application for a similar project, which is still active today, it is not clear which project is intended to be built on the property. third, dbi made an error assigning this for expedited review without considering the complexity of the proposed work. i believe the misrepresentation on the plans contributed to the dbi underestimation of the full extent of the final project and to an adequate evaluation of the engineering plans for escalating, storing, and installation of a retaining wall. nobody at dbi appears to have checked the permit history to see there are two concrete retaining walls constructed and inspected in 1989. the reviewer would have questioned why only. walls are shown on the plan, no concrete, and what capping is necessary on the concrete walls? there is no estimation of the medevac excavation to be done it and the basement, knows so well report required. there is no design for

underpinning of the alleged park foundation next to the crawlspace or for any soil retention. there are no calculation supporting the seismic design. the incomplete plans do not trigger the necessary safety inspections required for the projects structural work. the expedited processing cut corners on rerouting application back to planning to evaluate the implications of the structural changes made to the may 5 plant, on which planning based their approval. planning is to determine what effect these changes will have on the attic room and the building's facade. i wish lastly to address the legal structures built in 1984. i chose to discuss the matter of the on permitted horizontal extension and dormer with my neighbor when they were ready to make improvements to their house in 2006. however, the owner eventually did not wish to involve the neighbors and their plants. only after they moved out and was no chance of discussing this

matter with them but i file a complaint in 2009 with dbi to report the un permitted structures. now the legal dormers an integral part of the project and no consideration of my objection because of privacy matter. the horizontal complaint is still in limbo, tied with the still active 2007 application. this is a mess. now's the time to inspect and legalize all the on permit it work that has been done on this house. the neighbors and i are willing to work with the honor to improve the property when we are approached with accurate sets of plans and a senate seat -- and a sincere interest in mutual concerns. i believe this permit has been issued in error because of the misleading and incorrect information. i request to permit be revoked. now i would like to show some pictures on the overhead. i these are the four houses.

it shows from north to south what is a picture from another angle that was on the cover shot that i provided to you. this is a picture of the rafter tales -- tails that are an ornamental cut. these will be taken down. they are in the entire perimeter of the house, which are very unique. i don't have them on mine, i would love to have them, and they are a nice distinguishing feature. just to let you know, this was the alpha house. nobody else got stained-glass windows. i would like to hit least let you see some of the problems we have had with the dormer and the fact there is actually a kitchen here that is vented up

through the top and it would take its path in front of the legal dormer. -- of the illegal border. that comes into my windows and my living space. we have lots of issues to talk about, and nobody seems to be interested to involve the neighbor, so we are here to talk to you. thank you. president peterson: thank you. we can hear now from the permit holders. >> good evening. i have never spoken before any board. please bear with me. my name is mary galvin and i am one of the subject property owners. commissioner garcia: pullet closer. >> i purchased the property in 2002. in 2006, we began discussing with neighbors the renovation to meet the needs of our family. we have met with many obstacles,

mainly from ms. wuerfel. in 2008, it deteriorated to such an extent that we were advised to vacate the home because of excess of mold formation. we had no choice but to find rental accommodation. despite the enormous expense of $4,000 per month. we sustained that living accommodation and paid our mortgage every month. this is an extremely stressful, both financially and in our family life. over the past number of years, we have had numerous conversations, meetings, revealing, re-drawing of plants. however, the appellant is not interested in compromise or in allowing us to improve our house. ms. wuerfel appears to have a personal connection to our property that is beyond reason.

the appellant has produced photos that she took 24 years ago. why produce these photos now? is it purely to obstruct our project? these are photos last month. these are photos that ms. wuerfel produced in her own brief. i am sorry, they are 24 years old. commissioner garcia: i think they have to be rotated. >> that is one. that is the second one. she witnessed the construction of this project 24 years ago. what are we only hearing about it now? we bought the property in 2002. this obsessive preoccupation with our home is overwhelming. she has made it abundantly clear by her past and present actions as to obstruct, protest, and appeal any project that is

proposed, no matter how detrimental these actions may be to the property itself. i am sorry. and with complete disregard for the financial burden it takes on us as homeowners. what is her goal? ms. wuerfel has filed 14 complaints of nov on the property, including abandoned building citation. this is a complete misuse of the statute and abuse of us financially. we are well aware of the continuation of our home. we are well aware of the condition of our home and nobody has a more great interest to fix the home. ms. wuerfel has done extensive research on our home to prepare her appeal. i am working registered nurse and mother of three children and cannot compete with the time she has devoted to this appeal. however, it is baffling to me that she has stated such great concern over preservation of the potentially historical resources of the subject house.

the photo ms. wuerfel has used on her appeal clearly depicts one house out of the four houses that have been significantly altered with a large third floor, both with 10 windows, up four of which are south facing over her neighbor. one may forget in the ceiling this was the subject of discussing concerns of the preservation of historical aspects, not the subject property, are home, the smaller house to the left with an existing door that is not visible from the street. i can only assist ms. wuerfel's interest in percent -- in historical preservation is a recent concern and was not a concern when she built her own edition. this appears to be somewhat of a double standard. our goal is to return to our home in a timely manner. we wish to make it habitable and save ourselves and wish to raise our children there. we have no intention of altering the character and defining features of the

property. our plans call for a far less significant change to the outline of the roofline than miss wuerfel's large edition. there is nothing to be gained by holding up or denying the permit any further. accept further deterioration of our property and, no doubt, for the complaints from the appellant. our hands are tied. time is of the essence. our plans have been approved by the building department, including the historical planner. i respectfully appeal to you to let the permit stand so complete our project, stop the financial hemorrhage that is our lives, and return to our home. thank you. i would just like to put the picture that ms. wuerfel used on the cover of her brief to depict the house. as you can see, the rather large one on the end -- commissioner garcia: move the microphone. >> i am sorry. the rather large house on the end, this is the appellants

property, with the large extension. our home is the one next to it. it has the existing dormer you cannot even see from the street. i find it hard to see how this is affecting the potential historic nature of the house at this time. thank you for your time. commissioner fung: ms. galvin, can you provide to us or early -- can you provide to us orally a timeline of what you have tried to accomplish through your various applications? >> i am one of the product owners, homeowners. i want to go back real quick and then answer your question. this is nothing new with this

appellant. i have a different attachment to the home, as emotional as my wife is. this is a safety issue. the building inspector deputy has been to the property 21 times. my spin on things it is our house is moving downhill. ms. wuerfel lives downhill. when we went to miss wuerfel and told her it is moving downhill and we wanted to stop this brush of nov's a caved. our house has moved 6 inches in the last 12 months. there is a mold report in the brief. we were told to move out, simple as that, move out,. mediate the mold and move out. -- immediate the mold and move out. it 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.