we're only hearing one appeal again that is the point you brought up ideally 1/3rd 1/3rd 1/3rd what do we do at that juncture. >> in the packet there is a june 27, 2004, indication that a payable amount due is 15 hundred plus and on 16 7 another $312 what's the total amount you owe in terms of - >> two sets of fees. >> there was another fee introduced wall a monitor foe a monthly foe for each month the violation is so one is the separate monitoring fee that

accrues once the violation is more than thirty days old. >> commissioner melgar it's our fault it is bad the system what it is what it is the property gets recorded in san francisco for this particular case we could you know do what you are needing us to do to incentive intents the owners to reduce the fees in half and you know putting that on each owner we'll have the fairness we can making sure our fees get our costs get covered and incentivize them to work together in the future i'm thinking we should ask the staff to come up with a better system for this seems like i understand

too it doesn't also get that far but it seems to me we should have a better system in this situation how we record property i don't know if it's you it seems like an administration thing to come back to commission for the property owners. >> keep in mind there are two separate pertains and keep in mind also the other prove or disprove didn't appeal their case they've paid the fees. >> they've paid them. >> if you refuse the foes of this one your back to the refund. >> and refund that. >> we don't have that authority. >> commissioner walker. >> i think that gets into a civil issue the owners need to work on our job to look at what

is in front of us we know what the deal is so we can make our decision with that nickel and dimed based on that one and let them workout it out. >> we're going to allow you two minutes for renewal the we'll make sure to get our renewal. >> deputy director good morning, commissioners we're looking at that process and we'll report back to you next month for a better system. >> off the agenda thank you but i don't think we should have discussion on that right now but thank you. >> now we'll hear the renewal from the appellant. >> yeah. i appreciate how it is mapped out we have an hoa that is for the exterior of the building it is a very clear the building we own separately but

you absolutely on the property it is one property how it is looked at legally that's where i challenge keeping the total foes now we're not asking for a special compensation we're pay whatever the appropriate abatement fee is we're happy to pay one foe we do disagree we haven't gotten it together we're getting it together you know but if mr. hardy pays and he has no issue; right? because this is one property but if it should be split 3 ways yes, he should be refunded money is it one foe for all three of us or two fees based on two property. >> the question before us there are two foes when there should be a third fee we're not

discussing hard fees only in addition to the one that is sent to our partners unit. >> so she hadn't foiled an appeal but i respectfully request one foe and commissioner mccray and i say that not a bad way that we're acknowledging the meeting those monthly fees not be included because of the timeframe along this so - >> that be considered. >> the monitoring fees thank you. >> okay. thank you if you have nothing else we'll

go to public comment. any public comment on this item? >> seeing none commissioners? commissioner walker >> i would like to make to motion to uphold the order of abatement and reduce fees. >> either i mean, that's debatable if it's been paid it's been paid so eliminate fees on this one. >> thank you not to cut you off but i would echo what you said uphold the order of abatement but no assess fees for 530 rhode island arrest commissioner. >> a question of clarification so if we uphold the order of abatement that forces the owner to this particular owner to comply; right? and let me amend it to give them 60 days to get

the work scheduled and get the kr57k9d work done. >> uh-huh to me it seems unfair if it is water under the bridge that the property owner paid then gets to bear the full costs there's nothing we can do we can't force this pertaining to shire the costs of the guy that already paid. >> which is her partner. >> no, no. >> this is where i said it is a civil matter between - >> got it. >> can i just clarify it are we talking about karen hardy. >> she didn't pay. >> mined. >> she didn't pay. >> we're a little bit confused nullify of the condo owners paid it was the rear yard

neighborhood in the rear yard we seated both properties shows right. i still feel regardless thought how confusing the city is and noted just our department the assessors office that hoa has one lot in this city not multiple one lot just like an apartment building. >> well. >> i my motion was made assume the other person paid. >> i have it with me shows had the same thing the order of abatement shows noted paid it. >> she hadn't paid. >> we assessed it ones on the property once on this property which we did you guys workout how you want to split it no assessment on that particular

notice. >> we'll workout that. >> got it. >> i'm going to repeat we uphold the order of abatement with a request to have a 60 day. >> awe abstinence. >> right with no assessment of costs. >> or assessment of costs wavered. >> thank you reversing the assessment costs. >> at 530. >> okay 530. >> and the 532 we're doing differently. >> yeah. and have a monitoring fee. >> everything is great on this one. >> on this property before us. >> all right. thank you. >> just to be clear uphold the order of abatement and hold it in abeyance for 60 days and hold

