to ask the department to bring back a different proposal. out

board today. >> supervisor fewer: okay. i think i'd like to make a motion to do that. cope cone okay. miss gorman, did you have anything you'd like to say? >> no. >> president cohen: okay. supervisor fewer, you can make a motion now. >> supervisor fewer: we're going to accept the amendment as -- >> president cohen: let me take a stab at it. we're going to accept the amendment that the budget analyst is recommending, modifying the square footage figure, and then, we will accept the lease as written and forward that with a positive recommendation to the full board. >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> president cohen: all right. >> supervisor fewer: okay.

>> president cohen: we can take that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: thank you. thank you very much. madam clerk, could you please call items eight, nine, and ten together. >> clerk: yes. item number eight, resolution retroactively approving a contract agreement with baker place for behavioral health services in an amount not to exceed approximately 55.4 million for a total contract term of july 1, 2018 through june 30, 2022. item number nine, resolution retroactively approving a contract agreement for behavioral health services in an amount not to exceed 40.5 million for a total contract term of june -- joule 1, 20 -- july 1, 2019 to june 30, 2022. >> president cohen: all right. thank you. so we've got three resolutions

for contract amendment agreements in there for mental health care services across the continuum of care, and we've got michelle ruggles from the department of public health here to present. thank you. >> yeah. so the first contract is baker places. it is, as you mentioned, it's 55 million for the term of the contract. it's about $12 million peryear. actually, with baker, it is mental health, but really, more, what's different in this contract, it's a new contract, actually, as a result of a solicitation which was recently completed, and this is the implementation of something new in the city called the organized delivery system which came out of a state -- a federal waiver through the state. and what this is allowing us to do is basically provide an organized delivery system with the goal of improving treatment by being more coordinated from

a city perspective and a department perspective, we'll be managing a substance abuse department managed care system. but it also expanded the he eligibility of services that were available under drug medi-cal, and so services that we've provided most of our residential treatment that could not drawdown medi-cal, we're now able to drawdown medi-cal. what it means to the provider, which in turn will be a benefit to the clients, is that the treatment -- some of the changes are the treatment will be more medical and professional, moving beyond peer support. there's a requirement for evidence-based care, and then outcome measurement. so this is a very transform atiff change to the city, which we're very grateful that our

former director, barbara garcia was behind. baker places, the program looks the same from the prior contract. there's ten programs. all the sites, the names, the residential treatment, they're all the same, but they're moving forward under this new solicitation with the new requirements for them and an improvemented treatment system, we believe. and i think this recommendation was approved, so we're in full support. >> president cohen: thank you. thank you, michelle. let's hear from the budget legislative analyst's office. >> good morning. so each of these three contracts, one with baker place, the one with seneca center, and the one with healthright 360 all were selected through a competitive process in 2017. they've all been on an interim contract while the department was going through negotiations, and all of them are for retroactive approval back to july of 2018.

we have reviewed them, we recommend approval for all of them. for item number nine, we do actually have a clerical clarification, that the contract amount is not to exceed $40,429,444, which is different than what is stated in the contract and resolution. and for item number 10, the proposed contract with healthright 360, neither the resolution nor the contract itself has an extension option, but in our discussions with the department and they've forwarded to us the actual r.f.p. that was submitted, there was supposed to have been a five-year extension option, so we're recommending an amendment to the resolution to provide for an option extension through 2027, otherwise, we recommend approval. cone do >> president cohen: thank you. we'll take that recommendation.

we're going to go to public comment. public comment is open for items eight, nine, and ten. >> these kind of situations here, you always appear to be on the right track, but it bothers me and irritates me because these kind of programs are providing services to the most disadvantaged people in the city. you turnaround and give million trillion and billion dollar breaks to billion and trillion-dollar companies that don't need a break. and then, when a department is helping the most vulnerable people that need help, it's not getting no break. twitter has got tax free money from this city of unpaid taxes which is less than half of the amount of money that's being proposed and asked for by the previous speaker. and along with the other high tech companies.

