>> this is not meant to derail the setment. the drawings, your department requires to show existing. >> this does not show existing except they show proposed was done on, i presume, was done onto the original drawing. everything looks like it's new. it creates massive confusion to the appellate. >> it's a revision permit to an easterly year approved permit. >> i'm not even sure it's that. the fact is all the things that the a a a brought up relate to items existing. >> yeah. i mean, revisions are common occurrence, as you know yourself people file them every day of the week to make changes. i can make the department aware

of your comments to double check this one if you want. >> i think it's just a suggestion to the department, if they're going to do a revision, the revision should be on the different format. >> yeah, they're normally bubbled and that's the way it's supposed to be. the areas they're changing is supposed to be defined specifically. >> thank you. >> ok. so unless permit holder wants to speak, we can just move this into being submitted. >> we cannot withdrawal the appeal because we didn't hear from all four of the appellants so we need to take action and up hold or grantor deny the appeal. >> i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the

items that they were objecting to were already existing items and not new items. >> vice president, am i correct in saying that you are the bases includes the fact that the items of concern are not under the permit that is being appealed, it was under a previous permit, is that right? >> they did better. >> on that motion from the vice president, commissioner. >> aye. >> press honda. >> aye. >> and commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> that motion passes. and this appeal is denied. thank you. i know that we're going out of order but with the president's consent we'll call item 7, which

is appeal 17-182. jennifer mcallister and jerry bonafair versus the department of building inspections. this is at 2119 22nd street protesting the issue of novemben alteration permit comply with notice of violation number 20177982. replace west property line row training wall, the cribing system and new basement foundation. >> good evening, welcome and prior to you starting, i apologize, this is been a unique evening and sorry we've taken this many cases out of order. please, start, sir. good evening and welcome. >> please speak in to the microphone. >> thank you. i'm going to have pat. >> well welcome. >> my name is pat buksavich. first, there's a substantial structural issue at this site. there are one property on 22nd

street, represented by mr. santos and three down-hill neighbors. they're rightly concerned. they believe it's the project's not been transparent. whether it is or not to date i don't care. i'm here to try to figure out how to get this solved. they also have foundation issues the retaining walls between the properties are leaning over and it's a pretty complex issue, because the projects sponsor is building is restraining one of the walls that is retaining wall that's actually leaning over. i have had discussions with their engineer, actually we were outside talking in the hall, trying to figure out a solution to this. as far as i can tell, everybody wants to fix this problem. it's everybody's problem and it's everybody's solution. to date, i've been pro bono by i

said there's serious legal concerns about walls, it's way above my pay grade, so they've retained a lawyer patterson. my suggestion on the next step, is a joint site visit which mr. santos has agreed to. so we can figure out means and methods on how they build this wall. because they're uphill. there's walls that intersect this and i don't think they can build their structure without a joint design from us, which as far as i can tell, my client wants it, i think the neighbors who i don't represent also want it. they've got to come up with some shoreing system and some issues with property line issues. they've got to get that resolved first. and the foundation is particularly 22nd street, will be required to be braced on the downhill neighbor.

this issue, which normally means and methods is left to the contractor, can't be left to the contractor here. it needs to be resolved as part of the design. it can't be worked out in the field, it's got to be in my mind , i think the closing will disagree. in my mind, the means and methods have to be part of the drawings. as such, the drawings will have to be modified to design for how you hold the building up on the hill, how you hold the dirt back , and how you take out the foundation, which to be honest has failed, and put in a new foundation. and this is a really complex system. so, what i've requested, i was turned down but i asked, the case be continued for two weeks so that the two engineers can come up with a means and methods on how to do the work and how to change the drawings so that a special conditions drawing be

shown on the means and methods on how to build this. you guys are going to be here in two weeks, the project is not going to start, in my mind, until brace are installed. it's not safe to do this work. and to be honest the bracing are done on the downhill neighbor. there's a concern we'll enter the winter and the walls aren't safe. i share that concern. the first step is to install the braces and that can be done very quickly and very easily now and while the braces and walls are stabilized, the actual means and methods can be designed and a special condition means and methods brought back to the board. i request it be continued until the design is done. i really don't want to have another project where we rush into a design, dig ourselves into a corner and then go what do we do now. this is a tall vertical cut to

