upsloping lot and designs the appropriate height. we knew this was going to be an issue because some of the neighbors raised at early neighborhood meetings that the project sponsor did for neighborhood outreach, some of the neighbors said we were playing fast and loose with the height. i said let's get a zoning administrator's letter of determination so we could put it to rest. first we went to the staff planners and that they confirmed this was an upsloping lot and we were doing it the right way. we then asked for a formal letter of determination from the zoning an -- administrator, which i provided. the topo ggraphical map, why w pointed out it's not

appropriate to rely on the topographical map. first of all, that's not the purpose of a topeegraphical map. it's to determine the height on a particular lot. that's why you do a survey. and interestingly, the appellant provided a survey as part of the appellant's papers. that survey was of a neighboring property, the property to the south, but that survey showed the same data point, the 340 foot data point at the upslope of our property, once again confirming that our property slopes up from 330ish feet to 340 feet. it's pretty darn clear that that's -- that's the nature of the lot. the way you apply the planning code is the way our architect applied the planning code, the way the zoning administrator applied the planning code. we respectfully ask that you deny the appeal. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. being none, we will move onto

rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> i will not need three minutes. there is a photograph taken in the late 1930's showing the historic pillsbury mansion, and you can see it outlined, 20 raycliff terrace. right here, there's a driveway that comes in, and there's a driveway in front of the house. the area that mr. emblich was pointing to in his section is this area right here, which is a flat driveway in front of the house in the late 1930's. so it doesn't seem logical that the survey that was provided is of natural grades -- grade. maybe it's important to fill in the 1930's, when that house was built. thank you. >> thank you. zoning administrator?

>> thank you. yeah, i think that was raised in the brief, that that historical photo seemed to show a pathway of some sort leading to pacific. i don't think that we can draw conclusions about how flat or sloped that walkway or driveway is or was at that time and how that relates to the grade at this time. if we had more documentation to that effect that ran counter to the current grade, then we would use that, but we don't have that at this time. thank you. >> but i think the code doesn't differentiate between changes in the grade, does it. >> well, it only allows you to consider regrading if it was regrading done at the block level. basically, we don't allow someone to take a vacant property and fill it in 3 feet higher than it was and then build the maximum height on that 3 feet so that he -- they

can get that extra three fight in height. >> and i w >> -- feet in height. >> and i was going to ask, where is the point of determination if 50, 60, 70 years ago, which is still later than 1933, there was a house which was built on -- on top of a lump of dirt that was brought in? when is that lump of dirt vested? you know, if somebody did it today, as you just said, they bring in 3 feet, uh-huh, you can't do that. but when is that new dirt or that may have not been there as nature created it considered vested and considered part of the topography or don't you look at that. >> right. you may be shocked to know that the planning code does not actually provide any specific guidance to that situation and

there is hae no written zoning administrator determinations. essentially in that case, when we have existing grade, which we can verify in the field, the current survey, if there's been any prior grade changes, if we have clear documentation of that, then, we want to use what the original grade was in perpetuity. that can be a challenge for obviously very old building sites because a lot of that documentation no longer exists. >> so the flaw here in the discussion of whether -- whether that lump of dirt was not how mother nature created it is really lost to the ages because there's no records as you stated. >> we can only make the determination based on the documentation that we have available. >> okay. thank you. >> very briefly, i'd just reiterate the point about the topo map and the pathway, there's no way to tell looking

at that topo map whether the pathway goes up or down or up and down. what is totally clear here from the record is that this building was built in 194 i1. our architect looked at the records, i've looked at the records, the planning department looked at the records, and there is no indication that the lot has been changed since 1941. we've looked at the existing grade, and there's no evidence that anybody did some monkey business to build up the existing grade at any time. >> okay. thank you. so commissioners, this matter's submitted. >> commissioners? >> seems to me the l.o.d. was correct. >> i have to agree with that, although i have to take my

strongest magnifying glass to look at the topo. >> okay. so do we have a motion? >> do we have a motion? >> yeah. move to deny the appeal on the basis that the zoning administrator neither erred nor abused its discretion. >> okay. so we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal on the basis that the zoning administrator did not err or abuse his discretion, and that the letter of determination was properly issued. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. so that motion passes, appeal is denied. as i mentioned earlier, item nine has been rescheduled, so we will move onto item ten.

