>> motion from commissioner honda to continue this matter to june 19th. >> to give the parties more time to figure this out. >> reach a settlement. >> ok. on that motion -- that motion carries and the items continue to june 19th. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> we will now move on to item number five. this is appeal 19-021. peter lynn versus department plan inspection subject property is 8 lorenzo way, protesting the issuance on march 12th. construction of a new two-storey one basement type 5 single family resident building. this is application 201612215604. >> good evening. welcome. >> good evening. my name is sarah hoffman.

i've been assisting the appellant on this matter. i'm pleased with the written materials we've submitted the parties have reached an agreement. i am here, along with the project architect tonight and we're here to secretary board of appeals to approve a special conditions permit that reflects that agreement. to give you content, this was filed due to my client's concerns about the privacy impact of the project and the potential impact of excavation work quite close to his property line. our agreement had addressed these concerns by revising the plans to depict a fence along the property line and requiring the side to be fenced during construction so that the construction workers don't use my client's driveway to get onto the vacant lot. that's the only adjacent curb catch. we've submitted revised plans to the board. i believe they should be before you but i have copies if not.

i understand the planning department has reviewed those plans. so, we're asking the board of appeals to approve a special conditions permit approving those plans and i would very much like to thank the planning department, particularly scott sanchez and director rosenberg for their assistance in resolving this matter and i'm happy to take any questions. >> councilor, when did you guys reach a resolution? was it prior to submitting briefs? we didn't get a brief from the permit holder? >> no. the attachment to my declaration was a joint letter we had both signed stating out the terms of the agreement. i believe that was exhibit a. so it was dated may second,

2019. that was exhibit a to the declaration from myself that was submitted with our brief and the board of appeals did give us an indulgent with an extra week while we were finalizing the details of the agreement. >> thank you. >> maybe we should hear from the permit holder to confirm they agree. >> so, my name is charles. >> can you speak into the middle microphone. thank you. >> so, my name is charles, the owner representative. we're very happy to see the solution that we come up. we agree to have the fence.

over all, i think we're happy to settle in this agreement with the terms that the neighbors come up with. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> does the planning department have anything to add? how about the department of building inspections? is there any public comment on this item? seeing none. commissioners this matter is submitted. >> i guess a motion is to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the revised plans submitted and dated. >> i didn't see -- i saw an old date on them. submitted for the hearing. >> there was no plans earlier. 9/27/2016. >> right.

>> can someone confirm the plans we have in front of us are the plans you would like to be conditioned? >> yes, those are the plans. it looks like the date hasn't been updated but this sheet with the fence on it as far as is a completely new sheet. the previous plans didn't have a fence so this is new. i think mr. chan might be able to confirm that more than i can. >> we can date it may 15th? >> but the stamp. the appeal number and the -- >> that works. >> ok. >> that works. so, we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that it be revised to require the adoption of the plans submitted to the board of appeals on may 15th, 2019. on that motion, commissioner honda aye.

>> tanner. >> aye. >> president swig. >> aye. >> thank you. so, we will now move on to item number 7. this is appeal number 19-023. h solomon versus department building inspection with planning department approval subject property is 440malomo drive, march 29th, 2019 to sharp share main curtis remove the fireplace in the second floor living room, add powder room, a third flor for master bedroom. we will hear from the appellant first. >> good evening. welcome. >> good evening, commissioners. my name is heather.

i am the neighbor next door. the appeal number one was pretty similar to mine. i have the same concern about the foundation. i have owned my property for 20 years. i spend all my money on my work for my home to make sure everything is safe. i believe strongly about the appeal. i will summarize my concern. there's crack in the foundations and in the permit application and the permit business additions as slope protection act. the house has high elevation over 700 feet next to mount davis son which is the highest elevation of 928 feet in san francisco. the complaint or the inspector says it's inaccurate square footage and it needs to be

analyzed. they are edging more weight to the cracked foundation. our house are attached by a common wall therefore -- so this is where it is saying that they are edging 1,117 new square footage required much more analyzing. those are the cracks in the foundation. this is from far away. also, the houses, the six houses right across from us, it's hazard zone reports and it's addressing the landslide zone. this is the second floor in the d.b.i. you can see this is my home, their home and all of the six houses on the landslide and

