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

miraloma drive. being a good neighbor is like a marriage. it is compromise. our neighbor has shown no will to compromise. all three neighbors in this case are asking about minor modifications in the project. all it is about is moving the upper floor and 3 yards toward the direction of miraloma drive, as well as a couple of other minor things that my other neighbor just told you about. this includes a reduction in windows facing west and planting those trees. we have three neighbors since the project was started.

this appeal is about minor changes to the project, up nearly slight movement of the upper floor toward the east. if our never compromises, it will be a small token of peace and love between neighbors. thank you for your attention. president peterson: is there a third appellant who is going to speak? seeing non-, we will move to the permit holder. >> good evening, president peterson, members of the commission. i am david silverman.

i am working with the owners of the property located at 154 miraloma drive. the planning commission voted unanimously in favor of the project, and the appellant claims are spurious. the project is a single family home on a vacant lot located adjacent to the home where the residents have lived for 50 years. the zoning is rh-1, a resident single-family detached district. the proposal will have minimal impact on the neighborhood and is consistent with the existing homes located there. in addition, the project's designer has worked diligently with the planning staff to incorporate all the design changes the staff requested. the planning department's staff analysis which was provided in our pocket confirms the compliance with all guidelines,

and specifically a response to the issues just raised by the appellants, it is against every tennessee -- planning policy and guidelines to have the highest vertical portion of the building on the street. the always want a setback on the street because that improves the appearance of the neighborhood. that is a planning department policy that was simply followed by the permit holder. the planning department recommended that the planning department -- the planning commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. the commission voted unanimously to follow the department's recommendation and did just that. you might note that the steep slope downward from merrill lamotte -- only two stories will be above grade from the curb. the permit holders actively informed and communicated with the neighborhood residents about

the project, including at least three meetings between the appellants and the project designer. several neighbors who are concerned primarily about preserving their views have joined in with the appeal. views are not protected by the planning code. the designer has written a detailed response to each and every claim by the appellants and demonstrated why and how the home is compatible with the neighborhood in scale,, design, and detail, as well as compliant with all residential design guidelines. she has also documented each of the design changes she made to the project to accommodate the requests prior to last january. the documentation was also submitted. there were no exceptional and

extraordinary circumstances raised in this case. the appellants have failed to submit to this board any new information or substantial evidence that has not already been considered and unanimously rejected by both the planning department and the planning commission, after a public hearing at which their issues were fully aired and considered. the request that the board denied the appeal. the designer is available for questions. if there is time left, i would like to introduce their daughter, who is here to speak on their behalf. thank you. president peterson: there is some time remaining. >> i time this. it takes 1 minutes 16 seconds. commissioner garcia: move the

microphone. >> i grew up at 144 miraloma drive. my parents have owned it for 54 years. the have contributed greatly to the community since 1956. they are building this house to ease and makes a for the last years of their lives. my dad is 87, diabetic, and has other major health issues. my mom is 80 and has been taking care of him. they are building this house to make it wheelchair accessible. my parents bought his lot with the intent to build upon it. they have left this lot building free for more than 50 years, so all their neighbors have enjoyed their view. the use in san francisco are not protected in residential areas. the current neighbor's immense use will only be but decreased minimally after the construction, if that ever happens. my parents designer, nora, has

had numerous meetings with the same neighbors, whenever seem satisfied with any compromises offered. the project has been delayed by the same neighbors for more than a year. all the other neighbors seem pleased my parents are finally building their home. as an r and and daughter, i am concerned i dad will never see -- as an rn and doctor, i am concerned my dad will never live to see the completion of his home. thank you for your time and consideration. president peterson: thank you. mr. sanchez? >> thank you. i think the permit holder has done an exceptional jump of compliance of this project. the project was subject to three

discretionary reviews. it received unanimous approval. there was one commissioner absent. seven voted for the project. commissioner garcia: 13 dr -- why three drs? >> this was consolidated -- these three parties in one appeal. commissioner hwang: your department does not take into consideration the tree issue, does it? >> i am glad you brought that up. there is a provision for protected trees. protected trees are significant and of a certain size within the first 10 feet of the property line abutting a public right of way. on the rest of the project, if

there are landmark trees, they are protected. you have to go through a process with the board of supervisors to become a landmark. the trees in question are not subject to these provisions. the city does not have any thing to do with these trees. it is a civil matter and not something for the building department. commissioner hwang: there is a discussion from the permit holder that views are not protected. what about privacy considerations? >> if the privacy has been addressed, due to the significant distance between the properties. we are not talking about one property hugging the next property. commissioner hwang: what is the distance? do you know? >> is it 80 feet? it is a significant distance between the two properties. we live in a city.