your motion is to deny the appeal? >> deny the appeal and that it was properly issued. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued on that motion -- [roll call] -- that motion carries 4-0. >> you sound sick. [laughter] >> gary, can you grab it? can brad have a couple of cough drops? thank you.

>> our attorney is dying. are you sick? >> are you sick too. >> i came in at 5:00. i brought back a portuguese sausage. >> okay. okay, we are moving on to item number 5. this is a rehearing request. the subject property 1509 trader street. the appellant is requesting an eerie -- a rehearing of their appeal. the neighbors of the valley versus san francisco public works, decided december 12, 2018 at that time, the board voted 4-

0 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued. the permit holder's mobility, and this is permit number... and president fung, did you have the opportunity to review the video materials for the hearing which took place on december 12 th, 2018? >> i did, and i am prepared to act upon the presentation. >> thank you. we will begin with the agent for the requester. >> thank you. there were a number of new facts and circumstances that arose during the hearing on the 14th . we appreciate your are hearing our request for rehearing. on november 14th, they misled the board that the pole was the same height and the d.p.w. also

did not disclose the mobility's approved design and this was a mobility document that was not referred to and didn't in fact have a 2-foot or feet 3-foot increase. that document also forms the basis of your approval. d.p.w. also did not disclose that there is a definition of a 34 for replacement. in its definition, which is in the lower right-hand column, is the material on? okay. there is a definition for replacement. it would have helped the board to understand what that is. this is a definition required for under the d.p.w. order for implementation of article 25.

it says it is equipped -- its equipment must be equal or lesser in size. this is to -- 2-foot 3 inches taller. we thought this would have been relevant for the board in their review of that. there was also the issue of the notice. d.p.w. did catch the error of the wrong neighborhood group and stayed -- stated on the 14th of november that it was corrected in both mailings. they were two physical mailings. tentative and final. mobility and d.p.w. had done that. why did both mobility and d.p.w. provide certification under penalty of perjury that they had only done one, and to the wrong list. there was no, and still is no signed affidavit of even one, left alone to watch what mailings to the neighborhood group, and we believe the commissioners were deliberately misled at the november hearing on that issue. we support the work that d.p.w.,

that planning has done to streamline the installations of the equipment, but it was absolute falsehood that was brought up at planning to tell commissioner lazarus on the 14 th that it was an inch larger than at&t and verizon, and that was a misleading fact. the compatibility standard was never really checked and that came out in the hearing. it was clear that planning had not performed inadequate, or any , of the view from the streets, and that is evidence there are hundreds of people to go up and down the streets and see this view, it was clear they were relying entirely on a photograph coming the other direction. these are the number of reasons that we feel that the board was misled. there was no consideration of alternate sights, and we think this is a fundamental issue if the city has preserved its right to be able to review these

applications, if the applicant comes in with a perfect site every time, -- >> sir, your time is up. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening. i am from mobility l.l.c. this is a rehearing request for an appeal for a wireless permit issued for a small site 15 '09 trader street. we heard this meeting on december 14th. at which time the board voted 4- 0-1 with president fung absent two deny the appeal and uphold the permit. it is not meet the high standards of the rules of this board for rehearing to be granted. it puts forth no new or different material facts that could have affected the outcome of the original hearing. the appellant uses their brief to reargue the same issues and

same facts already presented to this board on november 12th, excuse me, november 14th and december 12th. the appellants again, raises issues about the design of the facility that is approved by planning with the same or similar equipment used in other parts of the city, already under the small cell program, the appellant again attempts to confer flight a replacement hole for the p.u.c. requirements for the installation of the new utility pole at a location where no pole previously existed. appellants argue about the definition of replacement under article 25, is in reference to the equipment. the provider would install -- it is not about the pole. it is s.f. p.u.c.'s property. s.f. p.u.c., we measured the pole and confirms that the replacement pole will be approximately the same height, and that 28-foot poles that they

