recreational avenue. you don't want to be in a position that would not give you that pleasure to engage or indulge in a recreational situation. to be able to meet out a punishment as harsh as this is a little unprecedented. one of the violations counted as a strike was splitting a field into two. if i have a field for one hour, whatever i do should not be counted against me. the old wise man says to air is cumin and forgive is divine. make do with all of these zero violations, please give a chance to correct those mistakes and i assure no one is going to do

that again. thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this issue? >> i have been playing with the league for five years, since mid 2007. i would say 90% of what i do came from the teams we play with and against. i've had not -- i have not had much contact with paul what i have had has been helpful and professional. with a tricky situation last year were a team captain died in a ski accident and the whole league was very kind and helpful way they dealt with our team. we are all very grateful for the way they have dealt with us and communicate with this week to week.

for what it's worth, i would very much like to stay playing was norcal as an organization. thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? >> good afternoon. my name is vincent. i have known paul for probably about 12 years. i played with him in the league, and honestly, he is a great guy. i know from speaking to him that he is extremely sorry about the violations that happened. he also wants to correct them. i think he should get -- the given a chance to do that. i have to say that knowing both organizations on a personal level, his organization has always been run excellently. all the teams are dealt with in a very professional way. truthfully, i would like to state play with norcal rather

than transition to another league. i did not know that anything has been set up to transition these leagues. the other thing i also want to say is that there has been over 150 different members of the league that e-mail in support of this, so you have a number of people supporting paul. all these people here are supporting him. he has done a great thing for all of us. over these past eight years that he has been doing this league, i have met so many people. i have been playing with some of these people for eight years. it is amazing to go and see these people. when you have a community to be part of, that is something that has to be considered in regards to transition. thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item?

>> good afternoon. my name is sylvester. there were another five people that could not stay but they wanted to talk. this is a great need, and it would be really sad to see them have to give it up. i just want to say that -- excuse me. i have a problem stuttering when i get nervous. paul has been very kind with my team to accommodate my team to play at a certain time because i coach and under 9-year-old soccer team. he has been very kind to accommodate our game times.

i have also played for other leagues. i'm not going to say that things, but judges prefer playing for norcal. thank you very much for your time. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, this item is closed. am i allowed to ask another question of staff? just so i'm crystal clear on this, on our website, it states what the consequences are of breaking these rules. is that correct? on the permit. but it is stated -- >> there is a section of the website where you go to get the permits, and it stated there, and it stated in writing when

you get the action will permit. >> and we are dealing here with a person or entity that had multiple violations. >> i have listed 3. >> right, 3 that we know of. are we in discussion now? here is where i come down on this. i do not want to be overly punitive to this organization because you are clearly delivering a tremendous benefit to the community, and our job is to facilitate activity for the people of san francisco, but as the gentleman said, to err is human. once is human, but multiple times is not right. my feeling about this is we either have rules or we do not. i am struggling because i do not want all of the players to suffer, but i also know that if you do not have some kind of consequences for your actions, then the hard work of this department, and what our permit

division has been trying to do is all for naught, and who knows who else is breaking the rules and who will continue to break the rules. >> i don't know that i'm terribly sympathetic on this. i'm sorry. >> i'm also sympathetic as well. i'm asking myself whether it -- what other solution could there be other than the one that is being suggested. when you are given several opportunities to kind of go the straight and narrow, and you look the other way and do something else, it is difficult not to expect that there would

be some kind of consequences. you know, there is cause and there is a fact. there's no question about that. the only question that i have to ask here -- because i really -- my gut feeling says this program is a great program. i have known about norcal for many years. i know what they do out in the community. that is what my gut tells me. but at the same time, being an administrator of programs, i know that there's consequences when the protocols of any of the programs that i administer are not followed. so i just want to know, and i just want to throw it out there -- is there anything else we could do other than what we're doing now that is being

recommended that would be less harsh? i cannot come up with an answer. i really cannot. so i presume that that being the case, i mean, unless somebody comes up with another solution that is less harsh, our hands are tied. we have to support the staff recommendation because we know that their resources are limited. we know that we cannot expect them to be 24/7 on any project, and so we have to be supportive of them, but at the same time, i think we have to take a positive

line here and hope for the best of norcal coming back into the scene after the suspension is over. >> thank you. seeing no other comments, i will make the following statement. i'm not inclined to grant the appeal. i'm inclined to deny it, purely based on multiple violations. old ones, okay. walt weiss -- we have a problem. the third time, it is just unacceptable to me. i would entertain a motion to deny the appeal. >> can i ask something? >> please. >> just for my own sanity here. could we recommend a reduced suspension of nine months or six months? to do? >> i think the net effect is the same thing. the teams all go to the other league. >> the league gets dismantled,

right? even if it is for 30 days. >> i further think that we sent the wrong message if we grant the appeal to everybody else, and we put an extra burden on the staff to try to monitor these things. that is my own personal feeling, but i would entertain a motion to deny the appeal. >> so moved. >> it has been moved and seconded? all those in favor? aye. oppose? hearing none, thank you. >> we are now on item 14, which is general public comment continued. is there anyone here who would like to make general public, on items that are not on the calendar? seeing none, general public comment is closed. we are now on item 15, which is closed session on existing

litigation. item 15a is public comment on all matters pertaining to the closed session. is there any public comment on this item? being none, public comment is closed. we need a vote on whether to go into closed session. >> move to go into closed session. >> second. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor? aye >> ok, so we need to make a motion -- >> we have reconvened into open session, which is item 16. item 16a. >> there was no action taken in closed session.

so now we vote to elect to disclose any or all discussions? >> so we need a motion. >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> moved and seconded. all those in favor? opposed? hearing none, it is unanimous. >> and 17, commissioners matters. any commissioner matters? >> for the love of god, no. >> public comment? item 18, new business agenda setting? >> thank you. >> 19, communications. commissioners, is there any public comment? public comment is closed, and 20 is an adjournment. >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> all those in favor? >> aye.

>> item 22 --

>> 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 commission and property owner and that, but time was spent and while there is a delicate balance here and we would rather have the money put into the property, the result of the time to be spent for having to do extended code enforcement -- the property owner of registered his application that he left application that he left messages for the inspector.