off the buildings and works itsn the street. penetration is it not-is not gor building materials or other thi. >> thank you. i believe commissioner swig hada question. >> can you tell us about the ale sites you review before settlinn this? >> kevin modas can speak to tha. this particular pole is unique. at its height, it actually seese building 3400. it's at a corner and -- >> i'm sorry, quiet, please in . >> it was designed specificallyt whereas other poles around corne lower and would not provide the necessary propagation. kevin, i don't know if you can r that. >> basically -- i'm kevin moda s verizon.

verizon r.f. engineer says i nee at this intersection. we go to the intersection with architects. and look at different poles to t blocking windows? is it in front of windows? is there a tree blocking the si? here we looked at this is the fe we looked at. we thought it was the best locat that intersection because the aa would be above where the windown adjacent property. that building is about 22 feet m the right-of-way. while the other poles on that sn the immediate area are closer to buildings. if you go, i think west, the stt starts to go down in elevation. sow would lose some signal goint because of that. so that was kind of the reasonid this pole selection.

>> what about placing it on buis instead of poles? >> it's tough with the zoning in francisco. that is preference seven, the pg department can go to that. it's hard at the get these on residential lots. residential-zoned properties, id say we've heard in past, residel properties could provide an alte to placing them on the pole if comparable service -- if the ses acceptable. we hear more of that from plannr would you like to -- >> i would speak to that. we want them at street level. if you're on a building, the sis gettinget going to get to that a that we want. >> you said the light pole, eveh you got objection from the galln the back, that the light pole ir

than the building in which it s, you contradicted yourself. >> that is that subject buildin. there are other buildings abutte that are taller than the pole. do you want to speak? >> in 1998, we began an accessoe process in are san francisco whe were allowed to put smaller facs within a particular design confn on residential properties. that was recently converted thra code change to allow certain sml facilities through the planning. but i have two comments and onee network is designed in order toe this network the necessary small service with the least number os or poles when you move one poled up having to move other poles bf the limited 500-foot radius basf

seiveis provide. -- service provided. when you move the facility off s and into building)ide=0 areas, e network an how it's designed. there are two comments i have ty about that. one, as i mentioned, we have tht to be if the rieft o right-of-w. we have negotiated with the citr this particular design to be ine right-of-way. telephone equipment on poles ine right-of-way. and so we have the right to be e without demonstrating need. secondly is clearly our networks designed in order to provide tht reliable network and service int efficient way, that is the desit verizon is bringing forward. the city is not in a position te the technology we use. i have to say, yes, we use smals in certain circumstances. in order to provide the coveragd down the street and this is a

bi-directional antenna, this ise design that the network engineed out to provide the service we'rg to provide. >> in that spirit, this impliest there will be permits being reqd for other poles and as we heard- i can't remember whether it wasc comment or the appellant who sa, now they're working with the dpd planning to put more of these tn other poles which will further t what we've worked for decades te which is a continuity and cleanf getting away from stuff on pole. so if -- and if this were a houd this type of permitting activitd

happen, i think the permitting d surface in the conversation. so rather than being accused ofl permitting and doing something s less than transparent, what's te about just doing it the right wr doing it the -- ore, that woulda judgment, doing it the way the neighborhood who invested a tres effort in money to do it in a rl way and sit down with the neighd association and create a propere that you're going to put materi- that you're going to request per material all over the neighborhd that you would like to work out. why not do it that way so we'ree i20 times hearing appeals from e

presidio heights neighborhood? >> thanks for letting me answert question. first, i want to say that the ee project, the larger project iniy went through a ceqa analysis. that ceqa analysis included an s of cumulative impact. those issues were reviewed. there is in fact a san francisce regarding the cumulative impacte types of facilities where the ct determined that where you coulde one facility from the next, thet impact from one facility to the, there was no cumulative impact. regarding the overall planning , we don't apply for these. it sounds like we're going in ek or month or something and applyr one of these poles. i think you know they're over 4s and they're applied in batches n entire neighborhood which receis hundreds, thousands of notices. we notice within 150 feet of eve

