>> good morning. today is

wednesday june 19, 2013. this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board. the first item on the agenda is roll call. president clinch, commissioner mar, commissioner mccray, commissioner mccarthy, commissioner lee, commissioner walker and vice-president melgar is expected. we have a quorum. the next item is item b. i have and announcement. there is going to be a continuance of item b. presidio avenue. this case will not be heard today.

the next item is b. the oath. please raise your right hand to be sworn. do you swear the testimony that you are about to give to be the truth to the best of your knowledge? thank you. be seated. item c. approval of minutes. discussion and possible action for adoption of minutes of april 17, 2013. >> move to approve. >> second. >> we have a motion and a second. is there any additional public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> all in favor? aye. any opposed? the minutes are approved. >> the next item b continued

appeals. i want to announce that since these cases were previously heard, the appellant and department will have three minutes to present their case. item e continued appeals for jurisdiction. case no. 6772 san bruno avenue. no. 1 to no. 4. richard thomas environment and land management. the appellant is requesting that the abatement appeals board grant jurisdiction. >> good morning. are we taking these items individually or together? individually. in case of 6772, i don't have much

to add from the last time this was before you except to state that the commission asked for a detailed table with all the information and i believe we've given that today and it's attachment a. in the back of your staff report and also for your convenience we have included the staff report with the information that we believe you need to make your decision and we strongly urge you on the basis that it's all before you that there is proper information that the appellant is given you to be able to take this case and in doing to mar our ability in both agenda item 1 and 2. and when we go to no. 2, i will be saying the same thing. thank you very much. >> question. could you clarify, are these two separate properties?

>> it is and because the applications if you recall you were asking for better clarification at the last meeting. the applications are very unclear. it seems they are both tied to some manner to both properties. we did not get clarification from the property owner on that. i can't quite tell. >> okay. the second question is how many orders of abatement were assessed on each property? two each? >> let's look at the tables because that will tell you on each one of the cases what there is. exhibit a is quite clear and identifies that for you. if you look at the exhibit

a for 6772, it identifies for each complaint when an order of abatement was issued. the first 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, 7, 8, 9 were issued. >> okay, thank you. >> any other questions? thank you. good morning. i'm david berry for the owner and for environment land management. since we spoke the last time, as we described in the declaration of thomas, environment land management and tom have hired an attorney for

substantial time to clear violations. she has met with andrew cars and had a very productive session with mr. cars to go through each of the violations and determine the steps required to clear each violation and also authorized the property management for elm to spend substantial time also clearing all violations, taking all steps required and obtaining all permits required. i spoke yesterday with the plumber to inspect the property and give us prices and he'll return to the property for additional estimates for completion of the work. it's the plan of mr. thomas to clear all violations. the department has been very cooperative and

explained the steps required to clear the violations and they have stated the various penalties that we are appealing from are negotiable or up for discussion once the violation are cleared. i have spoke with mr. thomas to discuss the case. we believe we have made some extent moot some of the penalties that are here in this appeal. the one thing that we are confused about and we are having difficulty with were illustrated by some of the exhibits in the packet. i have pulled them out separately for your examination. i will show what you they are. basically, on one of the items that's involved in the appeal here, it's called violation 241

because those of the last two digits of the complaint numbers. this is involving the stairs of the subject property. this is in march of 2011. the building owner took the steps to fix that by getting a building permit and paid $2300. in january of this year, this work was approved and is cleared and got a certificate of completion. two months after that, this permit approval was revoked which means penalties continue to accumulate on this even though the work has been done and an approved and the reason why because of the gerard unit is on appeal. >> thank you. >> there is no question from

the commission, we'll go to public comment. >> you have a publiccomment, sir? >> you can come forward to the microphone, thank you. >> my name is jerald green, i'm trying to find out r you running this concurrent with 3580 san bruno too? >> case no. 6772 which is all the units, violation on the units. >> i have a comment. this activity has been going on for four years. it's damaged from windows which are disabled in there. what was the we have going on now. mr. thomas had a proceeding. i gave you papers.