rush into it with the comment we've got to do something really quick. real quick is install braces now and come back in two weeks. thank you, commissioners. we can hear from the permit holder now. is there someone that will speak on behalf of the permit holder? >> good evening. welcome. welcome mr. santos. >> commissioners, happy new year why now from the neighbor? we are interactive with the neighbor when we started this process. why now from mr. buskovery much. i talked to him a few months ago

we have a system that covers precisely what mr. buskovich suggested. we have a sequence of construction. we have a shoreing design, we have a method of implementation. we can do all that work within our boundaries. we have a properly-issued permit fully veted by d.b.i. and more importantly, by a licenseed geo technical engineer who will be on site during the implementation. or delay it for two more weeks, let's meet two weeks from now. why? it's going to rain in the next few days. we have a contractor. we have a permit. we've spoken to d.b.i. what's time going to do for us? we're building a retaining wall

that is required. we're building a retaining wall, at my client's cost. we're not asking to share for this wall. that's usually what happens in this situation. they share the cost. that foundation wall is helping us both. we're not asking for that. my client is paying for the entire cost of that wall. my client has a properly-issued permit. we started the work. we have operation systems. we have insurance systems. i don't understand. just suddenly they brought some structural engineer. three hours before the hearing. what happens in two weeks? what if they have some other engineer? when do we build this wall?

we're responding to a notice of violation. this is not just a voluntary response, we're responding to the what the city wants us to document is demanding us to replace a failing retaining wall these commissioners let us restart the work. we will be following the procedures of d.b.i., full inspections. special inspections will be filed. we'll be contacting d.b.i. every time we do a foundation pour. i would be more than happy to invite mr. buskavich to the site during the inspections. we have no issues with that. i have no issues with that, of course. but there's no reason to keep this suspension going. we need to implement this work. this is a structural emergency.

thank you, commissioners. >> good evening, welcome. >> good evening. i'd like to thank the board of appeals first for moving our hearing up two weeks and that is to mr. santos' point, this is a construction emergency. prior to retaining him, by the way, this is my husband michael, co own of 2119 22nd street. we're here today to help explain how appeal is a threat to michael and my's safety. our homeys stability relies on a 75-foot long failing retaining wall that is shared by four properties, ours on 22nd street and three perpendicular lots on kansas street. for our home home inspection on july 5th, 2016, we hired a structural engineer, not mr. santos, a different firm, whose findings were the wall was

unfailing long ago. its rapid decline had begun recently. it's failure was imminent and it's replacement was unavoidable additionly, our home mostly lacks a foundation. it's an old home, it's one of the oldest on the block, if not one of the older ones in the neighborhood. there's no foundation in a lot of places. we have plans to shore everything up from the places that are stable in the home. since the home lacks a foundation, the house lanes towards the retaining wall with such severity we've had window panes shatter and walls in the interior walls crack. this house, before we bought it, would have been torn down and replaced had we not bought it. i'm not a developer, i respect the neighborhood character and enjoy rehabing old homes.

i love this home immediately and we want to refurbish it. so upon purchasing the home, we mailed and hand delivered a letter to all the adjacent neighbors on august 22nd, 2016, stating our intent to fix the retaining wall and restore the home and we invited anyone to get in touch. also, as the new neighbors, we intended to fix the failing retaining wall at our own cost. we met with four owners of two properties who did respond, 1,000 kansas never responded to our letter. starting even prior to our move- in, michael hired a lot surveyor and i interviewed engineers and 30 general contractors. our structural plans have been veted by the building department , and additionly by two other structural engineers. i asked independently review them who both cited the plans as

more conservative than what they would have done. so on that basis our permit was approved. so since this appeal generated a stop-work order only two and a half days after construction began, we're stuck at a point midway through the prep work, with no door, with part of our walls removed, leaving our home wide open, safe for construction gate. while we wait, rain runs down the interior old growth red wood which i had intended to save as much as possible. we moved into this house march 1st, 2017 and on april 11th, i spoke with jerry to schedule access to their backyard for our lot surveyor. instead he changed the conversation to say he contacted a lawyer and implied i would have to pay for an additional retaining wall not on our property and i asked him to clarify precisely. >> your time is up but you will have time on rebuttle. >> commissioners, questions? >> are you occupying the