and notice every neighborhood association twice. we notice any protestor twice. we post the poles twice. this is not in a vacuum. we don't post just the pole bute entire street face block with te notices and that's going on p fl the other facilitieses in a pol. san francisco is certainly one e most process-laden locations, jurisdictions for this kind of . so i have to -- i really want ty that there is -- has been a verg and involved and publicly transt process to where we are today. that there is substantial noticy mail, by posting of these facils within a neighborhood, there is substantial opportunity for comd

review. dpw dos does tell us to move po. they tell us there i is not a g. among the hundreds approved, ths only, a dozen that have been --e verizon facilities of this stylt come to you. we always experience the concerf immediate neighbors to what i wl public infrastructure. if you were putting this light d in for a first time or a stop se where people gun their engines,t stop sign is important for everf the community where the neighboe concerned. >> you've answered his question. i have a couple more. how many exition poles do you hn that particular district right ? >> existing poles in that distr?

>> yes. >> i think we're in the processf applying and moving forward. >> a lot of the poles in the pas area are concrete holes. i think it's recently was execui would say right now, we've proby installed 10 to 12 in the pac hs area. >> and spated or slated, what ie number -- anticipated or slateds the number of figure you're loo? >> i don't know because that's s verizon's r.f. proprietary info. that number is probably -- >> can you answer that question? >> i wish i could. i honestly cannot. i believe there are approximaten the area that are currently -- >> i mean because what i think commissioner swig was alluding e communication with the neighbord yet, we understand that san fras

one of the toughest places. we've had over 2,000 wireless fy appeals in this body and we wers you're probably aware of. as the members of the public int neighborhood that have spent a f time, effort and energy in thesn the esthetics of the neighborho. instead of you being in front o0 or 30 more times, if you can gep together with the locations andk with the neighborhood, they're g to be happy anyway, but the antn knowing that these are where the locations are slated to go. and proprietary or not, if somee showed up at 2:00 a.m. in fronty house -- >> yeah. yeah. >> i agree, we have web sites, e information that we try to push. we had press campaigns to push - >> i'm asking at this point, siu

know there is further stuff, ple further communication with the o heights neighborhood because the the questions that i'm sure youn front of this body at least onee time, that 649 did not pass. at which point, those are the qs that we're going to ask and whyt there communication. >> i'll take to heart and to ven wireless. we'll discuss -- >> open line of communication. >> yes. >> thank you. >> miss higgens, no rebuttal? okay. and mr. teague, anything furthe? commissioners, unless you have s for the departments, the matters submitted. >> we're in deliberation alreads

point. thank you. >> i guess you know -- it's my n that the case that was before un sacramento street was worse than terms of, you know, the impact. however, the designation of saco street was no designation. the street has -- this area hase good-view designation. the question is not so much, i , the blockage or changing of thes either toward presidio or anywh. i think the other portion of ths whether this fixture on a lighte

affects the character of that ai think it does. it's too bad that this particulr technology has created a lot ofs in quite a few neighborhoods. it's obviously unnecessary tech, but it's one that i think has nt promulgated itself in a conciliy way. i'm prepared to not support thee of this permit. >> i would agree for the same r. and i also think there is -- i k there is a noticing issue. and i've spoken about this withd

to the city department in chargf working with the utilities. that i think that they are neglt until their bee may havier and sensitivity to specific neighbo. this is a historic neighborhood. this is a neighborhood that hasn above and beyond action and subsidized -- subsidized out ofr own pockets, the city of san fro to continue the beautification d specific personality of their neighborhood. and the city department turns tk and absolutely turns a blind eyt is a rather heroic effort or cea city patriotic effort to keep sn francisco -- a pry san francisco neighborhood at -- primary san o

neighborhood at a distinctive l. the success of the light poles e because there was proper notici. it involved the city -- sorry, e presidio heights neighborhood organization who testified in ff us just now that they are not o. they're not opposed to having vn installations in the neighborho. he said that. but he'd like to work together a sense to get that there will soe personality of the neighborhoode branding of the neighborhood, se historic nature of the neighbory be preserved. on that ex-testimon extemporanei support commissioner fung for te reason.

