incomplete testing, a large amount of error, a system where the performance is slow or the online processing does not work, where there are errors, and you have to have many work arounds, putting workarounds into your system will end up slowing the entire process. what happens when you do that is you have a few super users who know how to do those work arounds. everything has to funnel through them. we end up with a restricting way to do work. a lot of people can't do work. they rely on these other people to do the work, and their whole process will slow down. [please stand by]

old permits, runs them through our new processes and matches to see that the permit fee was calculated correctly from the old to the new. so we are doing that right now and it's identifying some errors and we are fixing them, so until that runs completely through and we are 100% confident we have no fee errors i would not be recommending go live to you. the next question, where are we and brian talked about this, our second project is

significantly lower cost that the first project. we aren't where we were before. d.b.i. documented, excela has a program and we have a healthy -- the cloud is delivering good performance as we have tested it. we have a thing we recognized and brian talked about it and i want to share, the excela team has rebuilt the original code. when we restarted this project there was a very important assumption made when the original time line etc. was

determined. they started to build on that testing it and implementing it we found significant problems and one was the fikac lator, as brian eluded to, it was clumsy, slow and included a lot of custom configuration which would be a maintenance problem into the future. so the developers rewrote it. and they rewrote it and it's much faster, the d.b.i. technical team thinks they will do a good job maintaining it. this is incredibly important. the other challenge we faced was with the address database. i had a concern about this

myself and i saw the architecture of it. it created a point of failure, the way the system was designed. it also could create latency between when we start a permit and have to pick up an address so i was already concerned about it and when we start ed to move forward and we ran into problems with condos they rearchitected that environment and it's in a structure on the private cloud and this will reduce that point of failure and remove that latency. work flow has moved forward, a couple places work flow was designed wasn't going to work for d.b.i. so that work flow has been redesigned. and really what all these point to is a much larger, future time savings on system maintenance. so where we started and we thought we had 50% of the

system built, what we, in fact, had was 25% which was usable. so we have actually rebuilt 25% of what was originally at the start plus where we are today. that is where we are. i think it's a very good place to be, we are on solid code base where everyone is more comfortable but what that has meant is the team has taken a few steps back to go forward but they have gone forward in a very positive way that will reduce our costs in the future. what we are doing, the accela team is busy building, fixing and doing side-by-side tests and training with our d.b.i. team. we are focusing on migration issues and report.

creating custom training for each one of the teams and conducting end-to-end business process testing. so taking it from the start and through its use case to the end. the city team is testing, training and working on our readiness, proactively learning the system. testing and retesting as needed. i added d.t. resources to the team to assist with reports. the team has completed 56 sessions 300 staff in total. next would be the custom training for each one of the business units. so that's remarkable. it's a remarkable place to be. that's a very solid ground. and we are looking forward, of course, to showing the system to the development community. and d.t. is hiring two new staff to support all city

accela projects moving forward. so this is not we are going to get this built and then it will be good luck. d.t. will stand with d.b.i. and help make the system usable for other departments in the city. so this is some slides, i know we are running behind so i will briefly go through these. what struck me when i started learning about the project was the incredible change to the business process that is a result of this project. i was just amazed at the changes that are going to be made in process, in data quality and accuracy, management and most importantly customer service. so we have actually been kind of keeping a little cheat sheet log of all the improvements and actually talking about a description and what the benefit would be if we needed to share that with the community and i think at some

point we certainly will. but i flagged the ones with a little thumb's up related to customer service. so number two is streamlining the initial permit intake form and process to eliminate unused fields. this reduces clutter on user screens and makes intake move more quickly for d.b.i. users and customers. also a new process to provide 60-day advance notice to permit holders prior to the expiration date of the permit and auto express dates for permits not extended. permit holders unfamiliar with the process will benefit from receiving advanced notice their permit isn't expiring so they can take action. so it goes on and on and on. so i really wanted you to see these, have a chance to review them. it is remarkable, remarkable work for a system to have these

many benefits and process improvements moving forward. i will just move through these. in conclusion what accela is achieving we will achieve the benefits, access to the system, enhancing the online experience for permitting and processing. enhanced transparency and accessibility. and deliver one-click reports so i think that's something, as we look to when we will go live and deliver on those promises, there's something to be proud of for d.b.i. and for the team. any questions?