use across the city and the appellant argues about the appellants noticing and the it was one of the primary focus is at both the november and december hearings. where it was established that mobility corrected the neighborhood group public notice mailings. they make arguments about site location, analysis, where there is no local state or federal requirement to do so. the appellant also makes the same arguments about underground utility location markings pursuant to a separately issued excavation permit, that the board heard about in december, and there are no new facts before you today that were unknown at the time of previous hearings. the appellant has been heard by the city on these arguments. at the initial protest hearing, and at the november and december hearings, these are arguments the board has heard and a multitude of times before, and

other similar cases. this is not an extraordinary case. there is no manifest and justice present. we respectfully ask this board deny the rehearing request. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you for your time. >> i have a question. in the last hearing, we spoke at length in regards to whether or not the pole is a replacement pole, or whether it is a new poll. but the appellant pulled out a document that indicates if a pole is taller, it has to be smaller in stature or in size then that would constitute as a replacement. is it saying if you're pole is taller, does it mean it is no longer a replacement? >> the definition about replacement under article 25 is mobility or any provider -- >> i'm sorry. can the appellant but that document on the overhead again, please.

>> while he is searching, at length, we did speak about it quite a bit, in the bar for a rehearing is quite high. if there is the information that indicates the ponies to be smaller to be a replacement, and if the pole is indeed larger, than it would not constitute as a replacement. >> that definition of replacement is about the equipment we are installing. if he ever tried to modify in the future and had to go back, or something breaks and we have to fix it, what constitutes a replacement? that pole is not mobility. we have no control over it. it is s.f. p.u.c. that requires every carrier to replace it. >> can we get that -- thank you. >> is about previously permitted equipment. we are not permitting a pole here. it already exists, and the owner of the city is asking for it to be replaced. >> hold on one second. thank you.

>> replace means to remove previous permitted equipment, and install new equipment as permitted, personal wireless service facility that is identical in size or smaller than the previous parenting equipment. so if your pole becomes 3 feet higher, i mean i read that as it is not the same size. >> that is not mobility. that is the city's poll. we just have no control over it. our preference would be we save money and not replace the pole if it is good to go. >> does my city attorney have an opinion on that? >> i read this as referencing the actual wireless equipment that is being installed. not the pole. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department. >> i am jillian gillett from the

department of street mapping. you have a brief in front of you our position is the appellant does not raise new or different facts for circumstances from the previous hearing, and we respectfully request you take this rehearing request. i'm available for questions. >> is there any public comment on this item. seeing then, the matter is submitted. >> commissioners? comments? >> i am going to end recommending we deny the appeal, but i do so not under protest, but under duress. i don't, here is what bugs me. i like to send this message to d.p.w. and i'd like to send it to mobility, and i would like to send it to at&t, although this has nothing to do with their behaviour, and verizon.

as we saw the original presentation of this, it was very upsetting to see the presentation from mobility, because in fact, the photos were misleading, and we are not doing sales here. we are not selling, we are not in your business of selling a product. what we are doing is taking care of our citizens and taking care of our neighbors, and these issues are very emotional because these are people's homes and to represent, if you look at at&t or verizon's equipment, it is significantly smaller than yours at mobility. i think your installation is ugly, but it is still not illegal.

and to see a photo looking up hill at the tower, and trying to get a call just a big sit -- in juxtaposition to sell your position is kind of insulting. i really feel bad about the neighbors. at the same time, i find it -- i can't find anything -- although you are stretching, although it is stretching a little bit, unfortunately i can't find enough to justify a rehearing, which is where the bar is pretty high. [please stand by]

. . . i'm sorry for the neighbor. i can't support rehearing, but let's have dpw, please, let's try to work better with the neighborhood and be more sensitive. my motion is to edny the rehearing because it doesn't meet the criteria. with that sensitivity. but it means nothing. okay? >> president fung: any other comments? >> we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the request for a rehearing on the basis there is no new evidence. on that motion, president fung. >> aye. >> a commissioner lazarus? >> aye. >> a commissioner honda?

