cost $14,000 to remove the mold. we were then told the foundation is cracked. that the foundation had been replaced before the mold remediation could be performed. we moved out and filed a building permit which came to you maybe 13 months ago, simple foundation permit, simple foundation permit. ms. wuerfel appealed that. we withdrew the permit, went back through and talk with supervisor chu's office 20 times. we were told to have a meaningful remediation. she wants to be here and be on tv. that is what she wants. what can i say, this is a safety issue? we have five people living in that house, to veterans. ms. wuerfel would have us remove one of the bed rooms for demolition. she certified with the building

department she had photographs of the building in 1984. i was not even american at that time. all of the building inspectors have gone to my house and say it has gone downhill, and why now this brush of nov's? president peterson: with your question answered? commissioner fung: i have not heard an answer. is there time left? >> can i add -- commissioner fung: no, i asked a question. the question is, what is the time line for your application? >> we filed an application in 2007 for the horizontal addition. we sent an informal letter to the neighbors. we have resolved are issues with one of the neighbors. ms. wuerfel, one of her

statements was over my dead body and she would appeal. in 2009, we filed the foundation permit and abandon the idea of having a foundation permit before that was appealed. in may, we had the foundation permit to correct some of the faulty nov's she said, abandoning our building, trying to destroy our building to get a demolition permit. commissioner fung: that gives me a general idea. >> this has been going on since 2007. commissioner fung: ms. wuerfel provided her version of the permit history. do you have a permit history? >> in my brief you will see the complete. commissioner fung: the permit history. i saw the permits referred to by ms. wuerfel. >> de you have that? sorry. no. president peterson: okay, thank

you, sir. mr. sanchez? >> thank you, scott sanchez, planning department. there are two issues as i see it. at first, the work proposed under the subject building permit application, the addition of the three dormers, all of which comply with the planning department requirements for dormers that are exempt from public notification. none of them require public notification. then there is the foundation work, which appears to be diverted to the building inspection and appears to be a life safety issue of and something that should probably be taken care of. the palin has raised issues about the adequacy -- the appellant has raised issues about the adequacy of the planning department review. the review was adequate, i would challenge. there was a preservation specialist that approved the

building application, and he can comment on some of the historical questions you may have. the dormers comply with provisions of the planning code. no neighborhood notice was required. the appellant had issues about whether or not a matrix was properly filled out and submitted. that is only used when a permit is rotted internally. there was no need to use that -- is routed internally. there was no need to use that. that is irrelevant in this case. the appellant has raised the issue about the potential a legal structure and the rear and the fourth dormer. the permit to legalize those if they are a legal would require neighborhood notice, but the other work that has been proposed here does not require neighborhood notification. it has met the appropriate environmental, historical review and could be approved.

the palin has claimed the department has known since 2007 about the legal work. that is not work. -- the palin has claimed the department has known since 2007 about the illegal work. it was only added to our system after the appellate made complaints in the last two months and then it was added to the system. looking at the work that is proposed in the plans here, the dormers and foundation work, all that is approvable and was appropriately approved by the department. that is really all i have to say on this matter but i am available for any questions. commissioner fung: mr. sanchez, did the planning department sign off on this over the counter? >> yes, and is a permit that can be signed off over the counter. commissioner fung: and did planning department review any of the permit history on this building? >> at the time, i don't believe that was part of the review.

i would defer to someone who could answer that question. >> commissioner fung, the permit history was reviewed over the counter based on the data base. any time a permit comes up over the counter, we look at the data base to see if there are any outstanding violations or concerns or issues. at the time of some middle, which i believe was early may, may 5, 2010, there were no noticeable violations within the data base. the application for the door additions were reviewed against planning code, the historic resources evaluation, and also the residential design guidelines, which are performed myself, and it was approved over the counter. commissioner hwang: so you performed the evaluation of the counter? >> correct. commissioner hwang: did a plan called for the removal of the rafter tales and stained-glass windows? >> no, only the additions of the

