after, you and that first of all that the building architect has submitted a declaration under oath and that is in our original documentation. where it said that all of the work is completed and i have not used it though. and it was a declaratio in and it says that paragraph number two and he lists the four notices of violation that are now before the board. and before they even the board here. and he says, and we can confirm with the other court documents that all of the four violations, that are now before, this board, and we are subject of the underlying litigation and he said, so under penalty of perjury. and if i may, turn to the next page. and he also says that i again, certify that all report and

work required by the nobs and the permits addressed in the lawsuit have been completed and was inspected and approved before the work was enclosed and the city does not have to pay for to close out any open permits they should close them because all required work was completed long ago. now there was a question asked by commissioner walker the last time that i was here and that is does the building department even have jurisdiction and i would like to invite your attention to another document and which is the amended injunction and this is in the paperwork as well and it is stated january, of 2004. no, the case number, 3083248. do you see that? >> and there it is.

just above the line up where it says proposed order. and so, case number 308, 324. is the litigation that has resolved all of this ten years ago. and as you will see at the second page, the jurisdiction paragraph b. and the court shall retain jurisdiction to take such further action as may be necessary, or appropriate to implement or enforce this border for 48 months from this date and this entry of this order or if they have not abaited all code violations until such violations are abaited. and the court has jurisdiction over this issue. not the building department. and it has expressed retained jurisdiction and that was on the request of the city attorney. ? now as further evidence, and in again, these documents were in your package.

and but here is another court filing that talks about the permit application, 2003050, 3875. and that was before the court. and another document in your package, talks about the novs 891624, and a 2002, notice of violation. and that was before the court. and there is a declaration also in your packet of documents, and that says, that at paragraph two that if i have it here, and on july 7th, 2003, inspector mcfadden and architect smily and (inaudible) and the architect tim larson as well as mr. pole met at the

property and inspector inspects the completed work and found that virtually all was in order and he did however, schedule another inspection for july 9, 2003. and after the july 9 inspection, the inspector authorized and the certificate of the final completing, he issued. finally, this is not in your documents, that will share it with you any way, this is a declaration from the city attorney. and timothy, as you can see in the same case, 308324. and he says, that under the penalty of perjury, and declaration and paragraph, let's see if we can get this here. and paragraph 18. and on july 9th, 2003, senior building inspector, inspected the property and after

concluding that the code violations that all have been abaited, and inspector mcfadden authorized that the defendant be issued a certificate of final completing after the defendant architect submits the appropriate letters of special ininstruction and i have already submitted to the court the declaration under oath of that and that was done and that all of the work was completed. and now, we should never be here. because, at the director's hearing, also presented, was the settlement agreement, and full and final release of claims with the city attorney certificated that it did not exchange for mr. poll paying the city, $700,000. and that they would leave them alone, they would agree that all of the work was done and any issues related to this property were resolved. by settlement, by order of the court.

and so,... >> do you have copies of that for us? >> you can have this copy and it was certainly in the... >> it was in the packet of documents at the director's hearing and presented by mr. poll's attorney at that time. >> and so, if there is overwhelming amount of evidence that confirms that mr. poll has done everything that he has supposed to do. and that the court has certificated that that is so. and there was a judgment, that has been satisfied there is a satisfaction of judgment that was filed with the city attorney's office. and so, every, we went every which way, but let's just... >> thank you very much. your time is up. we get it. >> and okay, thank you. >> does the department have a

rebuttal? >> in this court, and the documentation that the appellant provided to you, on page 6, at the bottom, you can see from the october, 15, 1997, entry of the order of abatement on file in this action. and all of this documentation relates to an order of abatement issues in 1997 and it does not relate to what is before you today and which is an order of abatement that was issued on the field.

and from 1997 and that is before you. and so, there is the powerful claims that the notice of violations that was issued on 4, 2, 2013, stating the four permits were issued to the property but they would all explain the final inspection and approval, and they are the order of abatement issued as a result of that notice of violation, and january the 28th of this year and we maintain that the violations are outstanding and that is what is before su an order of abatement that is issued on this year and not in our abatement that was issued in 1997, that a judge made in the jurisdiction over. >> commissioner mccarthy did you have a question? >> yeah, to the chair, so in the interest of trying to get respond, would you have issued

those other violations in 2013, if you knew about the paperwork here? >> yes. >> okay. >> okay, commissioner walker? >> are the items that are in the order of abatement or the violations in the 2013 the same issues that were violated in the earlier action? >> could (inaudible) could answer that question, but my job here is to only present to you and a notice of violation from last year. and an order of abatement as a result of a director's hearing from this year,... >> let me try to get what my point is. is that, the violations were on open permits that had not been

closed. or completed or issued a final certificate of occupancy or whatever it is, correct? >> yes. >> and those opened, permits were from the earlier action? >> they were from the permits of the issued at the time. >> and they were captured in the court action. >> is what i am trying to say. >> i am not, and it is not appropriate for me to comment on the court action, which will lead to an order after basement from 1997. >> if the court ordered those to be closed because there was an inspection in that paper word and we did not close them in response to the court's axs and it is connected to the first action, am i correct the city attorney? >> you are correct. >> if the court orders it to be signed off and, then they will be on the same page as us.

