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 . >> good morning, we are about to start the department of aging and adult service commission meeting today. thank you for coming. secretary, could we have roll call. >> president james. >> present. vice president seriina, here. commissioner itani, here. commissioner loo, here. commissioner ow, here. commissioner roy, here. please note executive secretary ann hinton is present ?oo ?a we have the agenda and i have been informed

that item c under new business will be taken off the, has been requested to be taken off the agenda. could i have a motion to approve the agenda with that change? >> so moved. >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded that we approve the agenda removing item b under new business. all in favor, aye. opposed? ayes have it so the motion is carried. thank you. next we have approval of the consent agenda with all items. >> so moved. >> seconded. >> it has been moved and seconded that we have approval of the consent agenda. all in favor? opposed? the ayes have it so the motion is carried. thank you. next item on the agenda is approval of

the october 1 commission meeting minutes. is there any changes? has everybody had a chance to look at the minutes? >> i move we accept the minutes as submitted. >> it's been moved and seconded that we approve the minutes as circulated. all in favor? opposed? the ayes have it so the motion is carried. next item on the agenda is the employee recognition. preston sullivan, adult protective

services. so it's an opportunity, preston, to talk a little bit about the program that you represent, the program that you worked so hard in. so we'll just start by, if we can have everybody from adult protective services stand up. got a big group here today, don't we? (applause) don't look at those flowers over there. nice, nice. there are more folks in the aps, they wouldn't all fit in this room, but it's nice to see so many of your colleagues here today. always, you know, really look at the write-ups and one of the things that this particular person wrote about you and wrote about actually the work was how intense the work is. and i would think that probably everybody

in the room, if you've been a referant to aps or if you work in the program, you know this is true. this is one of those program areas that there's always a difficulty every day, right? there's some really hill that's got to be overcome, there's always some barrier in the way, and that doesn't even include the circumstance that are presented to us by the folks who seek out our support and, more importantly, our protection. because these are some of the most vulnerable people in our community. they primarily are older adults and younger adults with disabilities who have either been threatened with abuse, have been abused, have self-neglect, have any number of issues and are, it looks from at least most of those referrals that these are people who just can't climb

that hill alone, right? they can't just solve it on their own, which is really a sad set of circumstances in and of its own right. so what i want you to know about preston that i know about preston before i even read any little write-up about you is that one of the things she brings to the department and to the program is that she's fun-loving. she's fun-loving. and i think in my very first weeks of being on the job -- well, weeks, might have been months because i came at the end of june and i guess halloween would have been the first holiday, then there would have been christmas, right, all of these holidays coming. and we used to be on one floor and i used to make the circle and i would get to your cube and i'd always have to stop because the fun-lovingness of preston was so evident and her -- really a

generousity of sharing that with the folks on the floor. so we all got to benefit from that (applause) and it says that in here, that you really -- well, they say it's kind of time out, helping people to take time out, but i think of it as fun-loving. so preston gets very involved in the annual retreats, she helps, i think, lift the spirits of people through sometimes maybe heavy discussions but also bringing this other element of her personal personality to the job. so in addition to being fun-loving, though, it says you are, provide a quality service, you go the extra mile, you are timely in the work that we do and frankly in the work that we all do that's really essential. and finally that you are committed to protecting the most vulnerable, which is really the ultimate thing that needs to be said in this program. so i thank you very much and

here you go. >> thank you. >> i don't know if you want to speak (applause). >> first of all i just want to say thank to you all of my friends at aps that make this job so worthwhile to me, not only the clients but it's because of you. i love coming to work, i love doing the party, the decorations, the parties, everything. my ocd really pays off because i get things done in a timely manner. i now can retire early. >> that's tlaupk she said that. >> i have achieved all my goals for aps, i don't need the lcsw, i have my

clock and i'm a happy camper. i do want to say thank you to whomever nominated me and again all the support and the streepktd -- strength that i get from my co-workers because they are there whenever i need them for a work issue or a personal issue or anything. they are like my family and i really love and appreciate each one of them and thank y'all (applause). >> thanks to all aps workers for coming. thank you, you do a

good job. next, reports. director's report, anne hinton. >> good morning, president james and commissioners. just a few things to report today. one, we keep bringing, i keep bringing up, others bring up the older americans aktd and the push we were having in congress to try to move that forward. it's looking now like nothing is going

to happen in the lame duck session. i was on a conference call yesterday and it's sounding like it may not come back up in a real solid bill until 2017, so we'll update you on that and let you see. the white house conference on aging, though, is still going forward. they are still speculating that the convening of people, which will be a very small convening, will happen in july. we will keep an eye on that. clearly we want to do a san francisco response to that event and will be engaging you thinking about how we might be doing that and getting you all involved in that as well. i also wanted to mention we are getting closer and closer to the opening of what we refer to as 2 goth. it's a building at the corner of goth and otis and it's been empty for a while, it's been reif you are nirbed an