getting done and i think that speak to the fact that there is a lot of progress, and i would ask that you strongly consider a 30 day continuance, thank you. >> thank you. >> i am one of the attorneys representing dr. hoer, and i want to address a couple of comments by mr. wo o and i do want to clarify that there are outstanding violations that do impact the entire building and not just the unit 7 in the building and so those violations are outstanding as

well.

it has been two years since they notified them of the problems of the stove in the kitchen and it has been 15 months, since that major leak occurred that destroyed their personal property, and forced them to evacuate and it has been nine months, since the first nov was issued.

and so now they are saying that they are taking the steps, but when that order was issued on december fifth, it was ordered because those long standing issues had not been fixed and not addressed at all. and so the time to fix those, those problems was before the issue was, or before the order was issued. all of the appropriate repairs have been done and the order can be lifted but that is not what the property owners are doing here. and they are asking you to reverse the order of abatement itself. and it is the seven-day period that they had. and instead, they are saying, that even though they have nearly a year, to the day, and almost, and since the novs were

issued and even though they wasted 9 months prior to the order not doing anything and not doing any of the work to abait the violations and they are working on it now and should be good enough and so instead of properly, fixing the outstanding violations and instead of complying with the order, they just want to simply get rid of the order itself. that is why the order is issued and why it should still stand. >> thank you. >> >> any other public comment? >> could i ask, miss bosky, to come back up and just, refresh for us, what the staff recommendation is? in terms of the order of abatement?

and also, you know, i know that maybe the assessment of costs is not final, but a rough estimate to reveal again. >> thank you, commissioners. >> and the staff recommendation was that the hearing officer be upheld and that was based on the testimony up until the last hearing where we did not have substantial progress being made to abait the standing violations, to date, with respect to both cases we are looking at an assessment of cost and we do have it in the staff reports and 4,837 is where we are currently at right now. with the time that we have invested in trying to get compliance on both of these code enforcement cases. and while it is come mendable that the property owners have

made outstanding progress for the staff and we are looking at a situation where it was an extended amount of time to be able to go here. and but, if the board feels that additional more time will allow this, to come to conclusion, for me, whether the order is issued or not, is not as much of a concern as the fact that they pay the assessment of the cost for our time. and if we are going to be able to get the conclusion within the next couple of weeks, if they had come back from the last 30 days and we did not have, you know, some substantial work going on, then, i would not be in this position, of saying that, but, it does appear that they have the people in place and they have the contractors in place and they have called for the inspections and things are moving in a certain direction, does that make all of the occupant? >> no, it doesn't. but, i am, my goal is to try to get this done and to make sure that what is left is saved.

so that is our position right now. >> commissioner walker. >> thank you. thank you, all for coming. >> i actually was not here last week, but i read all of the or the last month, for the original one, and i have read all of the information, i think that the commission last month, was very generous, to the project sponsor to extend 30 days, i think that you are very patient with this process, and i know that the tenants as well. i think that they have been given sufficient time to complete all of the remedying the notices of violation, and i understand that there is still needs to be inspections, and i

believe that the evidence submitted to the commission supports are denying this appeal, and approving the order of abatement, assessing cost, and i would add that we hold it in abeyance for two weeks to allow for inspections and proof that the work has been completed >> i agree, i voted not to give them the 30 days last time and i i think that i have looked at the tenant's pictures and i think that there is progress being made and it looks to me that they are doing stuff and nevertheless, i think that the pressure needs to stay on and i am not at all interested in reversing, the

order of abatement. i will second that motion i did not understand, i made the motion to up hold, the order of abatement, assess costs, and allow for two weeks, held in abeyance to verify that the work is done. >> may i ask a question of the chair? >> and that is, is that, are you or is the motion then that the enforcement of the order, being the record, moving forward with that will be held in abeyance for two weeks from today? >> yes. thank you. >> yes. >> it does appear that the progress is finally being made, and i don't want to hinder that progress, and i mean, that our goal is to make sure that everything is corrected and completely repaired and two weeks should be enough time for

our inspecters to go in and assess the situation and whether to determine it has been fixed or not. and i would agree with that motion. >> do we feel that we could get that inspection done in that two-week period and if the contractors are ready? >> thank you. >> and call them. >> i can make the housing inspecters available, and i was just looking to him to see whether or not the other inspecters would be available, and i can't speak for the others, so. >> and it can be done. >> all right. >> and if they will give us entry and the work is done, it will definitely work within that time frame. >> okay. >> commissioner mccray? >> absent inspection.