and our records show that they were not signed off. >> but the court documents indicates that they were signed off. >> and only the department of building inspection can verify through the issue of and the process here, and we are trying to go through and would it also be correct in come from commissioner walker is that if we had inspector mcfadden here and he came up here and the man

and all cfcs go to the record management and if the property owner and any member of the public want to retrieve, they can do so.

but as i am claiming there is no cfc. and if there is. the property owner, i am sure would be using it. >> and i would like to advise the board to the extent that there is any factual dispute, and that is what is happening it takes you back into whether or not the conjunction was complied it and was the council pointed out, section b indicates that at this very court, gets the jurisdiction and trying to enforce all of the terms of this and ie, the permits that relate to the violation and the superior court is the proper form to address that and in addition, the party would to the settlement gret and to the agreement, that it has been violated that the city is now bringing the action and now, the superior court is the proper forum to resolve that dispute. >> and what we will present to the superior court? >> we will present orders of abayment and the judge would be on the side and that this new of abatement was not correct,

and because it has injected itself into a previous action and if we have not to present to the court and how can we go back to the court? >> inspector there was another question or a comment from commissioner mar? >> so it is possible that the city attorney may have answered this question already in the previous remarks but i am slow in understanding all of the legal, and so one of the questions that we asked, and i think that in this case, came before us last time is do we even have the jurisdiction? which was commissioner walker's original question? >> because, this was litigated, and the city attorney was going to do a little bit more research my understanding before it came back and do we even have jurisdiction and it was litigated and also resolved, i think through the court. >> yes, the board of jurisdiction terms on whether or not the injunction would comply it and in order for that

the super court would have to make the first determination, and so, if in fact, the matters that have been closed pursuant to the injunction or the settlement agreement, then the subpoena power or court is the first that can roll on that, the board cannot act until the superior court, which is the federal and resolves the factual dispute that is before you now, so what you can do is hold it in abeyance until that is taken care of. commissioner walker? >> i requested that that happen and if we don't have jurisdiction then the city attorney needs to repetition the court because of the lack of compliance. >> yes and i think that is the proper process for the department to go to staoet attorney if these things were not cleared about poperly or not closed out in the 48 months as specified in line, 21. and i am sorry, 19 to 20, and

at page 2, and so, it seems that if the department chooses to pursue it, they would have to go back to the city attorney and request that this be brought back to the court, or. and in the alternative, it seems like the property owner, could also go back to the court, and say, this is already done with. >> and am i correct. >> correct. >> and in that we have no jurisdiction, and until such time, as that has happened, and the court has released it and we can have jurisdiction again, that is what i i mean, we can't take action, and i would like to ask our city attorney to follow up on whether or not the terms of his agreement with have been met. >> is that part of the motion. >> i don't think that we can make a motion about that. because we have no jurisdiction. >> i think that this should be

properly, and i mean that we have the attorney is representing our department. >> we juflt do not grant? >> you will hold it in abeyance, until the superior court resolves the issues and if in fact the court determines that they will not ply with and that will resolve the issues and against because the court obtains jurisdiction over and it can either order, dbi to issue the certificate of completing, or, the dbi can present, evidence that it was never properly complied with in the first instance >> okay. commissioner lee? >> i am sorry i move that we continue this item until we get the ruling from the superior

court. >> but i think that the city attorney said that hold it in abeyance until we get to it. >> yeah. >> and if the property owner wants to resolve this matter it is up to them to go to the court. >> exactly. >> i think that there is a motion on the floor to hold it in abeyance. >> okay. >> and we will make a motion. >> okay. >> mccray? >> commissioner walker, seconded it. >> and so the motion is to hold this item in abeans. and do a roll call vote. >> melgar. >> yes. >> mccarthy. >> yes. >> commissioner mar? >> yes. >> commissioner lee. >> yes. >> and commissioner mccray. >> yes. >> and commissioner walker. >> yes.

>> and the motion carries unanimously. >> and that is just the director's hearing, and he has find, 1667 votes, and 1669.50, and has no jurisdiction to issue that. and so. >> talk to the court. >> okay. >> well i want to make a record. >> okay. >> and it should be refunded that monday j. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> shall we move to the next item. >> item e, new appeals, order after baitment, case number 6794, 819 ellis street and this item was requested to be continued and i believe that the continuance was granted.

