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 not a court. you cannot issue a donation. that was my basis for the rehearing. as i stated, to exhaust might administrative remedies. there is no evidence that i anywhere violated any code. i quickly and properly in a timely fashion prepared any alleged violation and requested the repairs were done in a timely fashion, and no one has ever contradicted that. the new information about peeling paint has nothing to do with this proceeding. i do not know where that is coming from. if there are any questions, i

will answer them. as i say, this is a preliminary step to go to superior court. this is not right. you cannot force people to have an inspection of the property. it is clear. you can ask staff. they will confirm that. i do not know why this was issued require me to have an inspection of my property. you have no such power. cite me the power, and then maybe i will reconsider. the >> i have a question. since the january 18 abatement appeal board meeting where we decided to uphold board of abatement, have you attempted to contact the department to resolve the abatement? >> no, because there is nothing

to abate. >> i have a question. and how do you think people are supposed to inspect -- >> if you look at the original order, it says you have to do such and such work by such and such date. i went to the hearing on that,, the administrative hearing order said in order to show evidence that the work was completed. i went to that hearing. i was the only one who testified. i testified the work had been completed. there was no contradictory evidence that it had not been completed. no one has testified other than

the about the work. the inspector was not there. the answer to your question is if you go by the rules set forth for the hearing, it only requires that i show up and prove the work was done. i did that. mr. freeman heard the evidence, but he brought in the whole notion that i was duty bound to allow the inspection of the whole premises. that was the whole argument of the original hearing, that i was not cooperating with the original request for inspection of the whole premises internal to routine inspection. i did not even get into that argument, because mr. freeman said deal with them. he was not talking about an

external inspection. he was talking about external and the rest of the premises. the real point is this board, this commission, the department itself submitted external pictures of my building that proved the work was done. she congratulated me on the work that was done. the whole side of the building was painted. there were only two points at issue. the north side of the building, which clearly demonstrated the work was done. she showed a picture of the front of the building, and i believe the picture indicated the south side of the building, which projects 3-5 feet where there was allegedly black paint. all of that was painted.

the pictures submitted by the department prove it was painted. i proved it was painted. i stated under oath it was painted and all the work was done. that takes care of the violation. the only issue here is my refusal to allow entry into the building for them to do an inspection. that is not an issue that was ever before in its front of these procedures. the only way they can get that access is if i agree. i have not agreed. instead of doing it the right way, they are using this whole process of my expense if i tried to force me to pay for this process by leveraging this whole process to force me to do it, notwithstanding my right.

by rights are very clear that they have to get an inspection. the bottom line is they cannot use this procedure. by that i state of use of this procedure in force me to do something contrary to what the law requires them to do. that is all they are trying to do here. that is not right and not fair. i welcome anyone to show me where you or the department has the authority to enforce this. any more questions? >> thank you, mr. schmid. >> i have a question of staff. are you able to inspect the work that was on the violation? >> no. >> thank you. >> any other comments from staff

and a bott? >> the staff will go first. consideration for rehearing -- >> for point of clarification, the notice of violation clearly show the requirement for reinspection, and also, the code sections are cited in the request for a routine inspection right in the first paragraph. it cites the housing code requirements for the inspection. >> that is part of the violation? >> the property owner said no one has ever showed him any code violations. i am saying the documents he should fi-- the only other poinf clarification is that on the notice of violation that is

before you, some of that was issued based on seeing it from adjacent properties that we cannot get back to. we still need the inspection to deal with that and the routine inspection later on. >> think you. >ank you. >> any other comments from commissioners? any public comment? i would like to make a motion that we do not have a rehearing. >> second. >> a first and second on the motion to not have a rehearing. all in favor of this? the rehearing is denied. item h, general public comment.

the general public comment for items that are not on the abatement appeals board agenda. seeing none, adjournment. motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. all in favor? >> we are now adjourned. it is 10:15. we will take a 10 minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection. >> good morning. today is wednesday, april 18, 2012. the regular meeting of the building inspection commission.

i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [calling roll] we have a quorum. the next item on the agenda is president announcements. >> i will keep my announcements brief as we have a full agenda today. just a few things that were brought to my agenda. the mayor's town hall meetings are starting up again. i will try to attend the meetings, and i would encourage any of the other commissioners that have nothing to do on these beautiful summer evenings ahead of us. i think it will give us a good deal of what is coming up in the

community in what is expected in the department. the dates will be finalized and sent out to everyone. if you can come it would be great to have everyone there. i will try to attend most of them. the deputy director has been invited to the land use committee on the development in impact fee collection unit. there has been a lot of discussion about this lately, for better or worse. i come from the development community and have seen directly how it has worked. in my own particular case and development, it did help me get started. i would be really interested to see how that plays out. nini think it is not a bad ideao have a state of the union to see how it is going and how effective it is. we will be dealing with that in looking at that's in the future. i wanted to bring that to everyone's notice.

i believe it is april 23. correct me if i am wrong. i think that is the date. april 16 at the land use committee. i will be looking to see how that goes. i also will attend that as well. may is national building safety month. i just wanted to bring that to all of the commissioners attention. with that, there will be a lot of local building departments. we are interested in getting multiple codes in compliance. dbi will be providing outreach materials. the board and the mayor will issue support of proclamations. in support of small business, dbi will waive bombing replacement these. i thought that was a great idea. thinking out of the box.

also, they are participating in the request to all city departments off to bring in high school in turns as a part of the project full department. building inspectors can get ahead and engineers can get a headstart in understanding the complicated dynamics of how the city works. i know the deputy director is looking forward to it. this is a great idea, and i think it is very good. we should encourage that and send the word out to families that would be interested in that. we have a few recognitions. this one is to msr. freelier price. i am writing today to recognize the job well done by tom on my

staff. she was very happy with the service, and the director has sent out a letter stating that. with that, no more public comments. i believe it is the president's announcement. back to you, madame secretary. >> item number three, discussion and possible action by the commission to adopt proposed findings regarding 550 jersey street. there will be public, it, three minutes for the department to make any comment on these findings, and three minutes for the appellate involved in the case that may comment. as a reminder, commissioners are not allowed to comment on or ask questions relating to the public comment. >> madam