>> aye. >> commissioner tanner. >> the rehearing requested is denyed. we will now move on to item number 6. this is appeal numb 18-144, okay chu versus planning department inspection at 521 los palmos drive protesting the issuance on october 15, 2018 to frank chan and stephanie su of a site permit, vertical addition remodel and replace existing sun room, remodel kitchen, add upper rear master suite bedroom and bathroom penthouse vertically. no changes to existing front nor lower floors. application 2016/05/27/8675s. and we will hear from the appellant first. i understand that she will be -- you can approach the microphone. ms. chu. i understand that you are going to present in english, but we have a korean interpreter present in the event that you

don't understand some of the responses, is that correct? >> yes. correct. >> you will be given the normal amount of time, seven minutes. >> good evening, everyone. my name is ok chu. i currently own and decided directly behind the property 521 los palmos drive in question. that was recently granted a permit to do construction. i am suffering from asthma and my doctor indicated this could worsen my medical condition. the construction would also cause havoc in the lives of my

family who sleeps during the day and works during the night. further more, my family including many of our neighbors have been living in this neighborhood for many decades. tirelessly promoting preservation of the character of our neighborhood as much as possible. the city and county of san francisco building and planning division allowing property owners to alter their property defeats the purpose of keeping one of the san

neighborhood and and all the houses that will be higher in the creation of the house that values in the san francisco neighborhood will just turn into buildings and we know the damage is big with the taller buildings amid the other areas. in close, the picture. not only the safety is the

issue, but the current line and layout of the house will be distorted. i and many of our neighbors want to preserve the buildings and land on this area in our community. they installed a telescope in the sunroom which looks down on the rest of the residents and neighbors. we fear in our own homes, something that shouldn't have to be of a worry to our families and children. i have posted two pictures of the telescope if you are skeptical about how dangerous

the telescope overlooks the rest of the houses nearby. thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. i look forward to your reconsideration. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. you can be seated. we will now hear from the permit holders. you have 7 minutes, mr. chan. >> hello, commissioner. my name is frank chan and my wife and three kids and family are in the back today, here today. we're the homeowners of 521 los palmos drive. we have been living there since we bought the house 16 years ago. i am an educator here in the city for the san francisco

unified school district, and my wife works in nonprofit. we have three grown kids, two boys and a girl who share a small bedroom -- and here is a picture of the room they are in right now. the boys are in a bunk bed and while our seven-year-old daughter is still in a toddler bed. as you can see, we desperately need the additional space. with our careers, we cannot afford a bigger house. we started the addition process back in 2015. throughout the planning and building permit application process, we have been transparent and sensitive to our surrounding neighbors. we went to the homes of our neighbors on los palmos drive and spoke to them personally about our addition. they were supportive of our plans. commissioners, this is a modest project. and i would do my best to put

these things in perspective. the proposal is an extension to an existing level which will have a setback of over 12 feet from the existing rear wall of the building. in response to the appellant's claims on scale and form, the numerous adjacent houses or homes on los palmos drive of similar height and depth to that which we are proposing. 527, 501, 475, and 471, for instance. as demonstrated on the pictures in the packet. in regards to privacy, this is not a reasonable application for anyone on the north side of that section of that avenue due to the topography. the houses on our street have a view of the houses below us on meribels, such as ms. chu's.

likewise t houses above us have a view of our house on los palmos. our proposal will not change that, nor will it make matters worse. actually, you think about it, replacement a solarium that is currently all glass will provide more privacy for all of us. lastly n response to the appellant's concern on earthquake and health concerns, san francisco is a city of hills and slopes. our engineer will be working with d.b.i.'s engineers to meet today's requirements. we all have a licensed contractor who will be adhering our work to the regulatory requirements per federal, state, and city guidelines. to conclude, i have personally reached out to ms. chu and our engineers have also met with her during the preapplication process. these are the same concerns that

were submitted by the appellant for the planning commission's hearing. we have modified our plans several times, made concessions. this has been long, stressful, and costly process for us. we have spent over $20,000 in architectural, engineering, and city fees. our preapplication meeting was held in 2015 when our daughter was only four years old. she is now seven and still in the same toddler bed. our original assigned planner was todd kennedy who had left the department shortly after d.r. was filed in may of 2017. a new planner was then assigned. both planners fully supported the proposal. moreover, senior managers along with the entire residential design team of planning

department and the team which consists of the director, assistant director of planning and zoning administrator have reviewed our plans and given support to the project. and on july of 2018, the planning commission in the public hearing unanimously approved our project. we have involved all parties and agencies in this process and have extensive support from city departments and neighbors. this is a sound project. we have followed the planning process every step of the way. as you can see, commissioners, our kids are getting bigger. we just want to provide them with enough space for them to continue to grow in what is our home. thank you so much for your time. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the planning department.

>> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. the property at 521 los palmos is within the h1 zoning district and the subject application was committed in may of 2016 and underwent section 311 neighborhood notice between april and may 2017. during that time one discretionary review was fired at 517 los palmos. during this time the planning department residential design team reviewed the application and made suggested changes all of which the project sponsor adopt and implemented. the planning commission heard the d.r. earl yer this year on july 12 and unanimously denied the discretionary review and i a proved the permit. and the appeal that is before you is not by the same party that filed the discretionary review, but by property owner to the rear on melrose. the project is completely code compliant and that concludes my presentation. >> there is no variances or exceptions in this project? >> nope. >> and is the scope of the project the max build or could

they have gone large sner >> they could have gone larger because there is a 35-foot height limit for residential buildings in the rh1 zoning district. it is reduced to 30 feet in height we have such a significant down slope as the property does, but they are only 20 feet at the front, so they could add another story. >> in your opinion, would you say this is a conservative remodel? >> yes. >> considering what the max build is? >> fully code compliant. residential guidelines. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners. joe duffy, d.b.i. i am the subject permit under appeal and was filed on may of 2016. issue and the 15th of october, 2018. and subsequently suspended because of the 31st of october. and the permit that's been approve sod far is only for a site permit, as you know.

on the addenda should address all these structural design, foundation issues, any geotech stuff will be part of that. i did hear the appellant bring up some concerns, but those should be addressed on the structural design and i am available for any questions, but i didn't hear much else. >> also great to see you since the holidays, inspector duffy. >> thank you, commissioner honda. happy new year. >> mr. duffy, that is not a slide zone, is it? >> sorry? >> that is not a slide zone? >> i think it is. i didn't check it to be honest with you. i think los palmos is part of the hillside protection area. >> i think so. >> i actually text my boss but he had left the offers, so i didn't check that today, but if it is, it will be under the review for the slope protection act, yes, absolutely. that is a good question. i thought of that myself, but unfortunately, i don't have that information. it will be if -- in the d.b.i.

system, if it is, it's going to be marked on our permit tracking system, and -- >> and that would be your review now? >> yes, that is right. exactly. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none, we will move on to rebuttal. now it is time for ms. chu. you have three minutes to provide a rebuttal. to address the board. >> i will show the picture of the neighbors -- >> i'm sorry, speak into the microphone please. >> i would like to show pictures from my neighbors.

this is -- i'm sorry. is the picture of her house or the neighbor's house? >> neighbor's. >> this is the photos from the neighbors. >> the microscope -- the photos that you can see from the microscope. or telescope. >> a telescope. >> and this is my neighbors home. this is my neighbor's pictures and the city made mistake for the right size of this one has one more story. and this one has one more story. he gets approved for this

project, the rest of the house going to be raised to another store ru. i am worried about the neighbors raising their buildings. i am trying to keep natural beauty of the historic san francisco city, so i do not want to higher up the buildings. and this is my neighbors -- too small. this sun room is going to be changing. it's going to be higher than normal level.

and this is our landmark. we would like to keep natural beauty for future generations. that's all. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. chan. >> actually, maybe a little bit bigger. >> all we want as parents is to provide the basics for our family and would like our two growing boys to have their own room and space, and our growing daughter to have her own space and privacy as well. we worked hard our lives and

safe what we can. we're law-abiding citizens who have been totally transparent throughout this whole application process. we waited seven and a half hours to speak at the planning commission hearing which the appellant did not even show up for, but if the planning commission unanimously approved our plans. this appeals prost has caused great frustration and tremendous financial burden on the family and the mental stress is unbelievable. i personally reached out the to the appellant in the hardship and need for additional space. our engineer and myself have also met with appellant during the preapplication process, and addressed her concerns. this is a modest project that provides a much-needed addition bedroom for a house. we're fully code compliant and

