Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 24, 2010 6:31am-7:01am PST

7:31 am
were referenced in the introduction. if changes the language so it actually ties said two additional revenue that comes in, -- ties it to additional revenue that comes in. on page 22, it replaces the current parking allocation with one based on the percentage increase or decrease in revenue from parking meters or off street parking facilities. on page 24 it clarified the should the board of supervisors rejected the budget, that it should be made first on any of violence made from the transportation fund, and on page 30 its limits the ability to
7:32 am
acquire or construct new parking facilities, so that is the summary. >> we need to continue to next week? >> that is correct. >> supervisor chu and sylvester elsbernd. >> i am prepared to do for my comments. >> i think potentially characterizing these amendments is a bit of a stretch. i would like to understand a little bit more. on page 22, all of a sudden,
7:33 am
throwing a hard figure into the charter. it is kind of a unique thing. what does this mean? $52 million, which will be adjusted each year based on calculations year to year. what does this mean? what are we changing? what does the effect? -- is the effect? i would like to understand, and i would imagine since this is the public's first review of this, maybe those who are still watching would like to understand as well. >> supervisor elsbernd >> with
7:34 am
respect to your question, on the parking and traffic baseline, that represents the dollar amount that appears to parking and traffic, that is now on considered to general funds that had been in the past for parking, and the item you are referring to allows the controller to adjust the amount of or down depending on the parking revenue. >> right now it is set, and you do not have the ability based on revenue. it is a hard number, and this allows it to go up or down. what is the effect of this? how does it change from this year?
7:35 am
>> it would change according to the change in parking revenue. this particular number is based on the baseline formula that had been in the previous charter, and now that particular amount of money would be adjusted according to increases or decreases in future parking revenue. >> at least 80%. is that right? supervisor maxwell: it is equivalent to 80%. >> if it is a percent today and revenues go up, the total amount would go up. if revenues go down, it remains until the amount goes down during get -- goes down. what is the purpose of this?
7:36 am
>> my understanding is that this is a legal cleanup that reflex what the mta would get from parking tax. that is my understanding of why the change needs to be made. >> supervisor elsbernd. supervisor elsbernd: i would ask supervisor campos. as you were going to your amendments, what are the others after this one? >> there is one on page 23 page 21. >> there is one on page 22 and one on page 24.
7:37 am
it clarified what happens should the board to reject the budget once the fiscal year begins, and there is one on page 30. it limits the parking authority limitation on acquiring or expanding parking facilities to garages. thank you. >> further comments or questions on the amendment? without objection, or do we need a roll call several without objection? so moved. supervisor chu: i would like to make a motion that would duplicate the file to create
7:38 am
two versions, one that is currently in the charter amendment that would only be triggered if we were to see an annual revenue increase, so one version would stay as is. the second would remove the set- aside provision. i understand there is discussion. different colleagues have different perspectives, and i would like to have those two options. >> second? president chiu: that is on page 20, and it is the last paragraph that is an important component of the originally
7:39 am
composed amendment. >> it has been moved and seconded. >> can i have are roll-call vote? [calling votes] supervisor daly: no. >> there are 10 ayes, one no. >> i want to thank everyone for the work that has been done on this. i do plan to continue the conversations that have been ongoing for many weeks as well
7:40 am
as in the colleagues that wish to take part us on the immediate reform measures that reflect why we are seeing this. if these conversations are fruitful, i could be prepared to wait to move forward. we all know we need to increase accountability. we need to make sure funding is in place, and the look forward to working on these goals over the next week. >> both of these items will be completed on july 22. motion to continue? supervisor avalos seconded by supervisor chu. this item will be continued until july 22.
7:41 am
will you please read the adoption about committee reference? >> items 58 through item 73 are being considered without reference. there will be acted upon by a single roll call vote unless a member call for discussion of an item. gerd >> would anybody like to separate an item? supervisor alioto-pier: 62. >> any other items? we will take care roll-call on items 58 through 72 except for item 72. [calling votes]
7:42 am
>> there are 11 ayes. >> the item is urging full pardon and allowing him to remain in the united states and continue serving. supervisor alioto-pier: thank you. and my main issue with this is a full pardon. if san francisco is backing of for all pardon, i would like to have an understanding -- backing of full pardon, i would like to understand what this is. in 1986, he put a lot of people
7:43 am
through a very traumatic and violent act, so i would like to have a better understanding of what we are doing, because i do not want people to be saying his acts should be ignored. >> to the question raised by supervisor all year to appear, he is somebody known -- to supervisor alioto-pier, he is a bunny known to the community and has set an example for young people. he -- he is now well known to the community and has set an example for young people. he served for 19 years within
7:44 am
the department of corrections. after that time, governor schwarzenegger allowed it to stand uncontested based on the tremendous rehabilitation he exhibited during his time in prison, and after that time, he has continued to demonstrate his commitment to the communique and has not only been appointed by the mayor to the council and has won numerous awards, but the real issue of is that it continues to have an impact on his ability to stay in the united states, and in 2006, this body moved to resolution asking the department of homeland security to ask him to stay in the united states because he did not have citizen status, and
7:45 am
when you are convicted of certain kinds of crimes, that has immigration implications. many members would like to assist him in receiving a full pardon which would allow him to rephrase that from his record and stay within the united states and move forward with citizenship. the cracks -- supervisor alioto- pier: i understand that. i would like more time to look at this, because the acts were violent and awful, and i understand these are the types of people we hope will turn around, so i would like more time to look into it, and i would ask for a continuance. >> i heard a motion to continue?