mount davidson is right behind it. so it's a systemic hazard zone that reports the landslide zone. i was told that page 54 of the appeal that they might excavate next to the property and if they do, i would like to get notice about that also if they do any under pinning or any shortings. slope protection ordinance number 121-18, which amended may eighth, 2018, it says 1.4 is the

slope and systemic hazard zone protection should apply to all property within san francisco that exceed an average slope of four horizontal to one vertical or fall within certain map area of the city. i believe this was exhibit 5 page 17. in this case they are edging 1,117 new square feet, not 198. also, i was really concerned about the safety of my home. in the g.r., december 2018 i presented the settlement crack and i asked to be investigated. i was told by the architect that he never saw the picture of the crack before which really made me nervous. he will speak with the engineer about it.

i did e-mailed him the crack. i tried to communicate. i tried to ask them to respond to me. i mean, i e-mailed them more than once. i never had any response. with no response and since december 2018, he promised that they will look into it but there was no response. and i spoke about my concern in the planning hearing. i don't understand -- i feel like it's very time-consuming for me and the previous neighborhood did excavation with no permit and now they are adding more weight to the house. you can see how the houses usually are. -- usually it's a steep house.

so it's really concerning me because we are in a very steep hill too, over 700 feet. so, i told them about the concern and it never happened. and, the engineer report dated may eighth that they in the brief from did not explain the

second crack which is below the deck and far from the corner. i was told it's the second crack has been fixed or repaired more than once and the crack keeps coming back. the engineer only talks about the first crack in the report and he says this could be due to again, they are adding more weight and more square feet to the crack foundation of the house and we do know how far our cracks are. because they are hiding by the siding and the ground. will the house be able to hold during a big earthquake? like 8.0 or long drought followed by long rain and a very hilly location? i also received instruction notice. on may seventh after i called mr. duffy to ask if there was a notice from the adjacent neighbor. it was sent with an old permit and house about throw or four miles away from me and the same day that permit issue may 29th fora for adjacent neighbor. i believe they should give two week's notice for the neighbor and i do ask that i had a pre

construction survey to monitor. >> you can continue in rebuttal. >> i have a question, ma'am. your conversations and your requests they were with the permit holder or a representative of -- when you were asking questions in regards to your foundation and they were cracked, who were you asking these questions to? >> i have asked -- i presented it for review. i asked to take care of the cracks this is this is only one side. >> was it the public sponsor or the engineer? >> it was the project sponsor or the owners. the developers. and architect. i asked them about it. i have asked the structural engineer about this and they told me it needs to be investigated and fixed before

they do anything and i'm concerned. >> you used the word common wall. i don't see a common wall between the two so i mean we call them attached homes but they're not really attached. >> so this is my wall and our house is attached. >> that strip is holding up a gap but they're not physically foundations are they? >> maybe i'll ask the project sponsor. >> it's a different foundation. thank you. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the permit holder. >> good evening and welcome. >> thank you, commissioners. my name is troy and i'm the project architect. i've been working with the homeowners starting early in 2018. they wanted to expand their home

to create another bedroom on the top floor. to be clear, the bedroom is built out over a portion of existing roof areas. early in the project, we had this structural engineer evaluate if the existing foundation would be adequate to support an additional story. it's one story at the rare of the property over a basement. with the addition, it will be two-storeys over basement. in answer to some of the questions raised. the homes are not connected. that piece of vertical piece of trim that you see is a piece of trim. the foundations are completely independent. the cracks that she was showing were not actually on her foundation but are on the permit holders foundation at 440molimo and the cracks per the

structural engineer are setelment cracks that occurred likely shortly after the foundation was poured and they have been there a long time. there's no evidence inside the home of additional settlement or movement. the foundations as existing are adequate per code to support the additional story. we know something about the existing foundations because there's an existing crawl space where we have ak sessio access n inspect the existing foundation and throughout the home, they have the same design. they didn't have a lot of variation. they were at the same time or one after the other. all of these home plans are very similar.