what constitutes substantial progress. >> very good question. we in most all cases, a site inspection is necessary unless something involves say a permit history, research or the work necessary required to a permit that was already signed off on. and absent that, then, the site inspections are necessary for items that do not require a permit, and that were written, by housing or any other divisions. and sign-off on all of the necessary permits that are required. and we are not talking about the items written up by the health department, just that which is before dbi. >> call the question? >> thank you. >> the motion and a second considered by melgar and lee. >> we have a motion by commissioner walker and a second by commissioner lee. and i will do a roll call vote

and a motion to up hold the order of abatement, and it will hold in abeyance for two weeks and include the assessment of costs. >> go ahead. >> sorry, i have one question and if the property owner does get the work done in the two-week period and the order then will not be issued or in forced but the assessment of cost still would be incurred? >> correct, thank you. >> i just wanted to clarify. >> roll call vote on this motion. >> president clinch. >> yes. >> melgar. >> yes. >> mccarthy. >> yes. >> mar. >> yes. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> commissioner mccray. >> no. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> a motion carries six to one.

>> item e, new appeal and order of abatement, case number 6785, 505, 26th avenue, order of record and appellant, wo ng, banker realty, and owner of record, yick, on wo ng reverse the order of on baitment request 60 days to obtain front door key from tenant. >> the unit which had a notice of violation issued in november of last year back for two particular items having to do with the unit number three and fairly straight forward, and however, the property owner, and the occupant of that unit have not been able to come together. this is a history that we do have with this particular property owner, however, the good news is, that he is represented by council, who was

here today, before this hearing, and working with the occupants, and they seem to have come to some kind of a conclusion that there was an issue with getting access. and it seems like they have now come to an agreement that access can be achieved and that the repairs which are straight forward can occur in the next few days, if that can happen, we would be more than willing to, allow a continuance or to support that, or to allow this to happen and that seems to have been the problem. the photo that you have in your package showing the discoloration of it and i just want to put this down.

>> you don't see it look like and obviously it needs to be sanitized and needs to be fixed and the valve needs to be fixed but this is something that could happen. and relatively quickly, but we could not bring the two parties together and hence it went to a director's hearing, because the occupant in this building, is a diabetic and she needs to be able to use this tub, and so there was a concern that that is why this case went to a director's hearing, and so with that, i don't really have much more to say and maybe you would like to hear from the two parties but they did indicate to me that it looks like they have got at least in principle an agreement that they can get this done, we are looking right now at about $2,000 worth of assessment of costs which it saddens me to say that, because for something this straight forward, i would sooner than put the money into the building and not in our time, but, that

does happen, and there are other open cases on this property, with this property owner, and we have had to refer him to the city attorney on other cases but i want to congratulate him on getting an attorney that he brought here and joe is here and i think that he is trying to get this thing resolved between the parties. and so i think that this is a very good thing. thank you. >> 7 minutes? >> all right. >> mr. president, commissioners, my name is joe, and i am the attorney for mr. wo ng, the appellant and the owner of the property in question and it is true that we have reached an accord with the tenants and i have met with mr. wo ng yesterday and this morning and met with them and he had an issue about access and in the keys and that has been resolved and he also brought his plumber, from george salie plumbing to address and work out the arrangements for entering into the unit to make the

corrections and i would ask that the commission, please, not or please withdraw or wave, or put on abeyance for a determination as to whether the repairs are completed and the assessment, because, the actual appeal is based upon a non-appearance in december. and mr. wo ng, sent as was indicated in the packet that was presented to you, a fax that he sent to the inspector on december third indicating that he had a court appearance that could not be here that day and he is 80 years old and i explained to him that you did not have a conflict does not ex-excuse your appearance, i think that he was not here, and now we have an order anything

else to add? >> it is the rebuttal and that is my understanding that, the director's hearing was properly notified and the tenant did show up for that hearing, and the hearing officer, the director's representative, did take the testimony and it is our understanding that the court appearance that the property owner had was late ner that afternoon and not in the morning when it took place and it was somewhere in the city and so, you know, while we did convey to the hearing officer that he wanted to continuance but the tenant was there and had a real concern and could not use the tub, and so the hearing officer in his best judgment which we support, thought that the order should issue and that is just the information that i had.

>> does the appellant want to use three minutes. >> one is that we have the dbi order and the hearing, and at the same time that i, and i already, and i have, and i have the supreme court trial day, and it is the same day, and so i send before now, the december, and the 5th, and i send that, and i send that court, the document, to inspector, and mr. (inaudible) and so to excuse him and to

postpone, but however, it never happened, and then, that is the number one and it is second, and so, of course this is not, and it is not the owner and it is not tried to do. and so we tried very, very hard. and he have been there to the plumbing and to own it and to fix it, and because, it is in the just to much and they cannot fix it, and then i have, and i have been looking in the market as to the specialize, at which it is the plumbing, and it is the specialized in and on this to the work and after then

