studying mechanical engineering with a minor in electrical engineering and has done course work and i'm impressed with his enthusiasm and i'm already learning a lot from him and will help us plan what the next steps will be on clean pour -- power s.f. she's worked at the network and worked at the annual winter fest. she has extensive history in fund and in data analysis and i'm thrilled to have her join

our team in room 409. so the last item i have is just to a reminder we need to set our meeting schedule for 2019. i sent you and your staff some suggested dates. i will be bringing that for your approval at the next meeting. >> commissioner: thank you very much. colleagues do you have anything today. welcome leah and mark and thank you for your service. thank you. we look forward to working with you. thank you very much. public comments? >> welcome to the interns and just a request, to mr. goebel, if you could make sure mr. bautista is looped in to conversation the advocates around clean power s.f. to make sure we're on the same page

since he's advising you. that would be great, thanks. >> commissioner: new very much. next speaker, please. >> i'll give you background and history of the cab history. >> commissioner: that's the next item on general public comment. >> this is? >> commissioner: this is the executive officer's report. any other public comment on item 10? seeing none. we're closed for public comment. please call item 11. no action was taken on item 10. 11 is public comment. now, please, sir. >> i love these formalities. i'm michael spain and started in '71 as a driver. in 1977 the biggest cab company yellow cab company collapsed and

i with 200 people bought it and began to run it as a co-op. we had to drive to pay the note because we bought the company. so everyone before 1977 bought their taxi cabs either the way we did or from anyone who had a cab and want to sell it and get out of the business. in 1978 there was a sponsored bill before the voters and passed. it was passed in 1978 and for 40 years it would lock the industry into no sales. you couldn't sell or buy and everyone was frozen in time though the cabs became more valuable over time because of inflation and because the city inflates certain items faster than others.

and they tried to reverse the bad things that happened under prop k. that's why we have this situation today. what i'm going to say now is basically blasphemy in the industry. we heard a lot of t.n.c. and jumping on them. the big revolution has been the t.n.c.s. they've changed transportation drastically. as they cheap and the greatest thing to happen to san francisco in at least 100 years. and i stand to lose if this thing passes because i'm part of the pre-ks but i tried to get the industry to change -- [bell ringing]

[off mic] >> commissioner: thank you very much. any other public comment? >> i understand you're under a time constraint. i can come back at another meeting if that helps. would that be better? okay. thank you. >> commissioner: no, no, no. >> i didn't want to infringe on anybody's other appointments. i'm looking at the commission. i was barely aware of its existence before this came up and it seems to be a commission without portfolio that can delve into all kinds of things like a minister without portfolio in a foreign government. i see that you have this study that's going to be done on labor

and t.n.c.s and there's another area of t.n.c. operations that desperately needs looking into and that has to do with the safety of the public and the consumer protection of the public. there are a number of items under this i don't think are being addressed. certainly the c.p.u.c. is not addressing them. i spoke before about hours and shifts these workers are working, about their sleeping arrangements, about where they're coming from, how many hours they're putting on the road before they actually go to work. the kind of driving. years ago the police did a survey and found a disproportionate number were being committed by t.n.c. drivers and how many accident they committing or involved in?

what's the danger to the public from that and what about the counterfeit identity and most are driving without improper insurance. their personal insurance policies don't allow them to drive personally. this is an area perhaps the commission could enter in -- [bell ringing] >> commissioner: thank you, next speaker, please. > >> i wanted to talk about the same issues on the question of insurance. because i go to the c.p.u.c. meetings quite reg air will, they have -- regularly, they have a hands-off position.

they don't keep any kind of a database. i mean, they don't know who is driving. they don't know when they're driving and the biggest problem is they don't know when they're insured or not. now, one of these problems is the way t.n.c.s are set up is there are more vehicles available then there are rides and that's why you get rides more quickly. the only times that's not true is when they have these surge pricing etcetera. now, one of the things that happens is that these drivers are using business cards.