building? >> sorry. >> are you occupying this building? >> we are. yeah. the eastside of it. >> we're going to hear from the departments first and you will have time under rebuttle. >> inspector duffy. >> welcome back. >> joe duffy d.b.i. the building permit application under tonight is to comply the notice of vile i guess 207-11-3982 replace retaining wall with a new basement foundation. the permit was on the seventh of september 2017. and issued on october the sixth, 2017. we had some permit that cause canceled because the contractor tried to remove his name off it but we reinstated it. he should have been changing contractors so we realized it

was clerical work. the permit got reinstated and suspended due to the appeal. as you heard the permit is to comply with the notice of violation. d.b.i. received a complaint on april 14th, 2017, of the address of 2119 22nd street. rear right hand corner foundation on the west side of the house has slide and moved towards the neighbor's side. water is coming through the cracks in to the neighbor's yard that was an anonymous complaint. d.b.i. went out there within a week, issued a notice of violation, dated april 25th, 2017. a complete investigation has revealed the house foundation and the retaining wall on the west property has been compromised. by a building permit application with plans from obtaining an evaluation from a license design

professional, obtain a permit to reflect repairs or replacement, there's time limits on that. the time limits weren't met so we referred the case to our code enforcement where it's been gone through the code enforcement process and it's ended up as an order of abatement posted on the property in november. so obviously, the permit itself from a d.b.i. point of view, it's a permit that's required. it's been reviewed by our plan check and it appears that it was properly issued. we did have three other properties that this retaining wall involved. i think you heard that already. we did also issue three notices of violation for a property and the other three properties. we do not have any permits yet filed to comply with those notices of violation.

so we're waiting on the three other property owners to file a permit for that. according to my notice of violation anyway. one of the them was 1015 kansas street. 1003 kansas street. and 1001 kansas street. i just wanted to let you know that. i'm available for any questions. >> mr. duffy, the appellant representative brings fourth the they'll need to brace the retain ing wall. that is the subject of a separate permit, isn't it? two permits? >> the permit holder. >> the appellants. >> i assume the drawings -- i

believe the permit talks about bracing. >> no, no. the people arguing against this permit -- >> yes. >> if they're bracing their retaining wall, which is leaning , that would require a permit for each of those three properties. >> correct, yes, that's right. to be honest with you, i was at the counter when the appellant came to speak to us about it. i encouraged them to work with the other property owners to resolve this. we have this situation throughout the city with these retaining walls, they crack, they stretch across property lines, sometimes they go over property lines but the key here is they've got to work together to get this resolved and it's disappointing that we're out on appellant. i don't encourage that from the work go. as you heard tonight, they're talking in the halls. this needs to be cooperation between all the property owners

to get this work done. now mr. santos said tonight in his presentation, that he can do all the work on his side from his side and i did hear that before. d.b.i. is there to monitor that as well of course. and we should be out there before the work resumes to encourage -- if the permit is upheld of course, to ensure that there is no danger to any other neighbors' properties while this work would be being done. if that was the case, we could take action via another notice of violation. we would recommend that if everybody's got a separate engineer that the engineers come up with the solution, and we wouldn't allow any work if we felt it was unsafe to proceed, if that was the case. >> inspector duffy, have you done a site visit? >> i have not, no. >> the structural engineer,

santos, indicated that it's a structural emergency. i mean, i myself allowed the two week move up just because the rain and from hearing the case. i mean, given it's on a hill and we are raining, i mean, what do you feel the condition of the site is right now? >> i believe that the wall has been failed for a while and it's not an imminent hazard or danger it's a hazard but not imminent. that was the key word. i do not believe we received a report to that effect from mr. santos. had we, we would have acted on that. we did have discussions around the time when the permit was reinstated but i don't think anybody was worried that it was imminent and therefore, i would agree with you, if we thought it was imminent we could even override the appeal if it was something needed to be done to make the condition safer. obviously, with that being said,

we would like this done as soon as possible. we don't want to wait. i mean, one thing i don't want to see here, with all due respect to the lawyers, lawyers get involved, we have a lawsuit. we don't need anymore holdups here. we need cooperation between the property owners to get the work done. with the inspection process we need to be involved in it. if the appellants get concerned, we will go there and we know he is going to be probably letting me know if there's an issue with this. >> very well, thank you, inspector duffy. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> step forward, please. >> good evening, welcome. >> hi, thank you. >> my name is jessica jenkins i'm a san francisco resident and property owner. i've been friends with bryn and