the costs. >> second. >> on the motion we'll do a roll call vote commissioner clinch commissioner melgar commissioner mccarthy commissioner mar commissioner mccray and commissioner walker the motion carries unanimously i'd like to make a brief announcement we're still curling having your appeals abatement so there will be a bit of a delay green before the board of appeals starts. >> we're on the next case on delores street the appellant and record important baker and action by appellant seeks an order of abatement or an opportunity for a rehearing on the ground he doesn't receive

notice of the hearing and therefore is not here the department will go first and then the appellant. >> the address 2 delores street that is two family twelz the violation on delores street created an unsafe condition of this property no violations were filed and the order of abatement was issued on june 17th of last year therefore staff recommends i uphold the order of abatement and uphold the cost. >> for the ongoing construction was inu unpermitted. >> with permit and that permit has been sent off. >> explain to me this.

>> tln explain how a permitted construction then causes on unsafe structure can you walk me through it. >> during the process of that construction this year's some unsafe activities in the way the work was done a complaint was received and they went out and cited the fact that the work on the property was causing unsafe conditions on 214 delores so on the ongoing inspections they corrected whatever the way they were doing things - sure eventually the permit for the neighboring property for shoring was signed off and both no permit was obtained

for the unsave condition on 214 delores. >> commissioner mar so just a question again, this you know because the photos are really important so was were the unsafe construction that was the inspector saw where's the photos of the unsafe construction what were they. >> the foundation. >> how this came into about ongoing inspections on the neighboring property so the focus on the inspector was the neighboring property. >> uh-huh. >> and the underlined foundation underneath the foundation. >> right so 214 delores is being cited for something that 2

hundred didn't do right i'm jumping to conclusions trying to understand. >> whatever the construction on 200 delores street it created an unsafe condition in 214 it was notified an unsafe condition and now what happens the two property owners work together urge when the work is ongoing they often work with the effected property to get a permit to reduce the underpinning whatever that normal situation develops it just didn't now i acknowledge there is some occasions that maybe 214 delores street maybe out of town or other issues there's an unfortunate situation they're

right fully acknowledging. >> commissioner walker. >> in a case where the construction another 2 hundred undermines 214 clearly 2 hundred was given a notice of violation for doing this but no? no, because they had an issued permit so they made a correction notice but the unsafe condition was at 214, 214 was issued a notice of violation but never got addressed and i understand that is a technical way we address any violation is on the property not on who caused it >> correct and that's a civil issue that's why we are here the unsafe condition even though it was not created by 214. >> we're we are going to hear

what is happening. >> i have a question about what i'm looking at so that photo looks like a bad retaining wall who's retaining wall i assume that is 214. >> right. >> but that doesn't seem like are we saying they built that retaining we'll with no permits. >> we don't lay blame on accredit we don't get into who did what only what happened then is that an unsafe condition we innovative the property owner and that's where it stands sorry for the grilling. >> this is not a congressional hearing and to make an informed decision please continue. >> but when you go out to the

properties as you say your counterfieting 214 but on the property how do you knows which property it is on. >> we don't get into that. >> how do you know it's 214 and i thought that was 2 hundred and this is 214. >> so if you're standing in the yard of 2 hundred and taking a picture of 214 that's what we're looking at. >> yes. >> you're not standing in the yard of 214 that's right. >> did the he is vacation of 2 hundred create that. >> yes. >> i'm very confused about that i'm actually familiar with those property one of them as if i'm correct is affordable housing is a residential treatment facility so how can the property that did

the excavation get permits if it was created unsafe condition for the building that seems like if it creates a problem with the building next door under construction. >> the unsafe condition occurred on 214 so the notice of violation was issued where the condition was located that we don't get into who caused the condition. >> we can only issue a notice of violation for a property within a lot commissioner mccarthy and - >> was there any communication from 2 hundred to 214 saying they'll undermine and under pine due to the excavation of 2 hundred and we have 90 information in the file to that

effect. >> when they did their construction did they pull a permit to remove a retaining wall that abutted this one. >> no a permit issued for 2 hundred delores on january 10th of 2012 and an excavation for awning approved permit with theling for the plans along delores 15th property lines so they totaling secured no things with migrate and that permit was signed off if december of 2012 but i guess - >> commissioner walker. >> there's no coordination between the neighbors and 214

was never addressed. >> commissioner walker that seems to me they've violated their permit is that true they got a permit and all of a sudden the other property is. >> i'd love to hear what commissioner mccarthy has to say i think if this is how we are going to deal with it it makes me a little bit crazy because this i think the property in question the one we've accredited is not only a residential treatment. >> historic property it is like on the national register so i think we are putting the owner for this property owner to go through the other one in civil court and it will be the folks that bear the costs they're doing us a service and that