[agenda item read] >> and we will hear from the appellants first. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, president fung and commissioners. i'm here with heather and alex

gatti. they are the neighbors of the subject property at 3025 scott street in cow hollow. our first concern is the construction undertaken by the respondents and primarily the regrading in the back yard has exacerbated water drainage conditions in that neighborhood. first of all, when the respondents began regrading their back yard nearly a year ago, they had not submitted any plans, nor had they sought any sort of city approval prior to that regrading construction. as a result, the respondents failed to account for any of the foreseeable water drainage problems that would stem from that construction. and now given the fact that the yard has sloped differently, there is now water intrusion that occurs in our -- the gatti

family's yard that did not occur previously. and it's also important to note here that the dbi also cited the respondents for this improper grading, the permit at issue in this appeal does not adequately address these problems, and that's why we're here tonight, hoping you can provide some direction to both the respondents and dbi on how to mitigate this issue. the second issue here which is very related is the makeshift fence that the respondents installed along the property line as part of this regrading project. this fence is makeshift because it's not in fact a self-supported structure. instead, they went ahead and they tacked on an additional structure to the good neighbor fence that has been in place for a number of years and has done a pretty good job of keeping out erosion and inappropriate water. but rather than seek coordination with my clients,

they went ahead and they unilaterally modified that fence. and then third and this is just the overarching issue here, we're agriefed by the piecemeal way that respondents take construction in their yard. they never submitted any substantive design plans whatsoever regarding construction. as a result, the only solution that my clients have had is to file complaints when they've identified these real tangible problems. and, you know, as a result of that, given the fact it's so piecemeal, it's been very difficult, i believe, for the dbi to comprehensively address everything that's gone on there. so what we're asking the board to do is to direct the respondents to provide plans which are required under the code when conducting regrading that affects adjacent

properties. another issue, and i wish we weren't in a position to have to address this, but unfortunately, the respondents raised it in their brief. they claim that these complaints are some sort of harassment and that's just simply not true. my clients have a legitimate concern about the integrity of their yard, the safety and habitability of their home, and the conduct by the respondents have called that into question. by no means are my clients looking to create a contentious neighborhood. rather, they've invited collaboration with their neighbors and their neighbors have essentially ignored them. in fact there's exhibits in our brief where we submitted the gatti family invited collaboration. so one of the things i think that would be helpful for us to look at right off the bat here -- can we move to the computer here? the respondents really minimize the -- sorry about that.

the respondents in their brief, they minimize the amount of grading that was done in their back yard. so in this slide, which is page one of exhibit three of our brief, this is what the property looked like prior to construction. so as you can see, there was a slope already, but there was appropriate collection points in that back yard, and that had existed for a long time. now, as you can -- these subsequent photographs show what kind of construction occurred beginning last year. this is apparently in the respondent's mind, this is not significant, but the truth is this is very significant regrading. not only did they regrade the property, but they also added in retaining walls in the interior to support some sort of artificial turf.

so as part of this project, they went ahead, and they also put up a fence. and it's a little bit difficult to completely understand the scope of this fence without seeing a cut-away diagram that we created, so i'll go ahead and put that here. so -- so in this diagram here, in this drawing, the brown portion here, this is the retaining wall that is part of the existing good neighbor fence. and above that, also in brown

but just with the outline there is the trellis fence that you can see in part of exhibit three. what the respondents have done as part of their construction project. the green earth is what existed here prior to their regrading. this earth on top of it is the new soil, and in addition, they tacked on, represented in red here, this makeshift fence that they use both as a method to raise above the trellis but also as some port sort of, i g some effort to serve as a retaining wall. it's not appropriately engineered. it has compromised the integrity of the existing fence. it -- my time may be limited here -- >> yes, if you could wrap it up, please.