michael since they were living in a tiny overpriced studio saving up for a down payment scouring real estate listings for a fixer upper they could afford. since they bought this property, they have communicated with both the tenants who were living there when they moved in. they helped them recoup money from a master tenant who had been illegally charging them too much money. they worked with all their neighbors. they've been communicating, as far as i can tell, in pepsi they've been communicating well. i've been to the house. it seems really unsafe to me. you put a glass of water on the coffee table and the angle of the water of the glass is like this. i won't bring my kids to her house. she's that afraid they were going to fall through the floor or something. to me, it's really unfortunate

that a neighborhood like this and has not responded to her. reaching out to him can prevent her from moving forward and making this a really nice renovated home. make particular a nice -- nice dwelling for many homes. i just hope it would be really unfortunate if this property continues to be almost uninhabitable, the only reason, i don't know how most people live there but they have a high-risk tolerance level. and can't afford to live anywhere else during the meantime.

i had the chance when i was visiting the east coast to visit a house which brynn had renovated. the quality of the work was incredible. it's always good when people restore these old house, spend the effort to do it right and work with their neighbors to keep the housing stock. so i'd also like to support her project and keep her house from sliding down the hill and hope you can let this project move forward. >> thank you. any other speakers? seeing no other speaker. >> we will take rebuttal from

the appellant. three minutes from the appellant. is this public comment? okay. >> public comment. next speaker come up. if there's anyone else that would like to speak, could you please line up on the left side. first person please come to the mic. good evening and welcome. >> just nervous speaking in public. i'm the owner of the property 1015 kansas. i wanted to address the point that we didn't respond to the department of building when they put the notice of violation on our houses. we didncalled the department an

asked what did we need to do about it. at that time, i forget the name of the inspector, but it seemed that he indicated brynn was working on the problem and that we didn't have to do anything about it right now. that's why we didn't respond. i lived there for over 30 years. i bought the house in '77. sometime back i saw a crack in the stone wall. had a consulting engineer look at it. told me it was reasonably okay, we'll mortar some of the cracks and it will all be all right. the tree one time fell over. probably cracked the wall some more. i didn't notice the big crack on the property to my left 'cause i'm the furthest property to the south. i look forward to brynn and

michael as neighbors. they seem to be very good, young family. we've lost a couple neighbors last year. they moved away. so anyhow, we want to work with them, absolutely want to work with them. and we appreciate the generosity they are showing to take the full cost of this work, which we will benefit on. not withstanding, we will suffer from the noise, having construction. there's no way you're going to get into that wall without coming onto our property. probably pretty invasively. in fact, the eight to nine foot stone wall, if i understood, will be taken down entirely, which i was very happy to have. but it will be replaced by a blind concrete wall, which we'll have to deal with. so anyhow, i guess i'm saying, it is a matter of communication. i think brynn has told us some of what's going on.

i don't want to bother her. she's putting up all the money. there's a lot of work to be done. all i need, i guess from my standpoint, i need to know how i can help to make this move forward. what access will be needed and how they're going to take down the wall that leads to my property. that's all i have to say. >> thank you. you did fine in public speaking. next speaker, please. >> i'm sorry. i'm a little nervous. >> relax. i'm a terrible speaker myself. >> i live 1003 kansas. my husband born and raised in that house. when i move in that area, i'm really, really happy with the way i see it. the neighborhood. the way we help each other. we don't have any drama, you know? suddenly, like for example, they bought a house. i don't mind. we don't mind that house to be fixed. we would like to see that house to get fixed. but the question is, we want to

fix that the right way. we don't want to blame each other. blame this one, blame this one. we want respect for them as a new neighbor is to work with us. you know? we want to know. we want to hear straight forward what they need to be done. and like i said, that house that we're hearing is that from my husband's grandfather. they've been living there for i don't know how long. we don't want any hassle with anybody's neighbors. we want peaceful neighborhood. that's what we want. we want them house to get fixed, but in the right way. the right time. we don't need to hurry right now. they want to do it right now, right now. is that the right way to do it? we want to do it the safe place to do it. we have a daughter that's 16 years old. we want that house to be hers. we don't want a problem and the way happening right now, as a

