government good morning. today is wednesday, december 19th, 2012. this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president clench? >> here. >> vice president mel gar? >> here. >> commissioner lee? >> here. >> commissioner mar? >> here. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> here. >> commissioner mccray? >> present. >> and commissioner walker? >> here. >> we have a quorum. and the next item is item b, the oath. will all persons that may be giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand? do you swear that the testimony you are about to give is the truth to the best of your knowledge? yes. >> thank you.

the next item on the agenda is item c, new appeals, orders of abasement. case no. 6766: 3825 - 3829 24th street, owner of record appellant, susanna shaw. appellant is requesting more time to complete required work. good morning, members of the board. rosemary boske, chief housing inspector. as a house keeping matter, i want to let the board know that agenda items 1, 2, 3, and 4 are related to the same property, which is 3825 through 3829 24th street. and those open cases were all considered as part of one order of abatement. so, i'm going to be addressing those all at one time.

the first thing i need to tell the board, ways not in your staff report because there were so many other details to include, and this there also include agenda item 5, which is the noe street property all owned by the same property owner who is here today, this is a city attorney case. these two properties and the third property at the 3300 block of 24th street are part of the city attorney referral that went through the litigation committee meeting and went on to the city attorney. a lawsuit was filed against this property owner in march of this year 230er failing to comply with the san francisco housing code, having numerous notices of violations and orders of abatement on the two properties before you and the other property. just as a point of reference regarding the inability of this property owner to maintain her property, the property that is now before you on the 3300 block of 24th street had to have an emergency order issued. there was a fire at that property and someone was very, very devastatingly injured at that property. so, it is not the staff's

opinion based on the information that you have detailed in the photographic evidence, the notices of violation and the chronologies that you have regarding both the noe street property and the 24th street property that are before you today, that these are cases that warrant additional time. the property owner has had sufficient time. as i indicated, allah suit was filed in march of this year. the city attorney is working with the property owner's attorney on this to get compliance. and with respect to the fact that a tremendous amount of time has occurred and we have the same pattern repeating itself. not unlike mr. blanding and that is a failure to comply or maintain the property in a timely manner. a constant failure to respond to notices of violation in a timely manner. a failure to take out the requisite permits and detail the correct description of the scope of work. there is a failure to take permits out when they are required.

reoccuring violations. so, we have a situation here where the two properties before you have been -- have had condominium sum subdivision, although it is our understanding now ms. shaw is still the property owner for both of the properties that are both before you today agenda items 1 through 5. so, that's the 24th street and the noe street property. and what happens is on the basis of site inspections, we find that these v. laytions reoccur and that a subsequent permits are required to do the repairs. there are -- there is a lengthy bit of evidence of of outstanding violations. the kneeled inspector is doing repeated reinspections and this is also * the -- this information is given to the deputy city attorney in charge of this. and it is essentially in their hands. so, on the basis of that, staff does not feel that this -- these cases that are before you essentially agenda items 1 through 5, warrant additional

time. the filing of the lawsuit will pretty much address these issues. so, that is our position. if there are any questions we'd be more than happy to answer them. i also have the inspector here who has performed those inspections. there is a tremendous amount of detail to this. i will tell you that if you look at the complaint, it's 20 pages, i stopped counting after referencing the eighth and ninth order of abatement. so, staff feels very strongly that no additional time should be given in the case. >> questions? >> appellant? my name is susanna shaw and i'm appealing. basically what happened, when i went to a director's hearing on august 9th, four of the cases i

had no idea they even existed. there was one posting on my building at 10 16 through 10 20 noe street. and the tenant there gave me the posting. then i went to the director on august 9th. that was the first time i had ever had any knowledge of the other four cases. they are from 2009. my address where i live is 3825 24th street. and those four cases involved units in my building and the building next door, but there were no postings. when i got to the hearing and i saw those cases, i never received them in 2009. i had no knowledge of them whatsoever. when i got the cases, i went upstairs and got the cases.