>> okay. one of the key things that i also want to just point out in the brief that the respondent submitted, they support -- they provided absolutely no analyst regarding the effect of their regrading on their neighbors. they provided a report from a construction consultant based on a 2012 inspection in which he verified that there was in fact water issues. >> okay. i'm sorry. you'll have to wrap it up. thank you. >> you'll have three minutes of rebuttal. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. we will hear from the permit holder. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, president fung and the rest of the board. we appreciate you taking your time here. first and foremost, the gatti's complaints are not relevant to this permit. it was issued to correct a 4 inch height discrepancy in the measurement of a small section of our retaining wall within the inner perimeter of

our yard. you can see what the permit was intended to correct. may i use the overhead? so this -- the circles are the -- it's a little hard to see, but the circles are the sections of the retaining wall that were mismeasured because of the pavers. that was the purpose of this permit. it was not to address water intrusion in any way or fence height. so the appellant's assertion that the permit was to address these things is just incorrect. i have to address what the attorney just mentioned, which is that their main complaints are based on regrading the yard. the yard was not regraded. the essential portion of the yard was levelled, but was not regraded. therefore we did not need an initial permit.

we just required this alteration permit because of the height discrepancy. so it's not clear to us whether or not the board should even hear these complaints during this hearing. but in any case with regards to the complaints themselves, our overall landscaping work has not caused any water intrusion. there's a well established sub ground stream that runs in filbert street down the street through scott street, through the yards and but lelow our garages. as such, we have already installed substantial ground drainage in the form of french drains that go around that retaining wall, and you can see the blue line -- that's your exhibit c -- is where the french drains run around the perimeter of the wall.

that was done under a separate permit. they were tied into two drains. in addition a catch trap and a sand basin were installed with full compliance of the city code laws for plumbing. they were signed off on. and in fact, the permit was issued with a preemptive discussion with the chief director of plumbing of san francisco, which is stephen pinelli. mr. willoughby our land skaepg construction manager has graciously agreed to be here tonight to answer any questions about the design or what the intended purpose of the permit was. i will say one more thing. lastly, in part because of the endless litany of complaints that have come from mr. gatti. we have had the chance to have many different site visits from several inspectors. they not only inspected our

project in person on an ongoing basis and site inspections due to the complaints that were made, but they repeatedly spoke with mr. gatti and appropriately addressed his complaints. there really is no basis for this appeal as the construction is completed and was already signed off by dbi. the appeal was put in apparently the same day as the work was completed. that scope of work was very small and completed within two weeks. it was signed off on. that's exhibit b. the appeal seems to have been entered the same day, so that construction has been completed. there was one more thing i'd like to add. so there are diagrams showing that the regrading or proposed soil goes above the original trellis, it's just completely incorrect and it's just a fictitious drawing. this is actually our yard before construction on the

left, drurg construction in the middle, and then after construction. you can see the slope that borders the neighbor's fence is the same. some movement of dirt occurred during the construction process, but at any given time, it was under 30 inches. the fence in question, again, not needing a permit, was under 6 feet and was verified by inspector kevin birmingham, thank you for your time jacqueline dolev, owner of 3025 scott street. >> this permit also had something to do with handrails? >> yes, sir. >> where are those handrails? >> the handrails are...so right along -- right along those -- >> where the steps are? >> exactly, on either side, that's correct. >> and at what elevation are the french drains located with respect to the retaining wall?

