as far as march the fourth, we did not get notification. had we got notification, we would have acted promptly as we did in this case of notification from sometime in october. i don't want any cost over and beyond the work that needed to be done. nobody wants to pay that kind of money. i don't know what's going on with the inspectors and where the discrepancy lies there. but it's all done. i don't know what else to say.

i want to make sure i get all the points and. i may be rambling but i don't want to leave anything out. >> at a hearing on march 4 -- what did they say to you at that hearing? >> they said that i needed to get the work done. that they notified me and went through all that and said i had 30 days to finish the work. >> and yours was to come in and get it signed off? >> i was supposed to call and make sure the work was done. at the point where i got the work done -- the same day of the meeting -- the person that was running the meeting said he did not want to see the pictures.

i called that day and left a message saying the work was done, could you come out and see a? at least the scraping part. that was what i needed to do was get the paint off and private, am i correct? >> i think you had to finish the project. >> from what i understand -- at that particular point, the issue was the lead paint and having the paint chips peeling off of a wall. i scraped it and private and that settled the issue about the peeling paint and there being any lead paint exposed. >> you never had a final inspection to sign off on what the violation was? >> the final inspection came

after i got notice of the directors' meeting that i did not get notification of. at that point, that is when i made sure -- i must have called him a few times at that point. he went ahead and set a meeting i think a week or two out and that's when he came to see the property. i am new to this whole process. most people are when they get some that might this done. the outgoing message that i did not have to leave any extraneous information, so that, i did. i just did not get a call back. i don't know how many times i'm supposed to call.

i left a message with him and his secretary or whoever is that answers the phone. >> any questions, commissioners? >> use strike me as a man -- is it just the one property? you have a rental property? -- who is in his property? >> my mother. >> and she passed? >> yes. and i moved in. >> thank you. >> of department rebuttal? >> one more question for mr. fleming. our chronology of events indicates that on november 3,

you had a director's hearing and you did attend that hearing. at that hearing, you got a 30 day continuance. >> guest. -- yes. >> but you said you presented a photo that says you have already done the removal of the lead. so in your mind when you left on november 3, you believe you had filled the obligation? >> i believe when i went there and was offering to show the picture, that the work done, he said i don't need to see it, at that point coming to me and you to call -- >> and have him cannot to see that you had done the work? >> yes. to make sure he was going to

come out again -- i do know that i called him and expected him to call back. >> our record indicates on december 30, a reinspection notice was posted that indicate the violations or some of the violations remain outstanding? it says directors hearing, notice posted. >> does that mean it was posted on the home? >> yes. >> that did not happen. >> you did not get that posting? >> that notice said the inspector noticed certain violations remain outstanding. it says on january, the next month, there is a second directors hearing and the property owner received a seven-

day order of abatement on those outstanding matters. did you get that? were you aware of that? >> after the directors' meeting? i got that one. >> when you talk back with the department, were you clear about what the outstanding obligations were? there was apparently something else left. our record says general maintenance still needed to be done. i don't know what that included. >> it was all done. >> in your mind, it was all done in november? >> it was all done in november. >> our records indicate you received something else and

that's a discussion about some other items still in dispute but you were not aware of that? what i did not get anything else. as a matter of fact, i did give a picture of the work that was done -- completely painted and everything. i gave a picture of that to bernadette peres. that was supposed to go in my file and i don't know what happened to that. i guess it didn't make much difference because it didn't have a date on it. >> all i know is our records indicate things are piling up on you and you say you didn't know it. you thought you were finished. >> yes. >> thank you.