property owner has built you know high-end condos is sort of going to get away with that that makes me a little bit crazy. >> can we hear from the appellant. >> before we do that commissioner mccarthy is going to say something. >> i'll be interested to hear the other testimony from 214 and depending on the issues i'm wondering if this is one of the situations to your point unfortunately, we're back to where the actual draft is on the one side of the property you can't accredit the other property they're not the ones their work modify generated the situation. >> depending on it is complicated but with that said, there is communication going on and to both parties to resolve

this i'm interested to hear about the consumption i wanted to make sure you didn't have anything in our file with communication with the under postponing agreement before this work started. >> no, but hopefully, they'll have information on that. >> i'm familiar with the properties too and they're so this was a project in process a long time. >> i'd like to hear with the city attorney has to say. >> i'd like to advise the board when someone inform files the appeal nicole the kinds that was cried the property owner if receive notice of the hearing therefore didn't attend to in terms of the information the merits of property owner role has only had this issue up on

notice so i'd like to bring that. >> so we'll hear from the appellant 7 minutes; right? >> i think you've not the microphone. >> gm i'm john, i work for biker we're the listed property owner on dwaurtd i don't know where to start i'll introduce john the executive director and will explain the situation i'll give you the history why we're here this is more confusing. >> hi 0i78 jonathan the executive director of barker places we're a nonprofit action providing residential treatment to people with mentally ill and substance abuse i've been with the agency 33 years we were asked by the redevelopment

action to take over this property that launched for a long time that the serviced had been working on the property but was unable to bring it to fruition so the redevelopment agency asked us to basically become involved in it as a provider we provide case management services to people that would be residents at that property and we over saw the rehab through the redevelopment conviction agriculture division for a period of quite some time we've been there since 2000, to thousand one we have no idea of the picture that is not a picture of a retaining wall which john sent to our office for and he's been the manager

for over 2 and a half decades we visited the property yesterday so i should mention that one of the reasons we requested this hearing you know we've had concoct is since 2012 with the building inspection and john will subscribe f that we've been noticed and contacted the building inspection and told that was nothing to be worried about those contacts have gone on over a period of years with in resolution we were indeed told we were violation to the problems with neighbors i've not heard laws stipulated by an agency with that in my mind i've asked john to talk about the chronicle of events.

>> i'm sorry, i assume you have the same information in front of you in the case history on the 18th of april in 2012 a notice attached to the door went over and took the notice and called the number the notice said was unsafe property that's you'll it said not why is i called to ask about the problem pursue i was told by the person i was referred to that the inspector who posted that had posted 2, 3, 4 responded to complaints by the neighbors we were not the neighbors that complained i'm sure there was other neighbors on the corner of 15th and delores i've had kooktsdz with the neighbors they've had a long history of being anger with the

neighbors so i asked the guy he said look i didn't post it if there's anything to be concerned i'll call you within 7 days i never got a call i assumed it was okay. so two years later two years i get a second notice of violation i made a second call the guy said probability not a problem i'll try to take care of that no one called me back last year in 2014 this was a notice sent to our office what was this appeal hearing i don't know we were in violation and my manual was sick so i was in these new jersey so that's when i foiled the appeal what's important to know here - a john said 90 percent is news all i

was ever told we had an unsafe building no one said what it was that made it thinking safe and what type of permit to make it safe the question is the observance one, if the construction and excavation at 2 hundred delores was causing unsafe was a stop order issued to the best of my knowledge no, i thought i got a test i didn't response look if there's a problem with our building resolve it with a civil that's not what we do my major concern i never saw froifdz or anything what was the problem on 214 delores i can give you an

experience this is on our who ever ramp without calling us they - i called the building inspection to have them take the skavrl down the building inspection told me to call the 0 police it's not a good situation that is full of accurate situation in terms of our needing to take action i'm not sure what it is we are to do those are those 46 sessions. >> commissioner mccarthy. >> the photograph is it your testimony those conditions don't exist in our backyard. >> i was there yesterday yes i don't know if this is a photograph of our building oar so it's not. >> it looks to be the next door neighbor their patio.

>> so we're stand in our guardian. >> the photograph of the front of the house i can direct you from there. >> you can put that on the overhead. >> oh, i can. >> put that right there. >> okay. >> 2 hundred. >> let's just - >> this is 214. >> yeah. >> 214 okay. a single - >> yeah. we're good only the front so if you could go to the black and white photography. >> this is the front. >> okay. >> so this is facing from delores electricity often this left hand the collin residence the near dental building this is 2 hundred delores which was