thank you. commissioner walker? >> thank you so much. i don't think it is a surprise i was one of those frustrated by this news. having been here for a long time through many of these process, it's time that we do this. i really appreciate the explanation and the detail from both you and our accela partner to explain sort of where we are, that the delay is really to make sure that the product we have is one that will work for us in the future that will give us what we set out to do with this. and as it looks like it will provide many more benefits to help provide good service to the folks getting permits in the public. the transparency and the

efficiency that we have had a hard time achieving with our other system. i really appreciate being updated with the details. i've gotten over a little of my frustration. it's still there a bit and i will try to moderate it until we get there. is it fair to interpret what was said from the accela partner that the end of the year would probably give us a system that is working and that we can be proud of? do you feel comfortable with that time line? i know you don't want to get ahead of having the best product, but. just to satisfy some more frustration. >> that's the goal. but as we move forward and look at things and do testing, and these regression testing is

still running, it's not complete. it's hard to say we won't hit something that we are like ooh, didn't know that was there. that's the goal. everyone is working hard on that goal and we are vetting a project plan that gets us to that goal. so there are some milestones. and we have a set of user testing that, for two weeks that is coming up in september. and really, it is, that we will not move into that testing frame until some of these things are completely vetted and the regression testing is coming back with zero error, etc. it's these sorts of things that will be the gate wes go through, we keep going until we get through the gate correctly. >> i understand we have a lot of fees and data to go get. we have a lot of different road maps in these places to come back and fill in the blank. it's comforting that we have

identified what the issues are. which is really important. thank you all. i apologize if i got really nervous initially but i do really appreciate that we are here. >> i think we all were disappointed. i think when you look at the schedule and say how did we get here and when you say we rewrote code, that was assumed to be quality code that we could just move forward on. we say, well no, we have made some really good business decisions to re-do that code. and everybody is happy about that. there's that amount of time it took to do that build has now pushed us back in our time line to be complete. >> right, it is important too, we look at the fact staff has been so pro-active that we have also incorporated some system

changes within this process so that our system can, in the end be more effective. i think that's also an important buy product. -- by-product. i appreciate that too. >> commissioner warshell? >> i appreciate the feelings these are all really wise business decisions to make sure what we are going forward is well-built and has a successful launch as opposed to trying to hit a deadline no matter what, and we will work it out on the fly. i know are you making the right decisions in doing that, so i applaud that decision. while i feel great support for that, i also want to make sure we are communicating effectively to all of our employees.

exactly,the information you have given us today. so that they understand why there's been a delay and that they know we are doing this to make sure what they get is the most usable, dependable, workable and durable system that can possibly be put into service. having good faith that due diligence has been executed and this isn't just oh it's delayed again. oh, something is wrong with it, are we ever going to get this? i want morale to be as strong as possible in embracing this and everything you have identified makes perfect sense. this is the right decision to deliver the right product that will make everybody's life from our employees to our customers

better. is a critical piece of information to get across. >> we will make sure that happens. >> thank you so much. >> good, i appreciate the presentation. i just noticed one of your -- streamline requires planning review to route directly to planning and not through p.p.s.c. as done currently. so that is the one that will help us. and obviously, we have had a lot of seasoned commissioners here have been on this seat for quite a while getting updates in regard. we are looking forward to getting this done but totally understand we have to make sure this is bullet-proof and running correctly before we can go live. so hopefully at the end of the year we won't be having any more but if we are, we will be getting closer. >> right, we will celebrate with a holiday party.

>> commissioner walker isn't leaving this commission until this is up and running. [laughter] >> i would say i think you will be on for another couple years, commissioner walker. [laughter] >> thank you for the update. appreciate it. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none. item 11, discussion regarding d.b.i. update on several grand jury recommendations from '15-'16 and fiscal year '12-'13. >> commissioners, bill straun again. legislative affairs. i wrote a summary overview. but i think the grand jury reports come up periodically. there are audits of city departments and the work processes they go through. we did an update, as required

through the controllers office after we submit original reports. in this case, dealing with years 2012-2013 and 2013-2014 and 2014-2015. there were different grand jury reports covering different issues there. the overwhelming majority of the still outstanding issues, and there are actually probably most are in the '15-'16 report where we have 18 recommendations. five of them have been fully implemented as of january 2017. and they dealt with such things as updating the housing division standard, operating procedures and some documentation needed in other languages. things that we do and have been doing for some time.