>> so i've been on the board a e longer than rick. in five years i've seen thousanf these cases. as the counselor explained at&ts were extremely intrusive. we have fought timelessly on bef the citizens to the point wheree litigated against. i believe we lost that. i commend this neighborhood fore ability for having the esthetic, beautiful homes and having the s to put their services undergrou. but at the same time, you know,y is 170 years old. i think every house in every dis actually precious. and not all districts have the y to put their services undergrou.

i'm kind of torn. i think that if there is a facit goes on top of a pole, this is y the least intrusive in comparest i've seen over the last five ye. so i'm at this point not sure wy i'll go. >> i would -- >> is that a question of the at? is it correct that verizon has t to put a pole -- let's say a pot there, that they have a right ta pole there and put it up on the, is that right? >> i have not researched that sc question. but i trust the council's opinin that topic. right-of-way.

>> the law allows them to be ife public right-of-way. yes. >> i would suggest that, again,s not pushback from the appeal an. appellant. the appellant is commenting on e pole and he indicated that as wr developers of buildings and tecy that the neighborhood is open ad willing to accommodate a -- the reasonable development of new technologies. that would be an organized way a grid of these devices throughout presidio heights. i think what we're -- what i woe to -- and that requires proper g

of the entire neighborhood, reae macro neighborhood and a plan st doesn't become health scelter. and defeat the purpose of what - what -- helter-skelter and makie haul their light stanchions arey the same. that;mb is why i think we shoult this and sustain the personalit- protect the personality of the neighborhood and push verizon tt together a plan with the neighbd association and the neighbors io sense. >> so what about the richmond dt or sunset district or excelsior district? should they mail out and reach o the district each time they pute up? >> that's where the character ad personality of this district is

different than those and also ie districts, those districts are y blighted with -- we talked abous many times -- blighted with hore wooden telei don't kno tele-- tr items. it's like comparing apples and vegetables. >> city attorney. >> i would want o caution the bt you're not a legislative body. here to the extent there is an f notice, i haven't heard evidenct they did not comply with the red noticing of the ordinance. i don't think this board is nota position to place a new requiren verizon or any other flel commus provider to engage in new notict they're not required by ordinan. >> i was editorializing but whas saying was in support of commisr

fung's point of view which is bn changing the character and pena- differenting the personality ofa historic neighborhood. that's the basis on which i woud support a motion. >> commissioners, just another s information we need to consider. if you have the votes or you mae the support for granting this ai would ask you to consider whethu may want to have written findins adopted in support of it. instead of voting on a motion, s made, to grant this appeal, i wk you to consider -- >> the motion of intent? >> motion of intent, correct. >> i'll make a motion of intentt the appeal on the basis that plg determination of no impact was incorrect.

>> and with the -- vice presided that be to continue this item tr date to allow the adoption of fs to support that is it. >> depending on where the vote . >> it should be clear that it'sn of intent and not an action youe taking. >> then i would add to that the development of -- deliberation - >> continue this to january 17t. >> so then there is a motion fre vice president to continue thiso january 17th and that is based n intent to grant the appeal becae

planning department's assessmeno impact was incorrect. that would be for the drafting d adoption of findings at a later. is that correct? >> that is my motion. >> on that motion, commissioner. >> no. >> president honda. >> no. >> commissioner wilson. >> no. >> and commissioner swig. >> aye. >> that motion fails with a vot. lacking any other motion, the al would be denied and the permit y default. okay. president hop da, shall i call t item? >> yes. >> so i will move on. we're on item five which is a rg request. subject property 2226 green str. the requester is barbara lawrend she's asking that a rehearing bd

