of the underground streams the construction that has been undergo taken and the wanted those problems to be addressed all the hearings we'll competitive kick the can down the road and there's a current chief inspector ron tom that's as opposed to agree gate all the permits we we'll have to come and appeal it all over again, the issue is the previous permits they don't want you to review are basically, their argument those are existing conditions we're claiming those permits have been superintendant have been done so where construction has outdoor without the permit being fully vested and the construction with a

appeal process this is the wrong way to do things as far as we're concerned we've been shut out every agency is looking forward to the new permit being issues and the issues being discussed with finest at the time unfortunately, we are on a two-track hearing the times are at odds with what the work is actually being down those on the ground theretofore we've been suited of dragging our feet we're absolutely under no, no control with the timetable are completely in the hands the project sponsor therefore what happened she did on a piece meal permit basis a number of jobs that in each time within a

permit after the initial permits therefore we were never in a position to review the addendum now, it's essentially they want to put that under the rug and say they'll never be reviewed and that's the existing conditions which we oppose therefore i think that at this time it is we're requesting you consider the problems that this project has had because the piecemeal permitting that is opted to the california go stuktd in 1988 basically no piecemeal permitting and neighbors have a right to see the totality of the project mr. ron tom the initial review couldn't make heads or taldz she said it was convoluted she

requested new drawings so see the subject matter into alignment you can imagine in people of the experience and quality of training of diane and tom of ph.d engineering who what do you know the neighbors had to go through we know there's construction outside of the permit therefore we ask you not to continue this problem but allow beginning now which we believe for the first time is going to do american people excellent job of sort of through the problems and let contradiction wait until we have a real project with a - has been shown to the neighbors and we march forward with one complete understanding of what is to be done as far as the sidewalks

encroachment is concerned i support the position by scott sanchez that this is got so many there's a lot of moving parts that to start with that will come cat the entire project how this particular approach to the garbage fit in with what's going to be constructed therefore we join his position and ask you again to allow dbi to do their job i think their finally really trying to get to the bottom of this and once that's done and we know the scope of the job wrg we're able to do the approach to the garbage otherwise putting the cart before the horse with my time left i want to i'm going

to turn it over to any colleagues auto, sir mr. curry has his own 7 minutes he has his own appeal. >> i know but i'm relinquishing for his time to begin and my time left over i'll return. >> it's a typically not how we do that. >> if we have joint time how would you care. >> i don't have joint time i have your own time. >> we're here as a team. >> well, he can use our two minutes and he has his own 7. >> may i have any sister who is a co-appellant. >> you can use your time there's a limit amount of time in which your dialed.

>> well, the remaining two minutes. >> mr. pacheco leave the clock with the gentleman's remaining time and when that's finished the mr. occurring writingy can speak and left over time he'll use them, however. >> you have two minutes left on our time. >> okay. i never spoke before this board i met pam over two and a half years ago she informed me she first gets a permit and does what she she wants and preceded to give us the height of this when we complete this board and the alignment was a 36 inches we assumed that was a precise none last night we found out it was

never measured it was imaginary number that's why every time the city came and measured 36 inches of lividity they said they didn't railings roiblgs but the height of the building was inaccurate then the south side of the building where she had this came close to our building one foot away the san diego segregate can the repairing of the building those are dpoichd buildings with window and skylight that had to be fixed this is impossible to do when you live one foot between the knowledge the only thing that can come between you is the

rain. >> you have 30 seconds. >> they have to be repaired you can't come that close to the buildings o this those buildings are xoichd building she's contacted four floors moving from two flats to a big home another seven hundred feet in our basement she has to add another 15 feet and come with close to our building beyond why you send nos to people one hundred and 50 feet away if nobody listens to you. >> ma'am your time is up. >> we'll hear from mr. curry. >> 7 minutes. >> thank you for letting me present i'm a concerned neighbor from the subject property my issues are a little bit different from the gentleman's but part and parcel of the broad

issue i've absolutely nothing against home improvement everybody has a right to invest in our property we ourselves took on a big project that had a bunch of compromises with our neighbors but the hearing to let the construction begin again is the cart before the horse i know that the gentleman said that there are still a number of unresolved issues not just in their opinion by in the opinion of dbi which you was mentioned number one it is how the house got to the current city of it's in and a key issue for me, the list of the building and the actual height of the building it was raised 3 feet it was ultimately a compromise that

take a look at nirnl opposition to raise the building and the project sponsors desire she wanted to raise higher than what was allowed as i said so the current this was of a compromises this compromises how have was based on erroneous facts the building was 3 feet higher than than the original permit police station said so whether than being comfortable it is up against the height limit based on to measurement it exceeds the height i am not limit you can see is you're going to raise the building 3 feet but the height would have been activity if we nope the building would have been flu maxed out that's the first issue

