commissioners [inaudible] communication director. bill straum is on vacation. just want to highlight a few. the board is busy. there is various legislation either that has been introduced or making its way through committees mpt i want to highlight 2 for you and you'll see them in the legislative updates as well. one is where supervisor wiener has established a cannabis state legalization group. we are part of that and want to let you know that is already passed and will be reporting back to you on that. the second is also supervisor wiener's ordinance that requires use of alternate water sources in new construction projects of 250 thousand square feet or more. they are required to prepare and file a water use budget. those 2

things have been passed and they are waiting for the mayors signature and should be in effect in august. something new introduced last week which the presidents announced earlier this morning was director hewy joined rick cal ran as supervisor tang on introducing the mandatory disabled ordinance. introduce the board make its way to the committee will come back to us in terms of departmental comments and then we'll report back to you guys. a quick note, the fire safety working group, this was established and actually going to be going into effect later this week. dbi has been identified, director hewy identified dan lowery deply director of inspection and chief housing inspector rose mary [inaudible] and

building inspector patrick reerden to represent dbi. [inaudible] doctor johnson o joand the fire marshal dan and rich brown will be represented. dates and topics are still to be identified and think they'll start in late august. something related to fire is supervisor tang is expected to introduce legislation to place fire info in a central place on sight at the property and requires the landlord to provide the tenants fire information on safety as well. just want to go over the 3 programs you have been hearing about to give a update on that. legalization of in-law units, we have 39 permits issued so far . over 200 have submitted and

they are waiting review from the planning or dbi. ordinance waver i this can you heard about that last month that is still going through committee, and we are expected to see its legal effect sometime in late august and that is a waver of plan review fees from planning and dbi. did you have questions before i continue? additional developing units, 3 permit have been filed so far. we had a workshop last month. bill mentioned i this can it was well attended and hope to have another in august as well and have been doing outreach on that. we sound out a announcement to particie properties to know about the

new ordinance they can partake in and kernly we have 493 permits that have been issued. 200 ret row fits are completed of the 5 thousand properties. tier 1 is require said. there are 13 propertys under that and required to turn in permit applications by december and will send out a 2 month reminder to let them know the deadline is xing soon. any questions on legislation updates? consumer satisfy action survey, we started in february so this is a survey of basically our customers. it was a phone survey on site that was about laechb00 people surveyed for that. we also did a online survey and got i think 200 feedback and also did focus groups which ended some time in

june. we'll talk to the consultant and get analysis and report back to our senior managers and also to the [inaudible] in august or september dependent on the findings and have recommended steps along with director hewees approval. the last is seismic safety out reach the president mentioned as well. we got add back money to possibly grant additional neighborhoods in the bay view and [inaudible] addition this year as well for the same amount. thank you >> thank you. 6 b update on major projects. >> good morning tom hewy. major project is getting [inaudible] we are fortunate to have a [inaudible] compared to last month. >> did you say 45 percent?

>> 5 to 10. >> okay >> any questions. >> 25 percent more than last month? >> yes [inaudible] >> item 6 [inaudible] update on code enforcement. >> good afternoon commissioners. deputy director dan murray inspection services. i'm here to report on code enforcement and dbi monthly update. for building inspection division rkts building inspection performed for 5397. complaints received, 354. complaintss response within 24-72 hours, 286. complaint for first owners for violation, 64. complaints received and abated, 164.

abated complaints with notice of violation were 44. second notice of violation refer to code enforcement were 10. for the housing inspection services housing inspection performed were 957. complaints received, 362. complaints response within 24-72 hours, 338. complaints with notice vileshz issued 108. abated complaints, 391. number of cases sent to director were 17. routine inspection is 175. for the code enforcement services, number of case sent to director were 58. number of order abatements issued, 16. number of cases under advicement were 10. number of cases abated were 48. for the code enforcement inspection performed were 514. that's the