there are 13 remaining implemented. two of which stated they would not be implemented because based on the chief housing inspector's analysis, they got into such items as how long it will take housing to abate notice of violation and report that on a monthly basis. as you know we do code enforcement updates on a monthly basis and have been doing that for a number of years. so in the housing chief's view, we were already doing that and therefore there was no point of implementing that particular recommendation. that left 11 remaining recommendations. all of which are tied to the new san francisco permit system. and as was just explained a couple minutes ago, as we get to the closing of that, hopefully by the end of this

year, most of these will also be implemented and probably what will happen is come next january, the controller's office will come back to us and ask for another update on where we are with these and we will be able at that time to probably close all of them out. so, if you have any specific questions about them, i'm happy to answer them. but i will say we follow this grand jury report and response process very carefully. we are in fact in the middle of doing a new one that just came out in july this year, that is actually tied to items such as accessory dwelling units and what can be done to accelerate their approval and i think all of you know we have been working quite diligently on that, certainly for the last 12 or 18 months. and as also a secondary element they are encouraging the city

for more factory-built housing as an approach especially in dealing with homeless housing situations. and the department is, in fact, working very closely with the mayor's office of housing right now on a specific project at 10th, or 7th and mission that will build 250 homeless studios. an we are trying to make sure that whatever factory might be selected by the mayor's office of housing to come up with these units know exactly what local building plumbing and electrical codes are, so they meet those specifications in advance and we don't run into a situation of something gets built that meets state code levels but fails to meet our local code levels which are often more stringent, as you know. so with that, i'm happy to take any questions.

>> commissioner warshell, please? >> just to comment. i appreciate your submitting this. and it's a very useful thing for me as one of the newer commissioners to understand and while the controller's office really is the primary vehicle for regulatory review of it, i think that my colleagues and i, as well as the public all really welcome this being presented on a regular basis for review and the public's edification so i want to thank you for making that presentation today and again encourage we go beyond the requirement of reporting it back to the controller but making sure that we and the public are equally aware of how seriously we take these and are

working to fully implement. >> i will make sure we keep you regularly updated on those. >> thank you. >> commissioner walker, please? >> thank you so much for this, having been around for the grand jury reports, in the past we have put together things reengineering task force to make recommendations i think we have incorporated not just in our practice at d.b.i. but also in this process of our accela problem and the sf permit. as you mentioned so much of our response depends on better management of data. better management of processes between us and planning. i hope that we can, as quickly as possible bring in the assessor's office. i know they are very interested

in taking advantage of our new system as well. predictability, efficiency and accuracy has always been and equitable delivery of service too, across-the-board, to people walking into our office. i appreciate this recap for us. i think we all should be diving into it and really looking at the details of it. because we have responded. as frustrating as it is to get this system we are working on done, and as much work as it's been for everybody and it's new, it is not just to give better service to be responsive of public input to us. this is a really important

document to make available out there. thank you for presenting it. thank you, director. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, item 12. director's report, 12-a, update on d.b.i. finances. >> good afternoon, commissioner, tara with the department of building inspection. july is the first month of the fiscal year '18-'19. so it has limited data. as you can see on the first page we normally make our projections, what the budget is because we really don't have much information. basically revenues are slightly lower than they were this time last year, 4.7 versus $5 million. because it's the first month,

we are just setting up contracts and work orders to get ready for the fiscal year so it really doesn't give us a lot of information. you will notice in the box on permitting there was a drop in valuation, year over year. that was primarily last year july '17 we had a huge project of $520 million valuation. so just that one project alone is the reason you see that big drop in valuation year over year. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> 12-b, update on proposed or recently enacted legislation. >> bill straun, legislative and public affairs. i sent you the report so i think you can see the highlights. we do have a few new ordinances such as the one we talked about earlier from supervisor safai and was continued until next

month to respond to some of your questions but essentially we have sat down with the supervisor and are working closely with him to make that possible. an additional ordinances coming from supervisor ronen on fire safety where the fire marshal and building official would be given additional authority so where there were still open notices of violation that were tied to fire safety issues, the fire marshal and building official could determine that upgrading of either sprinkler system or fire alarm systems could be imposed and required upon the owners. so that's yet to be heard. all of these ordinances actually will not be heard until september and probably not effective until october or november, just given the realities of the schedule.