so in order to level the playing field, give them a break. i think they should get approximately $5.5 million more than what they're asking for in order to level the playing field. they're the ones that need a break. people shouldn't have to come in here and plead like this to you to help the people that's most vulnerable and economically disadvantaged, a combination of both mental and physical disabilities when you give million of free money that's untaxable to the high tech companies. her department herself, they're paying payroll taxes. it's not fair. it's not fair. so when people come up here and is for money for services for people that are most vulnerable, whatever they're asking for from here on out, give them $5.5 million more than what they're asking for. i repeat, any department or any

organization such as the hospitality house, providing services for people that's homeless in the shelter system, $5.5 million more than what they're asking for. >> president cohen: thank you. is there any other speaker there? seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: i have a question for you, miss rugals. i want to know the metrics that we use to evaluate and their success. >> well, we could an annual monitoring -- we do an an monitoring, but as a general, it's looking at recidivism, it's looking at, you know, how many people get into the programs, how long they stay -- i don't know, did you -- >> president cohen: so based on what you've just described, it's like a counting. you're keeping track on what the numbers are.

i want to know, what is the goal, what is the standard and, i guess, a clearer picture of the tool that you're using to evaluate these contracts? how do we know that they're successful, that they're meeting their mark? are we just using it based on the number of people that they're serving? okay. this gentleman seems to know the answer. >> yes. there's two staff that can speak to -- one, the seneca program is a children's program, and allison can speak to those measurements, which is really measuring change in their improvement, but she can speak to that. and then, jim stillwell will speak to the substance abuse measurements. >> president cohen: thank you. welcome. >> thank you so much. for the seneca programs, they're all children's programs, and they mainly serve children who are involved with the juvenile probation system or the child welfare system.

in san francisco we use the child adolescent programs. when they graduate -- and that assessment is done every year. when they leave the program, whether it's at the year arc, there's another cans that measures the progress of the child and the family while they've had the intervention of the seneca services. in addition for the seneca r.a.p. program, which is the biggest program that seneca has, in collaboration with our partners at juvenile probation and child welfare, there's a huge study that's done annually that not only looks at the cans assessment, but for child

welfare and j.p.d., it looks at recidivism, looks at arrests, and looks at child change of placement. >> president cohen: when you say looks at, what -- can you quantify that? >> yeah, sorry. so child -- both child welfare and juvenile probation have their own databases which track how many times a child has had to change placements. so as part of the overall annual report, they mine data from those databases to look at -- for a child that's enrolled in the program, they track how many moves that child has had because that's one of the measures as to whether or not the intervention is successful. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. and the benchmark that you're using, is this an industry standard? >> the cans is an industry standard. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. that answers my question. nope, that's it. to the gentleman.

>> thank you. jim stillwell, department of public health. so for the alcohol and drug programs, really, the primary mechanism is reduction in drug and alcohol use. the methods are the california out come measurement survey, and it's a fairly intricate system because the outcomes are compared also to the person's health state and their drug use, alcohol use at the beginning of the episode, and it looks at the change for that population. it's normed against statewide populations and also normed against city populations, so it's a fairly elaborate system without a single benchmark, but it is validated statewide at multiple places. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. >> in addition, we track 20 other variables, like housing

status, employment status, family education, legal, things like that, but we have a pretty clear idea of program success. >> president cohen: well, i know you have a clear idea. i was looking for a better clear idea. i hope that you as a manager have an idea. >> well, yes. >> president cohen: the only thing -- i hear all these qualitative words used to describe how you're evaluating. i just want to know -- this is a budget committee, so i'm looking for the numbers. how are we determining that these programs are meeting their mark? you know, i mean, this is a request for contract agreements on mental health care services across a continuum thing of care. >> probably the best -- >> president cohen: to be fair, we can look out on any streets in san francisco and say there's still some unmet

need there. so my question to you is i want to be convinced that you're being successful, instead of just asking for more money to reup the contract. >> i just had a very broad level. our programs perform at an average or above level when compared to similar programs, similar populations statewide. i would say the vast majority of clients have clear physical measurements indicating they are better at the completion of the program. to really -- i didn't really bring a complete sheet of numbers, but we can provide that. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. i'll appreciate it if you provide it, and always remember it's the budget committee. we love numbers. love numbers here. all right. let's go to the b.l.a. and hear what her thoughts are for these items. these are items eight, nine, and ten miss campbell. >> i think we did already report, but i want to point out we have a couple of