>> three minutes rebuttals from the department. >> i want to commend mr. fleming for giving us information on what he was aware of when he was going through this process. because the work as you can see from the photograph was not complete on november 1, what happened at the directors hearing was he asked for a direct -- for a continuance to get the work finished. eckhart showing that he or his sister did receive the information -- we have a card showing he or his sister did receive the information. when he failed to show up at the second hearing that occurred in january of this year and we did

not get contact from him and did not see the work done when the posting occurred in late december, and the hearing officer did not have any other information, the offer -- the officer chose to gave the order. if the gentleman could not make the hearing -- he was still in that process and he could have let the officer know we did not give any further information from him at that point. as far as we are concerned, the work is done after that second hearing. this is a situation where we do believe the property owner did do some very good work on this building but there were extended time frames and the city without a significant amount of time that otherwise would have been much more straightforward. at the hearing, i will tell you the notice of hearing is pretty clear. the hearing officer is able to answer any questions.

if it was unclear at that point that he needed to follow up on that, we do our best to try to follow up on those questions. i will not let them leave the room unless they are clear. i think your questions were good. i don't think there's anything else to add at this point except that we're perfectly willing to work with the property owner on this issue. >> i have a couple of questions. it may be the same question. who actually posted the december 30 as hearing and -- >> i believe it was the inspector. once we posted on the building, we don't know how long it's going to stay on there. we post a notice of hearing, a notice of violation, and the warner -- the warning boilerplate. [tone]

be order was the same thing. it is also sent by certified mail. why do we do that? because they have to sign it. >> you have the receipt that someone received the second notice? >> for both hearings, we have the green card. >> can we see the green card? >> the inspector is the one area inspected it on december 30? [tone] >> as you are looking -- it is my understanding there is something going on at the house and then there is written notification going to oakland to the sister. >> we are required by law under the building code to send the

notification to whoever the owners are on file with the assessor. at some point, that is where they chose to get the documentation and that's where we sent it. we also post 2 building, so both were open as you see from we included on our package and in addition to that, the building was posted. if it was taken down, which can happen, we do an affidavit from the inspector -- it may be back at my desk. i just had it in front of me. >> i have a follow-up question for the inspector. was the december inspection -- the work was still not completed. is that right?

>> do you want to swear him in? >> do you promised to tell the truth to the best year at college? >> affirmative. >> in december, when you reinspected -- to the best of your knowledge. >> in december, the work was not finished? >> correct. >> was it done as much as the appellants photograph shows? >> i know that the work was not completed. >> when you do the posting, and specter, do you take photographs? >> we do not. >> that is a procedure that you don't have to? >> there is no requirement to take a picture at that time. >> take a picture at that time. anwe are required to place the

document on the building. it does not stipulate where on the building. >> any other questions, commissioners? >> one last thing come up when you did their reinspection you posted it again that said you were there and nobody was there to show you around? >> there was no time during my interactions with this property did i ever step foot inside. >> thank you. >> any other questions for the staff? >> i am actually sympathetic to this homeowner. i believe that -- >> are you deliberating now? i want to make sure we close the

questions. >> final rebuttal? >> if there are no more questions, we should have a rebuttal. >> i am sympathetic i also know about neighbors and anything can happen to those notices. rosemary, when you said we're willing to work with a homeowner, what specifically did you have in mind? as you said, i am sympathetic to the property owner as well, but as you can see, they were aware. they have the legal notice with respect to the hearings. they asked for a continuance and

got that. at any point in time have they communicated that the work was done, we would not be here today. and from that standpoint, we would definitely -- it is the pleasure of the commission to reduce the amount, we would be happy to do that. the billing has already been conservative, but we would be more than happy to look at that again. >> three minutes for rebuttal. >> it is my understanding that when we received a certified mail we have to sign for it.

the only piece we ever signed for was the one you have on the back of your packet. this one and the one in january. right after the january meeting was when weaver notified we did not make a -- when we were notified we didn't make the hearing. this one, and i do not see anything else in the packet that has my signature, or my sister, or her husband's signature on

it. i am not sure exactly. i believe we're supposed to sign for this when we get it. there are only two. are we supposed to have certified mail with every correspondence they send to us and baldin? >> so there are two receipts that are the only things we sent out, which is for the notices of both of the directors hearing, that you received both of them or the representative of the oakland address. both of them were received. those were the notices about the director's hearing. one of them you missed, and one you were there.

the first when you came to. the notice on a 10-22. the one that was delivered was the second directors hearing, which shows the same person received it. one--- 12-02 was the director's hearing. the 2-9-12. >> ok. we received it on 2-9-12.