>> okay. >> and so, item s, general public comment, is there any general public comment? regarding the abatement appeals board that are not on this agenda seeing none, item g, adjournment. >> is there a motion to adjourn? >> so moved. >> second. >> okay, are all commissioners in favor. >> aye. >> any opposed? >> okay, we are now adjourned, it is 11:50 a.m.. thank you. >> all right. well good morning to all of you seven hundred and 50 of you welcome to our annual san francisco structures forum

i'm mar i'm the publish of san francisco business times i have someone i want you to meet this is our breaking news of this week i want you to meet corey wee bit beggar our new real estate resort he i've been talking to several of you so corey good job for the advanced work you've gotten stories going now have you have a face call him and we consider you all sources this is corey we're happy to have him he's smart and curious again call corey real estate is an important beat to the san francisco business times back to welcoming all of you, we have a great program good morning and thank you for being here on behalf of our

spokesperson mr. hampton we're going to hear from our mayor this morning and from a group of developers who will discuss the force and projects that are shaping san francisco they're to give us insight into current and coming challenges maybe things that have made the headlines as early as today and faced by the ralph transforming city the challenges that are faced by the people like them that build and develop the projects that shape us we're going to dove into how san francisco is dealing with the friction and the conflicts of this growing how we're dealing with an inadequate affordable housing and space with the

skyrocketing costs are driving companies and families out of san francisco and how is this city dealing with the backlash against the tech companies that are flooul the growth and the developers that are in some ways preventing from it as the developer continue to transform this city they gravel with old foes with old and new limitations and with the need for sound planning to match the growth so those of you who have been coming to the structures our plan today to have a little bit less of a presentation you know the show-and-tell and more of a conversation with the panel of developers they each have some great things to show you and specific areas they're developing. >> put that in context and we're going to have a great

conversation we'll invite you to send up our questions before we get to our discussion we'll hear from the mayor he'll look at how to build affordability into the equation thank you to our sponsors they come every year we we appreciate them thank you to shepard mullan we know that his lawyers have complex actions and hear from joe real estate partner in a few moments. >> thank you to our sponsors ac could systems and also right in front of me, of course, eco designs hundred and 50 types of

projects including the iconic projects like san francisco general hospital the mission bay hospital of ucsf benny hoff and the exploratorium we it thank echo for being here and defining witty wanting thank you and halfway has designed the interiors from the san francisco to the silicon valley they're doing our new office space so such iconic so thank you to halfway dunn witness and the architectures with the health care education this group offers steps if all disciplines and how 80 today's employees want to with work work and shift those

biefrz into positive clients our table sponsors if you look at the screen we appreciated they're being part of the program too i want to thank our partnering associations of san francisco with mark and s i o and if you are i also want to thank the san francisco chamber and dennis cunningham from the center of economic development thanks to all the groups from by the name of i promised i would mention an important initiative even with the development boom there's a challenge it is a real estate talent crutch with baby boomers retiring and many professionals not filling the jobs and they're they've developed an initiative they

want to involve you you've teamed up with san francisco state university with the real estate and many groups are joining by the name of it's called create i real estate alliance for tomorrow's employees if you want to get involved get in touch with mark it's a really great effort to get the workforce in this competitive investments you'll see our sponsor logos on the edition i hope you've read it published a little bit easily on june 27th copies here today hopefully, you've seen that you've subscribed to the business times and we do it in french and a special savings offered today, if you want to check with with the folks we

have a real estate commercial real estate newsletter that comes out twice a week we do it 23450u7ks with the silicon valley's business journal that's free if you wanted to sign up for that and we're with tweeting this morning where's crystal it's on the screen okay. so join in the conversation now to open our program set the stage for our personalities please welcome the folks if shepard mullan. >> there you are shep (clapping.) >> thank you, mary and well, on behalf of the shepard milling listens it is one of the most

farther events of the year it confuses an opportunity to look at what's going in the city and industry but more than it give us an opportunity to step back and consider how real estate development is shaping the city and how people of the city and the social dynamics they're creating and it's constantly changing and shaping our economic there's a policy geek in all of us this is a perfect opportunity to look at it so the san francisco best estimates thank you for preparing this opportunity to us every year and to our other sponsors and speakers for making it possible i was thinking about what to say today, i of the remembering that 7 or so years ago i made the observation that the population center of san francisco was

clearly moving south and east at this point the main drivers were mission bay, hunters point shipyard, yes. the new transbay terminal was on the books and in the works many vacant caltrain lots but i don't know that any of us expected the kind of explosion of development we're now seeing driven in large part by the tech industry by their desire to be in the city to be a part of this city and in the real estate needs both the residential and office and other that's generating i have to laugh we've come a long way