[inaudible] >> if you can approach the microphone. >> kellen willoughby, construction manager. we installed the french drains on a bed of base rock. i also, if i could, just go through the appeal here kind of word for word. if you go through exhibit a and take a look at what -- new could go through exhibit a and just take a look at what it addresses, which was permitted, it was word for word basically the things that question here. so we look at the regrading in compliances with the codes 103

a, 1014, 1015, 1013. reduce under 36 inches, these were all things that weren't in our original scope of work, however we did to comply with the city and to comply with the neighbors, we spent over $10,000 redoing this work. the work was done just to comply with the city, and we had everything fine inspected, as well. so as far as everything on this appeal has been completed and nothing is left to appeal. we have completed the work in this appeal. >> let me go back to my question. >> yeah. >> the french drain and base rock is located where with respect to the base of the retaining wall. [inaudible] >> at the base? okay. [inaudible] >> okay. thank you. are you finished? [inaudible] >> okay. so we will now hear from mr. cory teague, zoning

administrator. >> good evening again, president fung, commissioners. cory teague for planning department staff. just very briefly, the planning department did review the subject permit over the counter and approved it over the counter on february 16 of this year. the planner did note that the proposed retaining wall was no higher than 36 inches, and that is principlely permitted within the rear yard and would have not triggered any additional review or public notice. just fyi regarding the fence that was discussed, even i don't believe it's part of this -- technically part of this permit, you can have a rear yard fence up to 10 feet in height and comply with the planning code, but i'm available for any questions you may have. >> mr. teague, what in the planning code deals with good neighbor fences? >> i don't think we have anything in the code that deals directly. we allow fences within the yard. like i said, within the rear

yard, they're allowed to be up to 10 feet high. other yards and set backs have different requirements. >> thank you. mr. joseph duffy, dbi. >> commissioners, joe duffy, dbi. the permit under appeal is to comply with notice of violation 2017-25951 to reduce under 36 inches regarding to compliance with code section j-103, 101.5, 1046(b), and then there's a 1014, which should be 101.4. the permit was reviewed by our plumbing inspection division for approval. code enforcement, building inspection division, city planning as you heard, our

building department plan check, and then central permit bureau was issued on the 20 of february 2018, completed and signed off on the 8th of march 2018, and then suspended under appeal on the 12th of march pending the appeal. the notice of violation, i'd like to read that out. that was the notice of violation was issued on the 14th of december 2017 regarding a back yard more than 3 feet in depth, and this -- this is the -- the northeast corner working surface with a vertical drop off of more than 30 inches without protection, submit a building plan with permit to address the noted building violations. so i think we heard that there's one portion of the retaining wall that would have required fall protection because it was more than 30 inches, so then they decided to tier it and load it under the code requirement. we would have required the

handrails on the stairs. the scope of the permit, it's really a landscaping project and that's allowed under the building code. there is some exceptions under the code -- in our building code as well, the san francisco building code, and i think they're relevant here because it simply -- we don't want to stop people from doing landscaping projects that do not require a building permit. we get a lot of complaints on this type of work, but a lot of the times, when we go out there, we look at it and say it doesn't need a permit. it's exempt. in this case, i think the only reason it needed a permit was the fall protection, and if they put steps and spurs out there, and the way that commissioner fung asked about the handrails, we would like to see that so if someone tripped,

they would have something to hold onto. the drainage issue, that was mentioned in the building permit, and then, subsequently, there was a plumbing permit obtained to install a catch basin for the back yard drains. that permit has already been completed, as well, and signed off. the only thing, and i think that probably would be something, if i was asking for it, if i'm allowed to do that, is the drawing that they have for the -- that system pavers done or someone else to do a drawing to show the location of those drains just for the record because that's the only one thing that i personally would maybe like to see is where are the drains located and commissioner fung brought up a thought of that. there's nothing on this permit. it was actually issued without plans because it was just to correct the fall part of the height difference in the 36 to 30 inches, dbi staff did confirm, and i confirmed that with senior inspector mchugh

today before the hearing. i asked him, and in retroexpect, retrospect, he said he decided to give the permit for documentation. so i'm available for any questions. >> two questions, joe. so the other permits had inspections for the drainage and everything? >> the plumbing department -- yeah, the plumbing inspector would have looked at the drainage, yes. >> what does the building code say about good neighbor fences? >> oh, sorry. i was going to bring that up. i knew you'd ask it. the san francisco building code allows fences in side and rear yards not visible from the street no higher than 6 feet in height to be installed without a permit. i think in this case, actually, there was a privacy concern,