i make two appointments, and question it to get it in and it is not there and it is not cooperated, and so, the last one, the apartment, said, no i don't want to make any appointment, until, you get the key, and you make sure, that when we go there, that we can get it in. because we need it now and our worker now, and he needs to feed the family, when we go there, we cannot open the door and then, we cannot nothing. so, now, is it, and actually the owner now and we lost it now and our right now to protect it, and our property. and we need to protect our property and we need to do this up but however, the tenants in there is to hold off of the key and they have stolen it there and our key, and then in storing the two, and the police

in there, said, the order them, to give me the copy of key for the emergency use and they refused it, that the police is john, so, we now have to have been there, and not now. have our best own and her not have the right nerve to do our job to get our way (inaudible). >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment from this item. >> and the commissioners? >> commissioners. >> yeah. and this is just... >> and before we have the public comment, commissioners we have a question. >> sorry. >> maybe it is that the counsel could open this for me. >> we are going to postpone it for just a moment and you can have a seat. >> have we got the confirmation

that this was received from the department. >> the second page was the fax confirmation sheets. >> in that was requesting the cancellation. >> it is only a request.

it is up to the hearing officer to grant it. if not we don't make that determination, it is up to the hearing officer. >> is this the first time that you requested this. >> there is a history. we have several open cases. >> on this case, what is in front of us. >> i don't believe that there was a director's and they have tried to make this before and it has not worked and it has the extensive problems. >> and i guess for me, as a commissioner and we are trying to and we are trying to get to everybody. >> and but, commissioner, sure.

>> and so, it is our policy, not to extend any continuance as a rule. >> it is not... >> even though we do get it back in december. >> and i, no i would not say that, the code says, that it is up to the hearing officer, somebody can make a request, and it is up to the hearing officer, whether or not they want to grant the request for cause, or not. >> and so we would have responded back to the owner saying denied? >> it would have been right. >> and in that situation, it would have been up to the hearing officer to continue the item, for 30 days, at one time or not. or to just maybe take the testimony from whoever was there and continue the item. but it is my understanding that what they did was that they took the testimony and issued it in order. >> yes, okay. >> have you to put that in fairness, if i was in this position, and i could not be there, i still have no confirmation, one way or the other, if i am going to be seen

or heard. i am just going, and you just either show up or you don't show up. >> that is right, we do instruct them that they are making a request, and it is up to the hearing officer, whether it is granted or not. we typically don't get in the way of that, it is typically up to the hearing officer, and whether they are going to grant it or not. but it is not up to sal. >> rose mary? >> yeah. >> and so when in this case, the evidence was submitted, from the department's point of view and was there anything submitted on behalf of the project sponsor? >> i would have to work and it is my understanding that the request for the continuance was before the hearing officer,; is that correct?? >> well, i am sure. >> and you would have to check. >> yes. >> but what i am saying is that did the building owner submit

anything in response to... was there any evidence or anything submitted by the project sponsor other than a request to continue at the hearing? >> i am going to have to have mckensie answer that. >> okay. >> good afternoon, members of the board, senior housing inspector, and to the best of my knowledge and i am going to have to check, i believe that all of this request for in terms of the department actually the way that the department works is that usually in order when they get strong, in efforts to communicate with in either of the inspector or the senior, inspector in terms of granting a continuance, a lot of times what happens is that right before the hearing, a correspondence does not catch up to us prior to the actual hearing date and we may get it

later and i think that is what the case was here. and i see. >> thank you. >> i don't believe so. >> okay. >> and because the hearing officer did not get and i don't know when it was submitted to us. but, it is saying that we did not have it at the time of the hearing. >> so if that is the case, you know, sometimes these things get submitted very quickly, very soon before the hearing, so i don't know and he is saying that he didn't think that he had it so if that is the case, so the request for continuance was not heard. >> commissioner mar and then commissioner lee? >> and so if that is the case, then, i don't have a problem giving him that additional time. >> thank you, i appreciate it. >> thank you. >> yeah. >> i mean, because all of this around the hearing itself, and i mean that the facts are still the facts and so, you know, >> and you know, i absolutely agree with that and i know that

the commission wants it and i think that we have to have a sense of some form of fair play as well. and if the effort is made and i know that rose mary agrees with that you are willing to work with people. >> and usually when we get the requests for the continuance we rush those over so that we get those for the hearing officer so that they can consider that. the tenant is here. i think that she does have things to say. >> i think that commissioner mar has a question i know that sometimes we have granted the continuances where the tenants have showed up and also, we have gotten, or gotten upset with us for doing the other thing too. because granting the continuance when they showed w timing issue when is the anytime if the person wants a continuous

we need a certain amount of notice we receive the questions and give us adequate notice to respond both to the plaintiff's and appellants so if it's cancelled it's cancelled we can do better than that in terms of making you know the rules of the road clearer. the other question i had i know this is going to come up given this was not a simple fix but a simple issue the assessment of costs was it because we had to send an inspector out there 2 thousands is not a lot but could have been spent better than the question why did we come up with that because we had to come up there so many tes