have the full support of senior managers at the planning department. in addition, the planning commission unanimously approved the project and as commissioner moore states, the project is very reasonable. family of three children, nothing was excessive about this square foot addition. i would simply say not to take d.r. and approve as proposed. it is as simple as that. there is nothing further. that is the end of her quote. commissioners, 15 plus surrounding neighbors who signed in support of our addition have signed this. in addition to several personal letters of support from adjacent and across street neighbors, and

also a leter from the united educators president mr. solomon who urged the commission to edny this appeal because it's hard as an an educator to make it in the city. it's been over three years since the start of the process. we have done everything that the city has asked us to do and more. we ask the board to reject ms. chu's appeal and allow the project to move forward. thank you so much. >> what do you teach? >> yes. >> what do you teach? >> a counselor. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, do you have anything to add? mr. duffy, anything to add? okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners. >> i would like to move it forward, and deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. i think it's clean and clear and without any dispute or conflict. >> i agree. i believe that there is no

reason to push this project forward. it is fully code compliant and variances and they have gone smaller than they could have. furthermore, i do support families that are long-term san francisco residents to stay in the city. i would also deny the appeal. >> is there a motion? >> that was why motion. >> okay. so we have a motion from vice president swig to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. on that motion, president fung. >> aye. >> a commissioner lazarus. >> aye. >> a commissioner honda. >> aye. >> u a commissioner tanner? >> aye. >> that motion carries and the appeal is denied. i would like to i an announce we did receive a withdrawal for item number 9, appeal 18-103. >> you need an action on that. >> we don't need an action, but i wanted to let the people know if they wanted to take a break

if they are after nine. >> let's hear the next case and take a short break. >> sound good. we are now moving on to item number 7. this is appeal number 18-145-dan kleinman versus department of building inspection and subject property is 571 myra way protesting issuance on october 18, 2018 to ying lee to remove an unwarranted structure and revert back to original wooden deck and instul stucco to match the original front facade and replace all front windows with existing style. this is 2016/04/06/4087.

the is the permit holder present? i understand the permit holder needs an interpreter, we were advised. is that the case? talk about it. we will start with the appellant and you can decide if you need it. mr. kleinman, you have seven minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. my spouse and i own 571 myra way and are appealing the altercation at 571 myra for two reasons. first t permit states that the work will be done, and i quote revert the rear of the building back to the original deck. that statement is in error. there never was a wooden deck in the rear of the building. we are concerned that any work done on 571 myra particularly if it covers the rear of the building will seem a bigger problem and threatens structural

integrity of both of our properties. 571 and 575 were two of eight structurally similar homes built adjacent to each other in 1949. and as you can see by this next picture, there is a retaining wall -- it's right here. at the back of each garage that buttresses the downward slope of mount davidson. this is our garage which is identical to that of 571. >> face it like you would look at it yourself, sir. >> sorry. >> thank you. >> this is a picture from the

real estate website in 2015 when 571 was sold to the new owner. it shows a concrete patio over the dirt that extended below and to the garage retaining wall. and here is a picture of what that patio area looks like now. without permit, the owner excavated into the garage and below the hill exposing our foundation in the process. it's worth noting that none of the other seven properties have had any excavation work done into their retaining walls. we engaged the structural engineer to review the new retainling walls that were built at 571 according to plans the owner had that would supposedly support the excavation as the engineers report documents and the design drawings and the geotechnical report are inconsistent with the existing field conditions. on page two of his conclusions and recommendations, which is your exhibit five, he states that the retaining walls that were built along our exposed

foundation as a result of the excavation are not adequate in the long term to support the weight of our home. given 571 myra way three-year violation history with the department of building inspection, we are inclined to believe that the alteration permit will be licensed for the construction and/or alteration for anything beyond the stated reason. the statement regarding the nonexistent wooden deck is an indication that our skepticism may be well placed. we appeal not to issue the permit to strengthen and bring the retaining walls up to code to be inspected and approved by the city, thus insuring that both properties are structurally safe. thank you for your time and consideration. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> is that sweatshirt for mission district or mission high? >> neither. the mission reds. >> are you familiar with them? >> pacific coast league. with the seals. they ended in 48. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the