and they may have raised the fence a little bit to help with the privacy. i think the neighbor was concerned because the new lawn surface maybe had risen that up a little bit because they talked about leveling it out. it may have created some sort of a situation where they could maybe -- they could see into the neighbor's property more than they could before. there may have been an attempt to do that. i did see that in the brief, and i checked with the building inspector, and he said it was not an issue. now, i didn't go there and measure it, but he said it was not a concern of his. >> okay. but who owns the good neighbor fence? >> i read an article one time about it. it's just -- it's aa joint -- >> by both sides? >> yeah. yeah. yeah. there's not really any -- it's just -- it's a good faith thing, and i know i did my fence, i paid for it all myself on three sides. so it happens all the time in your city. if your fence is falling down, and nobody wants to -- if you

want to do it, go ahead. if nobody else wants to do it -- most of the time, people get together and share the cost. in this case, i think the height is the issue. 6 feet is the root. >> well, there's another issue, but they talked about the height. the other thing is when they added the extra height, they attached the post to that existing fence post. >> oh, on the -- oh, for the height on the fence? >> yeah, yeah, yeah. belongs to both sides, i guess. >> i've got a question, too. >> would have been more prudent to just pour a little footing for the post and have it independent. >> or talk to your neighbor. >> yeah, they could have done that. i mean, people add trellis to fences and stuff like that all the time, too. 6 feet is the rule. if it's more than 6 feet, it's an issue. if it's 6 feet or less, it's no problem. >> you mentioned these terrace

yards that they set these up on, no higher than 30 inches or is it 36 inches? >> for the drop off? >> yeah. >> let me see...reduce to under 36 inches. i believe it's 30 inches in the code. >> and what is fall protection? i've never heard that. >> if you build that. the code doesn't care if you fall 30 inches or less, but if it's more than 30 impls, y -- inches, you have to have rails. the code talks about protection for a board or rails. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll move onto rebuttal; we'll hear from mr.

armstrong for the appellants. >> just a couple of critical points. first of all, they've noted that there have been installation of drains. however, the drain system that they've installed is not along the fence line. they've examin they've exacerbated the water drainage system. the drain that they put in is underneath that artificial turf. the plans that they provided with their brief, they did not submit to the city may confuse that issue a bit, but there is absolutely no drainage system, to your knowledge, as of today, along that fence line. second of all, they try to narrow the scope of your review here for this appeal, but the fact of the matter is they've got absolutely no permits whatsoever prior to commencing any of this construction. as a result of that, they were cited under j-103 for improper

regrading. as a result of that, you have an avenue now to force them to have comprehensive grading plan analysis because they're not exempt under -- i believe it's j-104.2. they would be required to put in a grading plan. they're not exempt because under j-103, their work does adversely affect the adjoining properties. and i think the photos, the expert opinion that we submitted with our brief makes it clear that the issue is far greater than anything explained by the respondents today, and we would certainly appreciate an opportunity to work with the neighbors if they're willing to do so, but unfortunately at this jumpgture, it appear -- juncture it appears that the only option is to seek guidance from this board. >> counselor, does your client dispute that that portion of the site between this retaining

wall and the fence is not matching the previous grade? >> our analysis shows that it does not match the previous grade at all. the photos that were submitted with the respondent's brief are cherry picked. they do not show the full scope of the yard. it's very cleverly taken to make it appear as if something else is going on, but the cut away drawing that i showed you clearly...the cut away drawing here represents the changes in the grade. the green is how it existed previously. the soil in gray there above it is what now exists. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder, miss dolev.