>> i have a question from staff. so at the directors hearing, the first one was 11-312. -12. this is mark received. the date of delivery on the card is 2-9-12. i will show you. that would mean it was delivered after the hearing. >> it went out 10 days prior.

if there was an issue being delivered by the post office, only that it went out and plenty of time for the hearing. where it says received, that is back to the department. >> the date of delivery is 2-9, so the appellant has a point about not receiving notice. it does not mean that was not posted on the house and does not mean the work was done, but i am concerned about that as evidence in this case that you received the notice. >> what you are talking about is the date of delivery of the upper corner. it does say 2-9-12. why that is the case, i did not know. this went out way before the hearing. if that is the case and did not

get the effective notice of the second directors hearing. >> correct. in a timely fashion. >> in a timely fashion. that is correct. it does appear he was still in violation. the question is, he was given a continuance, and an order was issued. he did not haveor that, so we have a couple of choices. the work is done. you could excuse the assessment of cost. it is up to you, because he showed you information of the work was done. you can step into the shoes of the hearing officer on that issue. that is what the code said. it is up to you at this point. not something we can control.

had i seen that, we could have resolved it sooner. >> is there a reason why we do not take photographs of were riposte the science of the building for own files? >> we do take photographs of so many things, but right now with the tracking system we have to be able to attract the photographs would be onerous for us to do so. we're trying to do so much case management. we have in some instances done that on the emergency orders. >> it seems to me you will send someone all the way out to the house and put it on the building and the photograph and come back and put that in the final period anfile. >> for certain are emergency orders we have done that to make sure we have the documentation. and i cannot speak to other

divisions, but we have done that and other instances. we are happy to do so. it will take a bit to be able to do that. to g>> is at the simple processf taking the photographs of putting them on the computer and putting them in the file? to go we could do that. it is tracking them. going back to them and make venture that someone put a date and who took the photograph. ultimately under the new system we will be able to do that easier. it is just another step. we're happy to do it. >> you spend a lot of time to do this. i do understand that the commissioner spoke to that point. it does close the gap that it was put on the side of the building. and because i think it is important to this complaint. there was never something put

there. it would help the commissioner knowing it was put on the right building and was there. >> also there is something i should let the commission know. with respect to the notice of violation, we're still in a situation where there was a 30- day notice where we were not in compliance. the property owner had a year come in because of the volume of cases we are going through for the complaints, routine inspections, we may get some of this discussion a little bit later, but keep in mind as far as tracking all of this, there is responsibility on the part of our property owner to communicate with the staff. without the cooperation, we will not be able to get these done in a timely way. we're more than happy to do that. i think it is an excellent idea. we will stress that as soon as possible.

>> there apparently was a phone call that went into this. any record of the phone call coming in? >> not that the inspector recalls. >> we should move to public comment if there is any public comment? to go there is public comment on this item? to >> a motion? >> i think we have problems with noticing the second directors hearing. i think it does not, for me, may genegate the violation efforts our department has made, but the appellate lost the ability to come back, or we do not have

proof he was officially notified in time. i think i would like to make a motion that uphold the violation, but reduces the penalty significantly to a quarter of what it was. the work seems to be done at this point. hopefully we can resolve this by that. to go a second? >> second. >> uphold it if the department action denied the appeal and reduced the penalty to 200. i think it would modified. >> modified to reduce the assessment cost. >> thank you. >> a second? >> i second. a first and second with the motion to modify.

and reduce the assessment of cost. down to $200. take a roll call? is there any public comment before we go with the motion? he and nunnseeing none, [calling roll] the motion carries it unanimously.