he has been promising. he proceeded to fixing these windows without a permit. this is when he first proceeded. the window. this is what he calls fixing. see the hinge there? this is the next step after the hinge. now, my concern is on this, you gave him 30 days. i received yesterday a paperwork saying that he will check the unit and he's already have been, this has been going on so many years of checking the unit of rotting windows, so many problems. hot water heater. i have a picture of that. this is

him doing something without a permit. this stuff has been rolled up and seems like it keeps getting carried over. you gave him a 30 day situation. nothing happened. we've been waiting for him. did he get a permit to start on these windows? there is a disabled in there. i have been there four years suffering. what is the next step? what was the proceeding of this? why are we wasting each other's time here? something is not real here. i have been living in the property with a disable with a horrible condition. i have someone that wants to speak here that represents disabled and represents seniors. thank you.

>> thank you. >> good morning. my name is tony robles. i work with senior and disability action. we are an organization that serves seniors and people with disabilities. our primary concern among other things is housing. we work to ensure that elders can age in place. and so much has to do with health and housing. we've been working to make sure that for instance, living conditions in hotels are improved. we work to get an ordinance passed through dbi to ensure that grab bars and

working phone jacks are installed in sro hotels or residences. i got a chance to speak to mr. green and miss brown who live at the residence on san bruno avenue. there are a lot of habit ability issues; leaks and problems with the windows. the windows are bolted down so if there were a fire or emergency, the fire department would have problems getting in, getting access. miss brown who is a resident there has some very significant health issues. she's a disabled elder who is trying to age in place. she has a care provider, but the health issues that she has, the habit ability issues in the residence

makes it a difficult situation for her. the temperature going to either extremely cold to extremely hot, the moisture coming in through various leaks, leaky refrigerator, the windows that can't open, there is problem with the windows and wiring. from what i understand, there has been on going problems with the property owner and other properties. there is a seven page article about this on going problem with this particular management ownership company that has this property that it's a long going thing. i think there is something like 300 cases that have gone to litigation over the last 10 or so years. it's nothing new and we just want to

speak to this problem because it's a huge problem in san francisco, problems particularly with our elders, with a population that is aging. we have to ensure that these mechanisms that are here to serve and to ensure that our elders can age in place that they function correctly and make it conducive to habit ability and healthy living. >> thank you. any other public comment? city attorney? is mr. thomas allowed to speak for public comment? >> the appellant speaks during the appellant's time. if the attorney gives the time. >> not very much. >> you are not considered public for public consideration of comment >> you are denying me the right to speak?

>> your attorney spoke for you. >> there needs to be said in rebuttal and i would appreciate to be able to say something >> i don't have a question. i would like to say that there has been nothing presented that gives us any argument for taking jurisdiction back on this issue and i would like to move to deny the request for jurisdiction. >> is there a second? >> second. >> before a vote, commissioner walker would your finding be that the appellant failed to show that his lateness in finding and jurisdiction request were in error on the part of the city >> that's correct. there is something that i was looking for legal reason to take take back on jurisdiction that we have no jurisdiction of and

there is nothing presented that gives us any legal reason to do that. our staff has worked with this, has issued the notices of violation, has notified them on goingly about different ones. it's great that now the day before this hearing, there is some action and a willingness to try to resolve these issues. i encourage that to go forward. we don't have jurisdiction over this case and there is no argument presented to me to -- >> i would like to add also that there were 9 orders of abatement assessment with these two properties and they were all assessed over 4 months and over 11 months ago. this is not like one single order of abatement that was assessed and it was being an appealed to us.

i have a feeling that they already know what order of abatements are and they should have seen at least one of the 9 and read through the rules of appeal and if they didn't, somebody missed out on it. >> commissioner mar? >> yes. i would agree. this third party had somebody representing them at this time. if you hire somebody to represent you, they are representing you until it changes. i have a roll call vote if there is no further commissioner comment. >> thank you. >> there is a roll call vote on the motion to deny the request for jurisdiction. president

clinch? yes. vice-president melgar? yes. commissioner mar? yes. commissioner mccray? yes, commissioner mccarthy? yes, lee? yes, walker? yes. that motion passes unanimously. case no. 6774. 3554 san bruno avenue. owner of record and appellant. richard thomas environment and land management. the appellant is requesting that the abatement appeals board grant jurisdiction.