recommendations. on night nine, there was a clerical error. on item number ten, to be consistent with the r.f.p., we're recommending a five-year option to extend the contract that's not currently there. >> president cohen: okay. thank you. colleagues, are there any discussions? we've taken public comment. public comment is closed at this time. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: i would make a motion to approval the b.l.a. recommendations. michelle ruggles? the department was good with the recommendations, so i'll make a motion to approve this and send this to the full board with a positive recommendation. okay. thank you. mofrg on, item 11. >> clerk: approving a 2011 lease and use agreement between thomas cook airline limited to conduct information at the san francisco international airport. >> president cohen: we've got cassy widener from the airport

again. this contract was starting this past august. >> cassy widener with the san francisco airport. the airline, thomas cooks, has been operating at the airport under a permit. the item before you seeks your approval for thomas cook become a signatory to the irairport's use status. >> president cohen: explain to me a signatory status. what's the significance of that? >> so in 2011, the board approved the lease and use agreement with the 53 airlines that were operating at the airport. this is the agreement that is the mechanism that allows the airlines to provide flight operations, rent terminal space at the airport. it provides a common set of

lease provisions such as base rents and fees, permitted uses of terminal space. it's also the mechanism that allows for the airport to make the annual service payment to the city every year. it's essentially a master lease. >> president cohen: my question is they're not a signatory and now you're requesting for them to become one. i want to understand why. >> there are some benefit to see the airlines. they receive signatory -- airlines receive 25% lower landing fees. we are required to provide a little less in bond assurances, but it also gives the airport a mechanism for long-term planning for our facilities, flight operations, and to base our terminal rent space. >> president cohen: so i'm unfamiliar with this airline. is it a small airline? >> it is a small airline. it's a seasonal airline. they operate at s.f.o. july

through october every year. just starting last year, two weekly flights between s.f.o. and manchester, england. it will add thomas cook as a signatory airline. they will pay the airport approximately $76,000 a month for the season that they operate, which is july through october. because they are seasonal, and they only operate two flights a week, they are charged on a prorated fee perpassenger based on their use of the international terminal as well as their joint landing fees. the budget analyst does call out their monthly rent of $76,000 permonth and recommends approval, but i would be happy to answer questions if you have additional information that you're looking for.

>> president cohen: you've answered my questions. i don't have any -- i don't see colleagues on the roster, so let's go to the budget legislative analyst and here her thoughts. >> these thoughts are summarizes on page 30 of our report. because it only operates between july and october, they don't pay year around rent to the airport, so they're paying based on the airport's rates and charges which are approved annually by the airport commission. so for 2018, for their operating for four months, they would pay basically a service and charter fee totaling about 305,000 for the four month period. >> president cohen: you said 305,000. >> yes, for the four month period, and then they would pay a landing fee of 554 per-5,000

pounds of the landing fee, and these two change annually based on the airport commission's changing the rates and charges, but i recommend approval. >> president cohen: thank you. i take that approval under advisement. let's open public comment. seeing none, public comment is closed. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: colleagues, i'll make a motion to accept the b.l.a.'s recommendation and with a positive recommendation. can we take that without objection? all right. thank you. [ gavel ]. >> miss widener, you have a question before you leave, if you can just come over here. i'm going to call item 12. >> ordinance amending the administrative code to increase the hourly compensation rate of city contractors out of a nonprofit or corporate entity to $17 perhour and followed

tlafr by annual cost of living increases. >> president cohen: colleagues, this is our final item on the agenda. this ordinance increases the anyone mum profit for for profit workers on san francisco city contracts with certain exclusions such as prevailing wage contracts to $17 an hour, also beginning on november 3 of this year. this includes the airport workers who despite being dee contractors have been making substantially less than the san francisco minimum wage since they are located in san mateo county. i've circulated a few cleanup amendments that you should have before you, and it is recommended by the city attorney, and i'll ask him to explain, if he'd like -- no, i think they're pretty self-explanatory. all right. so the cleanup amendments are, i think, self-explanatory. i hope to have your support on this item. i don't -- i don't think we

have any other comments. i want to look to the b.l.a. and see if there's any remarks that you'd like to make. >> no. we don't have any new information since last week. i think we have both said in our report that the impact to the city would only occur if there -- at the time of the lease or contract renewal, but at this point in time, we don't have any numbers if there is a fiscal impact to the city. >> president cohen: all right. then we'll go to public comment. public comment is open. >> you're on the right track, but you're going the wrong way again. in your item, you specifically explain the annual cost of living in order to live in san francisco. you do the math on that $17 an hour, eight hours a day, five days a week, four weeks a month, 12 years -- i mean, 12 months in a year, that comes out to $32,640 a year.