there's a third element also from supervisor ronen, an ordinance that calls for the prioritizing of 100% affordable housing. we have, in fact, been prioritizing affordable housing for quite some time. this just codifies many of the processes that are already under way. the director has designated our senior mechanical engineer james zan as our housing coordinator and james is staying on top of any of these requirements and has testified at a couple of hearings. supervisor ronen has held on these. you may remember supervisor tang did introduce modifications of the planning code dealing with removing the street tree requirements and a few other items to expedite the

approvals for accessory dwelling units. back to the point we are working together to try along with the fire department and d.b.i. to approve as many of these pending permits as quickly as possible. but still end up with safe housing. there will be some building code amendments likely from supervisor tang in september. they deliberately separated the planning ones because they approved those even before the august recess began but they will be coming back for this additional element on the building side. next month. and i think that probably catches us up except i will mention as commissioner mccarthy mentioned at the beginning of the meeting we are getting ready for the september 15th mandatory soft story tier iv deadline.

we do have a media event planned with the u.s. geologic survey and the city administrator's office of resilience and capital planning where we are going to visit a site of a retrofit that's about halfway completed in order to deliver the message that it's very important to complete these retrofits in advance of the next major earthquake. the u.s. geologic survey is interested in doing this because it's the 150th anniversary of the hayward fault of 1868. while they aren't celebrating that event, they want to use it as an occasion to remind people retrofits are a very good way of strengthening buildings and minimizing the chances of building collapse during the next major earthquake. and toward that end they are very supportive of the retrofit program the city has just about completed.

about 90 or 92% complete with all four tiers. from a compliance perspective, this program has been quite successful, even though we do still have a number of cases from the third tier that are still in code enforcement. there are about 80 buildings i believe but still 98% compliance compared to 2% non-compliance. and with that, i am happy to take any questions. >> seeing none, mr. straun, thank you for your update. >> 12-c update on major projects. >> good afternoon, tom hui, department of building inspection. as you see the major project change [indiscernible] any question? >> nope. steady as we go. thank you. >> thank you, 12-d. update on code enforcement. >> i will be as brief as possible, because i know

there's another meeting behind us. numbers for july. i.d. building inspection. complaints 356. complaint response 24-72 hours, 329. notice of violations september, 57. complaint received and abated 153. abated complaints with notice of violations 29. second notice of violations referred to code enforcement 23. outstanding inspections performed 1,052, complaints received 416, complaint response 24-72 hours 408. complaints with notice of violations issued 141. abated complaints with n.o.v., 43 the. 36, routine inspections 117. number of cases sent to director's hearing from code enforcement, 119. number of order abatements

issued 39. number of cases under advisement 8. number of cases abated 73. code enforcement inspections performed 276. and cases referred to b.i.c. litigation committee 1 and case referred to city attorney zero. thank you. >> any questions? thank you. any public comment on director's reports 12 a-d? seeing none. item 13, approval of minutes. >> move to approve. >> second. >> motion and a second. any public comment? seeing none. are all commissioners in favor? aye. any opposed. the minutes are approved. the next item is adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> motion and a second.

commissioners in favor? we are now adjourned. it is 1:35 p.m. >> thank you, sonya. [adjourned]

>> this is regular meeting of the abatement apeels board. i would like the remind everyone to please turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum and the next item is item b, the oath. will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand? do you swear the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? [response] thank you. you may be seated. ok. >> let's do this. i just wanted to -- for the record -- to state the time allowed for the cases. the department will present their case first.

