this is included in the brief as exhibit e. four, on april 22nd and reading her brief, i again sent her answers to every one of the questions she posed about the project. i included a copy of ben lye c.v. and a link to the shoring plan. if there's a way i could have more transparent about this thoroughing plan, i'm not sure how. you have provided answers to all of her questions. three times including in the brief i submitted last week. at no time she request a shoring plan, you sent them to her anyway. at no time she request a meeting to have mr. lye and mr. block walk her through the plan. i took these steps proactively and still coming in this hearing despite having everything shneide, th -- she needs, she sl has not qualified engineer review these plans or ask any

questions of us eight weeks ago. as illustrated in the site diagram i submitted with my brief, ms. eggers lives in rear yard cottage.

with me here this evening, the shoring engineer, ken block the foundation subcontractor and luis mora the technical engineer who provided soil samples of the site and will be monitoring the excavation as it progresses. in conclusion, ms. eggers has everything she needs if she wants to hire an independent engineer to review the shoring. these plans were designed by an experienced, qualified shoring engineer and will be implemented by an experienced foundation subcontractor. they have been thoroughly vetted by the building department. i ask you to uphold the shoring permit and deny her appeal. thank you. >> thank you.

mr. duffy? >> joe duffy, just on the permit of the proposed, the permit was signed on 17th of august 2018. issued on the 12th of march 2019 and then subsequently suspended on 27th of march 15 days at the issuance. the permit is a typical permit that we see for shoring. they've done it under a separate permit. maybe there's a reason for that. you did review the plans it's pretty detailed with lots of

details on there. there's a sequence that mr. lye brought up. the contractor is going to have to follow that carefully. there's a special inspection, observations, those are important and critical any time you're doing a deep excavation. what i'm saying, i'm content with the permit. i do remember the conversation with ms. eggers. we would advise people if they're not content with the engineer on the project, they can go and hire someone for themselves. she hasn't done that. i think she's asking for time for that. i thought my conversation with her was a few months ago. i'm not exactly sure of the time line. we would recommend bringing on an consultant. just for a peace of mind.

i probably done that. that's standard for d.b.i. to do that. with that, i'm available for any questions. >> commissioner tanner: can you talk about that observation process and how typical or non-typical permits like this are and what happens in the real world as these excavationses are happening. >> the engineer will be on site to observe. on the drawings there's a sequence that the contractor has to follow as well. it's a third-party inspection by the team, mr. block familiar with as well and mr. lye. it works very well as long as engineer is son site. in addition to that, as i did mention, they are part of the special inspection. before sign off by d.b.i. we

would want to see a letter verifying he did observe the consensus and i think mr. lye will be better person to speak to. i did notice on the back page of the plan, it is very carefully spelled out, the sequencing of the work. it's pretty. when you see it, you see it a lot with the new buildings in san francisco. lot that is shoring around the other buildings to support them. that becomes part of the foundation. >> commissioner tanner: how common something like this in san francisco in neighborhood not so much in the high-rise building? >> it's not as common. this is a good size project. you're going to need it here. you wouldn't typically see it on

smaller project. this is a bigger project and the shoring is obviously required to be able to do the work. it works well. i prefer talking about this than talking about a permit that comply with a violation for shoring that was done without a permit or done improperly. this is the way to do it. you can see the team that's here today. ms. eggers, anybody living close by, these plans are properly designed, approved. it's up to the teaml team to fow it. >> commissioner honda: did we ask for monitoring on the last case?

