we are ready to begin.

>> good morning. today is wednesday june 19, 2013. this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president clinch, commissioner mar, commissioner mccray, commissioner mccarthy, commissioner lee, commissioner walker and vice-president melgar is expected. we have a quorum. the next item is item b. i have and announcement. there is going to be a continuance of

item b. presidio avenue. this case will not be heard today. the next item is b. the oath. please raise your right hand to be sworn. do you swear the testimony that you are about to give to be the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. be seated. item c. approval of minutes. discussion and possible action for adoption of minutes of april 17, 2013. >> move to approve. >> second. >> we have a motion and a second. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> all in favor? aye. any

opposed? the minutes are approved. >> the next item b continued appeals. i want to announce that since these cases were previously heard, the appellant and department will have three minutes to present their case. item e continued appeals for jurisdiction. case no. 6772 san bruno avenue. no. 1 to no. 4. richard thomas environment and land management. the appellant is requesting that the abatement appeals board grant jurisdiction. >> good morning. are we taking

these items individually or together? individually. in case of 6772, i don't have much to add from the last time this was before you except to state that the commission asked for a detailed table with all the information and i believe we've given that today and it's attachment a. in the back of your staff report and also for your convenience we have included the staff report with the information that we believe you need to make your decision and we strongly urge you on the basis that it's all before you that there is proper information that the appellant is given you to be able to take this case and in doing to mar our ability in both agenda item 1 and 2. and when we go to no. 2, i will be saying the same

thing. thank you very much. >> question. could you clarify, are these two separate properties? >> it is and because the applications if you recall you were asking for better clarification at the last meeting. the applications are very unclear. it seems they are both tied to some manner to both properties. we did not get clarification from the property owner on that. i can't quite tell. >> okay. the second question is how many orders of abatement were assessed on each property? two each? >> let's look at the tables because that will tell you on each one of the cases what there is. exhibit a is quite clear and identifies that for you. if you look at the exhibit

a for 6772, it identifies for each complaint when an order of abatement was issued. the first 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, 7, 8, 9 were issued. >> okay, thank you. >> any other questions? thank you. good morning. i'm david berry for the owner and for environment land management. since we spoke the last time,

as we described in the declaration of thomas, environment land management and tom have hired an attorney for substantial time to clear violations. she has met with andrew cars and had a very productive session with mr. cars to go through each of the violations and determine the steps required to clear each violation and also authorized the property management for elm to spend substantial time also clearing all violations, taking all steps required and obtaining all permits required. i spoke yesterday with the plumber to inspect the property and give us prices and he'll return to the property for additional estimates for completion of the work. it's

the plan of mr. thomas to clear all violations. the department has been very cooperative and explained the steps required to clear the violations and they have stated the various penalties that we are appealing from are negotiable or up for discussion once the violation are cleared. i have spoke with mr. thomas to discuss the case. we believe we have made some extent moot some of the penalties that are here in this appeal. the one thing that we are confused about and we are having difficulty with were illustrated by some of the exhibits in the packet. i have pulled them out separately for your examination. i will show what you they are. basically, on one of the items that's

involved in the appeal here, it's called violation 241 because those of the last two digits of the complaint numbers. this is involving the stairs of the subject property. this is in march of 2011. the building owner took the steps to fix that by getting a building permit and paid $2300. in january of this year, this work was approved and is cleared and got a certificate of completion. two months after that, this permit approval was revoked which means penalties continue to accumulate on this even though the work has been done and an approved and the reason why because of the gerard unit is on appeal.

>> thank you. >> there is no question from the commission, we'll go to public comment. >> you have a public comment, sir? >> you can come forward to the microphone, thank you. >> my name is jerald green, i'm trying to find out r you running this concurrent with 3580 san bruno too? >> case no. 6772 which is all the units, violation on the units. >> i have a comment. this activity has been going on for four years. it's damaged from windows which are disabled in

there. what was the we have going on now. mr. thomas had a proceeding. i gave you papers. he has been promising. he proceeded to fixing these windows without a permit. this is when he first proceeded. the window. this is what he calls fixing. see the hinge there? this is the next step after the hinge. now, my concern is on this, you gave him 30 days. i received yesterday a paperwork saying that he will check the unit and he's already have been, this has been going on so many years of checking the unit of rotting windows, so many

problems. hot water heater. i have a picture of that. this is him doing something without a permit. this stuff has been rolled up and seems like it keeps getting carried over. you gave him a 30 day situation. nothing happened. we've been waiting for him. did he get a permit to start on these windows? there is a disabled in there. i have been there four years suffering. what is the next step? what was the proceeding of this? why are we wasting each other's time here? something is not real here. i have been living in the property with a disable with a

horrible condition. i have someone that wants to speak here that represents disabled and represents seniors. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning. my name is tony robles. i work with senior and disability action. we are an organization that serves seniors and people with disabilities. our primary concern among other things is housing. we work to ensure that elders can age in place. and so much has to do with health and housing. we've been working to make sure that for instance,

living conditions in hotels are improved. we work to get an ordinance passed through dbi to ensure that grab bars and working phone jacks are installed in sro hotels or residences. i got a chance to speak to mr. green and miss brown who live at the residence on san bruno avenue. there are a lot of habit ability issues; leaks and problems with the windows. the windows are bolted down so if there were a fire or emergency, the fire department would have problems getting in, getting access. miss brown who is a resident there has some very significant health issues. she's a disabled elder who is trying to age in place. she has a care provider, but the health

issues that she has, the habit ability issues in the residence makes it a difficult situation for her. the temperature going to either extremely cold to extremely hot, the moisture coming in through various leaks, leaky refrigerator, the windows that can't open, there is problem with the windows and wiring. from what i understand, there has been on going problems with the property owner and other properties. there is a seven page article about this on going problem with this particular management ownership company that has this property that it's a long going thing. i think there is

something like 300 cases that have gone to litigation over the last 10 or so years. it's nothing new and we just want to speak to this problem because it's a huge problem in san francisco, problems particularly with our elders, with a population that is aging. we have to ensure that these mechanisms that are here to serve and to ensure that our elders can age in place that they function correctly and make it conducive to habit ability and healthy living. >> thank you. any other public comment? city attorney? is mr. thomas allowed to speak for public comment? >> the appellant speaks during the appellant's time. if the attorney gives the time. >> not very much.

>> you are not considered public for public consideration of comment >> you are denying me the right to speak? >> your attorney spoke for you. >> there needs to be said in rebuttal and i would appreciate to be able to say something >> i don't have a question. i would like to say that there has been nothing presented that gives us any argument for taking jurisdiction back on this issue and i would like to move to deny the request for jurisdiction. >> is there a second? >> second. >> before a vote, commissioner walker would your finding be that the appellant failed to show that his lateness in finding and jurisdiction request were in error on the part of the