i immediately noticed that all four of them contained items. i went into -- i was in a bankruptcy -- i have to backtrack a little bit. i bought this r -- this was originally a 6 unit building on church. i bought it in 1990 and i was warned by the former owners that i had very difficult tenants and they had been partners for 30 years and they were selling because they couldn't handle the people. and i was [speaker not understood], and i thought i'll be able to deal with the problems. but they were very difficult tenants and i gave a legitimate increase in 1994 and they called the housing department. they got three other units to complain plus the building

where the fire was, 33 56 24th street. * and i had three n.o.v.s filed there. there were rent strikes. i had 16 death threat calls by the same person, hanging up and calling back and a sign on my door, lynch the landlord. anyway, i went into bankruptcy partly a lot because of the rent strikes and i finally [speaker not understood] in 2005. at that time i had three n.o.v.s on my building, 3825 through 29, and there were three n.o.v.s on 3831 through 35. and then there were about five on the building where the fire was. and i went down to housing and i wanted to start clearing the properties and i wanted to start on the building next door. i condo'd that, so, i wanted to get three separate loans.

and ivan [speaker not understood], i don't know if he's still there, brought out the file. one of the lists had already [speaker not understood] already come out and marked the list with about 20 items in red ink, each item in red ink and circled in red ink. he turned this back momentarily with a file machine. i don't know. and i said, ivan, someone already came out and checked this list. and he wheeled around and he said, you forged that. anyway, he grabbed the file. he wouldn't give me the copies. what had happened is these three cases appeared on my file report and you can't refinance your property until you clear the abatement. the lender will not go behind

outstanding abatement. so, i had to clear them. anyway, i came back the next day. i had never met rosemary boske, and i was expecting -- i had three condo conversions, this building -- in my building. dealing with the building department, very level headed, professional. that's what i was expecting. she came out with david gonia, who is the senior inspector, and ivan sarkeny and all three of them screaming at me in unison that i had forged this list, they were going to send it to the city attorney and prosecute me. anyway, what happened is i finally had to get my attorney in there to come and get these three cases. and i cleared them in 2006. but now they're reappearing on

these four notices that i got from 2009. one thing i have to say about just continuing about what happened, i did clear these cases in 2006. at the same time, then david gonia came out there. he's now denying that he ever cleared them. and with isabelle olaveras, another housing inspector. at the same time i didn't know this, isabelle a went to my noe street property and entered the passage way, which is unlocked, twice and wrote four pages of items including the back staircase which i had completed with a permit in 2001. it was completely redone. we took it down and put up a new staircase with a permit

plans. and i realized at that point that i had targeted by the housing department and basically [inaudible] building rosemary responsible for keeping up a toxic atmosphere in her department [speaker not understood] for years. she could stop it at any time, but she is keeping this going. frankly, i'm 62 and i can't take it any more. she said that i do things without permits. that's not true. i had these buildings were condo converted, at least two buildings. i have their certificates for final completion. i have the electrical permits for the heaters. i get permits all the time because as i said, i'm used to dealing with the building department and very level headed people. anyway, what happened was -- >> i'm sorry, it's 7 minutes,

time is up. i'm holding here -- they deny that i asked them, when i filed this appeal, i didn't know i had 7 minutes. >> five matters? it's up to you. they're your rules and procedures. because there's five separate matters, the department has presented in one, i'm not sure it's fair to limit her to the 7 minutes. >> okay. >> but it's up to you. >> three more minutes. okay. anyway, i asked them when i filed this appeal about those three cases. and she looked it up on the computer and said i had never cleared any case on that building. and anyway, i came down here the next day and one of the revocations is on file. i cleared three and it's on each one.

it's number 167 8 06. and what happened, i found out they destroyed all the case downstairs two years ago after [speaker not understood]. so, some things did not make it onto the computer, the records. i'm talking about the records department. some things did not make it onto the computer. and i mean, it's not even recorded that case, you know, whenever it was recorded. so, but i did go out -- i did abate those cases. and what's going on is they're wanting -- the reason these cases are included is they're highly inflammatory items. after the fire happened, there was a lawsuit filed because i didn't