code enforcement update and there are graphs in the back that shows all divisions response for the last 12 months. last month commissioner mar asked me to do a update on the older violations. we did a stat report from january 2009-2013 which there were thousands of open cases that we reinvestigated. out of all those cases we reinvestigated, we came down to 399. this is for a 5 year period. what we did and that was a stat report reported to you in a powerpoint presentationism we took the 399 open cases and actually broke those down to show where they are. so, the isis a synapsis of open complaints between january 2009 and december 2013. the total number of open cases

were 399. cases closed, that means permits are finalized are 135. active permits declared notice of violations are 146. reinstated permits are 10. filed permits to address complaints are 36. suspended permits are 10. second notice of violations cases in code enforcement are 29. the first notice of violation address complaints are 4. cases continued are 29. these are the cases for the 5 year period. from the 2013 to present we are tracking the cases every month and try to have a 100 percent response on the cases. we vaspreadwhere we look at the complaint and those that are not reinvestigated we make sure they are done before the end of the month and get a report to you.

>> commissioner mar >> i want to say thank you for the update. i know code enforce; you have done an amazing job clearing the back log jz want to make sure especially for the long lingering cases which i know you are working on it are getting lessened but want to make sure there are enough resources to focus on those so thank you for the report and if there is anything we can do to make sure that those lingering cases are getting the proper attention, please bring it to us. >> thank you >> thank you deputy director. >> public comment on item 6 a-d. seeing none item 7 discussion on [inaudible] permit and tracking system. >> good afternoon commissioners. my name is henry bartly with dparmt of technology, the project manager for dbi imp lmation for

[inaudible] going over the 1 page update you should have in hand. in termoffs configuration, these are the punch list items which are 23 in total. there are 4 completed, 3 in uat, 16 in development, so these are on track per the work plan and those are going to be continuing to be developed and turned over for testing throughout this month and next month. we do have 2 that are going to continue past august which was according to plan and that is why we have 2 rounds of end to end simulation. the punch list items are moving along as expected. on the reporting front, we have got a large effort to get the reports from [inaudible] to get the qa

prior to the first run of simulation whiching up on august 10. that is going to be a lot of activity among the dbi and project team over the next few weeks to get those qaed and closed out. the dbimis treme has a report that they are developing and in those there are 8 that are accepted and 42 in progress and the 2 remainder are waiting for development resources to become available. those are also moving along. in terms of testing and fixes, this section covers the perch list items and we look at the 92 total that is punch list items, that is the data migration items which there are 34 of those and then there are

also 35 uat items and these are items fart part of previous uat items. all that together gets to the 92 total critical and high items that need to be addressed before go live. apart from the 2 punch list items which is grand faulthered fees and the batch boiler process, the rest of the-the other 90 are scheduled and we are pushing to have those done before the first end to end simulation august 10. that is what is consuming all of the attention and efforts from now until the beginning of august. between august and sept, we have another piece of work whiching coming to the project that is expected and this is the analysis and testing that needs to be done to test out

murning the planning dta set with dbi. we were well aware and had support from excell when planning launched october 20 of last year we knew when dbi went live we have to merge the data set. this is something they assureed us they have done observe. before. they have to get that right. we wanted to make sure when we did the second and last round we do that against the merge dataset. we have moved in the second bullet underneath end to end it referenced sept, we moved that to october 1 so we could use the merged dataset as part of the testing rounds so that was a good reason to move that date to early october. once we have gone through end to end both the first round which covers the bulk of the

functionality we'll have the catch up the first of october to cover the 2 perch list items and anything out of the first round that needs to be adjusted. at that point if things are in good shape, we'll have the meeting with tom hewy and team scheduled for october 8 and thereat is when they confirm a go live date. assuming we have gotten over our [inaudible] which is good results from the end to end simulation. as for

citizens. these are escalated at the highest level but we do have the one blocking ivr that is opened for 28 days and the ivr was working well up until we had a upgrade to 7336 release of excela. part of being hosted and agree to take the upgrades. you get them first in the test environment

but that upgrade of made the ivr-basically there is a call that goes from the ivr plat form to excela to check if instreckzs are available or inspections are exceeded and so that interface stopped working so3 4 f1 engineers are working on that. [inaudible] they assure they have resources to fix that. on aca there is a issue with license professional look up so as you create a permit on line or within the excela platform used in the dbi building, it does a real time look up to the state of california license board to check that the contractor you