they give these to passengers and say, oh, any time you want to cab, call me. at that point, they are 100% uninsured of anything and driving entirely illegally. thank you. >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> carlo maron, thank you for listening. i think uber will probably be here for a while so it's not a sustainable model that won't work in the long run. i think the original investors and there's some very powerful ones the families of qatar and goldman sachs are looking for someone to take them off the hook for the mistake they made. it's jurisdictional dodgeball

and they acknowledged they lacked enforcement capacity -- if a lyft driver runs a red light they won't say we have to wait for a state inspector. this is a suggestion on thinning out lyft and uber in san francisco. there's 45,000 cars, supposedly, if we can get it to 25,000 and the people who prefer this service in the next few years can get a right in three minutes than one minute and we'd have less traffic and the drivers of lyft, uber and taxis would make more money and help the medallions too and would the

vehicle code to require a commercial plate. 100% of the cars don't have commercial plates. it underpins the fact they're committing insurance fraud and it doesn't eliminate the fact that t.n.c.s have liability insurance but allows predatory pricing by dodging overhead and millions of dollars are hitting general fund at the hospital because the insurance carriers avoid the policy once the fraud -- [bell ringing] >> commissioner: thank you very much. next speaker, please. >> hello again. i'd like to thank you for your voice of unity. i would like to stay united but it's difficult under these circumstances. we do have a major issue with the loans from the credit union no longer holding the medallion as collateral and it's cause

huge problem and part of the division too is when it came from going from prop k to prop a and forced us to lose our spots on the list i waited 16 years and nobody cried for us. they were ready to throw us under the bus and make us buy. money rules the energy and we mentioned lowe, ting and wiener and they're huge advocates of the t.n.c.s. it's almost impossible to support us though i'd appreciate their support. you go on twitter and everything they do and say is a big lobby for the t.n.c.s. it's very difficult. we're in a very extremely difficult situation and that's pretty much all i can say at this point and thank you for listening to us.

>> commissioner: thank you very much. mr. brooks. >> thank you aaron brooks, californ californians for energy choice and under the structure you've been discussing and i would urge they include studying environmental impacts in the same way jobs are outsourced overseas because countries have lower environmental standards. these jobs are being outsourced to the ride hail companies because they have lower environmental standards. that's one of the factors and because they play their employees jerk wages the way amazon does so that needs to be factors in because it's part of the economic equation the way the workers are paid and treat and how the ride hail companies get away with this and are under cutting the taxis. then i'll speak to the next item

to save you time, future agenda items. i would definitely urge you and the executive officer, since you're meeting every two months to meet every month if you can but since you're meeting every two months right now to definitely put the local clean power s.f. build-out on the next agenda because i'm hearing through the grapevine the s.f.p.u.c. will make a request to the board of supervisors for funding to do a build-out study. i don't think the s.f.p.u.c. is the right fit for that and would be better the commission that's been driving the push for a local build-out and the board of supervisors were to lead the charge on that and request the funding for alafco because it has the capacity to be forward thinking about clean energy whereas the s.f.p.u.c. has to be more conservative and that study should come through alafco and

should be on the next agenda so the ball gets rolling. [bell ringing] >> commissioner: any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is now closed. please read the next item. >> clerk: item 12, future agenda items? any public comment? no. public comment is now closed. do we have any other business. >> clerk: that concludes our business for today. >> commissioner: thank you very much. we're adjourned.

>> 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. it's building, hot water, a case in order to get them to comply. the elevator has been particularly chronic and a difficult issue. at the last hearing, the members

of the board asked me to check with our code enforcement outreach groups. our group in the tenderloin has a clinic, did some outreach to the tenants who were concerned about the elevator issues. they will probably be speaking during public comment. we had a very interesting letter from the landlord group, the san francisco apartment association, and the owner has actually been a longtime member of the apartment association and knows this owner well. this was strongly worded from charlie goss. this letter is to inform you your building requires a modernization to its elevator. if problems persist, they could civil section 1941.1.

given mobility, it's important you address this as soon as possible. this is from a group that know this is particular owner. there were questions also about the cost and the idea of displacing people was raised at the last hearing. i looked up -- we did some more research into modernization of elevators. this chart lists about 15 to 20 components of an elevator, including the cab and the shaft, the lobby and the machine room. all but five of these components can be restored by modernizing the elevator. there's only five that would require a full replacement.

now, i met with the owner after the last hearing. we have not heard back from the owner since the last hearing, but we did just talk a little bit before the meeting, and he showed me some estimates that were not in my packet that show a much lower amount and did say that it could be modernized from three different companies. so i would urge them to put it up on the board too. >> and we're requesting an order of abatement with these. >> commissioner walker? >> so there has not been any discussion from the owner with the tenant? >> i believe there was a discussion, and it was included in the packet, yes. >> is this -- i mean, it's great

that we have the new information about the history of the violations. it would be great if we could get a copy of that and maybe -- >> i could pass it around if everyone wanted to take a look at it. >> or just give it to sonia, and she can give copies, especially the chart of the other item you just showed about the renovat n renovation. that will be helpful because i think this is going on. i think that's it for now. >> okay. any other questions? >> of course. >> you mentioned about the five that can be modernized in san francisco. >> there's 15 to 20 categories, and the majority of them could be addressed through modernization. there's only five that can't be. >> oh, five that can't be.

