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 participants about 5 thousand of the 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 of 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.