and then the apel lanlts. each side has seven minutes to present their case. next will be public comment and members will have three minutes each to speak. and lastly we have rebuttal time of three minutes for the department and then the appellate. the next item is item c, election of officers, president and vice president. discussion and possible action to elect a president and vice president of the abatement appeals board. >> do i have any motions? >> we have a motion to approve. >> it's actually -- i would like to entertain a motion or make a motion to nominate commissioner warshall as president and commissioner lee as vice president. >> second. >> would you guys like to

accept that -- [laughter] >> go ahead. >> any objection to that? >> no objection to that. a bit of surprise. but no objection. thank you. >> that's what happens when you go away on vacation. >> thank you so much. >> thank you, commissioner. >> so, there is a motion and there is a second. ok. is there any public comment on the motion? seeing none, are all commissioners in favor? >> yes. >> yes. >> then thank you. congratulations to our new president and vice president. item d, approval of minutes. discussion of possible action to adopt the minutes for the meeting held on june 20, 2018. >> i have a question on the minutes. >> sure. >> i refused item e and on the

notice of decision section, it says the a.a.b. made the following decisions. did we do that? i don't know if we did. because we continued the matter. just curious. >> i'm not sure. i could have been incorrect. i'd have to double-check that. i'm not certain. we could -- we can make that correction if that's an issue. we would just correct it. >> so -- >> continue these minutes. >> have the sentence struck out. >> what page is that on? >> item e, the continue appealed on page -- this is one, two, three, four -- page five. >> ok. >> notice of decision. the last sentence. it says the a.a.b. made the following findings and decisions. and so on and so on. i think that should be struck out because we continued the matter. >> ok. if we make that adjustment, are

you ok with approving the minutes? ok. so, we'll make the correction before the final minutes are approved. is there any public comment on the abatement appeals board minutes? ok. seeing none, are all commissioners in favor once we make the correction? >> aye. >> any opposed? ok. then the minutes will be approved. ok. item e. new appeals, order of abasement. case number 6847 57 taylor street. owner of record apel lanlts. 57 taylor l.l.c.1 place street. action requested by apel lanlts and extension until october 2018 to complete electrical upgrade. would the department like to come forward? i'm sorry. the department has to present its case first and then the

apel lanlts will go. sorry about that. >> good morning, all. a complaint was generated by electrical department for 57 taylor. itselfer was reviewed and investigated by the electrical department. notice of election was issued on june 28, 2017 for inadequate electrical service and noncore complaint wiring in violation of electrical service. so it's related to code enforcement and it's the outstanding, all the [inaudible] haven't corrected. there is an electrical permit to comply, but hasn't been

corrected yet. established recommendation is to uphold the order of [inaudible] and oppose the assessments of cost. >> so, can you -- i'm looking through here. when was the -- ok. when was the permit taken outs to do this work? is that -- -- i'm looking at the -- >> the permit was issued on -- >> july 18? >> actually, there's a permit issued on june 22. i have an electrical permit that was issued. >> and then it expired. >> it hasn't expired. but the work hasn't been completed to correct the notice. >> thank you.

>> excuse me. would the apel lanlts like to come forward? >> good morning. my name is david thomas, owners rep for 57 taylor. just to give some quick background of this case and i have the property manager here and our project manager for the electric upgrade. this case was originally opened in may 2016 prior to our ownership of the building. and at that time no, n.o.v. was issued. there was just a side observation of inadequate electric.on june 28, 2017, the n.o.v. was issued and that was the exact day we purchased the building. so, we kind of got an n.o.v. on our day the very first day of

ownership on a case that had been open for over a year at that point. during that year, previous ownership, a deal was made with d.b.i. that no permits would be pulled on the building until the electrical upgrade was complete. currently in the building we have nine units that are off-line plus the commercial space as we've kept with that same standard, not pulled any permits on the building and not done any work pending the completion of this electric upgrade. so, we do have off-line housing and we're incutinger about a $30,000 a month revenue loss until this electric upgrade is xlaoe. as soon as we purchase the building, june 28, we quickly mobilize to work with pg&e and our electric contractors to get electric upgrade done and i'll give an explanation of our progress. >> great. >> good morning. i'm a project management consultant specializing in pg&e upgrades. we do about 30 or 40 electrical jobs a year. we have a good relationship with pg&e. we took this project over.