of 17-125, barynts versus deparf building inspection decided octh 2017. they voted 4-0-1 with commissior wilson absent. the project is 5'6" infill at te existing fourth floor. deck extension. kitchen renovation, remove trel. i know when a similar matter wae the board last week, commissiond she was ready to proceed and i e she is still prepared. we have three minutes for this . >> good evening and welcome bac. >> thank you. before you start my three minutd a point of order. i think i inadvertently gave fae information. when i looked it up, it impliedt

site but i visit it once a week. it's our family home. then i had a question. can it be noted in the record t. lastly has not taken the oath oe again. >> you can use your three minutf you'd like to include that in yr statements. >> thank you. thank you for the opportunity tt this new information. neighbors knew that this deck wt right and it's taken us a year e the evidence to prove that. there have been many ambiguitied discrepancies along the way ande explained these as mistakes bute great number of the mistakes she the. de-- deceit. as you can see, this building -s the building we're talking abou.

as you can see, it stands out. neighbors know it's not legal. only the project sponsors were d enough to open up this can of w. worms. this floor is illegal. the fourth floor has no permit . it was built between 1956 and 14 without a permit and per city cy repairs are allowed. we can guess at what is represen the old aerial photos but the ps clear, in 1956 there were three, in 1964 there were four. no permit. my second new evidence is this e that was submitted by the projet sponsors to the planning commis. here is that image, but with tht

square footage gathered from acl permit records, google map and n francisco aerial photographs. the size of the deck is larger n neighboring decks. it can accommodate bar cue kfl c that belong in commercial neighs but not residential. that's why no other deck of thie has been approved in our neighb. these false measurements were sd to the planning commission as fa main consideration in the planng commission's approval of this d. only small decks have been apprd previous to this one. the deck will set an unwanted pt in this neighborhood and open af worms. in conclusion, this deck ha shoe allowed. i've been over-spent and over-ld pri thby the project sponsors. this is a democracy, it is not n

aristocracy. we'd like to preserve our neighd for pos pert. please do not allow this entertt deck to be -- po posterity. please don't allow this deck toe built. >> i believe you presented lastg a single sheet of paper that int was one of four sheets youd a te building made it illegal. >> that was another neighbor whd that. >> my same question. >> that was not mine. but i'm happy to show you the ps that mr. sanchez sent me yester. >> i'll wait for the departmentr that up for me. >> we can hear from the permit r now. >> good evening and welcome. >> thanks. good evening, my name is maigen, my shus traveling for work so hs unable to be here tond. miss lawrence just reviewed -- s

not in her brief. if you read her brief, her openg statement is "i feel i have not presented my case well and i woe a chance to reiterate it." that's not what in forum is for. in her remarks this evening, shs calling our building an illegal structure. this is not new information as e requesters brought this up befor hearinhearing in april. and there was a complaint file i then also. this has been reviewed over andd over by both planning and buildd they have come back time and tin to say there is no issue. more importantly, if not being w information, it's factually inc. i'm quoting the building depart- i'm hope the building departmenn clear that up. i have a quick summary on the hf the building.

both 1938 there is an aerial phh of the building at the current . 1950 there a map. 1956 and 57 there was a permit d which miss lawrence referred to referring to the building at 50t it's an anomaly. 195 had there is a permit totalr storeys. 1973, the same thing. 1981 also. from is the inspection report td the building to contain the fous and the top floor is legal. i'm surprised we're here and tag about the legality of our build. my husband and i are tired. this is -- this received a levef scrutiny that i think projects s scope have not received before.