every brand-new apartment complex that's built and housing opportunity comes out of the mayor's office on housing. you set the lowest income requirement to be a tenant at the minimum at a minimum of 80,000 a year, 95,000 a year, $125,000 a year, and then, you have the audacity to say that's below market rate and affordable housing. that's disgusting. that's called price fixing, and it's a criminal act, and i'm calling it to your attention again. you have an emergency housing situation that's declared by the governor and the city of san francisco and you're deliberately fixing these rent prices where people in low-income brackets can't afford to be a tenant in the building. then, when you have us out in the street, you complain about it and belittle us. it's disgusting.

u.c. berkeley just did a study on how this price fixing is the reason why you've got people that are homeless out in the street, and you use the word gentrification when the truth of the matter is the word is discrimination and you're displacing low-income people by price fixing based on the income of the high tech people. then you've got the poop squad making $86,000 a year, and they're scooping up feces off of the sidewalk. >> president cohen: thank you. your time's up. [inaudible] >> president cohen: is there any other member of the public that would like to speak on this item? all right. public comment is closed. thank you. [ gavel ]. >> president cohen: all right. i'd like to make a motion to accept the amendments. all right. and i can take that without objection? thank you. and also make a motion to

accept the ordinance and send it to the full board with a positive recommendation. and i'd like to make a motion to send it by the full body. madam clerk, is there any further business? >> clerk: there's no further business. >> president cohen: all right. we're adjourned. thank you.

>> good morning. today is wednesday, september 19th, 2018. this is a regular meeting of the abatement and appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to 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. will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you're about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge. thank you. you may be seated. just for everyone's information, the way that the abatement appeals board will work is the department will present its case first, then the appellant. each side has seven minutes to present their case. then there will be public comment. each member of the pub has three minutes to speak. lastly, there's rebuttal time of three minutes each for the department and appellant.

>> approval of minutes. the meeting held on august 2018. >> next item is item d. case 6849386 pier street. action requested by appellant.

>> we have multiple complaints, phone calls from this property, stating that since 2010 there's nothing that's been done in this property. it was a cottage that has basically almost deteriorated, multiple dry rot issues. violation 2010 to correct the unsafe condition, which requires that notice. the owner had a building permit, but later we found out that all those permits that were obtained, basically the building was rebuilt.

there's planning, zoning approval. we started getting the phone call. hey, this was exceeded, can you guys come out. we went out, issued a notice of violation for what we saw there. we couldn't get access to the property, but we got access to the neighbor's property, and we could see it. some of the permits ask for the work or the property to be repaired in kind, but, again, those permits never went through planning. it wasn't routed to planning. there are we wrote a notice to violation. staff is recommended to uphold the abatement and impose the cost. >> any questions?

>> no, not at this point. >> okay. no questions for you. thank you so much. someone like to come forward? thank you. good morning. the levinson family. mr. levinson is stuck in traffic. he's coming from the parking garage. over time, as you've heard about, the property became dilapidated. he was ordered to repair the structure. he did get permits, hired the contractor. the contractor went out and did the work and unfortunately found dry rot and removed more of the structure than was supposed to without the owner's knowledge or instructions to do that.

the owner is in a very unfortunate position that the contractor has put him in but diligently trying to fix the problem. at this point, we have this new nov because more was removed from the structure than was supposed to be. so we have filed applications with planning department for conditional use permit and a variance because it's in the rear yard. that's been, i will say, difficult dealing with the planning process. it's taken longer than we wanted it to. we're diligently pursuing it and i think we're approaching the end of the process now. we just received notices back from the planner who's reviewing the applications. i think the last thing he's asked for is a couple of edits to the site plan, and then i think we're going to have a hearing date shortly. so, you know, i appreciate everyone's patience on this.

