>> we are back in open session. " roll call? -- roll call? president mazzucco: all commissioners are present. do i have a motion for disclosure or nondisclosure? second qwest at all in favor? any public comment?

please call to last and final item. >> adjournment. president mazzucco: all in favor parke? so moved. thank you.

>> good morning, today is wednesday, april 18, 2012. this is the meeting of the abatement appeals board. i would like to remind everybody to turn off their electronic devices. the first roll -- the first item is roll-call. [roll-call] we have a quorum and the next item is -- i have one

housekeeping item to mention. that is to let you know that item e1 on 1117 gehry has been withdrawn and will not be heard today. >> the appeal has been withdrawn? >> yes. the next item is the election of officers for president and vice president. >> i would like to start. i would like to begin by nominating kevin cliched to be the president. >> i second that. >> and the other nominations or comments? >> we have a motion on the floor. is there any public comment on

the motion for president? seeing none, we will take a roll-call vote. >> [roll-call] congratulations. the next order of business is the vice-president election. >> i would like to nominate myrna melgar. >> second. >> we have a first and second. any other commissioner comments?

is there public comment on the motion for vice-president? we have a roll call vote on the motion. [roll call] the motion passes unanimously. congratulations to you. the next item is the oath will all parties giving testimony today please stand and raise your right hand? do you swear the testimony you are about to give it is the truth and to the best of your knowledge? thank you. you may be seated.

for the new appeals, the order is that the department will present its case and have seven minutes. then there will be three minutes of rebuttal time and public comment and that is only just for new appeals. item d is the approval of minutes for the meeting held on february 15, 2012. is there a motion? >> moved to approve. >> second. >> are all in favor? is there any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, if everyone is in favor, the minutes will be approved. all in favor? minutes are approved. item e, continued appeals.

this one was continued so -- withdrawn, sorry. 554 filmore st. -- since this is a continued appeal, both sides get three minutes each. this case has been previously heard. item number t 600 -- keys no. 6753, 554 fillmore street -- and action requested by poland to reverse the order of abatement and assessment of costs. >> it good morning. and with the department. congratulations to our new chair and vice chair. this is 554 fillmore street.

appeal 6753. violations were issued related to work without permits. removal of finishes, including stained-glass windows were issued and staff recommends you uphold the abatement and impose assessment of costs. >> could we entertain questions? last time we requested this, we asked if the appellant would seek building permits for the project. >> they do have a permit file. >> i believe they said they would. has that happened?

>> that have filed a permit and is going to the process at this time. >> where is the permit now? >> i think it is at planning. >> thank you. any other comments? any comments from the commission? is there somebody here representing the appellant? there is not. >> where they notified? >> yes. >> i guess the motion would be to go with the department's decision? >> is their public comment? >> my understanding is the appellate failed to appear, that the order should be effective

from the day it was issued. building code section 105a. >> if we uphold this today, does the appellant have the ability to appeal this again? >> i'm not sure. i think they have the ability to appeal the planning department decision, but i can look into it and let you know. >> according to my information, the building is being sold to a different party. >> if we need to reinforce, i would move to uphold the department's action pursuant to our code and whatever that's

called, confirming the directors' action. uphold the permit. -- but pulled the order of abatement. >> i recognize the appellant is not here today. >> my understanding is that by failing to appear, the order of the building official shall be immediately affected. >> we don't even have to do a motion on this. >> out of an abundance of caution, as long as there is unanimity. >> move to uphold the abatement action? >> second. >> are all in favor? the motion is upheld. item 6757 -- 30 belmont ave.

owner of record and appellant, 1004 magnolia street, oakland, california. action requested by appellant to waive the assessment of costs. >> members of the board, good morning. i'm the chief housing inspector. this is a single family dwelling in which a notice of violation was issued in march of 2010 and i just want to point out there is an error in our staff report. we have that down as march 10. it was march 4. the notice of violation is in your package. and going to show you a photograph which i think is going to help show the area in question of the building which is in your package.

here is an aerial photograph of the property. this is the property in question. the area in question is this what right here. -- is what right here. along this wall here, there was peeling paint. this is a building built prior to 1979 and this was brought to the attention of the department through a neighbor a complaint. the notice was issued and as you can see from this photograph, someone after the notice of violation was issued, the work was still outstanding. the notice of violation was sent property owners as they are on file with the assessor's office. you also have the property profile information in your package which shows what information that is. when we issue a notice of

violation, we send it to the owner as they are on file with that address and post the building. both of those things were done. it would have been posted on the property address and also sent to the property owner. fast forward several months later, we go back and find work is not done. it was scheduled for a director's hearing late in 2011. over a year later, that information is sent to the property owner by certified mail. they did receive it and show up the hearing. the work was not done at that time in the property owner ask for a continuance. there are giving a 30 day continuance which allows the hearing officer to do that. you will see there is boilerplate attached to every notice of violation and this is a later.

it is almost the same language. at the time the certified mail was sent to the directors hearing, you can see it clearly shows it is the property owners obligation to notify us when the work is done so we can verify by side inspection. the property owner is arguing they did not get notice of the directors hearing and the second directors hearing did not show up. at the time we posted for that second director hearing, it was the inspectors observation the work still was not done, otherwise we would have updated the complaint and would have saved himself the paperwork of having to go forward with a second hearing. here we are in a situation where the property owner, unfortunately, for -- am sure he will tell you why, did not do the work in a timely manner and will cause us to do to administrative hearings to do all the time associated with it.

we would ask the department on the basis of the documentation you have in front of the to uphold the assessment of costs -- in front of you to uphold the assessment of cost. it does not make any difference now whether the order is issued or not. the assessment of cost apply after the time complain -- time for compliance last -- lapses and the work is not done. this notice of violation was issued before that ordinance went into effect which was late in 2010. we still hold him to that standard that you have to have the order issued for us to apply the assessment of costs. we would like to have that order issued in the assessment of cost applied and paid. where we are with that now is about $800. that is pretty conservative given the fact we have had two hearings. we're willing to work with the co