someone showed the special inspection sheet. we have informed them that is not part of the documents, but it is ok to get them out now. but it does happen occasionally. when you go to the job and you see something that requires a special inspection that is not added, get them in the system. it does happen. it is an oversight sometimes, but they are told all the time to look into this. i think we caught if. -- it. it is something that is going to be taken care of by dbi, and our inspector is probably going to be in the cite one or two times a week, and we generally deal with someone on site, and we would review work that is ongoing such asset compression f

soil. we will look for daily reports from staff, and we are inspecting any other stocuff wih regards to the plans like steel or foundation. but i would guarantee the inspections will be done from this point forward. and by far as i understand, the permit was approved and issued an -- >> as i understand it a permit was approved and issued. it was not taken to the site. what is the practical affect of that? it is not as if the permit had been held up for approved -- or not approved? >> it had been approved in march. there was an oversight with park

and rec that got a knowledge that they did not pick it up. the plans were already seen and approved. someone did not pay to pick up a permanenit and get it in the st. >> there was no impact on the project? >> i think there was some work that got done because of the issue of the permit. >> having signed off on it? >> it is not something we encourage. we prefer people to get it, and it helped, because of the process had not been done right, 15 days might have been gone. in how the appeal because the permit did not get issued -- it

helped the appeal because the permit did not get issued until july. if it had been done right this should have been issued around the start of march. >> technically, until it is actually issued, it is not a permit. >> exactly, it is a permit application but not a permit. >> the complete review had already occurred. it was ready to be issued in march. >> it had gone through the planning department, and the other departments were still going through the review with a different city agencies with other permits. >> thanks. >> ready? >> yes. the permit holders brief wrote

it down, and i am in agreement with how they broke it down into three major components of the appeal, and i am in agreement that certain planning issues that have been raised on the environmental phase and the project review basis is not appealable to this particular body in general. it is always interesting. there is a little bit of a gray area in terms of what has been entitled in planning versus what becomes part of of building permit. in general i wouldn't agree that many issues -- i would agree

that many issues are best addressed in a different form than this particular body. the other issue relates to the building permit itself, and the third deals with 88 issues that were raised region -- with ada issues that were raised. it is extremely difficult. based upon what i saw in the document and read, i am in concurrence they are in conformance with ada code in specific code and in determination. the last part dealing with the permit itself i think is a little more cloudy because work

was started without a permit, and if they picked it up in march, this would have happened already. therefore there would be no impact on construction. i would not quite call it oversight, but it has very little impact on the nature of the appeal itself and the nature of construction. special inspections are going to occur with elements that have not been touched yet, so i do not see it having any impact. therefore, i am in support of upholding the permanenit.

>> i would echo those comments. i think it is good to have this process. i think it is frustrating for a community that wants to have this go forward, but that is why we are here. i think the concerns need to be heard. tonight i wanted to be satisfied that the issue was resolved and that is a non issue. and there were other concerns raised about the work done without the technical compliance. i am not concerned, given that it is a non-material, an issue that has no impact on the work other than delaying the work through this appeal as well as the site of special inspection, so my inclination would be to

uphold a permit. >> i agree with fellow commissioners. i do not have anything else sudato add other than to say i m also very glad we have this forum and that people are able to participate, and i would encourage the community to continue to be actively involved and something that is so special to the neighborhood and has brought such a passionate new points on all sides, and i encourage you to continue to participate in the process, because we all have a stake in the beauty of this city and parks and open spaces, so thank you for being here. >> i am going to move to uphold the permanenit based upon the ft that is code compliance.

-- compliant. >> we have a motion from the vice president to deny this appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it is code compliance. on that motion -- [calling votes] the vote is 4-0. this is upheld. >> there is no further business before the board. >> we are adjourned.

