i understand that. unfortunately because we had to schedule the survey with the wongs, it took sometime. but in order for the attorneys to meet and confer, we needed that survey to be done and the results of the survey to be done. the judge's instructionses to us was -- there was an interim order that he had come out with and he instructed us to go and meet and confer on the details. and if we weren't able to agree on the details to come back to him. now, what the judge had not anticipated at that time when he made his award that a survey was going to be needed. so, in essence, it's not that we did not meet and confer because we were not doing anything. it's just that we had to wait for that survey to be done in order to meet and confer based on -- because the plans were going to have to be changed according to the survey. [speaker not understood].

>> the department has rebuttal or do you have a comment? >> since wewer going down this road, the neighboring property has already gotten out of abatement related to this retaining wall. they appealed it, they didn't do so. in good faith to a solution. so, if you did issue the abatement and hold abatement for three or six months and assess the costs right away, it would actually put more property owners in a more even [speaker not understood] and it might actually help the solution. right now this property owner is kind of getting off light. the other property owner who isn't the full cause of the situation has agreed to suffer another abatement already. so, i think i would really support the decision you are about to make. thanks.

>> i will defer to the time frame. >> let's make a motion for three months to obtain the permit and three months to complete the work. >> for six months total? >> total times six months. >> agreed. >> i agree. >> second. >> call the question. >> is there public comment on the motion? on this motion? okay. did you address costs in the language will? -- there? >> and include assessment of costs. >> yes. >> there is a motion to -- >> uphold the department's recommendation for abatement to give the appellant three months to obtain the permit and three months more to complete the work after receiving the

permit. something like that. >> okay. that way you can do it quicker. >> call a roll call vote. president clench? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mar? >> yes. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> yes. >> commissioner mccurry? >> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. item number 2, case no. 760 16 54 haight street, appellant [speaker not understood]. action requested by appellant, appellant has requested additional time to complete the work. >> for the address 16 54 haight

street, 2011, 52 853, the evaluation is to a permit was issued, evaluation, accessability issues, that permit expired. the date we renewed the permit, the work isn't finished yet. so, we would recommend that you uphold the order of abatement and impose assessment of costs. i did get a call from the representative of the appellant. the appellant [speaker not understood] members of the family were not able to attend today. the representative stated that they would comply with whatever decision you make today. thank you. >> commissioner walker? >> what is your estimate of time for them to complete the work for the permit?

>> when they originally filed the appeal, it was on the assumption that the work was going to be completed in a matter of weeks. but because of an illness in the family, their whole timeline changed and i would expect it should be fairly soon, but because of an illness in the family it's kind of unclear. >> well, -- >> excuse me. the accessability issues are on the ground floor in the commercial space? >> the evaluation relates to the permit that was issued, let's see, okay, here we go.

the language on the permits, [speaker not understood] handicap bathrooms, new ramp in the door entry and wheelchair lift, relocate water heater, remove rest room at basement, remove nonpermanent deck at rear. so, a lot of the work is done, but it is not complete yet. it is in the position of getting a final inspection. and the permit was renewed january 23rd of this year.

>> is there anybody here from the owner's side, the appellant? >> i did get a call saying they were unable to attend and they'll live with whatever decision you make. >> just to clarify, they didn't request a continuance? >> they didn't request a continuance and they have no issue with whatever decision you make. they will follow through with that to the best of their ability. >> so, it seems like the straightforward option is to uphold the abatement. do we need to give them an extension time? >> i think maybe if we included holding it in abeyance until 30 days or 60 days, whatever seems reasonable to commissioners, i think. that's what i would suggest.

>> what is reasonable? 30 days? >> 30 days seems reasonable. >> 30 days, let's do 30 days. thank you. >> so, is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, could someone restate the motion, please? >> the motion to uphold the abatement, to hold it in abeyance for 30 days. >> second. >> are there other thoughts [inaudible]? is there an assessment of cost? >> i thought i was done. [laughter] >> assessment of costs, $1,208. >> assessment of costs? >> yeah. >> the motion, there is a motion and second to uphold the order of abatement, hold it in abeyance for 30 days and to

include the assessment of costs. take a roll call vote. and there's no public comment. >> there was no public comment. >> okay. >> president clench? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mar? >> yes. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> yes. >> commissioner mccray? >> yes. >> commissioner walker? >> yes. >> the motion carries unanimously. item e, new appeals. case no. 67 62, 333 3 26th street, [speaker not understood] appellant lucerosllc. the appellant is requesting more time to complete work to abate the offsetting code violation.