i believe we did. >> i think i read the brief. it's something we're monitoring. >> commissioner honda: monitoris process? >> yes. definitely need monitoring on this one. i'm sure it's what they'll do. >> thank you mr. duffy. any public comment on this item. we'll move on to rebuttal. ms. eggers. >> it is not common for this neighborhood where i live. with that little cottage next to it, with all the things that i have heard here, the shoring

experts and the engineers, for me it's just very scary. as i said before, it's also about money. i do have this airbnb unit there right in front of it. i cannot have people there in front of what is happening, which we just heard. i would lose that money. who know what is else i would lose. for me, really important to find out over the next few months, what might come my way. that's what i'm asking you for a delay. thank you. >> commissioner honda: i got at question. when you spoke to inspector duffy on march 27th and he recommended that you contact an outside engineering company, have you done so at this point? >> i have started with

architect. you know some architects and i asked people and they recommended some people. i have gotten in touch with them. the problem for me is also the money problem. to hire somebody like that, would not only take a while to look at the plan but it will also mean money. while this project is going on, i'm so sure i will lose my airbnb guests. >> commissioner honda: thank you. >> you can be seated now. we'll now hear from mr. mcbaine the permit holder. >> there's a lot of claims that she's made. this is my eighth time here city hall. every time i have to defend this project against lot of misleading claims.

this is unprecedented project. i built project identical. the house next door did a similar thing. they added lower unit and garage below that. it remains a larger structure. as a neighbor and future neighbor ms. eggers you want to express my sympathy for her airbnb business. we're not in agreement over the effect this project is going to have on that. if that changes, i'm open to discussion. she's thrown lot of blocks my way. as i'm sure you can tell, i'm starting to lose my patience. you shown that lot of patience with her. i think i've been proactive and shared lot of information. it's going to be tough to find it in my heart to open myself up again to have normal neighborly relations. we will live next to each other. i have done seven times before,

i extended that invitation to her. i have nothing else. >> commissioner lazarus: can you talk about what the expected time frame for the construction? >> yes, about two years. if there are unexpected delays or somebody for instance -- you never know. it's two-year schedule. i provided a detailed schedule to ms. eggers in early april that shows the slow deliberate nature of the foundation. >> commissioner honda: the more important question is the footing, framing and foundation. how long that process is. that should be a much shorter process. the process that's going to have the impact. maybe you can explain that. >> you want explanation of the process. >> commissioner honda: just the time frame. >> i think the guy will be doing the project is the best person.

>> commissioner honda: it's just the excavation, shoring and foundation work, what's the time schedule on that. >> i think it was around eight months. then you start building the house and closing it in and it's a lot less impactful to the neighbors. >> commissioner honda: you're talking eight months of digging? >> yes. >> thank you. mr. duffy do you have anything to add? >> commissioner. i don't have much to add. spending of money on her engineer. personally, nothing but good experiences with these

gentlemen. contractor, mr. lye -- if that puts her at ease, i think she's in good hands. i seen their work and plans again are certainly professionally done and i think if she doesn't want to spend the money on an engineer, she should be content with the plans that are before us. >> thank you. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> president swig: any comment? >> commissioner honda: i was here at the last hearing and it was a unanimous vote. on that particular case the board found no problem. this is a continuation of that exact permit. i think that she's had adequate notice. i feel bad that it is a money constrain and it is a large project. it's been fully vetted with the city and county it's gone through the proper process. i personally would not support

the appeal. >> president swig: would you like to make motion? >> commissioner honda: motion to deny appeal that the permit was properly issued. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny a the appeal and uphold the permit that it was properly issued. [roll call] that motion carries 4-0. the appeal is denied. we will now move on to item 7. this is a appeal number 19-018. [agenda item read]

we'll marr hear from appellants first. >> you have seven minutes. >> president swig and commissioners and good evening. i'victor xue. we're here to appeal the instructor of the permit as you mentioned. this is the subject house which

is at 173 gambier street. it's two bedroom and one bath and downtown is garage. this is the information. this is the permit, granted permit we are protesting. please note, the permit was applied in february 6th of this year by mrs. angelica chai. the scope of the remodeling we see the strengthening rear foundation replace water damage. well, please see this picture. the left one was taken

december 6th of last year. which is 60 days, two months before the permit application was filed. nothing was there. everything being taken off. well, it doesn't make any sense for the permit to be issued. it is obvious to me that the permit holder will intention is to rebuild the whole structure make it part of the house adding three or more, three bedrooms and two baths and a rooftop deck. there was a rare structure there before december of last year. it was like a sun room or patio on the deck. it was an illegal add-on. there's no permit ever issued for that house since it was

built in 1931. this is no permit, no construction record, no inspection report, nothing. how could a permit issue for the foundation and replace the roof for nonexisting structure? i couldn't comprehend. we all know, it's common in san francisco houses have illegal add-ons. this is very common. we all know. the government has guidelines and proper procedures for people to legalize those illegals. for what we know, the lines for getting legalization is pretty long. sometimes can be years as we heard from the previous people.