>> thank you so much. >> you have three minutes. >> thank you. i think the first point to clarify is that the french drainage is on the outside of the wall, so it's actually between the wall and the fence, which is a few inches in width. not a lot of time, but the drains actually run on this side of the wall, so if they're concerned about drainage along the fence, it is technically along the fence, so it wasn't required and isn't needed. this -- i mean, i don't know if it's a -- i don't know where they got this information, but the old fence is a trellis. it did not provide privacy, so we put a privacy fence at the exact same height, so there's no change in height. in fact, one of the photos they put in the exhibits, it's photo shopped, but the new fence is actually at the same exact

level as the trell i say and was verified by the department of building inspection. so this whole diagram of new dirt doesn't exist. so i think that's a really important point to clarify. so in regards to the fence and the footings, we didn't put footings because we didn't want to disturb the soil. we actually designed this to have the least impact on the neighbors. we've been on the other side of this, where our filbert neighbor actually demolished a shared retaining wall without permission which actually created a lot of problems. we didn't do anything remotely like this. we wanted to mitigate the water that's in the neighborhood to begin with, so we left the soil intact, we left the old retaining wall intact, releft the trellis fence tract. we simply put privacy up in front of it. thank you. >> thank you. mr. teague, nothing?

okay. mr. duffy? nothing further? okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> i haven't heard anything to make me think there's an issue. >> so i would have -- i had assumed that the french drain was on the outside of the wall, not to the level portion of the wall. the question that is being raised is how much disturbance occurred, i think, at the portion between the retaining wall and the fence? i studied those photos. i couldn't tell from photos from either side exactly what occurred along that fence line.

it could go for me to rule one way or the other. in terms of whether there was a disturbance or not. >> on the issue raised by inspector duffy, when we reach our conclusion, can we support his request for drawings on the -- on the drainage? i think that would be important. >> condition of the permit. >> condition the permit on development of the drawings that show the drainage. i think that -- at the request of dbi, we should do that. inspector duffy? >> unless inspector duffy has something to say. >> thank you, commissioners. maybe, as well, we could address the issue of the grade at the showing the fence line and where the -- where they had the grade, just for future

reference. that's all i'm thinking on the drainage pipes, as well. i do share your concern. i did check with senior inspector mchugh, and i assured me it's not an issue, but it may be good to show the drainage and the yart level in regards to the neighbor's retaining wall. >> okay. >> would dbi need to go out to verify existing conditions, then, prior to that or... >> i think no -- >> yeah, i think many members of dbi already went out there extensively. mr. mchugh is quite experienced. >> okay. >> so you have a motion? >> yes. [inaudible] >> sure. move to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the submission of drawings showing the drainage and the grade level, is that -- >> the grade at the fence line. >> grade at the fence line. >> okay. and the drains would be along

the base of the fence, as well, so we want to condition -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry, on the wall. okay. so we have a motion by commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that new drawings be submitted that would show the drawing of the drains on the plan for the record as well as the grade at the location. okay. on that motion -- [roll call] >> okay. that motion passes, so thank you. okay. moving onto item number 11.

[agenda item read] >> and we will hear from the appellant first. you have seven minutes. if you can identify yourself for the record, please. >> good evening, everybody. i'm marlene kramer, and it's

with great pleasure that i finally have a chance to speak my piece regarding the property at 2242 35th avenue. >> yeah, if you could move the microphone, please. >> i am a retiree, and while my other neighbors work, i have been home, breathing toxic dust, feeling my house shaking during a months long excavation well beyond the scope of permits, listening to deafening jackhammering and witnessing total gutting of the adjacent property at 2242 35th avenue since last august. with an incredible amount of frustration, i'm appealing to you, the commissioners, to deny the structural addition on the

second floor rear deck. it will look directly into my back yard and black more sun and privacy, and you can see the -- the photo on the screen over here. significantly, according to newly revised drawings as of march 1st of this year, the deck will be supported -- this is a really important issue to me, the deck will be supported by a new retaining walls, built by owners and contractor sunny tang, license number 976437 with misleading wording, and without proper permits until a series of anonymous complaints and many calls to the inspectors were made.

