we were with him almost every day and his children, we grew up together and we didn't think of him as a commie and also the same with the other. he was just a family man doing normal things. no one thought anything of what he was doing. some of them were much more highly trained. it shows, in my estimation, in the murals. this was one of the masterpieces. families at home was a lot more close to the life that i can remember that we lived. murals on the upper floors like the children playing on the swings and i think the little deer in the forest where you could come and see them in the woods and the sports that were

always available, i think it did express the best part of our lives. things that weren't costing money to do, you would go to a picnic on the beach or you would do something in the woods. my favorite of all is in the staircase. it's almost a miracle masterpiece how he could manage to not only fit everyone, of course, a lot of them i recognized from my childhood -- it's how he juxtaposed and managed to kind of climb up that stairway on either side very much like you are walking down a street. it was incredible to do that and to me, that is what depicted the life of the times in san francisco. i even like the ones that show the industrial areas, the once with the workers showing them in the cannery and i can remember going in there and

seeing these women with the caps, with the nets shuffling these cans through. my parents had a ranch in santa rosa and we went there all summer. i could see these people leaning over and checking. it looked exactly like the beautiful things about the ranch. i think he was pretty much in the never look back philosophy about the coit. i don't think he ever went to visit again after we moved from telegraph hill, which was only five or six years later. i don't think he ever had to see it when the initials are scratched into everything and people had literally destroyed the lower half of everything. >> well, in my view, the tower had been pretty much neglected from the 1930's up until the

1980's. it wasn't until then that really enough people began to be alarmed about the condition of the murals, the tower was leaking. some of the murals suffered wear damage. we really began to organize getting funding through the arts commission and various other sources to restore the murals. they don't have that connection or thread or maintain that connection to your history and your past, what do you have? that's one of the major elements of what makes quality of life in san francisco so incredible. when people ask me, and they ask me all the time, how do you get to coit tower, i say you walk. that's the best way to experience the gradual elevation coming up above the hustle and bustle of the city and finding this sort of oasis,

if you will, at the top of the hill. when i walk through this park, i look at these brick walls and this lawn, i look at the railings around the murals. i look at the restoration and i think, yeah, i had something to do with that. learning the lessons, thank you, landmarks meet landmarks. the current situation at pioneer park and coit tower is really based in public and private partnership. it was the citizens who came together to buy the land to keep it from being developed. it was lily hitchcock coit to give money to the city to beautify the city she loved of the park project worked to develop this south side and still that's the basis of our future project to address the north side.

>> good morning. to date is july 21, 2010. 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. 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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. 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 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 -- >> in 2002, it was my issue because we thought that we were correct. in 2004, we found out that was not the case. >> our department has been

putting in a lot of work. >> my question is how much of that -- the way i understood what was said earlier this that all of this was put into getting this hearing. if there is a partial payment, i do not disagree that i did not get it done by a certain time line, but more hours were put in in the past three month that it now need to happen. my question is, it is it's still going to be $1 and dollars or will it be a portion thereof? -- $1,000 or will it be a portion thereof? i bought the building in 1999. there was an existing structure. i came from a small town in new york, with a different permit process, so it is my fault. we got permission to keep it

with the understanding that we had to make a few changes. i bought the property in the september 1999, sold the property april 2010. >> these violations were on there? >> there were no violations. if you read through the time line, someone in 1975 had cut the property back. when i took care of that structure, -- the property used to be longer -- so it did not take up all the property. because of the way that they cut back the property in the 1970's, when we fixed it, the complaint from the neighbor stated that we filled up 100% of the lot but i was replacing the existing structure. >> you got a permit in 2006 but never finalized the inspection? >> yes, because of money costs.

>> any other questions from commissioners before we hear public comment? >> i have a couple of questions in my head but i think they were perfectly into a -- partially answered. ok, i do have a question. why did you take so long to respond initially? you said you were in violation beginning in 2004. >> to be perfectly honest, this is the first building i have own, so it comes down to the ignorance. i thought i would have time. between 2006 and 2009, it came down to cost.

it cost $22,000 to get it up to code. i did not have not sitting around at the time. >> have no more comments. -- no more questions. public comment? no public comment? staff and a bottle. >> members of the board, i would like you to focus on a couple of things. i want to applaud the honesty of the property owner, knowing that our property -- process can be confusing. on the issue of sending the directors notification, the property owner can make arrangements with the post office but we are obligated, regardless of what the arrangement is, to send the

information to who is on file with the assessor, and we post it on the building. the matter what interracial and she may have made with them, we still would have sent it to that particular address. the amount of time that has accrued on this is not because of the hearing -- it is the time from 2002 to the present. it is not as if we loaded these fees from the last few months. since this is not the current owner, we have an issue. if she does not pay within a certain amount of time, and then we would have to send a notice to the new owner. we would not like to do that. if this is a decision from the board, we will have to take that

position. we will need to be reimbursed for the amount of time the amount would be up to the pleasure of the deputy director or director. she would like us to look at that again. that is what we feel good faith the amount is accrued, and that is a conservative amount, given the time that has occurred. >> questions? >> appellants, you have three minutes. no? ok. commissioners, discussion? >> i think it is clear to me the department acted, as far as our policy and handling these things, it has been since 2002. i would personally like to recommend -- support staff's

recommendation that we uphold this to get the fees and defer it for 15 days to accommodate -- whenever the record is from staff. maybe we could get some input from the other parties so that this is resolvable without filing. >> i appreciate that. the actual condition of the building has been fixed. is there a way where we can mention that we would like these to be recovered but overturn abatement? >> can you hear me? the board could move to say, if

the appellant had ex-number of days, then the appellate board would not support this. if it was a failure to pay the fees -- >> or in this case, we would have to renotice the new owner. perfect. >> just for the record, i will make that payment today so that we do not drag this out. >> 15 days? >> that is what staff requested and this sound like a resolvable situation. that would be my motion. >> before we take a vote, does anyone want to say anything? inspector green?

ok, sorry. >> that would be my motion to support staff recommendation that we pulled --upho uphold --y don't you read it to me. >> [inaudible] >> okay, great. that is the motion. >> second. do we need a roll-call vote? >> [roll call] the vote is unanimous. >> thank you.

we can now move on to item d. this is public comment relating to the abatement appeals board. >> are there any public members that would like to say something to the abatement appeals board now? >> seeing none can i have a motion for adjournment? we are now adjourned. we will take a short recess and be back with the regular meeting of the building inspections commission.

>> running. today is wednesday july 21. this is a regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to please turn off electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] commissioner clinch is excused. we have a quorum. the next item is president's un