you were not aware of that? what i did not get anything else. as a matter of fact, i did give a picture of the work that was done -- completely painted and everything. i gave a picture of that to bernadette peres. that was supposed to go in my file and i don't know what happened to that. i guess it didn't make much difference because it didn't have a date on it. >> all i know is our records indicate things are piling up on you and you say you didn't know it. you thought you were finished. >> yes. >> thank you. >> three minutes rebuttals from

the department. >> i want to commend mr. fleming for giving us information on what he was aware of when he was going through this process. because the work as you can see from the photograph was not complete on november 1, what happened at the directors hearing was he asked for a direct -- for a continuance to get the work finished. eckhart showing that he or his sister did receive the information -- we have a card showing he or his sister did receive the information. when he failed to show up at the second hearing that occurred in january of this year and we did not get contact from him and did not see the work done when the posting occurred in late

december, and the hearing officer did not have any other information, the offer -- the officer chose to gave the order. if the gentleman could not make the hearing -- he was still in that process and he could have let the officer know we did not give any further information from him at that point. as far as we are concerned, the work is done after that second hearing. this is a situation where we do believe the property owner did do some very good work on this building but there were extended time frames and the city without a significant amount of time that otherwise would have been much more straightforward. at the hearing, i will tell you the notice of hearing is pretty clear. the hearing officer is able to answer any questions. if it was unclear at that point that he needed to follow up on that, we do our best to try to

follow up on those questions. i will not let them leave the room unless they are clear. i think your questions were good. i don't think there's anything else to add at this point except that we're perfectly willing to work with the property owner on this issue. >> i have a couple of questions. it may be the same question. who actually posted the december 30 as hearing and -- >> i believe it was the inspector. once we posted on the building, we don't know how long it's going to stay on there. we post a notice of hearing, a notice of violation, and the warner -- the warning boilerplate. [tone] be order was the same thing. it is also sent by certified mail.

why do we do that? because they have to sign it. >> you have the receipt that someone received the second notice? >> for both hearings, we have the green card. >> can we see the green card? >> the inspector is the one area inspected it on december 30? [tone] >> as you are looking -- it is my understanding there is something going on at the house and then there is written notification going to oakland to the sister. >> we are required by law under the building code to send the notification to whoever the owners are on file with the assessor. at some point, that is where

they chose to get the documentation and that's where we sent it. we also post 2 building, so both were open as you see from we included on our package and in addition to that, the building was posted. if it was taken down, which can happen, we do an affidavit from the inspector -- it may be back at my desk. i just had it in front of me. >> i have a follow-up question for the inspector. was the december inspection -- the work was still not completed. is that right? >> do you want to swear him in? >> do you promised to tell the

truth to the best year at college? >> affirmative. >> in december, when you reinspected -- to the best of your knowledge. >> in december, the work was not finished? >> correct. >> was it done as much as the appellants photograph shows? >> i know that the work was not completed. >> when you do the posting, and specter, do you take photographs? >> we do not. >> that is a procedure that you don't have to? >> there is no requirement to take a picture at that time. >> take a picture at that time. anwe are required to place the document on the building.

it does not stipulate where on the building. >> any other questions, commissioners? >> one last thing come up when you did their reinspection you posted it again that said you were there and nobody was there to show you around? >> there was no time during my interactions with this property did i ever step foot inside. >> thank you. >> any other questions for the staff? >> i am actually sympathetic to this homeowner. i believe that -- >> are you deliberating now? i want to make sure we close the questions. >> final rebuttal? >> if there are no more

questions, we should have a rebuttal. >> i am sympathetic i also know about neighbors and anything can happen to those notices. rosemary, when you said we're willing to work with a homeowner, what specifically did you have in mind? as you said, i am sympathetic to the property owner as well, but as you can see, they were aware. they have the legal notice with respect to the hearings. they asked for a continuance and got that. at any point in time have they

communicated that the work was done, we would not be here today. and from that standpoint, we would definitely -- it is the pleasure of the commission to reduce the amount, we would be happy to do that. the billing has already been conservative, but we would be more than happy to look at that again. >> three minutes for rebuttal. >> it is my understanding that when we received a certified mail we have to sign for it. the only piece we ever signed for was the one you have on the

back of your packet. this one and the one in january. right after the january meeting was when weaver notified we did not make a -- when we were notified we didn't make the hearing. this one, and i do not see anything else in the packet that has my signature, or my sister, or her husband's signature on it.