we are doing everything we can. the goal from the owner is to save what is a naturally affordable housing unit. it's a small dwelling unit that's been here forever and ever. we're going through, i think, more hassle in the permitting process than we would if they had just wanted to get rid of it. they're trying to save it. so we appreciate your interest in this. we would be grateful for more time to finish the process. what is there now will require substantial change to respect the neighbors wishes to see less of the structure. so that's what we've gone through with planning, modifying the plans. pes coivich, the structural engineer is here as well. i will turn the microphone over to him. >> so planning has determined if the building was torn down. they're requiring an additional use hearing for permission after

the fact to tear it down, and we've been instructed since there's a natural affordable housing unit there, that as part of the condition to tear it down, you have to put it back. so planning has been very diligent to make sure whatever goes back is respectful to the neighbors. there was an issue about what got build was taller, and so a lot of this has been making sure that whatever goes back is as small as possible to return a unit. there was parking back there underneath the unit, so the parking is on the second floor, and then underneath. most of the unit is being put on the ground floor, and we're having to deal with the moisture issue of the soil. planning has reviewed the plans. they're now willing to move forward with some additional comments on dimension. when this started in 2010, the owner could have removed the unit, but he didn't.

he wanted to keep it. we're trying to keep it. plannings wants to keep it. i'm sure everyone wants to keep as much affordable housing as we can. we've been brought in. we were not the original people there. >> relatively recently. >> right. and we want to get a unit back. that's what is being asked for, put a unit back as part of the condition. and it's in the rear. i've been out to what is built. it's framed. i'm not worried about the safety of the building. it may not be there with my new plans, but i'm not worried about the safety of that building. >> commissioner walk sneer? >> i know it's hard to estimate the time frame, but can you estimate the time frame of the process for the hearing and building, assuming that there is a -- >> well, planning has given me three comments they want to check some dimensional issues.

that should happen within this week or next. i can get that and resubmit it. we're now, instead of submitting a brand new permit, they want to reuse the 2015 permit and the 2015 variance, so we've got to figure out a way to take my drawings and insert it into the 2015, which is some conversation about the exact location. i would expect by next week planning should have whatever they need to move forward to schedule cu. they're going to reuse the previous paperwork by the other consultants, which should be fine to schedule a planning. i would believe planning would want to move this forward because they're not happy about what happened, but they want the unit back now, which is what we're trying to do. >> thank you. >> i would expect a couple of months for the hearing. >> well, to get a hearing date. >> yeah. >> i think planning is currently scheduling hearings several months out. if there's a continuance of the

hearing, which often happens at planning, then, you know, hopefully six months, we'll start to finish. the request would be for a continuance here for a year but we're happy to come back so you're updated through the process. the risk here is if fines are imposed under the order of abatement, that starts to tip the economics to where it's just cheaper and financially feasible to abandon the project and demolish it there, but we don't want to do that. that's why we were requesting if you can give us at least some continuance and hold those fines in abay so it's not tipping against affordable housing. >> got it. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks for the drawings. >> can you tell me what was the

2015 permit application for? what were you trying to do? i have a follow-up question with that. >> it was to fix the dry rot. >> i'm not even trying to excuse it. >> that's what the -- i mean, that's what's solicited in the permit data, but what was the appellant applying for? the initial notice of violations for the dilapidated building, they obtained permits in 2010 and, i believe, 2012 to repair that structure. began construction and then removed too much. >> and started rebuilding beyond scope. >> so what was the rebuild? >> i believe that's true. i will double-check the permitting records.

>> then my follow-up -- [ off microphone ] >> my follow-up question is: what was the state of the building at that time? what were you doing? was there work going on? did it stop? what happened? >> the building was in pretty bad condition. 2010? >> 2015. was anyone working on it. >> they were building. the departments got involved, and it stopped. when it stopped, it was basically framed. i believe i was at a planning commission hearing where it was taller than it was supposed to be also. >> so it has been like that since? >> yes, it's been like that the last couple of years, trying to figure it out. >> that's what i was trying to figure out. thank you. >> are you required to sprinkle

the units in the back? >> that has not been brought up yet because i'm still at the planning department, but that may be a requirement of the building as a new structure because it's more than 75 feet from the street. >> yep. all new buildings have to be sprinklered per the code. just to give you a heads-up, you probably want to jump on that right upfront before you go farther down this road because that's a real problem right now. i'm not sure you're going to have enough costs to sprinkle to the back. >> water won't talk to you until you have something to show them. i worry about that too there are systems i've done where there's fire -- for single family homes, a water tank of a certain size -- a holding tank of a certain size, so you would have to run the line down there. i'm going to take a wild guess that's what we're going to be