well, it is quite clear and obvious the permit holder who is a licensed realtor and experienced working with city building permit and planning department, used her skill to take advantage of the system. obtain the smallest scope permit like the permit quickly. camouflaged it extensive building plan based upon falsified information. trying it take the short cut, deprive neighbor's rights for a fair hearing and they trying to circumvent rules and regulations. it same to be the trick somebody used and maybe with success. well, to me, this is a disservice to the san francisco people who waited a long time to do it the right way.

i can't find the right word to call this behavior other than heating. all fo-- cheating.this type of t be encouraged. as for the plan associated with the current permit, we went to the permit office on march 22nd to deal with the plan which triggers our fighting of this appeal. may 6th, the plan was not there. we were notable to see details about the plans and drawings. the plan was not supplied for this hearing. without accurate knowledge and -- i can only hand wave about a plan from what i remember since

march. there are two major issues we have against the plan. number one is for the neighborhood. the plan calls to expand this two bedroom one bathhouse into a five bedroom, 3 1/2 bath, one car garage house on which strees street. second, the new build roof part on their add-on is like a slight above our rear window level. it was 18 inches apart from our back room window. people can just stand on the rooftop, look directly into our bedroom window which is only about three or four feet away. for the same token, people can

just jump into our bedroom window easily. this is a major safety and privacy concern we have. well, when ann's father -- [indiscernible] in summary, the permit holder bought this house for the intent for the flip. they tried to convert illegals into legal increase the square footage. somehow they used falsified information to obtain the current permit. we have few issues against that. we request the board to have entitlement. >> sir your time is up. >> thank you. we'll hear from the permit

holder. >> i will try to keep calm here. i felt like i was personally attacked. good evening vice president swig and board members. i'm angelica chai i'm the owner of 173 gambier street. i'm here to address the appellant's concern as it contains to this permit. i would like to give some background information. my husband and i purchased 173 gambier for the soul purpose of remodeling to add additional square footage while using the existing structure. once completed, our goal was to sell the property. we currently have two permits out for gambier. one for kitchen demo permit

whic.and the actual remodel pert and currently working on the third permit for the roof deck. all our permits were and will be issued over the counter. 173 gambier is a third house that you have remodeled in 46 and therefore, have some experience. in no means am i an expert. you hired the same general contractor j.m.c. general contractor, who i hire on my previous project on madison street. just a block away. while working on our plan to obtain the larger permit, we got a permit for a kitchen demo to get a head start tonight the project. on december 6th, the contractor notified me that we

were issued a work stop violation. the following day i dropped by to assess the property and saw the contractor went above and beyond the scope of work that was permitted. knowing we were still waiting for are the larger permit, the contractor tore down the back side of the house which was never our intention. we were sent an notice of director's hearing in which i attended along with my architect on february 12, 2019. my architect explained that the contractor made a mistake in taking out the rear building. he also informed director that we submitted plans for a complete set of permits on february 7th.

i emailed my inspector and general contractor that i wanted to have a meeting to address any concerns moving forward. on march 26d arrived to the site at the same time as michael chan the engineer, ncticed that the appellant's fence came down. joseph was nowhere to be seen. we asked joseph why the fence calm down and he responded by saying that the foundation was wedged up against the fence.