three dormers, as far as exterior additions. there were additional interior modifications, which were stairways and window replacements, but i don't think the war and the interior modifications besides the three dormers. vice president goh: okay. commissioner hwang: there is replacement of some windows but not necessarily the stained glass windows? >> i don't believe the stained- glass windows were identified as wants to be replaced. commissioner hwang: thank you. president peterson: mr. kornfield? >> laurence kornfield with the department of building inspection. we are pleased we're finally going to get some action to resolve these many notices of violation complaints, many of which have validity, hazardous material, hazardous building, unsafe conditions, open to the weather, and drainage issues. the settlement of the

foundation. all of these are in fact a series of problems that have been brought to our attention by the permit holder and the appellant, and we believe the permit as reviewed and issued actually addresses those violations. with regard to some of the concerns that were expressed that the plans may not reflect the accuracy of the actual permit building conditions on the job site, we leave that to the district building inspector who goes out during the course of an -- during the course of construction and if there is some discrepancy they can try to just what is being done. if those discrepancies rise to a certain level, then the building code defines when additional permits are required. we don't do a field inspection to ascertain the clarity of the proposed work and the existing work. however, i understand the staff has been out numerous times to the property, and they have also looked at the permit, and everyone is quite confident it is sufficient to address the

problems we're dealing with here. thank you. commissioner hwang: mr. kornfield, can you address the allegations and the photograph that say the buildings have been open to the elements? i think we have heard for 18 months. >> i have seen only the documents you have. hopefully the permit holder will resolve that, but i don't have any personal knowledge. commissioner hwang: your inspectors, with the address that situation if the skylights were open to the elements and the windows were in fact open? >> if that were to be the case, typically we would say you have to protect the property. we don't let people maintain a property open to the weather conditions. vice president goh: okay, thank you. >> thank you. president peterson: is there any public comment on this item? please step forward.

>> hi, i'm elizabeth. my family owns 2512, which is next to 2513. this is my daughter. we are next to the subject house we are talking about. my family bought the house in 1986, and our parents have been living there since then. i come here tonight to tell you how shocked i am that the plans

for them to dig the sand on the basement next door -- we have had a very bad experience with our neighbor in the past when they dug for the sewage. our wall was cracked. we had a crack in our wall. if they start to do this plan to excavate their basement, it will be a great concern for family. i respect the rights of our neighbor to improve their property, but we did not know -- we did not know anything of what to expect because they did not inform us of the details. and what do they plan to do to keep our property safe?

let me see. as we share the retaining wall that supports their foundation, it is important that we know the intensity of the worked. [bell] okay. on how it will be affected by the excavation. president peterson: thank you very much. >> ok. can i show the photo? president peterson: is it the same photo you just showed us? >> no. president peterson: okay, why don't you pull that up. ok. >> this is the crack in our wall. after they excavated for their sewage. commissioner garcia: you have to speak into the microphone. >> this is the crack and our

wall after they excavated. commissioner hwang: thank you very much. president peterson: next speaker, please? >> good evening, commissioners. my name is joe butler. i'm an architect in the city and a member of an architectural historical resources inventory committee and sunset. we have been working out there, and there are many buildings in small groups like this which have historic significance. i brought a little sketch which i hope we can get to the meat of this. it seems from speaking with ms. wuerfel, the project sponsors have done everything possible to avoid planning, extensive

planning review of the replication, to avoid a public hearing. to legalize, as mr. kornfield explained two cases ago, when there is work on a building that was not done with a permit and you submit plans that refer to it as existing, you are in effect saying this is legally permit it worked. if it is not legally permitted and the drawing is reflected as existing, the drawings are in error. avoiding the clarity of drawing, where is the concrete cap and where is it not capped? where is brick? has anybody from dbi got out and looked at what the existing conditions are compared with what is in the drawings? is ms. wuerfel correct or not? that should be a factual matter and should not be something left to debate. finally, is there to buy for attic rafters and the building? this is a little wall section at what happens at the intersection of were the rafter tales come