looking at. we've done that on single family homes. >> okay. well, that's an option i never heard before. >> it's about bringing in supply is about $50,000. the system is about 30. it's not cheap, but when you have a problem getting water, this is a possibility, particularly if you have low pressure. >> that's good. >> yeah. so if we're talking time and schedule here, i really think you need to jump on that and factor that in here. i think that's going to be one of the biggest above and beyond all the others you have. >> thank you. >> how many square feet was it original original originally. >> it was on the second floor. there were exterior stairs to get to that, which planning doesn't want. i think it was 25 feet by 20. so about 500 square feet. it wasn't very large. we're putting it on the first floor. the problem is there's a section of the ground floor and i can't

solve the moisture issue. we're making that area kind of storage. we're going to put one bedroom on the second floor pulled in from the sides for respect of the neighbors. so by the time it's done, it will be roughly the same size of habitable to habitable. it wasn't very big. it's a naturally affordable unit. >> thank you. >> to answer commissioner lee's question, the 2015 permit number 201509096439, the cope of work is to comply with n.o.v. 3109999 and rear building and 201211144171 for reconstruction of the rear building. replace all rot in stud walls. second floor framing with new members. they're trying to cover that work that had been done by the contractor. >> okay. any other questions? >> thank you.

>> nice package, by the way. >> rebuttal? >> this is example of why we want pre-inspections. >> rebuttal by the department, please. >> we'll have to do public comment first. any public comment on this item? seeing none, department rebuttal? >> the issue with this case is it's been sitting there since 2010. there's also an abatement and appeals decision in 2012 to shore the building up. and so this is a good example of serial permitting where they get these permits and that permit, there was a revision to that permit in the same year. revision to clarify and structure information, removal of deteriorated roof,

second-floor framing, stud walls, and replace them per approval. and that is the permit that never got routed to planning. that basically gave them the idea they could remove the whole frame. it would have been a lot easier for them to work with the housing inspector, even get the building inspector involved. we have a system for emergency demolition purposes. one of the plans, they actually attach pictures to it. it's in file. it shows some of the walls in really bad shape. so that would have been the option. right now, we have a case eight years, and yet we still have phone calls complaining, calling yous y us and saying, hey, why is the department sitting on this case. >> what is the nature of fines and assessments? >> to be honest, it's been minimal. we tried to work with the owner. we put a fee and $15,000 worth of work. so we tried to work with the

owner on this. right now, it's all -- if he wants to get the permit and the monthly fees plus the final bill. >> so we're talking about how much again, approximately? >> a few thousand dollars. >> so we're not -- >> yeah. okay. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> yes, these projects, a few thousand dollars here and there add up. i do respectfully agree with you on the term. i don't see it as serial permitting because they didn't have to do this in the first place. this could have been removed. they were trying to preserve housing. there's no gain trying to cheat the system. that's one of the problems we're having here right now, you know, this 317. we're trying to change this whole operation code and demolition because they exceed the permit -- we're going through a whole re-education with everything on that. i see that falling into that

category as well. i think there's been good outreach now, particularliily p the here today. i think we're preserving housing. this is case in point of going what we have to do. if we can somehow support our commissioners and defer this, i do respect what you're trying to do, and it's your job to follow through with the permits, and i'm not trying to undermine that, but we have a good case where we can work with the particular appellant at this stage, if that's possible. >> any comments from other commissioners? okay. i think that we're all of a mind that we want affordable housing preserved in this city and as commissioner mccarthy just brought up, you know, this is part of a much larger problem that we're experiencing. you know, the illegal demolition

issue is one of the most sensitive issues that's going on in the city, and in one sense we're working to see that our standards and planning standards are more aligned. hope fly, we'll have clearer direction for you so we can go forward with that a little bit better. i believe we need rebuttal from the client at this point. >> if you read the notice, we didn't consider this an unlawful demo. you ke see how long it's taken. so we are trying to work with the owner. we've been trying to work with the owner. >> thank you. >> ryan patterson. i want to be clear.

we're not trying to excuse what the previous team did in terms of processing here and what the contractor did. it's hard to understand why they went through all of that process, but at this point, pat and i and the rest of the team are trying to do everything we can to fix the problem and get this housing restored. i want to thank dbi. i think they've been very diligent in staying on top of. this we don't fault them for this process either. just so you know what we've done, we brought in an architectural preservationist to restore it to the type of previous construction. we've gone through a whole long process. i think we're just about to the end of it. >> if there's anything we can do, we'll be happy to do it.