the protect was designed with appropriate engineers and architects. it was reviewed appropriately at the department of building inspection. this includes the seismic hazard zone protection checklist and you maven countered this in previous cases but this building in an ex element categories and meaning that with no significant improvements that would trigger. those are not on the property line property line and those

will have foundations associated with it about two feet deep. no excavation along the property line walls. so this case is dissimilar from the previous one you heard. the owners are here. i think they wanted to say a couple of words. i'm available to answer questions. >> good evening, commissioners. we bought this house about a year and a half ago and you know, we have two little girls who are almost 11-years-old, they're twins. and, you know, we would like for them to have their own bedroom and space where we can have some space away from them. what we're proposing is really a pretty modest addition. this is not touching the

foundation or her house in anyway. we can respond to rational things but not irrational things. we haven't heard anything rational yet. frankly, we have just been kind of subjected to a lot of harassment in different forms. we have two little kids who are also being subjected to it. it's been really difficult to have to be subjected to all of what's been happening. so, not in the brief necessarily but several of our neighbors sent e-mails of support, which i think should be somewhere in your packet. we have a lot of good relationships on our block with really nice folks who, including our piano teacher and other people who we have dinner with

and good relationships with. we hope to have good relationships with everybody. life is too short for anything else. we just hope that you will not accept this appeal and not condition our pretty simple permit. that's all we're asking. thank you. >> are you finished? >> i am. >> i have a question. so, the appellant said that she's made requests on certain questions and she made those to you or to the architect? >> she has e-mailed troy a couple times -- right after the d.r. which delayed us, we're a five-month delay at this point. she sent troy an e-mail with photographs of the cracks that you have in your packets. so troy put it to the structural engineer and the structural engineer said that he didn't see any issue with those cracks and they were really cosmetic or

minor and not indicative of any significant problems with our foundation -- [ please stand by ]

>> the capacity of the foundation because the foundation itself is bearing on the underlining sediments and structures. that has a certain ability to withstand the loads imposed on it, and if the structure or the sediment below it is adequate, the code allows a assumed value for what a foundation of a given size can support. that is what was used.

the engineer didn't feel this particular crack was an issue. >> thank you. that was an excellent explanation. >> mr. sanchez. >> i like how you are pointing at joe. nice. >> d.b.i. building before planning. >> this permit remove fireplace in living room, new master bedroom, bathroom and home office. the permit looks like it was approved correctly. it went through planning and building. structural before issued on the 29th of march suspended third of april. i did see -- i did read the

brief, as always. i think all of the concerns were addressed in the brief by the architect and the testimony as well. in my opinion i don't have any issue with the issuance of the permit. there was one issue with the notice, and the appellant did bring it up to me and i immediately contacted the permit borough. it was corrected and redone about a week ago. that might be confusing. there was notice it wasn't that the neighbors got a notice with the wrong application number. it was number 8 with a 1981 permit. you won't get notice on 1981 permit in 2018. we corrected it immediately.

there is no foundation work, unlike the previous appeal. there is i think some concrete work in the middle of the building, and some sheer walls as you heard. i did see a letter from the structural engineer on the crack and foundation. that is typical. if d.b.i. were aware we would instruct the homeowner to provide an evaluation from a structural year. -- structural engineer. in the last month we received seven complaints. we still have two open. the rest were closed. it was about the ground floor rooms where i believe the people brought the property. there was a ground floor that was put in many, many years ago. they got another permit to

legalize the media room and den. that is something already done. we are not concerned with that at all, and we will probably close the complaint. the inspectors only kept them open because of the appeal and issues with this. i don't think there are any issues. there won't be a notice of violation issued, if they think they can close the complaints. i am available for questions. >> i have one since we lost our resident architect. are there special inspections required for the work done in the center? i see notations, i think there probably are, correct. >> i will let the architect address this. i assume there is but i can't tell you definite. i never checked that today. i think there typically would be for structural work, walls. >> for the record.

>> one more item brought up in the brief about the seismic hazard zone. certain properties are in it but it is on the other side of the street. this was not part of it. ththe check listing was on the drawings. i did check with one of the supervisors and he confirmed the property is not under the seismic hazard zone. >> he is tough, actually. >> i learned something. >> on that plan for the appellant's benefit can you explain in the zone. the architect referenced that it does not require the report. can you clarify what needs to be in the zone and not? >> it is a different level every

view. i couldn't begin to tell you what it would do. i believe you have to get your peers to approve the design. that checklist on the front of the drawings, that is answered correctly and it was in this case, that exempts it. that is what the architect said. it triggers third-party review. >> peer review is no joke. >> . >> we are concerned about it. i respect the opinions. they have been in touch with inspectors and responded. i just ask that sometimes we get used here as a harassment tool. we don't want that. if there are genuine concerns we investigate.