i am not sure exactly. i believe we're supposed to sign for this when we get it. there are only two. are we supposed to have certified mail with every correspondence they send to us and baldin? >> so there are two receipts that are the only things we sent out, which is for the notices of both of the directors hearing, that you received both of them or the representative of the oakland address. both of them were received. those were the notices about the director's hearing. one of them you missed, and one you were there. the first when you came to. the notice on a 10-22.

the one that was delivered was the second directors hearing, which shows the same person received it. one--- 12-02 was the director's hearing. the 2-9-12. >> ok. we received it on 2-9-12.

>> i have a question from staff. so at the directors hearing, the first one was 11-312. -12. this is mark received. the date of delivery on the card is 2-9-12. i will show you. that would mean it was delivered after the hearing. >> it went out 10 days prior. if there was an issue being

delivered by the post office, only that it went out and plenty of time for the hearing. where it says received, that is back to the department. >> the date of delivery is 2-9, so the appellant has a point about not receiving notice. it does not mean that was not posted on the house and does not mean the work was done, but i am concerned about that as evidence in this case that you received the notice. >> what you are talking about is the date of delivery of the upper corner. it does say 2-9-12. why that is the case, i did not know. this went out way before the hearing. if that is the case and did not get the effective notice of the second directors hearing. >> correct.

in a timely fashion. >> in a timely fashion. that is correct. it does appear he was still in violation. the question is, he was given a continuance, and an order was issued. he did not haveor that, so we have a couple of choices. the work is done. you could excuse the assessment of cost. it is up to you, because he showed you information of the work was done. you can step into the shoes of the hearing officer on that issue. that is what the code said. it is up to you at this point. not something we can control. had i seen that, we could have resolved it sooner. >> is there a reason why we do

not take photographs of were riposte the science of the building for own files? >> we do take photographs of so many things, but right now with the tracking system we have to be able to attract the photographs would be onerous for us to do so. we're trying to do so much case management. we have in some instances done that on the emergency orders. >> it seems to me you will send someone all the way out to the house and put it on the building and the photograph and come back and put that in the final period anfile. >> for certain are emergency orders we have done that to make sure we have the documentation. and i cannot speak to other divisions, but we have done that and other instances. we are happy to do so.

it will take a bit to be able to do that. to g>> is at the simple processf taking the photographs of putting them on the computer and putting them in the file? to go we could do that. it is tracking them. going back to them and make venture that someone put a date and who took the photograph. ultimately under the new system we will be able to do that easier. it is just another step. we're happy to do it. >> you spend a lot of time to do this. i do understand that the commissioner spoke to that point. it does close the gap that it was put on the side of the building. and because i think it is important to this complaint. there was never something put there. it would help the commissioner knowing it was put on the right building and was there.

>> also there is something i should let the commission know. with respect to the notice of violation, we're still in a situation where there was a 30- day notice where we were not in compliance. the property owner had a year come in because of the volume of cases we are going through for the complaints, routine inspections, we may get some of this discussion a little bit later, but keep in mind as far as tracking all of this, there is responsibility on the part of our property owner to communicate with the staff. without the cooperation, we will not be able to get these done in a timely way. we're more than happy to do that. i think it is an excellent idea. we will stress that as soon as possible. >> there apparently was a phone call that went into this.