after speaking to my architect and engineer, i fired j.m.c. general construction due to negligence and lost of confidence in his ability to complete the project. it's also important to note that the crew that was hired for gambier was not the same crew hired for my last project. as an investor the two stopped work violations pushed out our schedule time line and will impact our bottom line. as a neighbor, we felt terrible about the appellant's fence, my husband and i reached out to them via emailly to meet to apologize in person. wanted this opportunity to get out and know the neighbors to come up with solutions ourselves without having to go through a hearing. they refused the meeting and prefer communication on email. we do plan on replacing the appellant's fence that came down

as a good sign of good will. we plan to repair patching of the appellant's siding that was cracked. we sent them a link of a house we remodeled on madison to show that we had experience and to help ease their concerns. instead, they took what we said and twisted it turning our experience as a negative and characterizing our thoughts as taking advantage of the system, decentivdecentive -- deceptive . the appellant has a right to appeal within first 15 days of the issue date. character assassination is uncall for. a picture of taken from our neighbors the appellant exhibit a is a picture taken on our property and without our permission. at i like to go through the

issues. number one, bedroom window easily accessible. [please stand by]

>> before you were molling it, there was nothing to remol so potentially, that's a defacto demo. i'll talk to the department

about that, but if that's the case, how would you plan on proceeding? it will no longer be an over-the-count permit? >> i have approved plan. >> they were to remodel a structure existing and you no longer have that structure. >> that's why we fired the contractor. >> you can't remol the structure. remodel the structure. we'll hear if the department, thank you. >> thank you. >> you'll hear from the planning department. >> somebody last their phone up here. >> thank you. >> planning department, so i think the appellant raised got points and i see serious issue with this permit. first, there's this whole

structure at the rear itself. under 311, you can reconstruct a structure as allowed without requiring new notice, but there are a couple of twists on that. first, the structure has to be legal and second, it has to be code compliant. we have two issues because i, too, see any evidence of the structure being legal and doesn't appear on the sand-born maps. we have a survey from 1938 done by the army and this structure does not appear as an appendage on this building. so that combined with the sandborn map would lead me to believe that it's not permitted. the assessor's office listed the building add 1,250 square feet which is tiny and just looking at the side of the adjacent building, they're larger and

it's shorter than what was there before. so my inclination is that it was never permitted based on that information. then the question of code compliance and this is an rh1 zoning district with a requirement and would require, it's less than 100 feet so it would require 24-foot rear yard and change through aerial photography and the ability to measure distances, the previous structure was 19 feet or so, 20 feet from the rear property line. so it does not seem to have complied with the planning code. so with that, i think the board of appeals should grant the appeal here, deny the permit, have them go back through the permitting process and they will need to -- they can either go back to the original envelope that would not require notice or seek to rebuild what was there,

which exactly as it was there, it would require the 311 notice, but they're probably better off doing the code compliant alternative and that is all i can think of and i'm available for questions. >> when i was reviewing this case earlier, it's a catch 22. i mean, you have a noncomapplying structure. what was there before was not legal. that's the main issue. and it was not compliant. >> in my notes, there's no way it could be over-the-count

permit, potentially 311 or 312. >> if you an existing sunroom, it's legal and there are permits, you could rebuild that assuming it's code compliant and that cob reconstructed without the need for 317 because it's such a small portion of the building. it wouldn't require 311 because it's an exact replacement of a legal structure and there are situations where legal structure can occur. but in this case it doesn't apply. the structure is not legal, the biggest one and not code compliant and it would be in addition to the notice that would need the variance. >> has the structure not been removed, what would the options have been? would they have been able to do remodeling. i'm curious if they were able to apply and receive a permit to do things in this illegal structure that had it not been removed, we

wouldn't be here. >> ed fact, the legality been caught, it would have required a permit to legalize it. >> and so even if it was never removed, if this appeal came forward and the structure was still there, we would say that structure needs to be legalized. you need a building permit and go through the 311 notice. you know, the building was recently sold and it was unwarranted as-is, condition, but there's a little bit of a flag with the square footage. the assessor's office shows 1250 and looks like it would have been more than 1250 square foot. >> no such thing as-is. >> there would have been due diligence to the structure. >> this is something that got through the building department otc review in the initial