so i don't know how we've gotte. if you look at the original d.rt from miss lawrence to p and we'e protected her views. we have a three foot high wall d our roof. there is no penthouse stair sca. staircase. there is no manifest injustice o new information and my husband i hope we can finish the remodel e into our home. >> do you have a 3-r report? >> i'm not sure what that is, a. i have a fer mitts that mr. san- permits that mr. sanchez sent. >> that's okay. we'll ask the department. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. teague. >> good evening president honda, commissioners, cory teague fromg

department staff. the planning department has reve appellant's request and found is not comply for the request. it does not contain any new infn that has not been provided on ts matter. last we be the other appellant d questions. to support their claim, they prd one page ever a four-page documt stating that the top floor was t legally constructed. they reviewed records and founde document in its entirety. upon reviewing the report baseda site inspection in further an fa condominium, they found that thp floor was illegal. they cited 13 minor items for correction. the report was a fached to per - attached to the permit. top floor of the building has ed

since at least 1935 although ths other evidence that it was earl. it appearses on the 1950 sanbor. they cite it three storeys over basement. the appellant cited two per pitm the 1950s stated two-storey over basement. the balance of evidence includie 1981 report support the legalite structure. the appellant has been informedo pursue the matter furd with dbiy have the jurisdiction over legaf struck tours. if they find the property is in violation, they'll require it bt into compliance. i'm failin available for any quu have. >> i think you know that was a m brought up last week. there was no substantial answerm either the permit holder or the department. so it would have been relativelo

demonstrate and if we had somett was conclusive. but neither side representativee hearing didn't answer the questn either. >> my understanding is that oner pages was presented last week ae hearing. i can't speak as to why they dit provide all four pages. but since then, we did find thee document. >> thank you. >> inspector duffy, anything? >> good evening inspector duffy. >> good evening. prei don't have too much to add. i did see the e-mails that mr. z sent this week. i have to say they were very, vy thorough. he spent a lot of time investigg this. there was quite a lot of eviden.

my experience as well at dbi is- probably in the 19 oos it was t, when people get permits there, e the roofing contractor could gee story wrong. dbi could issue the permit. it depends on what the permits r but i'm confident this buildings three storeys and a basement. a condo process would involve af research. there are cfcs and lawyers invo. like -- think what i'm trying ty it's pretty thorough and i thine building is what i it should bee storeys and a basement. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment s item? seeing none, commissioners the s submitted.fké

>> to be consistent with last wi would conclude as well that theo new evidence and no manifest ini would move to deny the rehearing request. >> we have a motion from commisr lazarus to deny the request on e motion. vice president fung. >> aye. >> president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. >> that motion pass d passes 5-e request is denied. >> we're going to [gavel] welcome back to the november 157 meeting of the san francisco bof appeals. we're on 16- 018.r[6w;í property at 95 st. germain aven.

after the denial of a front yard variance to increase the heighte garage and reduce the front sett the first and second story to 1. this matter was heard on july 1, it's on for further hearing tod. the board voted on july 19th 5-o allow time for the appeal -- aps to work to resolve their disputh the neighbors at 99 st 99 st. gd draft findings and support of ae plans could be submitted to the. with the president's consent, ie can give three minutes to each e since the matter was heard and e public comment. we'll start with the appellants. >> good evening and welcome bac. >> president honda, commissioned members of the board. we wish to request that you recr

our variance application now eng the third almost fourth year. may i recap and put out six fac. number one, an elevator for us o longer -- bona fide need. for this asian couple. my wife las a condition that wod with age. there is no cure. i am currently suffering from ad ankle from a weak left knee. these issues with discuss. with all our neighbors. two, i work diligently with theg department and design committeeg forth our current plan. after three iterations, four yet recently with a preservation art

including multiple light and viw studies, the zoning administrate accepted our proposals. we made multiple concessions ove years. with open discussion via their , now, four, the old elevator is structurally deficient and malfunctioning obsolete. made by multiple behaviors of or neighbor company our shared neir without our consent or city per. our most recent hired engineer investigated a possibility of aa elevator.

any elevator system on this locn falls short. i will save time for my counsel. >> thank you. welcome mr. patterson. >> thank you president honda. this is an elevator variance for qualified disability under the s with disabilities act supportede planning department. at the last hearing, if i can he overhead please -- at the last , the board expressed concern thae is an existing tower that will d to be removed to place the new r and have enough room for the st. these are two different issues. they're supposed to be dealt wie building permit stage. most importantly, the tower hasb demolished with a new n.o.v. isd today regarding an extremely das

condition as dismantled by the s next door. >> thank you, but i have questi. as as has been before us severas and many continuances from both, my memory is not so good. with the new struck you'r struc, is it completely in their prope? >> completely in their property. >> you're not euing the easemeny form. >> that's correct, i'll show yoe plans. in, a photo may be helpful. -- in fact, a photo may be help. the existing elevator is in thi.