>> the case is the same. we request that you not do so on this case. >> just for clarification, there has not been an order of abatement on this item, is that correct? >> with respect to the legal use, no. there has not. >> david berry, my comments from before should apply equally to this. if you have any questions i would like to answer them. >> if your client would like to speak, he can do so now on your three minutes. >> thank you very much. when i found this notice, i did show good cause. i was basically being penalized by allegedly

having this phantom unit among the one building in question and that building is at 3556 through 3564 san bruno avenue. it's that old building that we have a handout that was part of the san born marp that it was in existence in 1990. after checking the record myself i found it was hooked up to gas the first 1265 is mentioned by the electrical company showing it was hooked up to gas service in 1915. so that's the phantom unit. it's because of this phantom unit that all of the other things that were found in a building next door and some of those things were the windows that were there that were aluminum windows. i have

owned the building for 37 years. i didn't put in aluminum windows. they were put in there by the other owner when one of the older windows blew out. the older windows have a characteristic pattern to them that the building -- that the planning commission and their interest wants to maintain that look and windows. we are perfectly happy to go ahead and do that, however, from the very outset when two years ago when i started asking for permits i was denied and i was denied because i had an illegal unit and the illegal unit was in a different building, a different area. they said no, you have to take care of this illegal unit before you can do anything. so

when i met with rosemary for the first time about a year 1/2 ago, i came up with this list of violations. here is an initial assessment cost and down here is the legalization of this property because i have maintained that it was legal and it wasn't -- i get fined $2200 and i can't take it out because i get this violation. here is $20,000 worth of things which is basically thrown in with fees and with cost and i have eventually paid, but i have a building permit to fix these windows. i can't get into this gentleman's unit because the last time i got in there he called the police and he had me

arrested for walking into his unit. >> thank you, mr. thomas. any public comment? any comments or questions from the commission? commissioner walker? >> i feel that this particular issue, there hasn't been an order of abatement with this issue and we lack jurisdiction. i think that the department is really who should be dealing with these violations and property owner should be dealing with our inspectors. i would support a motion. i'm happy to make it unless somebody else wants to make it. >> i was going to say when this item came before us last month, the paperwork was filed by the appellant's attorney, the night before and we had very little

time and certainly our attorney janis didn't have enough time to read everything and be able to give us the thorough analysis of the issues involved but we've since had a month and have read everything and feel pretty confident that i have done my due diligence on this and i don't think that we should be granting jurisdiction. i this i that the owner has certainly issues that he thinks he knows some factual things the city doesn't agree with but i don't think that it is our place to be resolving those issues. i also think that it's a different issue in terms of many code violations that exist in this building.

>> yeah. is there a motion? >> commissioner melgar, i concur with commissioner melgar's comments and we've had our chance to do due diligence. >> i move to deny the request for jurisdiction based on all of the facts that there has been nothing presented that gives us any argument to take jurisdiction in this case. >> second. >> second. commissioner mar? >> there is a motion and a second to deny the request for jurisdiction. i will make a roll call vote on this item. president clinch? yes, vice-president melgar? yes,

commissioner mar? yes, mccray, yes, mccarthy? yes, commissioner lee, yes. the motion passes. >> item f for general comment for items not on the agenda. >> seeing none, we will move to item g, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> is there any public comment in a motion to adjourn. everyone in favor? aye. any opposed? we are now adjourned as the abatement appeals board. we'll take a ten minute recess and reconvene as the building inspection commission. thank you.

ready to begin. good morning. today is wednesday, june 19, 2013. this is a regular meeting of the building inspection commission. i would like to remind everyone to turn off all electronic devices. first item on the agenda is roll call. president mccarthy, mar, clinch, lee, commissioner mccray, melgar? co