seven concerns and none before hand. concerns are concerns. just don't abuse it. >> thank you, inspector duffy. >> thank you. >> we will now let planning speak since they are after building from now on. >> welcome, planning. >> the issues raised are related to construction and to the foundation issues. with regard to planning issues, there was a discretionary review. we did not take discretionary review as compliant. one of the issues in the brief regarding square footage of building was noted they did obtain the permit to legalize the ground floor space that was review and approved by planning. the size of the building and square footage is not expressed.

with that i think it does appear to be code compliant for the purposes of the planning code. >> thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none we will move to rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> the room downstairs, they are legalizing but they had previous owners. they had some excavations as i showed you, i think. they had some excavation right here. this is the same as -- it makes me concerned. i don't know in the neighborhood where they have excavation and do the work together. this concerns me a lot knowing they have those.

there is another one or so on the other side. the engineer never spoke about that. he only spoke about this one. i am really concerned about that. i believe those landslide houses are less than 30 feet from my home so it is right across from me. martin davidson is right behind. i am asking if you can get the third-party engineer to check the settlement crack and check the plan to make sure everything is safe. also, if they have insurance during construction and after construction. also, i would like to get more notice because i can't have any communication with them. they don't respond to me. i don't want to keep appealing for them to respond. thank you. >> i have a question. are you done? >> yes. >> you have seven complaints in six months. i assume they are from you.

>> not from me. >> the previous people. you are aware there was work done without a permit and excavation and rooms were done why didn't you file a complaint in the past? >> i never knew. i just knew recently. >> how did you find there was work done to the property? >> i had a professional tell me about it. >> how would the professional know if there was work done. >> because the house was on sale and people can go check the house, i'm guessing. the house was on sale. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the permit holder. you have three minutes. >> i won't take too much time. with regards to the special inspections question. there is a special inspections checklist that does include the shared walls elements of the

project. >> is there any foundation work that requires special inspections you are doing foundation work. >> it is associated with the new shared walls it is part of this special inspection. >> thank you. mr. duffy, anything to add? >> second thoughts. >> just the legalized area under the permit. it is on the 14th of december 2018. that could have been appealed as well but it wasn't. that was to document and legalize the space of the media room and bathroom issued 14th of december 2018. that is still valid. that wasn't appealed at the time. >> can you talk about the process of legalizing space.

what do folks have to go throu through? >> hire an architect and get plans and within the building envelope then get d.b.i. in there and planning. building inspector and electrical and plumbing make you open up walls to verify electrical work and plasming work. you remove some -- plumbing work to make sure it is up to current codes. >> there is field work and over-the-counter permits? >> yes. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, nothing further. okay. the matter is submitted. >> i think that this has been properly vetted, gone through the process. i think it was explained clearly from both departments as well as project sponsor engineer.

i would deny the appeal on the grounds the permit was properly issued unless there is further debate. >> we have a motion from commissioner honda to deny appeal and uphold on because it was properly issued. >> that carries 4-0. the appeal is denied. >> anybody need a break? we will take a welcome back to the meeting of the board of appeals. today is may 15, 2019. we are now on item number 8. this is appeel number 19-043. jennifer oliver and harvey hacker versus the planning department.

subject property 970 tennessee street protesting the issue answer on april 11, 2019 request to suspend permit no.s and 201904097495 because they were issued without review by the planning department. the scope of work for the bp nos including interior renovations at the first floor for a new accessory lab, offices and accessible bathrooms, review is required to determine if the proposal constitutes a change of use. the scope of work for bp numbers

including new openings for property line windows as this property is in the boundaries of the dogpatch historic district any exterior changes require a certificate of appropriateness. we will hear first from the appellants. >> come on up. >> mr. hacker. >> abougood evening. i am harvey hacker, project architect. i will give you a little background on what this building is. it was one of a string of industrial buildings in the dogpatch area that were operated for various purposes by the clothing manufacturer espri. it went through different owners

and ended up being owned by jen oliver, the present issue. there are two sets of permits at issue here. first is the use of the property and whether the interior remodel application should have been reviewed by the planning department. i would like to take that off of consideration because of business relations between the tenant that that work was being done for and the building owner. that permit is going to be withdrawn and it is simply not a question so i believe that moots any questions related to it. but the second thing is for new openings in the property line wall to the adjacent lot. the story behind that is a developer has under construction