permit holder. did we decide -- did you decide if you need an interpreter? i'm sorry, i didn't hear you. you said, no? we will give you the regular time. you have seven minutes. >> good evening, commissioners. i am speaking on behalf of the owner. we actually reach out to the appellant on january 7, this monday, and we arrive to a mutual agreement to work with the labor and 575 myra way to go up to apply for another permit. to reconstruct the concrete

retaining wall according to the structural, latest structural engineering report. and that way so we can minimize the neighbor's concern. so that's about it. >> are you finished, sir? >> when you say the structural engineers, you are talking at the appellate's structural engineer's report? >> yeah t appellant. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. it is a little bit more challenging when we don't have a brief from permit holder to defend their actions. it is even more challenging when there is a history of violations

on the property. >> that is why my brief says hot mess. >> one way of describing it. i did see the plans that the building inspector duffy brought the plans and we did look at them briefly. it is hard to say that the plans are accurate just given what the appellant has put forward and given what we know of the site and i think there are concerns that what is there may even require notice on the plans that are part of the permit. i think the question is, how do we move forward? especially when we have a permit holder that may not be so willing to work with the city agencies to bring the property into compliance. the board could deny the permit. i don't know that gets us any closer to a resolution because we don't have a project to move forward with. you can continue the item and ask to come back with revisions what was there before and what they are seeking to do now and assure that the codes have been complied with. separately, i would note that

planning commission has on several items recently where property owners have exceeded the scope of permits have told them to go back to what was there before. that is direction that you could give to them to go back to what was there before, but still need to work out and figure out what that was exactly. we need to have another hearing to adapt revised plan, but that may address issues raised by the appellant and substantial work done beyond the scope of previous permits and previous permits that were issued but those don't seem to be clear as to the accuracy. and i will leave that to senior building inspector duffy who has more history with the property. >> i can't wait to hear what inspector duffy has to say. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, when you say you looked at plans, so the plans are the ones based upon this n.o.v. and this permit? or is it the one that the permit holders were referencing that they're going to submit? >> senior building inspector duffy has the plans that are

associated with this permit that the appellant -- that the permit holder failed to provide with their brief. >> that he was referencing in his presentation. that is a separate permit, isn't that correct? >> i saw the plans, their plans from a previous permit, and their plans for this permit that i did see as well. >> the permit that's been appealed. >> yes. as well as there is a separate set of plans that you have seen for a previous permit. >> can you speak at all to the previous wooden deck they are saying was initially -- it reads initially to install a wooden deck previously there and the appellant is saying there was never a wooden deck. concerned if we were to give direction to go back to what was there before, before might be contested of what was the planning department seemed to believe there was a wooden deck at some point? >> but also relying on the representations made by the applicant which may or may not be completely truthful.

i think we could work with building department and go back and look at the past records and see and maybe get a better idea of what was there and maybe the neighbors have comments as well so we can try to validate and get some truth out of it. >> thank you. >> excuse me, do you have a sense of what triggered this renovation in the first place? or do you have a sense of when the house was last sold? so if -- i'm trying to get a sense of if question asked the owner to put humpty dumpty back together again and requires -- >> all the kings horses and all the kings men.

>> and i ask two questions. one and i think i wanted the second one. do we know when the property was last sold which might at least allow the opportunity to look at a building, marketing collateral which might have plans or otherwise if the city has insufficient plans? >> from a quick review, last sale date was november 20, 2015. >> 20-what? >> november 20, 2015, which makes sense because the permits that we have seen came in in 2016. >> so there may be the opportunity given that it was last transacted in the electronic age that one could back and look and find out who the listing agent was and get some at least collateral related to what this building looked like so we know exactly what we might want humpty dumpty to look

like again. >> we can do our best with that. >> all right. thank you. awe thank you. mr. duffy. >> joe duffy, d.b.i. i read the brief last night at home and i read through the brief and first thing i wanted to do is call three or four people i work with because i knew it was one on the radar for a couple of years now in the office. i heard some talk about it. we have actually been dealing with it from 2016 and quite a lot of staff time went into this. complaints, notices of violations. permits filed, and permits revoke and this building permit that got appealed. it looks like the permit that should be issued to fix it except there are still a couple of issues that i think are outstanding. i can go through reading the notice of violation if you want to hear it, but -- it's basically was bad decisions made here by people.