out. if they are 2x4 on the ceiling or attic, it is not habitable space, and they probably come down as refractors on 24-inch centers and overhang. if you put in 2x10 rafters, did he know the plans called for 2x10 rafters to go and so it would be habitable space and it would and drop the entire roof and make it new? did he understand that when he signed off on this over-the- counter permit? that would be a good question to have him answer. president peterson: thank you, sir. ext. speaker, please? -- next speaker, please? >> good evening. my name is linda, i'm a friend of nancy wuerfel, and i know for a fact for many months the house has been open to the elements. the windows have been open and the rain has been banned. you know what a rainy season we have had.

the harassment has not been one way. at one point, the neighbor put big walls up and actually had something written on them that was not very nice. we asked many times for the city to come out and have them paint over it and it took months for them to come out and paint over what was said on the building. it has been really a mess. he has been extremely difficult to work with. it looks like maybe there is one person causing the problems, and it is not. i hope this can be resolved, thank you. president peterson: thank you. is there any other public comment? seeing none, we will move into rebuttal. ms. wuerfel, you have three minutes. >> thank you. the plans call to have a complete replacement of all of the roofing materials.

by definition, the rafter tales -- tails are going to go. and the plans have not been seen after the adjustments were made. the history of the relationship started to become an unpleasant, shall we say, when there were changes in the plan by changing architects. we had agreed to in the meeting in 2006, by the time we came back in 2007 for the meeting, there was a brand new set of plans of "this is where we're going to go." when we tried to continue to work through our issues, there was no way to have this done because the owner did not want to talk about it. we would like to resolve these issues. the reason there are some of complaints is the building department did not respond. they would come out, for some reason they cannot see an open window. you have seen the pictures. that has been like that for

years, 18 months. it is unbelievable. my edition of my house is 400 square feet. i'm sorry about ankle and i only chose that picture because it is in the sun and i thought the house looked very nice. we have not been able to come to having the owners of this property actually work with the neighborhood. they did not want to hear about it. they did not want to hear about any of the legal work they did. the remodeled the attention -- a remodeled the kitchen down to the studs. i did not turn the man. that is the neighborly thing, you don't turn in your neighbors. that is why i did not do anything when i first saw the construction. i figured that was the city's responsibility, not mine. as it became clear there were problems with the legal structures, i thought now is the time when they're going to revise their house, i will bring it to their attention. i did not get any response that they wanted to make any adjustments in their plan. they did not want to legalize

anything, they did not want to admit all the work they had done, and as you can see, there are plumbing issues they have not dealt with or electrical issues. all of this has been done without any inspection whatsoever. when will this be legalized? i don't understand how mr. kornfield is able to say it is ok to put excavation of all of that crawlspace without having any plans for a retaining wall. and this is right on the property line. this is a very difficult situation, and if we don't have the support of our city that is going to employ the coats, what does that mean to us neighbors? there are no plans. there are no preconditions on the north, east, and south sides. the only. is there is on the chimney, the base. i am sorry, but we need help to get to the truth of this matter. president peterson: thank you. it commissioner hwang: ms.

wuerfel, i have a question about your attempt to communicate with the permit holder spree -- permit holders. in your brief, you have stated that you along with neighbors attended two meetings in 2007 with brand new plants and then the owners applied for a site permit in september, which is currently in the process of being withdrawn. in november, 2008, they moved out. have you had any communication with the property owners? >> no, since they put in their site plans in 2007, all of that was a shock to us. there has not been any communication. even when they moved out. commissioner hwang: what at times have you made, if at all? >> we are available any time. i don't knock on their door and say what are you doing with your plans? i expect them to send notice to the neighbors, and we have attended each and every

invitation. but i don't that is appropriate for me to knock on the door and ask when they're getting around to their plans. commissioner hwang: okay, thank you. president peterson: you have three minutes. >> again, i will get back to the whole, did we want to build an addition in 2006? yes, we did. did we meet with the neighbors? yes, we did. it was clear back then that ms. wuerfel, sometime in 2008 with the bald and everything else, -- with the mold and everything else, we had the plans to build the horizontal addition. talking with staff, we basically came to the conclusion that we want financial get back into the house. this house costs over $10,000 per month in mortgage. we are fighting for our lives to