the original back yard was level with mine, separated by sturdy back yard fencing. this fencing has become loosened and damaged because of the major excavation in preparation for the new retaining wall where none had existed before, major excavation occurred i don't kn know -- beyond the scope of permits to remove 10 inches of soil from the first floor. see two and three, please. so this is -- you know, i'm on my ladder, peeking over the back yard fence, looking at how much has been excavated because of all the shaking and trem --

trembling, and i was in an earthquake zone seven days a week for six weeks. right in that corner as indicated on the screen, you can see the jackhammered foundation wall that was removed from the property next to me. so the jackhammering, the removal of their foundation, and then, the excavation beyond the scope of permits is really barely visible. and the inspector came out, posted a notice of stop work violation on october 13. got the next one.

october 13, and that stop work order was ignored. the work continued. four days later, after the stop work order was posted, four days later, permits for the new retaining wall were issued on october 17, well after the form, as you can see on the screen. that form had already been built before the permit was issued. i've got 5-b there. this photo was taken on october 14. exhibits 5-c and-d show the new

retaining wall built to anchor this structural addition that they now want to add on. exhibit 5-e was taken on march 3. please note, this was kind of tachy, you know, sort of like, here i am, leaning over the back yard fence, but that little green hose hanger that you see on the fence was where the original -- the previous owners hung their garden hose, so that you can further identify where the original -- excuse me, the original lawn was -- thank you -- the original lawn was, and that

they excavated way down into the lower garden approximately three to 5 feet. it is my belief that without a series of anonymous complaints by various people and calls and e-mails to dbi, san francisco planning, and our supervisor, the new owners and their contractors would still be working under the original permit, form eight, alterations without plans, period. just one, in closing. we know some property owners, and their contractors are breaking laws for personal gain while damaging neighboring properties and robbing the city of tax revenues. i'm extremely upset that these property owners and their contractors can continue to work under the radar behind closed doors with a simple job

post in a window that nobody pays attention to. okay? thank you very much. >> thank you. we will now hear from the permit holder, mr. lau. if you could speak into the center microphone, please. you have seven minutes. >> my dad doesn't speak english very well. >> so because we need a translator, they get double the time, so you get 14 minutes. >> my dad doesn't really understand what the appeal is on our house. so he doesn't really understand the appeal on the house. are they appealing the deck and the -- and the windows or are they appealing the whole house?

what is the appeal. why is she bringing up all the -- you know, all the construction that's involved? >> i mean, she just spoke, and they provided a brief, i believe. did you read that? i mean, we can't -- >> perhaps part of the problem is we didn't get a brief from you. you didn't submit anything in writing. >> oh, so we have permits for the whole -- for the whole house. >> okay. what's being appealed is the permit number that ends in 2621. >> yeah. that's the -- the deck and the windows, right, the front windows, correct? >> we have no drawings, either, you know, so... >> okay.

i believe she's appealing the deck, but she's just showing the pattern of work that has been done, and the fact that as my fellow commissioner mentioned, you're supposed to supply a brief so that we have information to hear this. the appellant supplied a brief, and you did not, so basically, we have no information from you which doesn't look very good to start off with. >> my dad didn't know what to do because it's our first house -- first time fixing our house. >> no, because before i -- i applied for a permit. >> into the microphone, sir. >> i get all kind of permit before i do anything. i don't know if i do everything, i passed the city law, both sides, 4 feet, not in the corner. did everything by the book, by the city law.