that is not fully resolved folks at dbi and otherwise have you know, i that they recognize any point secondly and point i'm a little bit less concerned with but indicative is the complexity of the permits and the addendum of the permits that e.r.ing spoke to make it hard for the neighborhoods to get a full picture of the councilman of the project dbi has indicated the process of co-sponsor rallying all the code review is not ballet so in addition to the ongoing questions like accident original permit to raise the building i ask you how can you let construction begin didn't when the original process is not complete so in summary to let construction begin again would

be to stream role those indications citywide thank you very much. >> there are 3 minutes remaining on the gentleman's time. >> the last thing was the initial september 19th hearing in 2012 in which the material was presented to you and we were never notified that, in fact the documents that we signed were severed and in fact the video shows mr. functioning asking the central question what's the document your representing to us out of chaplains office said it was the plans i said it was the agreement and nobody ever told us the two were separated

therefore it is may or may not for you to inform us that the documents were severed and several answers and pam said she tried to hand it in i was told whatever was submitted it would have been accepted and brought into the file and calvin said he never filed it and he gave it to pam the point it was hide the cards we had a hearing before you and permit was issued we were not told by i the material was not severed we're not talking enforcements only disclosure to a disclosure that the documents are not before. >> and mr. functioning asked the right question and nobody

folding informed us it was of of that was done this 0 throws a shadow on the first agreement that was issued on september 19 2012 and hence the question of whether you had personal contact with her the material shows there of the extensive dialog that explained a theory position why she wanted this material severed basically no 368 noifths no one appealable contract to keep out the neighborhoods and wanted no fallout interruption this was in the material if you want to accept it wonderful if you don't there's nothing i can do about it. >> thank you. >> the last point i'm made relative to the facts presented when i you know when you get a permit i think if you allow

construction to proceed here you know and i look at the facts of this the permit was ultimate a compromise the height was a companions and the height was sought to be well below theling legal limit what if it would be up against the legal limit the height wouldn't be where it is i think in a sense you have to turn back the clock and you know imagine what that permit would have 4r508d if the facts were present you can't misrepresent the facts and misrepresent the facts and get our pretty and retrofit actively miss state the facts as you okay. we'll hear if the permit holder her attorney ms. dick you'll have 17 minutes if you want me to break

down the math. >> no madam president ilene dicks here on booklet form permit holder the project architect a hero to assist i notice. you have looks at on your face when the gentleman was talking about the facts as you can you speak into the mike >> i apologize. i want to spend the initial portion of my time trying to walk you through this history and put in context and show you how the gentleman's comments are erroneous i want to go back to the february 15th all of this contrary to what the gentlemen say the release of the zoning administrator and the minor sidewalks encroachment that was tangled at the donor

tabled to the call of the chair and the suspension was listed the suspension was done and i provided the transcript of the hearing for all of you even those off you who weren't there you see what mr. sanchez that or there were sdrerpz before the planning commission ever the board of supervisors there was a absent of a notification on the original site permit in terms of the height of the building at the time it was lifted 3 inches jumping to the end of the story we've anticipated that the battle of surveyors would be about before the body and i'll take you through those steps we've been absolutely clear this was an absent of the noefths not delivered by the gentleman or ms. white head nobody knew until it was race and the measurement

went out the brief we sent to the planning commission i went into detail how the surveys were done on the clients and no scare but you multiple survey measurement without documents we've conceded it mr. sanchez in his comments in the transcript it is exhibit f he went through very thoughtfully wanted to work with the project sponsor to be clear this was a site permit issued as you know sitting on the board didn't permit construction you need addendum nothing never seen race the addendum is 99 percent of the cases is done for structural and interior work that's the common practices in terms of doing the site permits in san francisco particularly when our in this

case where there's changes to the elevation so normal process mr. sanchez last year decided things were discrepancies and the best way to suspend all the permits and the four addendum and require as part of the suspension a permit i've called the consolidate building permits that's the same day terminal that mr. sanchez used in his suspension i'm going to read to correct cores errors document the proposed project and responsibility in the planning requirement with the completion to the middle once i got involved in the middle and worked with mr. sanchez the gentleman supplied the plan i'm sure you're aware of it took things a bit to get started but

the gentleman was well aware of it i presented in the brief the gentleman reviewed the planning rectifies and e-mail them regularly about the status of things he was well aware of the consolidated permit was being mislead he understood but again had been talking to building and planning staff that condolence was to spur seed but to set the record straighter and does what i call shows the work that was approved and built it boards modifications no september 2012 that were approved by the gentleman and the only work physical work to the building to be approved by any permit shown in the third panel with exterior renovation that permit i