stay in san francisco, and we're dealing with this tedious, tedious -- i don't want to use the word, it is life safety. the foundation is moving downhill. there is no doubt about that. the building department and all of the experts have seen that. with regard to the uphill neighbor, yes, the wall was cracked because we are going downhill and they're going down with the wall. second, in general engineering, the permits were provided to the city. the lady on the uphill side has already been excavated and the foundation and retaining wall is substantially deeper than the excavation we're going, which requires only the shoring on our house. originally we applied to have the entire foundation of removed and replaced so we could do to correct waterproofing job. ms. wuerfel appealed that. we came back and said we will cap the foundation.

we already have the engineering drawings. it is his word against the neighbors. i am inclined to take his word. i am inclined to say with regard to remediation, i have spoken with supervisor chu probably 40 times in the last two years to bring ms. wuerfel and to mediation. did we make an effort to resolve this with the neighbors? yes, we did. >> there are many broken windows and the house. i wish it was only windows. the house is not habitable. i will take you down tomorrow. 90% of the windows need replacing. we don't want to eat lose the stained-glass windows. they're fabulous, -- we don't want to lose the stained-glass windows, they're fabulous, why would we? but we need to remove the mold. we have three children and one

bedroom. it is no longer ok to have our children in the same bedroom. many issues need to be addressed in the house. thank you. president peterson: thank you. mr. sanchez, mr. kornfield, and a rebuttal? ok, commissioners, the matter is before you. commissioner hwang: can i ask mr. kornfield about. foundation? -- about the brick foundation? ms. wuerfel made the point that either incorrect or not accounting for --

i see existing brick foundation on the foundation plan, and i believe the appellant is claiming that is not accurate? have we verified? >> at the time construction takes place, the building contractor will do it the form work and frameup the new foundation walls with steel, ready to pour, and the building inspector will go and look to see if it looks like what the plans show. the exact location of where the existing park foundation -- of the brick foundation is probably not the most critical thing as long as it ends up being a reinforced foundation that is similar or very close to what we see in the plants. it seems like a pretty beefy

piece of foundation reinforcement. it is not actually what we call capping, which is fish usually an added piece on the top used to raise the foundation to get above grade. this is seriously reinforcing the foundation, using the form for the back of the new foundation walls. so yeah, the field inspector will look and see if it conforms. commissioner garcia: maybe this was not president peterson's question, but it seems a big point was made about the fact is not actually brick, it is concrete or something else. what difference does that make, is that important? >> well, let me see. what difference would it make? commissioner fung: none. >> probably not. if there was an existing concrete foundation, they may choose to reinforce it, they may choose to allow it to remain.

it looks like they're going to reinforce the entire thing, looking at the foundation plan. it looks like they are intending to supplement it. i think because of the unusual soil condition. commissioner fung: i had a question for mr. sanchez. mr. sanchez, you indicated that the dormers would not have required any notice or specialized review. what about the replacement of the entire roof? >> replacement of the entire roof, repair or replacement? commissioner fung: replacement.

would that have required a form of notice? i said the roof, not roofing. >> if it is within the same location as the existing roof, then no, not if it is an expansion. it would not have triggered any thing. vice president goh: i have a follow-up question to that. are you finished commissioner fung? president peterson: we heard the 2x4 rafters were to be replaced by 2x10 rafters, and it appeared from the drawing that would necessitate moving those rafter tails or removing those rafter tails. resource issue. >> a great point. i would like to note the

existing and the proposed plans, the rafter tales are shown on their. the same detail is on both the existing and proposed additions. commissioner hwang: how do you address that issue? -- commissioner gavice presidenw the address that issue? >> did not show a change in roof pitch or height. that would be addressed during the construction process. mr. kornfield make have further -- might have further