i don't know what -- >> okay. well, you know, the hearing is not the time to be asking. we had the appellant present her case. she provided a brief, which i presume you received. >> so preech, she's appealing the -- pretty much, she's appealing the deck and the windows. and the reason why my dad wants the deck in back of the house is because of -- because of the -- in case there's a fire or anything, there's another exit in the back. and on -- and she doesn't -- my dad's almost 70 years old already, so he doesn't want to walk down the stairs to get to the back in case there's a fire in the front of the house, so that's why we applied for a deck, and we gotta proved -- we got approved -- we got approved plans for the deck. so i think they're appealing our deck because -- well, we

just don't understand why we're getting appealed on the deck because we already got permits for it already, but since she filed an appeal on the 14th day of -- before we could build it, we had to come to this hearing. so it's our first process, so we don't really understand much of this, that -- this whole process. >> so i can help you a little bit. so every time that you pull a permit, your permit is appealable for the first 15 days of it. so even though that you have a permit, it's suspended because somebody has appealed it. and then, you would come to this body to present your case. but unfortunately, because you didn't understand the process, you really have not presented any case, so really we're only hearing the case of the appellants who appealed the process. they sent you a notice in the mail regarding this hearing and the procedure that this hearing is about. so maybe since you don't have

anything to say, maybe the departments can fill us in more about this because we don't have any plans, we don't have anything, okay? >> if you could, i need to talk to the guy -- [inaudible] >> i'm sorry. i can't hear you, sir. >> i said i have a lower -- [inaudible] >> i don't want to say anything because everything, i got a permit. i don't know, what can i do? what can i do? thank you so much. >> we have -- like, there was about ten, 15 complaints on the house. and every time there's a complaint, we have to stop working. and then, the inspectors come,

and we get our -- like, in case we're doing something wrong, the inspector comes and he will tell us the -- how to correct everything. and every time they come, we always correct everything. everything's -- we do everything by -- by -- by code, and by -- with the permits. i just don't understand, like, why we're getting so many complaints about the house. we're getting complaints -- we got complaints about the deck when we didn't even build it yet. we're getting complaints for no reason. like, every time we -- every time we -- every time we do anything, we speak to the neighbor's nephew, and we report to him about what we do all the time. and he's like oh, yeah, you should just build the house the way you want it. if you've got permits, you should just build it the way you want it. on the installation, we told

them we'd do better installation just because the lady next door is old. we don't want to disturb her all the time. we don't want to make it too noisy for her because she lives alone next door. we made the wall dos soundprooo we don't disturb her. we did so much -- we asked the nephew what kind of installation you want us to use, and we was even, like, trying to compromise this with her, but we were just getting complaints nonstop every single week. >> mr. lau is the demolition of the concrete foundation and the previous existing slab, is that finished? >> everything is done. everything is finished. >> so the lower wall is completed, the retaining wall is completed. what's before us, then, is -- >> just the deck only. >> we had a permit for it,

right? >> we had permitted for everything. the only thing we can't do is just change the if he has is and just do the landscaping in the front yard. >> well, that's why i think it's better since you didn't prepare a brief, that the department can help us out here. >> thank you. >> all right. >> come enlighten us, o wise one. >> subject property here is at 2242 35th avenue. the permit under appeal proposed a scope of work that reads, quote, revision to bpa number 2017-1017-1427. interior room reconfigure perplans, new deck at rear, replace front two windows in kind with aluminum clad front

windows. quote, interior modifications comply with va volumes down, deck and rear less than 10 feet in height with nodable area of lot, cpps, this is a revision permit, unquote. the planner approved on march 6 -- it was a different planner but approved the permit over the counter and noted replace front windows with aluminum clad front windows. the permit did not require notification and was planning code requirement. like you, we did not receive plans, but usually, this wiekly, plans are not -- quickly, plans are not in our internal system, but luckily these ones were, so i can put them on the overhead. so this is the existing

property as it is now. here's the proposal and the site plan. you can see the addition of the deck here. >> that's a deck, not a pop out, right? >> correct. it's a deck. it's not enclosed and occupied for...and here's the proposed site reconfiguration on the ground floor. they have a previous permit to basically take what was just garage and storage space and convert it into habitable space, add a couple bedrooms and full bath and storage room. they just are changing the configuration a bit here on the down stairs. and then, similarly, on the second floor, the living area essentially staying the same. they reconfigured the bathroom and closet a