okay. >> hello, everyone. glad to see you. the last time, i believe you asked us to contact the tenants and see what they had to say and see whether -- is this loud enough? i hope it is. to get a consensus from them on what their opinion is, what their references might be with respect to this particular elevator and following your instruction we sent a notice out to all the tenants, and we had a meeting at the building site in the lobby. there were a few tenants that walked in and out and did not actually participate in the meeting, but there were about 20

tenants there. so we asked for a discussion and we asked for input from them. so the suggestions they came up with, this is the package that was submitted earlier. they asked for a prominent warning sign. they said anybody who doesn't know of this issue can be notified of it. they said, yes, good. the second thing was adjusting the weight that the elevator is levelling at at some number that most closely approximated the most frequent usage of the elevator, and we determined that to be somewhere between one and

two people. assuming that a typical person weighs about 150 pounds, that we would set it at 1 and a half so if one person was there, it would be half off, and if two people, it would be half off and also telling people, don't load the elevator with more than two people. that's not always honored by the tenants, but we can ask them to do that. so i believe that that was done. another suggestion was to place a scale near the elevator in the lobby so that people could determine when they were going in there, whether they were going to be off from that and therefore it would mac the levelling be off. then also increasing the frequency of the elevator technician visits to keep making sure if it got off for one reason or the other because there's too much weight, et cetera, that it would more frequently be updated or kind of

levelled again. that also including new tenants, that when they're moving in, they cannot overload the elevator because it causes it to go off. and when they're leaving with the furniture, it would make it be off, and basically informing everyone what's going on. old tenants, new tenants, et cetera. we also went into some of the practical issues with respect to replacing the elevator. the architect was there. the elevator technician was there. we received information from other elevator companies. i can show you we actually submitted that information prior to the last meeting a month ago, but i don't believe that it was

in sufficient time for it to make it into your regular package so he had not seen it, and we were able to show we had done this further diligence and find ways to kind of modernize and do the self-levelling. but anyway, at the end of that meeting, it lasted for something over an hour, like an hour and 20 minutes, like that. we asked the tenants who would like the elevator to be replaced versus taking the measures that were suggested or some -- whichever ones could be implemented. upon the vote, there was zero votes to replace the elevator, and 100% to taking these steps that were suggested.

so there was basically a meeting of the minds between the tenants based on, you know, what their requests and suggestions were. so we have taken that into account and, in fact, we have -- i don't know how this thing works, but i'm -- >> you just did it, sir. >> yeah. okay. so these are just some samples of -- here we go. i don't know if you can read it easily. basically, what i'm trying to show you is, yes, we did do the signs as was requested, and then i believe the architect also did some outreach to the building department based on the suggestion, and we were looking

to see how we might be able to work with the building department so that in the eve eventual process -- i don't know what the internal process for that is, but presumably between the architects and the building department, city inspectors and so on, they will be able to figure that out so we're well-placed. and the question was, should we leave things the way they are until such time as the elevator cannot be repaired and at that point in time. so that was part of that discussion.

that's what happened. and, oh, i wanted to quickly put on this, these are some of the other -- i don't think it's very big. i guess you can see that the numbers they are quoting are like four or 500,000, all of them just for the elevator components, not including engineering and other expenses. so it's a fairly expensive process regardless, and i think the numbers that the architect calculated were, you know, considerably in excess of that because at least all kinds of an sill area -- an sill -- ancillilary costs. [ off microphone ]

>> hello, my name is rosa marie cavallo. we work with the housing clinic. we work in collaboration with dbi as we're a contractor for dbi. i am the program manager for the program. we do various outreach and take tenants who come into our office with various issues of elevator habitability issues. so over the last few months, we've had tenants come in and talk to us, slash, we've also done research of the building. the jostling of the elevator, the non-functioning of the elevator, the huge gap. it's a gap and it's also not leveling. there are kind of what we do to assess the building and see who's living in the building, there are individuals who are elderly, who have mobility issu

issues, who are a little bit worried about dropping items in the gap. one tenant, in particular, i know mr. sirosh is aware, a tenant had dropped her keys inside this gap, and she had lost her keys in there. i believe it was the 23rd of august of this year that mr. sirosh, who was talking, they did have a meeting with the tenants in the building. what i was told by tenants is that that meeting included discussion about voting on what needed to happen to fix the elevator, how tenants would feel about being charged for the costs of the elevator. one of the tenants, in particular, she was like, well, if we have to pay for the cost of the elevator, maybe it's better if the elevator is not fixed. it kind of sounded like