7:46 am
will we take that without objection, or would we like our roll call? >> without objection is fine. >> are there any memorials for today. >> today's meeting will be adjourned in the memory of the following individuals, for the late thomas f. eisenman, joseph walsh, and wilkinson, four media and on behalf of the full board for the late dr. jose. >> can there be any more business in front of the board? >> that concludes our business for today. >> thank you.
7:47 am
>> good morning. to date is july 21, 2010.
7:48 am
this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board. first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda is the oath. anyone giving testimony today, please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear the testimony you are about to give it is the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. new appeal order of abatement case.
7:49 am
the owner of record is karen. action requested this be abatement be ordered and the cost assessment fee be waived. >> good morning, commissioners. i am a senior housing inspector. let me give you the time line of the case. this is a single-family property. basically, our division responded to a complaint in august 2002, an anonymous complaint that a deck had been built without the proper planning department approvals. inspections confirmed this in
7:50 am
2002, and a check on the permit history, the inspector notice of violation of earlier in the year, notifying the owner to get the proper permits. on october 4, 2004, the housing inspector realized that no building permits had ever been issued. he issued a final warning letter. on april 15, 2005, the owner filed for the building permit, legalizing his death. -- deck. on september 3, 2009, the building permit expired without any inspections. our division, we had a new
7:51 am
division director assigned. from research, he discovered that the permit has expired and issued another final warning. on march 29 of this year, the officer tried to do another it out with some of the property but was not granted entry. she schedule this for the directors hearing. this is where the time line gets confusing. on april 1, we mailed our notification to the directors here. also, the owner had a building permit issued to correct these violations. on april 5, we posted the notice of the hearing and said certified letters to the owners
7:52 am
of record. on april 15 of this year, we had our directors meeting. the owner of record did not appear at the hearing. the hearing officer decided a seven-day abatement was warranted. shortly after that, the owner was proceeding with the work. there was no communication between the owner and code enforcement process. the process proceeded as the owner was getting inspections to comply with the notice. the hearing officer issued an order. it was posted on may 22. on may 28, the owner and received final inspection for the legalizing process for the deck and applied her appeal in
7:53 am
june. the appellate claims he did not hear any directives taking place. all work has been completed, approved by the building inspector may 28, 2010. in order abatement was issued prior to the completion of work. a couple of issues. the original violation was issued in 2002 but we did not get compliance until this year. we did send proper notification to the owners of record. we posted the building directly at the directors' meeting. the owner was in the process of correcting the violation when the hearing was held. she attended and stated the hearing officer most likely would have given her more time, a continuance to allow her to
7:54 am
get the work completed. unfortunately, she did not appear and there was no testimony on her behalf. so far, the department had incurred a cost of $1,378. these costs are for all the inspections, case management, clerical time spent on this hearing. i would like to introduce the chief inspector to discuss the change in title -- of title in property. >> very quickly. good morning. cheap housing inspector. there are a couple of things i want the board to know. when the notice was originally sent in 2002, the property owner was told if she failed to comply with in a timely manner, and assess the cost could be
7:55 am
applied. also, the two warning letters stated that. the fact that she may have been having problems with the male is not relevant to that from the standpoint that we sent the information to her as she was on record with the assessor. unbeknownst to us, she was trying to sell the property at that time and the title transferred immediately after the directors hearing. when we checked this, it did not show that because there is a delay with other city agencies as far as title transfers are concerned. it does appear that there is a new owner now. our recommendation is different because of that information. since there is a new owner, what we would like is for this particular previous owner to make certain provinces to the board that she will pay the assessment of cost and if she does not, i would like the board to give her time, 15 days to do
7:56 am
that, and if not, we would go after the current owner of record to ensure that the amount of time, eight years, to legalize simpledeck. there was a considerable amount of time that staff has spent on this. i would be happy to answer any questions you have. >> good morning. i am the previous owner. first and foremost, i want to address the last statement. the matter but the decision is, i will take care of it. i do not want to transfer to the new owners. that was part of the agreement, this would be cleared up. any payments that are incurred, i've will take care of. my biggest concern is the
7:57 am
receiving of information from the offices. yes, i have no disagreement in regards to the timeline, and i did apply -- we came in to request to keep the deck. we were given notifications that certain things needed to be done to the deck. i was under the impression, with architect at the time, that we were in good standing. i realized in 2004 when the next notice came that that was not the case. in 2009, i made the decision to sell the house. in doing so, i was able to get the money to make all of the changes that were needed. my biggest concern right now is the question of manpower hours,
7:58 am
all of this would not have had to happen if i had got notification. i find it interesting that i never notification about the hearing. there was something posted on the home but a certified letter seemed to find its way to my new address telling me what the decision of the hearing was. i do not know why i did not get a certified letter telling me that there was going to be a hearing. if there was a male cent, -- mail sent, i do not know wcouldt and i could have benefited from the hearing. even when i applied for the appeal, on june 1, june 2 i received the official notice of the decision of the abatement hearing.
7:59 am
on june 14, i checked on the status of the hearing. he said he would check with the appeals board and called me back. they told me the meeting would happen today. june 23. i called and said i had not received any documentation by mail. i put my current address on the appeal notice, so i do not know whawhy i am not receiving the m. i spoke to another woman and she faxed over the documents for today's hearing. july 15, the owner of 228 day street brought by a postcard. july 18, i finally received another letter in the mail. i have already filed a complaint with the u.s. post office. i have been told to go to nancy
8:00 am
pelosi's address. i put in a change of address july 5. i should have gotten this in the mail. i do not know what else to say about that. in regard to the timeline, i do not disagree with that, but the work has been completed. i do not think there is any question about the permit. >> thank you. any questions? >> so you are not contesting that you did the work, since 2002. i appreciate --