they started work on permits they shouldn't have. and subsequently got ahead of themselves, excavated below this gentleman's foundation. and got into trouble for that. the building, however, has sat vacant for a couple of years. we have actually got a notice of violation for a vacant and abandoned building in addition for exceeding the scopes of the permits and excavating below the neighbors. so this permit come in and now, there is still, in my opinion, it's -- i don't think this permit tonight should be approved. there is a couple of issues in my mind that are outstanding. the existence of the deck that they are claiming that was there. i have my doubts whether it was an existing deck there. and i don't know if the permit should state that. they are legalizing a deck that was built without the benefit of a building permit rather than saying they are trying to revert a deck back to the previous condition.

the deck, if there was a deck there, it was built, in my opinion, without a permit. they are showing on the plans a door going out from the first door level, but i think it was a window before that. and so that's something that would need to get addressed. the other issue that i think is pertinent here is i don't -- the gentleman who spoke on behalf of the permit said they reached out on monday to the neighbor to strengthen the retaining wall. i don't understand why they waited so long because that is one of the first things they should have been doing. in these situations that we quite frequently deal with at d.b.i., we would ask if the neighbor has an engineer and it sound like he does and the permit holder has an engineer, both those engineers need to look at it a design that would work here to protect and any adjacent properties from any future damage due to this excavation that was done without any proper approvals. it is doable.

there is understood pinning and reinforce an an existing wall, but they need to see if they jarred the movement of the adjacent building. i would ask the appellant as well if he has been doing any monitoring of the property to see if there are any movement, crack, and that is what the department would do in that regard. we do have our engineers as well that can jump into the middle of it, but certainly both engineers here need to come up with a design to look at the issue and resolve it. we certainly don't want to see the permit revoked in essence because in my opinion it is the right permit if it's done and if we modify it to show existing conditions properly and why that didn't show them right, i don't know. bad decision making in my opinion. but that is, in my opinion, it is down to those couple of issues. and i am available that i can read out the note of violation if you wish.

>> i think you should. >> okay. ask >> we did open the case and issued a notice of violation and the notice of violation reads and is in the conditions and plans associated with permit application 2016-0125 are misrepresented. that is an earlier permit. that is to the the permit under appeal. and 8 feet by 16 feet by two stories high stretching from north property line to existing exterior walls creating an infill at the back of the building. exterior stucco removed from entire front face of property and new windows installed at the front and rear of the property. submitted building permit with plans to address above noted

violations and the department of city planning approval the requirerd and a geotech review and there was a penalty of that and two times on the value of the work of $65,000. i assume that penalty was paid. i don't have the information. it should have been added on to this permit. we then did get a permit and did revoke that permit because that was not the right permit either. i'm sorry to say. we did revoke a permit that came in shortly after that. that was to comply with the notice of violation to prior approved permit 2016-01257911. and some language on the prior issuance and it was issued on 3rd of february, 2016, and revoked it because it ended up fighting this permit that is under appeal.

that permit was moot and we took that permit away. it is now under the vacant building ordinance. other than that, i have nothing else to say, but i know there's going to be questions. >> so the scariest -- it is a hot mess, to quote my fellow commissioner, but the scariest thing here that i saw was the photo of the retaining wall as built in 1949 that was consistent with all three homes that was built together and who would indicate to me who is not an engineer, but some level of common sense once in a while that those retaining walls were built for a purpose, and they

were built to allow the consistency of support for three structures that were built together. so that when that one retaining wall comes down, that places the neighboring buildings at risk. and what i am hearing, can you answer my question, which is, was that retaining wall part of any permit or was that just torn down? >> that misrepresented the retaining wall on the the original permit. it wasn't shown correctly of the height and what they wanted to do. it was like like the typical sort of shady detail that we see. that wasn't right. that was done wrong. >> they tore down a wall -- to put it in plain old english. they tore down a retaining wall