permits. we don't have the permits before us or any plan so we're a little bit flat-footed but we see there was adding three bedrooms, i'm assuming, within this envelope and that should have been possibly been caught as not permitted like over-the-counter work. >> in an ideal situation, yes, but the staff doesn't have the ability to check. >> there's to pictures, internet. >> thankfully, they brought this to everyone's attention and it can be processed. >> thank you, mr. sanchez. we'll now hear from dbi. >> mr. joe duffy, dbi. the permit under appeal, three bedrooms, two full baths,

laundry, chimney, second floor, second kitchen to rear, remove rear bedroom, remodel kitchen bathroom, roof deck under separate permit and permit finder and issued on the 15t 15th of march, 2019 and suspended on the 25th of march per the appeal. the dbi did have a complaint back on the 3rd of december, 2018, the building beyond scope of permit 20811054597, demo rear of property and debris is not contained. we wrote a notice of violation, extensive demolition for access of the permit i reference and we remanded the notice and we remappedded that on the 12t

12th of december. the complaint investigation revealed expensive demolition for permit ending in 4957. all fixture removed, inserting drywall, doors, tile and plumbing. rear attached one-story structure and deck demolished and permit has been revoked because of inaccurate information. so we did, in fact -- there is currently no issued permits on the property. >> i thought the property owner referenced three permits but i see two. the one with kitchen cabinets and appliances and floors, that was issued on the 5th of november and revoked by dbi on the 13th of teas, whic decemberi referenced. >> she mentioned she was waiting for a third larger permit. >> i don't see that in the

system. i guess the issue i have with the permit would be it doesn't actually say that it's demolishing a rear addition and rebuilding, which probably would have triggered more scrutiny-based by the department and planning, as well, and that would have maybe triggered the process that mr. sanchez did mention. there's no plans in the proof anbriefand we'll be able to looe how that was presented. but when you see something, i a dbi that says demolish and replace, there's red flags that come up on that and commissioner honda spok spoke about that befe did. i agree with mr. sanchez, it would hold them up here and probably better to redo this and go through the proper process and because i don't think that has been followed. i agree, the addition looks like it was not part of the original construction. i think the house was built in

1930 and obviously that addition was added on years ago and this owner bought the property and demolished it. it's a worse-case seve scenario because people don't realize that it's hard to it back without the process of variances and everything else for that. i'm not quite sure why they did that and that's a big mistake. i'm available for any questions. i, too, thininspector duffy, wo rear stairs, people say they'll repair the stairsand demolish it, they have to be code compliant. given the situation that the structure is no longer there, in your opinion, is the permits valid for the improvement of the prior structure, even though it's no longer there?

>> this permit? >> yes. >> no, i don't think so. >> this is more than foundation strengthening. it was described as foundation strengthening, but it's taken it down and rebuilding it. the description is just on the permit application. the drawings aren't here so we don't know. i agree with mr. sanchez, go back and start again and unfortunately within that will hold them up. >> it will be a much longer process now. >> maybe i misunderstood you, i thought you said the permits had been revoked. >> the first permit for the kitchen, remodel, they exceeded the scope of that and we ended up revoking that. there must have been another reason they revoked it but dbi have revoked the kitchen one. the other permit is suspended, planning the appeal. some the permit on appeal has been suspended but not revoked.

>> there's currently no active permit. there were three permit applications and i didn't see the third one. i wanted to make it their there is to current permit to work on and some think the one under appeal, we know we can't work under that and we know we have another one. the first permit was revoke and the se second permit was not properly issued for the scope of work. >> i just wanted to make sure we were not talking about a moot case. >> i didn't know what that other permit is. it's not in the system. thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, we've move on to rebuttal and hear from the appellants. you have three minutes. >> thank you very much for that. the discusses you have, actually, way beyond my expertise and no other need to