>> olympic fever hits the civic center on tuesday, august 7 at the recreation and park location complete with gourmet food, games, arts and crafts and plenty of family fun.

some watched the games broadcast on the big screen while others got in on the action. carnival rides and the olympic- themed activities inspired kids of all ages to go for the gold. the talent competition fee " -- featured local performers. winners receive cash awards and bragging rights. >> it is great. i am really excited. >> until next time, i get out

appeals -- >> good morning. today is wednesday, july 18, 2012. this is a meeting of the abatement appeals board. i want to remind everyone to turn up their electronic devices. the first item on the agenda is roll call. [roll call] we have a quorum. the next item is item b, the oath.

will all parties giving testimony today please raise your best and -- raise your right hand. you may be seated. each appellant and staff has seven minutes to present their report and then there is public comments. each side is allowed three minutes for rebuttal. the next item is item c approval of minutes. is there a motion? second? all in favor? >> aye. >> is there any public comment on the minutes? the minutes are approved.

>> please note reverend mcrae has just joined us. >> the next item is item d, continued appeals, orders of abatement. case no. 6752, 1743 12th avenue. owner of record and appellant alla dubrovsky. attorney for the owner, heather wolnick. action requested by appellate: to reverse the order of abatement. >> good morning. i am the attorney for the owner of the property. i am here to ask for a continuance of six months.

this matter is being handled through the courts. we have gone through arbitration. there has been an interim order issued by the judge gunn monday. that would require us to go back to the judge for refinement on the details of the award. that will probably also require us to submit new plans, which we anticipate will take several months. we think, realistically speaking, a six-month continuance would allow our client to hopefully complete the project. but it is in the works. we are getting closer to resolution. >> i would like to hear if staff has any objections to that. >> we came this morning with the intention of not recommending any continuances, but having heard this, we would concur with that.

>> i just want to clarify there are no life safety hazards, have the department clarify that. >> so the order from the court is about who is responsible for doing the work? could you explain to me what the order currently is? >> it is much more complicated than that. in a nutshell, the court has ordered that there be a wall built between the two properties. as to what kind of wall, the court order specifies that as well, but in addition, there will be a need to survey the properties to determine what kind of wall will go there,

depending on the typography. we need to assess the elevation on both sides of the property. >> but there will be a wall. your client will be doing it, i understand. >> my client has agreed to build a wall two years ago. however, the story is very long and i do not want to burden you, but ultimately there was a dispute between the parties as to what kind of drainage would have to happen. since then, several plants have been submitted to the city. we have plans approved, went back to arbitration, and now they have given a final award. before we had a settlement agreement. now we have an arbitrator's award. but the arbitrator's award contemplates going back to him for final plans, refining the

plan. in conjunction with that, we are going to need to have some homework done, mainly service of both properties, and submit new plans reflecting the award. we believe that will take some time. then if you at the time for construction, that is why we are asking for a six-month continuance. >> one other question. did the court determine the property line that both parties agreed to? >> that issue is not a problem because of the settlement agreement the parties had reached in august 2010.

at that time, my client had undertaken the responsibility of building this wall. that is not an issue. >> has the court suggested to you it would take an additional six months or are you just requesting that? >> we are requesting that. the court has not been involved in these proceedings. they are just aware that these proceedings are going on. however, they have not given any opinion, one way or the other. has the court suggested to you it would take an additional six months or are you just requesting that? >> my concern is that in six months it would be december, right before the rainy season. that and that is a concern of my client. that is why earlier i said hopefully. there are a lot of things that have to come into play. that would be the goal. we tried to give you a best estimate.