there was already an open application. we had what was called an empty file so i completed the design. in fact, yesterday i got the approved pg&e drawings. canning electric pulled the electrical permit and we have an approved design from pg&e. and i have copies of this if we need to submit this for anybody's records. but that is the approved pg&e drawing. they're processing the contract. we're commited to doing this job because of what dave alluded to earlier. we have a lost revenue and we're motivated to get this service up and running. so, we're -- we started work yesterday. we started receiving some of the electrical gear i was hoping to have photos of the project thus far. but i don't have that. >> through the chair. when was the application filed with pg&e. >> it was filed by prior ownership some time in -- i want to say -- >> it is in your notes. it doesn't say when.

but when the case was opened there was already a project application that was in but like what i said i had what was called an empty file, there was no -- >> yeah. so there was no submit -- >> it was just an open app with nothing. >> it was open when the -- in 2016? >> yeah. so, you go online with pg&e, you can open up an application to have a reference. but if there is no substance it to, there is not a true project or design going. >> when were you brought in? >> when we acquired the -- actually, it was brought in because they're my main client. during due diligence when we went through the purchase of this 11 building portfolio. so, i was actively involved in the acquisition and we noticed that this particular building was in trouble. because i knew it was undersized and we knew the vacancies and i know the inspector, mr. van cole would not pass and inspect before it got in -- >> so it's taken a year to get to this point? >> that's standard.

pg&e has lost a lot of resources. you've hear. everybody's business si. it's just like every other city agency i deal with as well. >> not city, but -- maybe if they were, we wouldn't -- >> public. we are rolling, trust me. >> you can't blame this one on us. >> what's that? >> you can't blame this one on us. >> no. law officer laugh no. >> no, pg&e, we understand that the application is minimum six to eight months' process if everything is going right. >> and i got early releases on the switch gear. so everything is on a schedule. >> it's a complicated journey. >> and d.p.w. permits going in. there's still some design elements. >> does pg&e still need to do any sfwhork do they have to come out to the site as well? >> i'm sorry? >> will pg&e need to come out to the site as well? >> i'll have to review this drawing. but, yes, they will -- >> ok. >> at minimum, drop the transformers and pull the --

>> the reason why i ask is that i know your appeal requested an extension until october. how likely is pg&e going -- >> not likely. >> that is going to be tight. it's possible. but i'd have to call in some favors and get some acceleration on that. which i'd like to. go ahead. >> when we filled out the appeal paperwork, october -- i think it was back in june we filled out the paperwork. october at that time was our best guess but it depended on when we got these drawings back to pg&e. it may be that there is appeal to push out the paperwork. we may potentially have extra time to work with pg&e to get this done. >> may i say d.p.w. because i have to have the approved drawing before d.p.w. gives me an encroachment permit, which i have contracted. but that's going to be critical path. so that's likely to push that -- >> is the building empty? is the building -- >> no.

there's nine vacant units and 113 residential units. >> so my understanding from what they've presented is that there was -- there is needed work in nine other units that have been delayed because they are committed to not take out permits until this one's resolved. >> one large commercial unit as well. >> ok. >> yep. ok. thank you. >> there public comment on this item? ok. seeing none, does the department have rebutttal? >> no. this time the permit has no rebuttal. >> could you clarify for me,

chair, so in 2016, we inspected and there was an -- there was an -- there was an initial notice of violation. it was basically trying to work with the building owner at the time to upgrade. >> yes. it was to monitor the progress of the service. it was a side visit by the inspectors. and that's how it was open. there was an application for pg&e that was proposing may of 2016. >> and so then in 2017 -- because there wasn't any movement, we went back. is that what prompted us? >> it seems the electrical department had communications with the engineer and there was issues with the sidewalk. so they were monitoring the case. but it seems like at some point

the case had no more action. and, therefore, the case had to be sent to code enforcement. so back in june of actually august 4 of 2017. no more action. >> but you're satisfied -- sorry. to the khaifrment you are satisfied that there is good faith effort in correcting this permit. right? >> yes. >> ok. thank you. ok. any further comment? >> no. >> i don't have any questions. thank you. >> ok. i'd like to make a motion that -- >> i'm sorry. we have to let the appellant have a rebuttal. or none? none. ok. no rebuttal by the appellant. >> based on the findings, i'd

like to make a motion that, while we believe the department acted correctly in making the notice of violations, there is good faith being executed here. and in the interest of having this as expeditiously resold as possible, we would like the allow the property owner to have the relief and i would propose an extra 30 days be added on for more realistic completion. >> yeah. i second all the above. i would be a little bit more cognizant of the timeframe and more time if it's within our jurisdiction to give more time. i'm just legally where we stand here. i would be more -- because i understand in the process. i think if we really look at this, they are october even is a very ambitious timeframe as