bring up. it is not relevant any more. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. chi. you have three minutes. >> i'm not quite sure how to move forward with this. i bought the house as-is, thinking i could remodel what was existing. now i'm told that i don't have a permit, but yet, i wrote a check out for $17,000 for a permit. so do i get that money back? >> after you're finished, we'll address your questions. again, i've been in a bad situation here and i don't know what else to say. thank you. >> i will answer your question, if you like. so unfortunately, a lot of properties -- could you come to -- as a fellow real for the

last 21 years, i understand there is a lot of un-permitted, non-warranted, illegal space that is sold in san francisco. we're a 200 year old city and people have done different things at different time. even though you had a permit, you know, the city, just for your information, any permit that is issued that's incorrectly issued is not a valid permit, right some so if it would have been discovered that the property was not warranted or illegally done, even if you got a permit for it, it's not valid because it what issued in error. and so i'm sure inspector duffy will explain to you how this works. i don't know how this board will vote, but, unfortunately, like i mentioned earlier, you know longer have a structure there and the structure that was there, there's no e evidence or proof that was legal. so because it came town, according to the department and even in my opinion, you're not

allowed to build that back up. so that will require a whole set of process, 311 notification, you're talking at least a year or so, minimum. and so, after we're done, i'm sure you can speak with inspector joe duffy and he'll explain how that works. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. duffy, did you want to address this? >> air time from you, huh? >> this does comes up, sometimes, on the refund, when the permit is possibly denied and then it's subsequently revoked. the refund part is something we do -- there is a cancellation process where they can volunteerly council and they give them the money back. they could get feedback, so if there's some language that i can use to give them the refund on the fees, if you feel that way.

>> you might want to have a conversation. >> but when it's revoked, it's tougher for us to give it. revoked with consultation regarding the refund, that helps me because i've had this before with permits that were denied. >> can we properly use -- if we go in that direction at dbi with regard -- >> i'm sure our director was writing that down for the motion. >> mr. sanchez, anything to add? so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners? >> unfortunately, i mean, sad that it happened and unfortunately, this is a bad situation, but there's -- in my mind, there's no valid permit because the structure was illegal, taken town and according to the department, had it been legal, they would have been able to restore it and at

this point, the department cannot prove they were there, so i think you would have to uphold the appeal and deny the permit, right? >> so you would grant the appeal, overturn the issuance of the permit? >> correct. i many, that's my suggestion. >> that it was improperly issued? >> there was an illegal structure in the back which was demolished. >> and that further language for the destruction to work with the permit holder in regard to a refund. >> is that your motion or was there further discussion? sure. so we have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal and overturn the issuance of the permit that the illegal structure -- there was an

illegal structure in the rear of the property which was demolished and with further instruction for the department building inspection to work with the permit holder with respect to a refund or an adjustment of fees, permit fees. on that motion? paithat motion carries and the motion is carried. can we take >> welcome back to the may 8, 2019 board of appeals. we are now on item number eight. this is appeal number 19-017. susie cameny versus the department of billio building

inspection and the subject property is 1421 tenth avenue, protesting to kent kent marr to convert parking spaces per ordinance 162-16 for a building total of 23 units, refer to building permit (201)609-1582 for the soft story retrofit 34b and this is (201)703-1952 and we will hear from the appellant first. >> good evening, welcome. very briefly. i would like to tell the board the situation in this appeal has changed in somewhat significant

fashion since it was filed. i'll go into this but we've been assured by opposing counsel on this that, in fact, parking for miss cameny is included in the current version of the plans. and that changes array pee our . the gravimen goes back to the accord that was signed with the city. you signed an agreement that says rents control. most crucially, there's a no conflicts, no further approvals, no suit's clause, 5.2 in our attached exhibit. in this instance, the tenants have had extremely minimum communication from the other side and they've had minimal, if any, assurances and this is a complicated situation in which there are a lot of long-term ten grants and rights that were,

perhaps rights that were documented. it was unclear whether parking would be included were this permit to go forward. as detailed in our brief, it appears that most, if not all, of the various city agencies involved in this concur if you were to remove parking, you would need just cause and there would be a process under which, et cetera. now the essential argument here is when this accord was signed, the no-conflict guarantee, the covenant therein was not met. under -- well, in light of the way the landlord-tenant rights acree, they could not give those assurances, people that had