neighbor, we want to work with her. you know? we don't want to be -- i just don't want to see it. i'm not used to this kind of neighborhood like that, blaming each other, making a problem that's not even a problem. we want to look for something that's neighbor. let's work together. not something that's looking for something problem. i know they have a problem. let's work together. we should not come here, but give us any choice. i'm sorry. that's just my opinion. i enjoy my neighbor. like i said, i never have any problem with any of my neighbors. and i don't even know if i'm going to have a problem with them. it's just that i don't want to rush things. i want to see the right thing. thank you. >> thank you. i have a question. you're the neighbor. are you supportive of them building and paying for the wall? >> yes. yes, sir. it's just that i'm happy -- i

just want more information. i don't want it to rush. i want more answers, the questions that we've been asking her. the very beginning when she move in there we gave her permission. >> i got an answer. thank you. >> do you want to state your name for the record? >> thank you. my name is nila schmitt. >> next speaker. >> my name is robert lee. i'm the owner of 1003 kansas street. i have been living there 49 years. knew pretty much every neighbor that lived on that block from the time i was there to the time they've gone. new neighbors come in. i don't have an issue with the wall being built. but the question is, we want the neighbors are saying we want to be more informed on what's going to happen, more detailed

information on what's going on with the wall, how it's going to be placed, cost-wise. even though we're not being -- we're not paying the cost for it, but we would just like to know some of the more details. i guess the wall is maybe about eight to nine feet tall. from my understanding, it's going to be raised up to maybe 11, 12 feet tall. i'd just kind of like to know the purpose of that. just the extension of it, does it need to be that tall? just stuff answered. but i don't have an issue with them working. we talked many times. we gave them permission to come onto the properties and do what they have to do. we're just trying to work with everybody to get the problem solved, you know, as safe as possible. because it's leaning more into our property i think than anybody else's. at least the more dangerous

side. bracing it up i think would be a good idea because we have a 16-year-old daughter that does go out into the back yard. i go out into the back yard myself pretty much on a daily. there is nothing supporting the wall, you know, like the engineer was saying. so we just kind of have that taken into consideration and just be more informed on what these plans are about, how to understand them, questions answered about them 'cause we don't have all the answers. we're willing to work with everybody to solve this problem. >> thank you. i have a question. have you asked these questions to the permit holder and/or their representatives? >> yes, we did. we had a neighborly meeting that we were able to finally see the plans, but the questions weren't

able to be answered by the owners. they had to find out that information to let us all know. so we're still kind of waiting. >> do you have an open line of communication with them or their represent stpheufrbs. >> just with the neighbors themselves, yes. >> thank you. >> is there any other public kphepb on this item? okay. no other public comment, then we will have rebuttal from the appellant. >> so this started in april of '17. the wall has been like this for a very long time. but i think they bought it in april. five months later, they filed the permit. two months later, permit was issued. so this has been going on for awhile. i'm at a loss why we're in such a hurry to rush in to start digging into a hill without coordination, cooperation of the neighbor, particularly since i have gone to my client and said we allow them to brace the wall

from your side, which is the proper way to brace the wall that's leaning over. so everyone wants to do the work. i don't see the game of what we're trying to do of saying let's coordinate the work over the next two weeks? what harm is this two week delay going to cause, other than rushing into a job without the cooperation of the neighbor, the license to come onto the property to put the braces on. if it's that dangerous, i'm positive the city would have come out and said do it immediately. there is no game here other than the neighbors want more information. they want to work together to fix a wall. there are coordination issues that need to be done. they're probably gonna need permits. my clients are gonna need the pull permits for this work. some of the work is going to be done. if you could put this on screen? i mean, this is their house. this wall is leaning over right

here. this wall on my client's is leaning over to this person. one of the conversations is an underpinning pin being coordinated here and braces in these struts. those are just simple concepts that need to be worked out. as a structural engineer, i would love if the neighbors said, let's work this out. con a complex situation where you have a very tall retaining wall that's failing. i'm at a loss of why this is not agreed to. i have talked to rodrigo about this over the last couple weeks. so there's no surprise. i'm not sure what is the harm for a two week continuance and allow the neighbors to resolve it. thank you very much, commissioners. >> commissioner fung: your client's portion of the property