commissioner lee pointed out. so what are our options hooer to give they will as much timeframe, understanding the process they have to go through. and also considering the d.p.w. permit which will take a couple of months and that's for sure. told get processed. >> the code provides that if the board finds that there is not life safety hazard with this violation, that you can provide -- you can give them up to 18 months to complete the work. >> ok. so, i think al fair time would be january, i think. at minimum. and i'll be honest with you. in that interpretation, might need a little bit of time based on -- i don't think it will be the issue, just be the process. pg&e needs to drop in a transform tore a box is a lot. could be another three months, you know. as long as there's progress being made, i think that's the -- to me, that is -- >> fine. accept the amendment. amendment to january and that will give us the opportunity to

track the progress adequately. >> yeah. >> so let me clear -- be clear about what you're proposing. you're upholding the order of abatement and holding an abeyance until february? >> february 1. >> yep. correct. >> and fees? >> i would waive the fees. >> yeah. i'm not interested in penalizing here. do we have that autonomy there? >> all right. so if we have to, the most least amount. >> are you asking me? >> yes. sorry. city attorney. yep. >> i believe you -- >> we can waive -- >> the d.b.i. imposed on them improperly in order to waive them completely. >> would be counter-- >> to the smallest amount, i guess. is that right? >> what is the minimum amount that -- they weren't written

improperly. >> right. the $50 monitoring fee can't be waived. so you could reduce it to the -- you could impose only the costs that are required by law. >> so, what is that? do you know what that is? >> $50 an hour by the ordinance forbids us from waiving it. the investigating fee, i believe, is $1300. >> that could be waived. >> no. >> so, ok. all right. what cannot be waived in dollar amount here? >> any costs incurred. >> ok. and that is the investigative fee and $50 an hour monitoring fee. >> ok. all right. unfortunately we can't, you know, the way that it's written, we have to charge those fees -- are you sure about that, that we have to? it's -- is there -- can we not

-- did we not before move the fee snout >> this is electrical. i think this is the first one you've heard here. >> ok. that could be it. >> with ours it's times nine and times two. you can drop the times two. but i believe with electrical, it's a investigative fee. >> ok. so how could we vote on this and be clear on what the fee is and all other fees that we don't haves to impose can be waived. >> you can call 'em back in january and we'll have it figured out by then. you can just say to come back and check in november-december. >> that -- can we do that? city attorney? could we pass the motion with the caveat that the fees will be determined at the january meeting where we're getting a check in from the project sponsor?

>> you're proposing bringing the case back here in january? i think -- >> just as an update. >> i think you could say you are going to assess the -- uphold the assessment of cost to the extent that costs are required by law with an intent to reduce that amount to only those requireded by law. >> ok. >> that's fine. >> we can't impose times two. i got confused. >> so, we can. ok. so -- so to the chair, to amendment to your motion, that we defer the fees and costs until an update comes in january-february when it comes back to us. >> that's fine. >> accept the amendment. >> in all favor. >> can we articulate the motion ?*irs [laughter] >> yes. we can do that. >> ok. >> so, a motion from president warshell is to oppose the order

of abatement, hold it in abeyance until january 2019, city code to be assessed at -- when the project sponsor completes the work. and the note violation is resolved. and the basis for that motion is that the order of abasement was properly issued to allow some relief costs due to their good faith efforts. is that right? >> correct. thank you. >> thank you. >> and roll call vote on this motion in just a moment. [roll call] >> the motion carries unanimously. our next item is item two, case

number 6848, 780 post street. action requested by apel lanlts. reinspection by senior allen davidson and reversal of the order of abatement. would the department like to come forward? >> sonia, is this working? >> yes. you just have to place your item there. >> ok. thank you, mr. deputy. and good morning, commissioners. james matsu, acting chief housing inspector. 780 post street is a 36-unit, five-storey building. there are full of tenants, many older tenants there. we received a complaint eight months ago, in january, from somebody that had fallen in the elevator because it wasn't aligning properly with the hallway.