>> that's fine. a already more -- sorry. thank you. >> this is my client's property. the neighbors who are protestine variance are here next door left hand/right hand houses with an g elevator tower in the middle shd between the two properties. this is a photo of it here. we need to ensure we have enouge for stairs. as we add the new disability elr here, we'll need to expand the s over still on the property, butd them into this corner where theg defunct elevator tower is. that tower has to be removed. it's a dangerous condition, rot. but, yes, to answer your questis

entirely on this property. >> and one last question. the neighbor is saying that thee the easement for that. and you're saying now it's entin your client's property? >> the neighbor is saying they n easement for this elevator towe. >> which you are removing to ger stair in. >> yes, that's correct. the legal doctrine of issue is abandonment of issue. the neighbors have taken affirme action to permanently remove the elevator that's there. it's been torn out. i've shown photos in your packe. the tower itself is rotten. as the neighbor's attorney has n thinks briefing may 17 brefg o e

overhead, it can't be replaced a modern elevator. it's too narrow. it's impossible to replace withw elevator. >> thank you mr. patterson. i apologize, i had to -- i forgo make a disclosure. i'm a partner in a project thatd rubin and junius as council. it will not have any effect on y decision this evening. >> you can speak on public commt we can hear from mr. teague fir. mr. teague. >> good evening, again, cory te. i would reiterate the carryovere last hearing that the zoning administrator supports the issua

variance for the revised plan fe new elevator. i'm available for any questions. >> that's a front yard setbac s. >> correct. front setback vair yns. >> thank you. >> now we can public comment. mr. silverman, if you'd lierk t, you can do so now. -- if you'd like to speak, you o now. >> good evening, president hondd commissioners. david silverman. i work with the owners of adjac. if i can get the overhead. just to refresh your memories fe last hearing, this is the gauths home over here. this the yee's home. this is the easement in betweens the tower. contrary to what mr. patterson d

you, the -- excuse me -- dbi had a notice to the gauthier's to re tower, not to demolish it. it's a big difference. what the yees are proposing is d an elevator here that would go t here in the middle of their sta. the commission advised them at t hearing that they could not do t because this needs to be 36 ince and the elevator would cause the stairway to not comply with theg code. that wasn't addressed in any ofe comments i heard today. this is another photo. i don't know if you can see it,y actually put up a string here ts

down the middle of their stairsw where the elevator would go. this is the encroachment into tt setback where these lines are. this is a photograph of the walt leads into the elevator at the d storey. this is as it looked at the last hearing. them is a photograph of the ways this morning. -- looked this morning after a f wooden cross beams were mysteriy ripped out. this will is a photo showing the gauthier's window.

at their living room. the elevator would cover this a. thus cutting off their light --s to light and air. so in closing, i have not heardg from the yees that would deal wr problem that came up at the last hearing. and we had a mediation about the brought in an architect who offm several different plans -- >> your time is out,. >> mr. silverman, is that the oy window in the living room? >> ' invite lisa gauthier up tok about her living room. >> my name is lisa gauthier at . germain. it's the kitchen. and a bedroom above it.