that abutts the permit holder, that's their yard, isn't it? >> that's right. >> commissioner fung: is there any structures in that yard? >> there's a wall and there's dirt. >> commissioner fung: any other structures besides that retaining wall? >> there might be. i wasn't really paying attention to the wall when i was there. i was looking at the retaining wall that was failing. >> president honda: another question. when you spoke to rodrigo santos, when did you initially speak to rodrigo and how many times have you spoken to him? >> couple weeks ago. >> president honda: just a couple weeks ago was the first time? >> yeah. i just got involved in the case when they filed their appeal. they asked for free advice. i was giving free advice. i was having a conversation with rodrigo about the scope of the work and i told him at a certain point it was above my pay grade. i believed the building was leaning across the property line. >> commissioner fung: thank you. >> ke with have rebuttal from the permit holder now.

>> president honda: you ran to the podium, mr. santos. >> you heard from several neighbors, 1003 kansas, 1015 kansas. they are happy to have a rear yard. they are happy to have this wall facing their rear yard. this is precisely the wall that we are replacing. at our cost. at our cost. they keep talking ab their young daughters walking to the patio. concerned ab their safety. that's precisely what we're doing. we're building a wall so we don't have a safety issue. we currently have a failing retaining wall. is there imminent collapse? we had a tremor ab four weeks ago. the cracks are substantial.

they're significant. this wall has to be constructed. has to be constructed now. that's precisely what the speakers just told you, commissioners. very eloquently. they're concerned about their safety. so are we. plus we're paying for it. we're not even asking them to contribute. they're concerned about water seeping in through their yards. we are creating a permanent dewatering system. we're taking all the water. we're building the wall. we're helping them out. we don't ask for a dime. and they're appealing it. they want to continue this for two weeks to talk about -- talk about what? i talked to him about six weeks ago, maybe more. there's nothing to talk about. we talked about other jobs. we need to build this wall. it's been properly vetted,

reviewed. we have a structural engineer. we're ready to go. in terms of the notice of violation, the neighbor, typically dbi will issue one to our client and the neighbors so we start some dialogue. this permit will abate their neighbor's violation. they don't have to do anything. they don't even have to file a permit. we're paying for it. we're pulling the permits. this is the best possible thing that can happen. commissioners, please, let us go back to work. one more thing, i can't formally send out a sequence of construction to all the neighbors. i can give them a sense of the timing. i can tell them when we're going to have inspections.

i can ensure that they are fully aware of what the steps will be. >> president honda: time up. so your time is up, but i do have a question. you know the neighbors seem genuine in cooperation, but there are concerns that what the existing height of the current wall is and the proposed new height. i think some -- you can answer these questions as well, if you like. i think they want some answers, they just want some questions or concerns answered. and whether it is nice and we rarely see that someone volunteers to pay for that. rarely. but it's still on their property, right, this wall, so i'm sure they have concerns as well. maybe that's a question to you. have the neighbors reached out to you? do you feel like you've given them answers? >> the wall is the same height.

what they're talking about is the proper structural design requires a deeper embedment. this is under ground. we're going to create -- >> president honda: the height from the ground to the top is the same height. >> precisely. >> president honda: you've just gone under. >> it's a structural issue. modern structural element. you have to have proper embedment. >> president honda: no matter what, the answer here is, i think some communication with your adjoining neighbors might be a good suggestion. >> no problem. >> president honda: please take the podium. >> here's a list of e-mails. i only included a couple in our packet because i didn't want to overwhelm the board tonight with this case. i do want to reiterate the wall is not going up in height. it's staying the same. it's just being rebuilt to a safe code compliance. >> president honda: has any of your neighbors reached out and

asked that particular question or any design issues? >> nobody asked me if it was getting higher. but it's not. i just want to confirm that. i want to confirm that what their structural engineer said about all of this being recent. it's been 512 days since we bought the house and first contacted the neighbors. so i think -- we've tried to get in touch with them via letters, mailed, hand delivered, e-mailed, called. >> president honda: i think you answered my question. thank you. >> we're trying our hardest. we realize we're new to the neighborhood. we're just trying to be good neighbor. >> president honda: i think the vice president has a question for you, mr. santos. >> commissioner fung: couple of questions. the wall, the retaining wall on the adjacent property, does that wall cross the property line at all? >> no. so the retaining wall that we're