>> good morning, mr. president, commissioners. [speaker not understood] inspection housing division. this case no. is 67 62, 33 23 sixth street deals with replacement of rear stairways for a three-unit building that is presently unoccupied. actually, the staff is granting the property owner -- requesting the property owner be given more time to complete the work as of september. they were able to submit plans which were approved and they were able to obtain the building permit to start construction, which they started a week ago. staff feels that by the end of this month the property owner will satisfy the notice of violation and complete the work. >> 30 days? >> correct. as i said, the contractor has

already started the work as of last week. >> commissioners have any questions? >> anybody here from the owner's side? no? public comment? >> there is no public comment on that item. >> move to uphold the order of abatement and hold it for 30 days and assess costs. >> thank you. >> just a moment, i'm sorry. [pause]

>> if there is a motion and a second, is there any public comment? seeing none, do a roll call vote. president clench? >> yes. >> commissioner lee? >> yes. >> commissioner mar? >> yes. >> commissioner mccarthy? >> yes. >> commissioner mccray? >> yes. >> and commissioner walker? >> yes. >> that motion carries unanimously. item f, rehearing request, case no. 6 757, 130 bueler street, [speaker not understood], san francisco, california. [speaker not understood] 67 57 previously addressed by the abatement appeals board on june 20th, 2012. >> again, this is 130, 132

bueler street. it came up and it was already heard one time. there was a granting of the order of abatement, so forth. the property owner was given a time frame to complete the work. the property owner has now requested to rehear the abatement appeals again, but in the meantime has requested a delay due to the holidays, requested a delay for this hearing due to the holidays. it was put in writing and it was approved already. by mr. sweeney. >> commissioner mar? >> did she move? >> getting any permits or apply for any permits or anything? >> she has not applied for any permits. >> i have a question for counsel.

does the rehearing request stay our action? >> i believe it does. >> and there is a deadline for rehearing? for requesting a rehearing? >> yes, but i can't tell you what it is right off the top of my head. i think she complied -- my recollection is she complied with the time frame for requesting a rehearing. >> and now she's continuing it? >> my understanding is on september seventh, requested a continuance based on the fact that because of the high holy days. >> so, she knew when she scheduled it when it was going to be or no? my concern is that this is a delaying tactic and i wonder -- i guess we have to allow for a continuance request. but my concern is what it does to implementing our decision.

so, if it stays our decision, i guess, do we have to grant a continuance? * 7th >> no. however, given the building department has agreed to it -- >> okay. >> and given the reasons. >> okay. >> you can do what you want, but it might be problematic. i understand where you're coming from, but, yeah. >> before we even ask that, do we know, does she lift the request -- the reason for her asking for a rehearing or should that be discussed? * list >> this is for continuance. is there a reason why she's asking for a rehearing, or do we have to discuss that when we

continue the matter? >> basically in terms of her grounds for rehearing, is that what you're -- so, we have -- i think you all have in your packet, it's like third or fourth page to the back. it says to suspend -- her state the reasons why. suspend order of abatement and waive all fees if no hazard exists or at least until tenant vacates. that is the sum total of her reasons for requesting rehearing. >> i don't see any grounds for opening the repealed item. so, i would tend to say no to a continuance as well. but i'll defer to the rest of

the commissioners if you feel we should as a courtesy continue the matter for the appellant, we could. >> so, let me ask a question about it. we made a decision with the time frame. if indeed when we do hear the rehearing, do we shift back to the original time frame, or does it -- i think it was six months of the date of the hearing or something like that. >> i'm not sure. i'll have to look into that. i can't tell you that off the top of my head. but i know that what's before you right now is not the rehearing. it's a request for rehearing. so, we're kind of a couple of steps away, unfortunately, because you'd have to decide to grant rehearing and my understanding is that then wouldn't be instantaneous. it would be set for rehearing. >> okay. why don't we do this. we'll grant one continuance. >> for 30 days. >> let's do one.

>> and i would like to do it with the understanding that the clock started when we had the original hearing. if that's legal. >> i'll have to look into it. >> okay. i make a move we continue it for 30 days. >> is there a second? >> second. >> is there any public comment? seeing none, are all in favor to grant the continuance for 30 days? >> aye. >> any opposed? continuance is granted. >> thank you. >> item g, general public comment. is there any general public comment on items that are not on the abatement appeals agenda? abatement appeals. is this for abatement appeals,

though? okay, thank you. seeing none, item h, adjournment. is there a motion to adjourn? >> move to adjourn. >> second. >> second. >> i don't see any public comment. we are now adjourned at 9:50 a.m. and we'll have a brief recess to set up for the building inspection commission. [adjourned] [recess]