den? >> patrick o reardon, senior building inspector and. commissioner garcia: i think my question was satisfied. if there is indeed a need to get an emergency permit for the foundation, that is separate from any of our process. >> generally speaking, the way

that works -- if there is a compromise of the structure, they would submit to us a structural engineering report showing what the emergency work for repair, mitigation of that condition, would need to be. there would need to have one of our engineering staff go and evaluate at the site based on the report. the permit would be issued based upon our engineering staff concurring with their engineer's report showing an unsafe foundation that would be grounds for possibly issuing an emergency order and a permit for the repair of the foundation. commissioner garcia: thank you. commissioner hwang: typically, what is the turnaround time for such a permit? >> if it is thought to be an emergency, we generally get our

stuff out immediately upon receiving the report. it is usually the same day. vice president goh: would dbi consider making a site visit without the report from the engineer? if we could save on the expense of having to do that, if dbi could have a look -- we have heard allegations there is an unsafe situation. >> generally, and that is not how it works. vice president goh: it needs a report? >> we work based on what that report indicates to us. commissioner fung: mr. o'rearden, one of the issues in this particular case was the issue of mold. i believe the mold remediation could occur at any time without any impact by the decision on this particular permit. >> i am not really well versed

on mold situations or litigation methods for mold. i would suggest that if the building does have openings that are not secure that may be a reason for mold -- contamination with mold. that was mentioned in one of the notices of violation, i believe, that there were some broken windows. commissioner garcia: madam president, if i can ask mr. buskovich to comment on the condition situation? >> commissioners, i am not aware of the rest of the story. the foundation is old and historic to that neighborhood.

it appears there are two foundations -- the original foundation and an extension of the foundation, with a tinge in the foundation. you have a retaining wall supporting 8 feet of soil, and about four feet up, the retaining wall has a break in it. you basically have a hinge. it is a hazard. i am kind of surprised that no one is wanting to let this get fixed. it does need to be fixed. the building department definition of eminent means you have to be moving. it is kind of too late to fix it. when a building starts moving,

it is too late. there is a hazard. i do not know if it is eminent. president peterson: is there any public comment? simenon, the matter is submitted. -- seeing none, the matter is submitted. vice president goh: we heard there are three options -- the continuance if we want to look at this tonight. i suppose we could do the permit

with the exception of the repairs to the foundation. or the permit holder could withdraw the permit. i did not hear if he was interested in doing that. an we carve out the foundation? >> i am not aware of the details of the basics of the appeal, but the relevant factor for this board is that the exemption for the entire project has been appealed to the board of

supervisors. board practice in the past has been to continue an environment to wait for the environmental review to be finalized, until there is a final environmental review on the project. the board cannot review this project. i think mr. sanchez is correct that one option would be that if the appellate does not want to wait until the 22nd he can withdraw his permit. i think that if the board were to deny the permit that we would face the want-year bar problem. -- the one-year bar problem. the recommended process absent a withdrawal on the part of the appellant would be to continue this. otherwise, we need the board of supervisors determination on the ceqa issue. president peterson: if we deny, we cannot grant a new project?

vice president goh: he has to reapply. president peterson: can we give him a permit? >> i am not sure i understand the question. president peterson: i mean on the foundation. vice president goh: we could carve out the foundation and deny all the permit but for the foundation work. >> the foundation report is part of the overall project, and ceqa applies to the project over all. it is not up to the board to decide whether that applies to the foundation work. i do not think you can per se it out that way. president peterson: did not hear from the appellant that the basis for the appeal on ceqa was due to historical considerations? you could ask the appellant. ms. wuerful, is that?

was that the basis of your appeal? >> yes, as well as the fact that the entirety of the project has not been reviewed by planning. these are the secretary of the interiors of guidelines for any project on a building over 50 years old. it is more complicated than saying it is a historic building. when you do that, you get into a variety of other issues i am sure mr. sanchez has discussed. it is not just an old building. it is an old building that has been invoked under standards through the residential design guidelines of the secretary of the interior, which affect the whole project. commissioner hwang: thank you. vice president goh: it seems like if we deny the permit we

are denying the repairs to the foundation for at least a year. i am not willing to do that or to force the permit holder to go through the emergency application process. i think continuance makes sense to the earliest possible date -- the earliest possible date after the board of supervisors. commissioner fung: i am in agreement. it is up to the permit holder to take whatever action he has under his control related to either withdraw will or requesting a disapproval. it is up to him to make a case with the building department, whether it is an emergency safety issue. what is before us is the fact that we cannot act. therefore, we must be consistent in that respect and continue this.

i am prepared to accept the day that was discussed, september 22. president peterson: what are the implications for permitting -- commissioner hwang: what are the implications for permiting as suggested? what would be the implications? >> i am not prepared to say that ceqa would allow that carve out. it may be required for the foundation work. the board could not -- the entire review is on appeal. the report of supervisors would not have jurisdiction over that question. i do not believe this board would have jurisdiction to make waa ceqa finding. vice president goh: i am saying if we have respect to the life

safety issue -- >> i do not believe that is allowed. commissioner garcia: i think the permit holder, ms. galvin, and mr. quinn, are well respected. i believe the department of building inspection has heard the concerns of this board and will give this some weight. i believe what is best suggested is to continue to september 22. if mr. quinn wants to withdraw the permit he is free to do that. i do not understand why we would want to overturn the project, to take that permit away. the other processes are still available to him. vice president goh: if there are not other comments, i would make a motion. commissioner fung: i have one, for the record.

my request for the permit history -- i have received it. vice president goh: we would be able to discuss that on september 22. and make a motion to move to september 22. president peterson: call the roll on that, please. >> the motion is from the vice- president to continue to september 22. the hearing remains held and closed. it is to allow time for the ceqa appeal to take place at the board of supervisors. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner garcia: aye. president peterson: no. commissioner hwang: aye. >> the vote is four to one. the matter is continued. president peterson: we will

move on to item nine. call that item, please. >> : item nine, appeal no. 10- 065. hong zchengheng, galina yusuopo, and michael levinson versus the department of building inspection, protesting the issuance of a permit to erect a three story family house. >> i am the property home owner

for the property right behind the subject property. i think that all of us were not against this project, but we tried to have a modified it. there are a lot of reasons. for example, if i can show, this is the original tree with the property line. the cut was my consent. i am only asking for a 25 foot tree to replace it. the only one to replace it with a 15-foot tree. what we are asking is pretty reasonable. they are going to oversee my backyard. this is one thing. the second thing is we would like further building to be moved back towards miraloma

drive as much as they can. then made a proposal right before that we actually liked, but we still have some questions about to justify the proposal. they said let us work on it, and the refuse that. the refuse things we would like to do. we would like to have the building moved to miraloma park. that would make less impact on all street-side neighbors. the last thing is that i would like to have the back west window to be reduced from 816- feet wide window to 12 feet, because the have an extremely

big window for the backyard in the second floor. this is all my concern. the trees they cut is 55 feet high. it is about 25 on their side. it originally existed. they cut that without my consent. i have my other neighbors to speak for themselves. >> i am a psychiatrist of michael levenson, 160