>> commissioner walker? >> i think it's laudable that there's an attempt to preserve this as affordable housing, but there was clear violations presented by the staff in the initial -- i believe it's appropriate for a motion to uphold the order of abatement, assess fees to the current date. hold in advance for a year and give this time to play out and hopefully encourage moving forward with replacing this housing. i think there's acknowledgment on both sides that there was problems in the beginning.

there's all sorts of things that are not followed in this case. i move to uphold the order of abatement, assess fees to current date, waive fees, as possible, going forward, and hold an advance for one year. >> would you want a six-month follow-up? >> it would be good to have an update periodically. yes, my attorney wants to advise me. >> i'm with the attorney's office. i wanted to make sure you provide a basis for your motion. >> the motion is it's clear that the initial demolition and work beyond scope in rebuilding the building was without appropriate

approval from planning. so this is a violation of both the legal demolition and building beyond scope. >> in terms of rescheduling this, are you contemplating just hearing from the parties about status? the board would not be able to take further action on the case once you decide it now. >> i think it's just informational. i mean, clearly, if we're giving you a year to do it, at a year this goes into effect. >> can i just restate the motion? >> please. >> the motion by commissioner walker is uphold abatement, impose the assessment of cost to and waive any costs going forward as possible. hold the order of abatement in advance for a period of one year from today's date. >> correct. >> and the basis for that motion would be what you stated earlier that essentially the abatement order was properly issued.

>> great. >> do i have a second? >> second. >> okay. >> there's a motion and a second. i will do a roll call vote. [ voting ] >> motion carries unanimously. abatement. e. continued appeal: order of abatement 1. case no. 6848: 780 post street owner of record & appellant: st. francis terrace llc, 1201 fulton street, san francisco, ca 94117 and david lagomarsino, 1201 fulton street, san francisco, ca 94117-1507 action requested by appellant: re-inspection by senior alan davison and reversal of the order of abatement. testimony, deliberation and possible action to uphold, modify or reverse the order of abatement.

>> good morning. the acting chief housing inspector, andrew clarks, declined to appear, so normally we would have our, the person who supervised this case come, which is senior housing inspector alan davidson. he's not at the office today. we asked him to come last time too, and he was out of the office that day as well. so i'm here before you this morning. case history at 780 post street, case began in january where we found a problem with the elevator. and we went over this at the last hearing. the case went to director's hearing, and that was approved by senior housing inspector alan davidson as well. the owner was given a continuance of that hearing.

the case was reheard. the owner was given additional time. the order of abatement was finally determined to be issued in june, and then this appeal was filed. one of the issues that came up last time was regarding cal osha. that's the regulatory body for elevators in california. here's a copy of the permit for this elevator. it shows that it expired in january of 2016. almost three years ago. >> november, i think. >> november, yeah. you are right. thank you. and then the next -- what happens then is cal osha sends a

letter to the owner. it says the application is being proce processed. it says the expired permit is considered valid by the state until an inspector can be dispatched to the inspection that's currently due. >> and is that the letter for this particular elevator or is it standard? >> it looks standard. >> so we assume they have complied? >> they said they complied. it shows you cal osha, even though it's been two years with an expired permit, and they're still not looking at this elevator yet. also at the last hearing, people were talking a little bit about signage, about how many people were going to be on the elevator, which could create problems in levelling the

elevator. this sign was up all year. so this sign was currently up there even when we had the last hearing, and we're still having these problems. we don't always go deeply into this history of every case that comes before you. but since there were so many questions last time, we decided -- i had my staff look this up. it's hard to see because it's very small, but each line here represents a case at this building. it has a history of elevator cases. one, two, three, four, five, six, and they began 12 years ago. so this has been a chronicle issue in this building that we consistently have to go out on.