building is within our property. >> commissioner fung: the neighbor's retaining wall, does that cross the property line at all? your property line? >> no. >> commissioner fung: does not. you're putting cribbing in there and everything to level the house? >> yes, we are. >> commissioner fung: will that house, once it's level, be solely within your property? >> yes. >> president honda: thank you. >> happy new year. >> mr. duffy? >> joe duffy, dbi. just a few things to add. mr. santos is correct in that if this work is done under this permit, it will clear the violation from the four properties. if there is any -- i have under the impression there were permits required for the other properties but that doesn't

appear that's the case. if there was some temporary cribbing to be done, that would possibly be under a different property. that could be sorted out at a side meeting prior to the construction. if the permit is upheld, i would offer that dbi go out there before the resumption of any work so that we can get everyone at a comfort level that this work will be done in a safe manner to adjacent properties. i have been saying that from the word go to the appellant. obviously, he's concerned for his own property and the safety. we get that. we always get that at dbi. we try to relay that at all times. we're able to go out there, means and methods, proposal from mr. santos on how this work will get done so this doesn't impact the neighbor. mr. bleskovich is obviously on the other side. he's welcome to be there as well, just to make sure the work is done properly. i would probably at this point

be asking that the permit is upheld as well for the purposes of getting this under a safe condition resolved with the good and review by dbi on the inspection process and preconstruction. >> president honda: just for the neighbors to hear, the wall height is gonna be the same as it was prior. did you get a chance to look at that? >> i'm just going by what you were told as well. i assume it was. >> president honda: i imagine it is. >> looks like it is. >> president honda: okay. thank you, inspector duffy. >> i'd give them my business card tonight. i'm willing to go out there any time in the future just to make sure if there are any concerns. we can be there the same day if they need us. >> president honda: thank you. >> commissioner fung: i'm

concerned about this. this retaining wall gave the neighbors. could this wall fail, it would be dire. i don't see the nature of the delay that's being requested. i'm not even sure i see the nature of what their concerns are. whether i don't know whether the permit holder is going to be paying for everything. there's still the removal of the existing wall and stuff. i don't know whether that's part of the issue or not. at this point i find that the permit was properly issued and i do have a concern with occupancy in a building that is off

cribbing. >> president honda: i concur with my fellow commissioner. we're neighbors and neighbors need to work together. and sometimes there is a lack of communication from the briefs that i have read and from the oral comment that was given, i believe that the work to be done will be beneficial for both parties. i hope no matter how this case goes that there is some further communication and you are neighbors. i currently live in an over 100 year old home that's on a hill. it's nice to know that you have safe foundation to live on. and i do have a 16-year-old daughter as well. so i concur with vice president fung's assessment. >> commissioner fung: i'm going to move for the appeal to be denied. >> commissioner lazarus?

>> aye. >> commissioner wilson? >> aye. >> that vote passes. >> president honda: we're going to take a five minute recess. okay ten. sorry. [ ten minute recess ] >> welcome back to the january 17, 2018 board of appeals. we are on item number 5. stephen williams versus the san francisco public works bureau of urban works facility. appealing the issuance on october 25, 2017 to westside courts housing partners lp of a public works order approval of request to remove and replace five significant trees one tree is at 2557 sutter street, two at

2400 post street and two are at 1400 blaker street. we'll start with the appellant mr. williams. >> welcome, counselor. i apologize for the case being taken out of order. >> what was the deal with that? the trees get shuffled to the bottom of the pile. >> president honda: there's more cases after. welcome. >> steve williams. thank you very much. the appellant. i did want to straighten out. i received a bunch of e-mails from dpw. they assumed the neighbors hired me. this is a pro bono case. i live near there. i have been there in the western district for 35 years. i walk by there every day on the way to work. can't stand to see skwraoeupb significant mature healthy trees coming down without a good reason. these trees here have not been given the protection that they are awarded under our codes.