are associate would the permit has a valid license in place and the insurance when required. that interface was working well and that has stopped. we are not sure if we center the direct correlation with the upgrade but that is looked at as well by excela engineering. that has the potential to impact the start of end to end simulation because those 2 things both have to be working, ivr and web portal because we can conduct that test. >> it makes sense. >> the second bullet is the -there is issue we had around performance. the planning department on the production platform and compared to dbi they have a much smaller set of data and transactions they perform. they noted

performance issues. they are quantifying those now so we give excela what time of day and the trangz action we are doing and the response time they experienced because they need those details to investigate, but we also had a similar performance issue on our test platform a month and a half ago where a transckz scheduling inspections on a existing permit, normally once you put in the details you schedule the time of day and date it is 2 to 3 seconds before you get the confirmation. in this case we did it a few times and it took up to 8 minutes which is completely unacceptable. that was escalated and a support ticket input. we did have

notice from excela and operation on july 6 and-junjune 2 and july 2 that they had issues at the west coast data center. we got later messages saying they were resolved but don't know what the frb was or the action to fix it. we do have a meet ging next week where they are going to come on site and tell us about what is the performance issue squz the root cause and the resolution. we are also looking for information about what are they doing to make sure that their sizing the system properly. much like buildings and structural beams to size them to a certain load, the same in computer system. we want to make sure they take dbi's load

coming and size the plat forms to make sure they accommodate the volume. >> i have a question there for you. the system that we purchased, are you saying that it should be able to handle our load? that isn't the issue. are they saying the system in place isn't big enough to handle the load? >> it is the former. the system is capable of handling the jurisdiction. the sizing exercise is about the hardware you are on. if you do thousands of transactions a day you want to have adequate cpu and memory, your data network and transactions to the data bases. all that has to be sized appropriately for that

capacity. you always put 30 to 40 percent on top of that to handle unexpected peek squz monitor it continuously so as trangz action volumes grow you ahead of the curve and never fall behind on capacity. >> okay. >> that's a function of implementing anything whether hosted or site but it is something we are axis about now that we have seen performance issues. >> commissioner walker >> are we getting adequate response from our vendors? i know at some point we- >> what i can say is when i put a ticket in and do get a response and again, i jen rel get a response within 12 hours which on a test platform is not

unexpected however giving the history of the project and the difficulty of the project, we are expecting that they would respond quicker than that even though we are in a test situation. in terms the engineering response, that is where they are lacking. i wouldn't have expected the ivr ixue to be open a month. >> can we maybe invite them to come to the next meeting until this is finished so they are here and can explain themselves? >> absolutely. we'll make sure they are scheduled for next months meeting. >> thank you henry. >> thank you. >> public comment on item 7? seeing none item 8 commissions question and matters. 8 a, inquiries to staff. at this time commissioners may make

inquiries to staff of interest to the commission. >> commissioner mar, did you want to say something? >> i think we'll get a more detailed report but i want to say there is a light at the end of the tunnel. i went to a staff meeting yesterday and that was great. one of the things i know, we'll wait for a while to bring in the users to test it, but think it may be good as part of the report either from the staff or [inaudible] what can the users reasonably expect that they will be able to access and what can they see? both from the side of the users in terms of the contractor whether getting their permit or if the permit is held up and they can really pin point into where it is, which i know is a big issue sometimes. the contractors

know the permits held up but the big question is where so they can know the person or the department to call. and then from the community standpoint, a lot of times there are questions about either unpermitted work going on or maybe permits that have been pulled, but they have blown up the whole house. they got a permit for a bath and kitchen remodel and half the house is gone and only the facade is going. from the community activist view, can they log on and see what permit has been pulled, who pulled it and what is supposed to be happening versus what is actually happening. thinks things like that. i know we are not ready to launch but ied with like a