provided the plans in exhibit i have those in front of you went to a discretionary review and mr. deterring risk wanted to delay the hamburger because under quote acquit wasn't enough time the planning commission didn't buy the argument and the planning commission upheld the permit on and on under discretionary review and the planning sent it off to the believable on september 15th unfortunately at the building inspection it is not the type of permits they so you see a lot of permits this is an unusual plan it shows things that have been built it is showing in the third portions again work that has yet to be approved by the been but

by planning the other thing it does there's sheets that shows the elevation go prepared by the gentleman going back to the zoning administrator put on the suspension request so that permit has been sitting there we've been well aware of it we hoped by the time we'll have that permit in front of the of you as a new permit it itself distinct and different than subject to the release those permits are final no more appeals the agenda is not appealable but the site had been piloted the condition of the permit you conditioned that showing in the portion of the consolidated building permit great we're not trying to hide the ball we don't believe we

disagree somehow the reveals of the suspension is somehow directly corrected with the permit we that they're separate that permit is going to allow for the transparency and the record that the zoning administrator saw and loss going to allow an awe awe defined to be that i would doing the remaining work with the dwelling unit merger and the other exterior work keeping in mind when 9 appellant say there wrote a transparent and things were not shared addenda is not shared people are free to go the building inspection. >> the way it is set up where there're intent for the where the rubber meets the road to see the changes if neighborhood character in terms of the exterior congressman's in this case we had a fire damaged

building you know damage you know it was not unhabitable the reason for the list wanted to have a garbage with a curb cut we've provided that 99 percent of everyone on the block has a curb cut conceded the noticing nottion was erroneous and documentation in terms of the surveyors no in my opinion the appropriate forum we believe the sdcers anchored appropriating if acted appropriating everyone that was done well, we've tried and worked with dbi the gentleman can speak to his ongoing communications with mr. yes,

your honor and tom those are not your normal building permits and many wen he's she's an engineer by training and fairly new to the department so the gentleman has worked with tom and again responded to the building inspection in a timely fashion we've not heard about problem that mr. tom has after having an ongoing conversation with the believable i also want to put out i'm concerned when i here hear the appellant can review the plans i'm hoping that's not the case the idea there will be again once the permit is on it can be appealed and we expect the height issue that has followed to be resolved so again to bring this back home this is

not the battle of the surveyors it's the release that mr. sanchez issued i stated in my brief it's a matter no use of discretionary or discretion and look at it another way mr. sanchez is interpreting the code his enforcing the code his issues were addressed to consolidate the building permit the sidewalk encroachment was done to make this house to share what everyone has in terms of amenity issued by itself dbi the plan was the requisite nothing 0 nefarious i ask you to consider not before you the future building permit that's under review and been approved by the planning commission and signed off by planning but to stay focus on the release and i think

what i'd like to do have the colleague fill in some of the time. >> before you do that a quick question i thought i heard you say for sure that the consolidated building permit are straight completely new permit i thought i heard you say something about it being blend in as an addendum. >> no, it has its own permit number and under separate review. >> good evening, members of the board i don't have a lot to say i understand this hearing is about real estate the suspension and proofing or allowing to go through the ms c the other

issues are relevant to the larger permit i'll be happy to address it if the board time me to the gentleman in his efforts with every he ounce of effort will be appealing that permit that's called the consolidate permit and we'll be back again to go for that so if you have questions i'm happy to answer any questions you may have. but i honestly don't want to go into the "x" resistance items unless you want me, too and i'm steve the architect i think the attorney want to speckle though. >> ilene i want to come back and tie up the last portion of the gentleman's talking talking about the non-severe ability there was an agreement executed

at the ceqa appeal to the board of supervisors and part of that agreement mr. deterring risk has used it thus far to say somehow the city was involved if the sflement agreement his allegation there's communication the whole thing ms. white head and the board didn't happen i want to classify it's a settle agreement between the private parties that's done we draw appeals and the gentleman stated this before the board of supervisors and blood tests planning commission that's right a disagreement i don't know what we medians by severe ability and non-severe ability by stowaway he thinks that's impacting the building departments or review of permit so again, i think i've

said any peace and really building this is a compartment listed we didn't get any documented that's difficult in dealing with situations like this it is hard for you the decision-makers antes and the public it is the minor sidewalk the zoning administrator acted correctly and the minor sidewalks applies to the microscope works code we ask you to deny all the codes before you thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> mr. sanchez you have 14 minutes. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i'll try to be brief so the matter on appeal is the release of suspense request i'd issued last year my intention in issu