these trees were a complete after thought. according to the policies and the policies that i have put in front of you, the hierarchy set out in the policies retaining and saving the trees should have been one of the number one priorities. the number one goal. and by the way, what we've learned now is there's six trees to be destroyed. not five. exhibit number four they threw in a sixth tree they want to tear down on broaddrick street. soon as the landscaping plan came up, soon as any remediation plan came up, saving the trees should have been the focal point. there should have been designed around retaining these trees. i mean, that's what it says. that's what the policies mean. that's what they say in plain english. if the board is satisfied after this hearing, that that happened in that case, that they were taken into consideration, that they followed the rules and that there were attempts made to save

by the sponsor dpw, that they tried their level best to save one or two or three of these six trees, then i suggest you deny the appeal. that's not what happened. not even close. if you conclude like i did that they made no effort to save the trees and no consideration was given to the policies, then please, send them back and make them follow the rules, because that's why we have the rules, to save these trees. overarching policy in san francisco that establishes, especially older established trees, the large mature tree, be saved because they provide the most benefit. dpw has submitted brief after brief to this board that says just that. i put an example in exhibit 2. that's the number one goal in the urban forest plan of the five goals listed, maintain,

conserve the existing urban forest, statistics about losing our urban forest are well known to this board. but unlike the other cases that you often hear, this is not about the health or condition of the trees. this is about the condition of the soil around the trees. that's the only reason given for the removal of these trees is that the remediation of lead in the soil. dpw is not in charge of lead, and so i immediately contacted the department of public health. they told me there wassen any lead. they were wrong. there is lead in the soil. i actually paid for a test from a company from marin on my own, $300. there is substantial lead in the soil. but why doesn't anybody know it? why wasn't that talked about from the beginning? i put in the cad x that was issued. may have i have the overhead? planning certainly didn't know that there's any hazardous

waste. the box says no, no hazardous waste. this, for some reason, they slid completely by planning's notice at all. there's been no tree planting or protection plan here. no tree surveyed here. in fact, until our hearing in front of the tree hearing officer on september 25th, there was no protection of any of the trees at all on the site. i submitted photographs of the construction workers parking cam, running into them. they had their tar bucket strap chained to one of them for a long period of time. there's still not full tree protection and they're still parking under the trees. i took these photographs. i took this photograph couple days ago. there's a major street tree

here. these are big significant trees. one of the best things about west side forest are these trees. and so there was an error at the hearing stage. a complete error. because i learned six days ago that the reason they want to tear down these trees is because they're gonna have to pile this lead contaminated dirt all around the trees, and that's gonna kill the trees. so we have to tear them down before they die. that's what they're saying. however, that came up for the first time six days ago when i got the brief from the project sponsor. that wasn't what was said at the hearing. what was said at the hearing is we're excavating down three feet. it's gonna undermind the trees, kill the roots and that's why they're going to die. look what we're appealing tpp hearing officer had no idea there were going to be dirt stacked on top of the roots. may i have this again, please?

the decision says three feet of excavation that will under mind the existing trees. we learned for the first time those photographs that the berms that are going to be built for the first time six days ago when their brief was submitted. none of those materials were submitted earlier. quite frankly, the project sponsor doesn't have a clue about this site and what's going on at the site. i know that they submitted an undated cya document from somebody at the head landscaping firm on this, your exhibit 4. but before that, what wasn't submitted that i just received the other day is a mistaken letter written by the same partner, where he misidentifies the trees. he identifies the trees out on broaddrick street that's never been posted, never -- this is the new sixth tree they want to tear down. that's why he had to create this

new document, identifying a tree that he wants to tear down. and so, you know, what we're asking in this case is for the board to send this back. it has to. there's been an error. they need to revisit this. they need to put some new thought into it. surely there has to be space around this very large housing development where they can stack those berms, not under the trees. 90% of the space is available. lack of due process because they just came up with this new concept. the science around the impact and management of fill soil around trees, that's changing. and i'd like a chance to address that. thank you very much. >> president honda: thank you. >> can we hear from the permit holder?

>> president honda: good evening and welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. lisa grady with related california. we're the developer west side courts along with tabernacle, our nonprofit partner. i'm here with tom brass, an environmental consultant, who helped us with the site mitigation plan. and michael palmer with the office of housing is also here representing the housing. so, i'm here tonight basically to ask you to uphold the tree removal order that was issued september 25th as of that hearing date. and to discuss the five trees that we're seeking permission to remove that will be damaged for the lead impacted soils. there are lead impacted soils across the entire site. due diligence, o