a multi-unit housing project on the adjacent lot which includes as part of his approved plans a 30-foot wide pedestrian walkway leading through the entire lock from tennessee street to minnesota street. when it became clear that was an opportunity, jennifer came to me and said let's take advantage of that and make windows on the property line wall facing that walkway. we then sat down with the building department and had a formal preapplication review where the fire department and d.b.i. approved those property line windows given the fire rating of the windows. we believed that in addition to providing more light to the

interior of the building we were regularegular having a differeny of communicating openings between the property and adjacent building now demolished when they were both occupied by as spree. we had to make an agreement to complete the work within a verystrictive time schedule to meet his marketing plan. we applied by the permit and it was issued by the d.b.i. because of dbi not properly routing it to planning department which was a mistake. we didn't realize it was a mistake. permit in hand, contractor was hired, a set of quite costly

fire-rated windows were ordered and custom manufactured and are now on site. once we found out the certificate of apappropriateness worry choired we immediately applied for it. that is underwear. -- is underway. because of the time of year we are at right now the next meeting which we had hoped to get on the agenda for the historic preservation commission has been canceled, and the next time such a meeting is available is july 19th. it is not certain that we can get on that agenda, andy -- and the delay will mean that the property owner cannot meet her

opligases to the add jay -- her obligations to install the windows in line with the marketing schedule. what we are requests is permission from this board to reinstate the permit which was granted for the installation of the windows with the understanding that we will continue to pursue the application that has been submitted and is now in process for a certificate of appropria appropriateness. >> i have a question. if we were to go that route and you were denied the certificate, then what? >> i knew you were going to ask that question. >> you should have the answer ready. >> i do have the answer ready understanding that concern, we

would agree to modify what was done in any way that is necessary to conform to the conditions of the certificate of appropriateness. >> to make sure i understand, there are four permits. one of which you are saying is withdrawn or two withdrawn? the tenants and the landlord of that subject permit have parted ways. >> the permits withdrawn are the two permits that relate to interior tenant improvements. >> restrooms? >> restrooms and accessory laboratory soace. what we would the actual procedure that would have to be followed because the tenant before problems happened with the relationship, the tenant had

already initiated construction on those permits so what we would do, i believe the correct course would be to obtain another permit to restore the building to its former condition patching up the excavations that had been done for plumbing and so on. >> then there is the permits related to the windows. >> yes. >> there are four permits but two groups. >> first is to install six windows. second one based on a design change is to retain six windows but transpose some positions and install one of the windows in a different space on the façade, essentially the same scope of work. >> thank you.

>> we will now hear. >> i would like jennifer oliver to talk about her time relationship with the adjacent property owner. >> she has a minute and 50 seconds. >> i am jen oliver and i am the property owner. not too much to add to what harvey talked about, but i engaged in an agreement with the developer. he was really specific about the timeframe that was required to get this done, and they are going to start pre-marketing. i told him and i committed to making sure that we were done with the construction by the end of july. he really insisted it be done in june, which we were on pace to

do. it come as a surprise and puts me in a difficult position legally with this group next door, a massive development at 100 units. they are all over me about making sure that i meet the timeline. it is definitely a concern that this surprise came after i had pulled the trigger when the permit was issued. i went ahead, signed my contract with the contractor and i ordered over $50,000 worth of windows that are now sitting waiting. >> has any construction taken place? any openings in the wall? what is the state of the façade right now? >> so there are three openings from the esspree days closed in.

we didn't cut the new openings yet, no. the tenants that came in completely tore my building apart. i have many challenges going on. >> can you talk about the use of the building today or what it was immediate past uses and what it is looking for in the future? is it empty now? >> it was in 2009, i think, we got it re-zoned with the amnesty program so it is an office. and the group that was moving in, their offices with an accessory lab. they had some kind of internal melt down between the founders. the person i dealt with was gone. the person left didn't want the space any more. there is a lease in place. >> they are not currently occupying this space? >> correct.