property rights that were paid for that are an official part of their lease that had not gotten their assurance. accordingly, i would argue that the intention of this ordinance, as understood, is to get a guarantees from the builder, from the property managers, there will not be subsequents litigation. part of that, i would argue is notifying the tenants involved their various rights will be preserved. the other point in reference to that is that we have had a limited amount of time to review the evidence that was submitted with the other party's brief. accordingly, they have to read over them briefly to try to determine where, if anywhere, their parking space or storage or other rights will happen. i would draw the attention here and simply to say that as these have been long-term tendencies,

some were not as formal previously. as someone who practices in landlord-tenant extensively, i feel confident in saying very often there are rights that are well established, easily cogni cognizable and one of the things to say is that you can do this as long we will not have a subsequent problem as a result. at the time this was signed they had not known their rights had gone through. similarly, the remainder of the brief deals with character of neighborhood sort ofs of issues and that would be a significant change. it is a pretty old dwelling area and the increase in density would be pretty considerable as

per -- again, as per our brief. the zoning ordinance or regulations therein contemplate much less dramatic sorts of dwellings. last but not least, there are a number of issues with sort of egress and access and that sort of thing. miss cameny specifically needs an ada compliant space and because we don't have -- we have plans but we don't have any formal covenant to keep those in place, while her current space is compliant and does provide her with what she needs and what she pays for, it's unclear that the proposed solution here would do the same. in essence, i believe the gravimen of our argument, the rights here are more complicated and required a more robust approach and more specific guarantees. i think that it is legitimate to say that a lot of tenants in

this circumstance are legitimately unsure of what their tenancy will look like if it goes true and that cuts against or frankly, contradicts section 5.2, which seems to anticipate that any sort of project undertaken will not call for subsequent suits or subsequent argument on that point. so that is our point. >> i have a question. the adu process is merely ne faw and in reference to add adus. we have a special meeting after this because they end up at this particular body and no rights of tenants are to be severed adding these dwelling units. that's the reason why we're having this discussion tonight because these permits now fall before this board. thank you. >> i have a few questions.

can you clarify, if it's your understanding that the plans have changed that parking is preserved? i'm trying to understand what happened? >> i would -- i think i can only testify to the fact our understanding of the plans have changed. the tenants have i spoken to and the specific tenant have been quite diligent trying to figure out what would be happening. so whether the plans would changed, of course, i wouldn't know, frankly, at this point. our access to the plans have changed dramatically, just recently and we're still trying to evaluate what that means. >> great. i didn't read about the ada compliance issue in the brief. do you care to elaborate what that means and how the proposed construction would potentially impact the compliance or the unit? >> yes. just briefly, this is part of the unfortunate situation that we've got here because of the lack of notification. when we've -- now that we have

access to fuller version of the plans, but, of course, the process of translating from plan into a physical unit will be kind of challenging. this is also an area in which there's an existing sort of fire egress that was built in cub woo, kindof shoe-orned in to ine density and to physically move the logs where parkinthe locatig happens. it was whether or not the resulting parking areas would be ada compliant or not. >> i see, thank you. >> looking a the plans, i do not see an ada parking spot. >> i do not, as well. >> ok, thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now have from mr. patterson, the permit holder. >> good evening, and welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is kent marr.

my family owned 1421 tenth avenue. i've done everything by the book and tried to do right by the tenanttenants. we've tried to sequence the mandatory seismic retrofit and work together so that there's a minimuminimum to the tenants. every who has parking and storage now will have parking at the end of the project. we will add dwellings to the stock and appreciate your consideration. i will ask my attorney to continue our introduction, thank you. >> thank you. ryan patterson for the permit holder. commissioners, i do appreciate counsel's candor in recognizing their arguments have changed. i think there was a misunderstand at the time they filed this deal. the mans have not