any record of the phone call coming in? >> not that the inspector recalls. >> we should move to public comment if there is any public comment? to go there is public comment on this item? to >> a motion? >> i think we have problems with noticing the second directors hearing. i think it does not, for me, may genegate the violation efforts our department has made, but the appellate lost the ability to come back, or we do not have proof he was officially notified in time. i think i would like to make a

motion that uphold the violation, but reduces the penalty significantly to a quarter of what it was. the work seems to be done at this point. hopefully we can resolve this by that. to go a second? >> second. >> uphold it if the department action denied the appeal and reduced the penalty to 200. i think it would modified. >> modified to reduce the assessment cost. >> thank you. >> a second? >> i second. a first and second with the motion to modify. and reduce the assessment of

cost. down to $200. take a roll call? is there any public comment before we go with the motion? he and nunnseeing none, [calling roll] the motion carries it unanimously. case no. 67580.

commissioners come in your packet you received written requests from the appellate for a continuance, and the department does not object to this. you may want to consider a motion. >> i move continuance. >> second. first and second. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, all in favor to vote for the continuance? this item is continued. case no. 6756423, schmidt, a valley road california 952 action requested by appellant to hear an appeal #6756 previously

addressed by the abatement appeals court on january 18, 2012. the department needs a minute to debate the case. >> who will be speaking on behalf of the park department? rosemary, i think we are ready for this. take out i am sorry i stepped out to help the gentleman. this is a brief hearing situation. we included the information before. this was the case just recently before you. you up held the hearing officer. we really do not have anything else to get into as far as the content, because what is before you is whether you will grant the rehearing. looking at the application, we did not see any new information.

that is really all i have to tell you at this point in time. >> i have a question of the status of what is happening right now. this board upheld the department's decision. there is an abatement order posted on the building, correct? to go that is correct. -- >> that is correct. we have not pursued a warrant to get in at this time. we wanted you to address the request before we moved forward at all with compelling in compliance. to go before we reach the hearing requests, what would have been required to lift the abatement? >> we upheld the department's decision, so what happens after that? with respect to this particular

case, this was an issue with respect to the exterior paint. we have seen that from adjacent inspections that some of the work had been done. there was also peeling paint. as recently within the past 30 years -- 30 days, that inspector was on a property perpendicular to the site elevation to the property and noticed a bunch of peeling paint and took photographs of that. we still have a situation occurring with peeling paint on the property come in not having proper containment. we still need to address that, and also need to address access to the building for purposes of the routine inspection, while that was not specifically before you come it was part of the discussion at the last commission meeting. >> my understanding is the abatement order was placed on the property. we wait for the property owner to respond to us?

>> he indicated he was not going to let anyone into the building to do an inspection. we will not be able to tell you until we get access, and we have not asked for access. >> that is not what i am asking. how does the property owner get it removed? >> he it needs to get it approved by site inspection that all work is done. we need to access. >> any other questions, commissioners? we will hear from the appellant. to go good morning, commissioners. appearing as property owner. >> can i interject for a moment? what is before us is a decision to grant a hearing. just whether or not we should grant rehearing?

i did not see in the attached. that is what we would be listening to now. >> i did not see anything in the application that required me to submit any new evidence. i do not know where that is coming from. i did not see anything to that effect. just for the record, the main the primary reason for seeking a rehearing is in order to proceed in superior court to have a prior decision reversed, i have to exhaust my administrative remedies, which includes this proceeding. i think your prior decision was erroneously, because into the state department has produced no regulation, law, or anything that requires me at any point in time to allow that they would

have to inform and inspection. and they have not done that. i argue that with the last hearing. given the new opportunities that they failed to submit any law. the law is to the contrary. in order for them to have inspections. there has to be a lot to zero -- to force me to allow inspection. the only alleged violations were external matters. each was timely and fully -- i deny the there are any of the first place. i don't with the alleged violations in a timely and fall fashion. -- full fashion. there has never been any

testimony that i did not do the work as specified and request an order. the only issue all along has been the department insistence that i allow an inspection. they tried to force an internal inspection liability without the proper law. there is no law that requires me to do that. with all due respect, you commissioners also ordered me to allow an inspection of my building. you cannot of -- order me to allow inspection of my building. the department for president has told you as much. she said the proper procedure is for them to get an inspection permit. you are