preliminary discussion for both the users that would log on and see what can they reasonably expect to see. and then there won't be surprisesism if they can't see it, they caept can't see it. otherwise i hate to launch and said we never expected you to see this. you are not going to be able to log on and look for this. >> these are agenda items. >> more detail. >> i'm sure not sure if a lot of that will be answered with the testing later on. to his point, i guess at a later date-would you be saying that-all the tests and the other stakeholders sign off

before you go live? >> right. we give all our stakeholders a heads up on what is reasonable to expect and it helps us to jump ahead of complaints. >> in terms of citizen access, since it doesn't require looking up a license professional to see what permits and complaints are there, that is functioning in the test environment today. we can speak in great detail about what they can view and the access they'll have. >> as a citizen. okay. perfect. anymore? just for me, i want to thank commissioner mar for last months stepping in at the last minute to cover me. i know you were probably in a lot of pain and wouldn't have been for the meeting. we know the tragied

of berkeley and what happened there. reading the media reports i know the director and i mentioned it to each other, there is a lot of policy changes and how they look at balconys over there in berkeley and so i'm quite sure we have a lot of policies in place that would have prevent a tragied and think it is a good time to revisit that and get the findings what happened in berkeley and we can use that to maybe have a further discussion. i want to acknowledge the berkeley response from the building department to the emergency of the police and ambulance. we

hope if we had a tragied like that in the city our community would resinate like that. it was a very difficult job they put together and i would like to thank them and hope we never have a situation like that. there was a lot of lessens learned if that should happen i think would be good as a department to learn from there and what we implement we have on the ground running if we had a huge emergency of that magnitude. >> i agree with you totally. the date of the accident i feel bad and right away we look for our [inaudible] and make sure update it and then we have a

meeting internally. maybe this time i want to introduce my assistant director with my-send you an e-mail [inaudible] he [inaudible] i also give this assignment to work with both deputies from inspection and [inaudible] and work with technical service and also chief building inspector rose mary and also patrick from chief building inspector. besides looking at the rez dlsh i want to make sure there is more commercial also to make sure we capture all and make sure the buildings are safe and they will-internal meeting and look through the building code. what we want to improve from the existing one to make sure we move forward to have the building safe. probably most

of you know already. >> particularly with the high density towns, these small little patio areas or juliets are really your only out door experience you have in some of the buildsings so it is something we need to keep a close eye on to make sure. i'm confident our inspections and-is up to par and this is just a very unique situation. i also felt that we could learn lessens from how the investigation happened afterwards. what are the right things to do, thfs right thing to do to take down the deck and take down the other decks. there are all these moving parts but think it is something we should focus on and have a more concrete man date type of

policy in place where we know what the right steps would be to take if such a situation would happen here in the san francisco jurisdiction. >> [inaudible] >> good morning commissioners. thank you very much for the opportunity to serve the department at a capacity that sees more of the global and hualistic efforts that we make to provide safety for the department. through the department, for f the public. obviously this is in the news. it was in the news while i was on vacation in canada and people i think become acutely aware that they have potentially issues they have to deal with on their own property. it is incumbent to continue our routine inspections and have the outreach to the public to

advice them how they may try to protect both the property and occupants of their buildings. often times we have seen this occur in the past where it hits the news because it is a large congregation of individuals celebrating a birthday or some event and ecseeds the capacity of the deck at the moment in time if it is comrumizeed by the weather especiallyly. normally you don't see this when it a built brand new. more than likely these are wood constructed decks and the deterioration over time, exposure to weather can occur. it is incumbent for the building owner to check it from time to time and not wait for inspection. hopefully the

effort of the department and outreach programs and putting something on a website will elevate the awareness of the individuals who own property with these conditions. i look forward to working with our staff and working with our communications director to accomplish that outreach. thank you. >> thank you. >>iteal 8 b, future meetings and agendas. at this time may diss cus and take action to date a special meetjug determine the items placed on 24 ajepda of the next item and other future meetings of the building inspection commission. our next regular meeting is scheduled for august 19. >> how is everybody-is everybody around august 19? i guess we are. so much for a quick meeting today. >> any public comment on items 8 a and [inaudible] item 9,

adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> second. >> all commissioners in favor. >> aye. adjourned.