so, as you can see -- you can't. put it over. so this is their string that yoe here. then this is our kitchen and the bedroom is right above it. the tower that is there now thad like to repair is -- that's the easement. they want to build a second -- y want to build a third story. storey. we went to mediation and tried p them to put an elevator inside r house that would hit the half/%r ip kitchen and bathroom is becar house is exactly like ours. it hits their living roosm and r bedroom. it doesn't hit the middle floors half a floor inside with the kid

bathroom. it does, however, that space ish facing on twin peaks. it's for them a great addition e golden gate bridge. but for us, it doesn't affect ow at all. to us, it's to our east. but it does look into our kids'm from our dark kitchen. >> commissioner fung. any more questions? >> i have a question. so i'm sure that this is been ad before. when is the last time that elevs been functional? >> so i think many years ago. we've been trying to work on thr many years. we approached them years ago. we said we'd pay for the lawyern demolish it. they said no, it would grandfatn their variance and we couldn't y

the elevator so we did our stair nicnicely and around the old el- >> it never worked? >> it worked for a few years. >> when was the last time worke? what year? >> i don't know. >> 10 years? 20 years? >> i don't know. seven yoors. >> okay. is that an elevator? >> it was an elevator, yes. >> i heard that you mentioned tu had someone take a look at it te vert it to a dumb waiter so you- convert it from a dumb waiter tn elevator? >> the easement allows us to beo repair it and we can bring up le and groceries and everything. it's not particularly helpful f- i've been told ada doesn't apple it's not an apartment building,o single homes. there are lots of people on ourk who want elevators and they putm

inside their house in a way thas the back parts of their house. we brought our architect to shom there are lots of ways to do itu don't need a variance. they didn't want to break -- >> thank you. thank you. i've let you go on for quite a . you answered my question, thanky much. please stand by. please stand by.

>> because the elevator, you know, crosses both property lanes, and physically we issued those because i ended up there during a site visit, and there's been complaints going back and forth here, and then,s ayou know, one side appears to want to keep their half, one side appears to want to demolish their half, so we've got this case of time spent by a lot of dbi inspectors. i went out there about a week ago, and i was actually shocked at the state that this was allowed to get to by two property owners. in a storm, this thing could

fall out onto the street. so my conscience for the last week has been a better do something about this, because i could be ready about myself on the news some night. people letting this property get like this over a spite or a fight is so spiteful to people like myself that work there at dbi. i don't know why they can't agree on something, but basically, we're coming from the safety point of view. we're asked that this get secured immediately, and we've given them the option to repair or demolish this structure. that's our typical language, so you heard one side say dbi told us to demolish that, and that's not what happened. we give them the option to demolish or repair. we are going to hold them to that. we're also looking for a report

from a -- engineers to look up the tablstablity, as well, so just wanted to give you that, give you a better idea of what's going on. dbi will not be used in these situations. we're clearly only there for safety and building code issues, and that's all we care about. the property line issues, the disputes over easements, the planning variances, that's going to be taken care of somewhere else down the line. it will probably end up in court, okay? thank you. >> thank you. it will go to you because they will need to file a building permit, and the variance is in doubt. >> this could be something we'll see later, and i could be speaking again. >> yep. >> thank you. >> i know we're in deliberation. can i ask mr. yee a question, please? >> yes. >> sir, your adjoining property

own said that they asked to demolish the stairs back then. >> they were

is that -- >> they can extend, too.

no? >> okay. all right. thank you. thank you, mr. yee. [ inaudible ] >> it's submitted, yeah, sorry. >> submitted. >> i guess our hope did not come through. >> nope, did not. >> you know, the -- i don't think it's really a resolution, necessarily, in terms of how we act on the variance, but i'm supportive of the variance for medical reasons, ada reasons, and therefore, i would support the granting of the overturning of the za decision on this

variance. >> icon occ concur. i think that even after this body makes a decision, that there is going to be more process, and many people are going to be busy. someone care to make a motion? >> move to grant the appeal, overturn the zoning administrator denial of the variance on the basis of medical need, ada need. >> can i ask the -- >> oh -- >> can i ask the vice president to consider the draft finding that are attached? we do need to make the five findings, and the appellant has submitted those for us, and also revised plans that reflect the za project. >> i thought the zoning administrator supported this project? >> the za initially denied a different project. ey