i do not want to make any misrepresentations here, because some things are outside of my clients control. we anticipate that would give us enough time to get things done. >> this. >> this is not a question, more of a discussion. should i do that now? i wonder if we could uphold the order and then hold it in abeyance, for six months, so i would hope the court would take that into consideration. >> i appreciatethat there is a e for this to end. we have issued now -- this would be the fourth. we have issued three continuances,that there is a dee my, to submit the

order to uphold the order and then hold the action in abeyance for six months. >> is that possible? >> the concern i have is we need to hear from the department. if the appellant would like to weigh-in if it is a safety hazard. >> should we hear from the other neighboring parties first? >> sure. >> good morning. i represent james wong, the owner of the lower line property affected by all of this. as the board may know, we also preferencehave an abatement or. we did not file, to submit the order to uphold the an appeal because we thought it would all sort out and felt that the assessments were based on the reality and the existence of a

perceived nuisance and danger. we could not dispute that both sides had that, so we got to the point where we did not appeal, with all due respect to ms. dubrovsky's right to appeal under the rule. that being said, i concur with what tour-sarkissian has presented. we do have from a judge and appointed arbitrator, interim arbitration award which calls for the parties to meet and confer, but the award itself has not fairly fixed parameters, and we are dealing with color, kind, location, some of the amenities, how to implement this interim

award into a final award. the award is binding, so we are not going to be appealing it. i do not think the dubrovsky parties will appeal because i do not think it is appealable. i think there is enough in there, in my experience. six months seemed like an inordinate amount of time, having come before you three times, but the process started, as your records reflect, in about 2007, with an abatement notice. that was continued with the

department's good offices to allow for mediation which formed an arbitration. i have been practicing law for 40 years and this is the most curious time line i have had without having an actual trial, appellant, supreme court decision. so to avoid all of that, i guess we have all the dignity but none of the glory. six months seems long, but given we have 30 days to meet and confer, the award came out monday. we are going to go to our respective people, architects, engineers, have them read it. there have been significant changes in topography over the last few years that need to be looked at, in terms of plans showing grades in elevations, showing whether they are approved or not, as the case may need to be redone, not withstanding what goes on top of it, just the underlying foundations. the may need to be adjusted.

we want to get it right. with that in mind, probably 30 days out of getting back to the arbitrator. certainly, i would not think that more than 45 days we would be back. then there will be, on ms. dubrovsky's side, tweaking, adding, subtracting plans, getting them through the city, bidding on them, and then building. i think everyone here is much more experienced on a regular basis of how things do and do not go down when you have bits. it is true, we will be at the far end of the weather, but we hope we can get it all done. if we cannot, we will come back

to you on hands and knees, it will be the weather. thank you. >> i think you basically voiced our sentiments, too. at this point, we think we can do this in six months. i would prefer to come back in six months. we are working together, as you can see. it is not like it is going to go back into the courts at this point. just to refine and get this done. the intent is to get this done. it is in both parties interest to get this wall don. >> great. could we hear from staff? -- wall done. >> would it be appropriate if you grant the six-month continuance, to report to you in writing at the next scheduled

meeting so that you would at least know the arbitration decision was made by the judge? i would concur with the six months because, as you mentioned earlier, it has been tabled in number of times. we received one continuance, and maybe we will get two more continuances. i hope this is the last time. >> with regard to the life safety, any concerns there? >> the two affected parties are before you and they are in agreement, taking on any concerns there. that gives us some comfort level. >> we are willing to give you a

progress report on what is going on at the arbitration level, in terms of plans and executions, if that would convince you to give us that time. we are shooting for six months, and we are hoping to achieve that. so we are asking for one last continue as of this matter. >> i would like to give a continuance. i think everybody pretty much agrees, but commissioner walker expressed something below bit different. i did not hear you make a motion. did you want to? >> i would tend not to do a continuance, coupled the order, hold it in abeyance -- to uphold the order, hold it in advance and then maybe have a check-in.

let me ask the city attorney, if we uphold the order with the six months old, can we add to that, if we need, within that six months' time? if there is an emergency delay or something? >> i am not sure. i would have to check. you would then modify the order of abatement to allow the six months to complete the work, is that when you are saying? >> yes. >> if it came to you within six months, the question would be then, could you re-modify it? i think you can but i'm not positive. i would want to take some time to get that answer. >> given the fact that the goal is to do this wall, i would say a six month continuance for us to come back -- neither the