>> is the lease still in place with that company? >> there is another lessee and they are leaving in a couple months. >> do you have an idea of the future use, another office? >> an office hopefully. i am not going to give up that use so yeah that is the hope. we are aggressively marketing it. >> thank you. >> we will hear from the zoning administrator. >> i thought building was first. >> not on this one. acting zoning administrator. the property at 970 tennessee is within the urban zoning district it is in the dogpatch district. there are two issues. one which has been resolved the use issue. to recap, they did receive a legitimate for the office space a few years ago.

that was put in place as part of the neighborhood re-zoning to allow offices that may be didn't get proper mitts at the time when the -- permits when it was allowed. it allows them to retroactively get permits to legalize the use. that he completed that and paid the fees and got the permits. the permits that were reviewed and issued by dbi last year should have been routed to planning department. we believe it represents a change of use. it is represented on the plans as office with accessory lab. if you look at the plans there is more lab space than office space. our concern it was change of use from office to lab. it is permitted in the zoning district but needs a change of use category. also to abandon that which they did seek that. i spoke with mr. hacker about

the proposal that the tent walked away -- tenant walked away. they could go back. some work is started. they need to do that. they need to reestablish the office space and continue with an office tenant. the other issue are the windows. the new window openings on the property line that now they can do because the building next door was demolished there is a new development there and mid block pass-through. they are seeking to put the windows in. the first permit for the windows to install those openings was submitted in february but not issued until april 5th of this year. after that permit was issued a few days later on the ninth they came to revise the previous permit. the first permit to install the windows should have been routed to planning.

they were not. the second permit which they sought to revise the first window permit was properly routed to planning. this is where staff said we have a permit to revise the windows. they looked to see that the previous permit to install the windows was never reviewed by planning. we issued the request on the 11th. the main permit was issued on april 5. we suspended it. it was within the normal appeal period. mr. hacker explained the timing constraints. we understand. we don't have a process to allow people to go and do work. the openings haven't been created yet. to allow them to install windows without the proper sma, -- cma. i did speak with staff about the hearing. we have a complete application now.

i saw e-mails about the final details as of today or tomorrow we should have the complete application to be assigned to the planner. we can fast track as much as possible. the next hearing date is the giving the notice constraints that would be july 17th hearing. the hpc only has one hearing each month this summer. june, july and august has only one hearing. the 17th. that is achievable on the 17th. what the process would be, assuming the hpc does authorize the cma. after that we could release suspension on the window permit anal allow them -- and allow them to proceed with the window permit. mr. hacker in the brief it was not issued.

i.it is the one that brought ths to our attention. i am available for any questions. >> one question. this is a matter of opinion. it is my understanding this is a walkway between two buildings, a new walkway between the apartment complex and the formally industrial building? >> yes. >> there are windows or doorway or something from the new building that look to the walkway, i hope? it is not just two walls that people would walk down. it seems from design perspective that having windows that can allow eyes on a walkway mid block would be preferable to having a blank wall. i think of a safety standard. i don't know if i would want to walk down. that is a weird walkway in the middle of the dogpatch. >> i don't think that -- in discussing with stephanie we don't have the complete

application so i can't tell you staff recommendation at this point. in reviewing with them the main concerns were getting around the finish and assuming we have a proposal with the proper materials which it sounds like they have been ordered. i don't know if there is an issue with the materials how much could be changed in the field. that was the main issue and you know we get to the point where we can support it, this could be on consent at the hearing on july 17th. i understand the deadline for doing the work, we have the question whether or not the work could be done from their own property and windows installed from their own property. it is difficult to make the openings and not have the impact on the property. that is where we are. >> okay. scheduling seems to be one of

the challenges here. we are the middle of may and the soonest to be heard is two months from now. it seems a little -- i don't want to say absurd but it seems long. >> i told mr. hacker if he had the application immediately we might get him on the june calendar. they worked as quickly as they can on the application. today we are talking about signatures on the appropriate documents. there is noticing requirements for the hearing that we wouldn't be able to make the hearing in june. >> maybe i can ask the question that i imagine would be on the mind of the project sponsor which is not that helpful. how does this happen? the architect, product sponsor are doing everything, having meetings, getting everything signed. nobody says wait. windows planning, it gets

missed. now they are stuck holding the bag on what is the city's error, in my opinion. not necessarily planning but the city at-large. >> two things, one, the permits should have been routed, d.b.i. staff should have noticed it would trigger planning department review. it was done on the second permit, not the first permit. i understand that they had a commitment but the permit was not issued until april 5th. we suspended the permit six days later. within the appeal period for bringing matters before the board. not as if it was issued six months ago. now we come to tell this information. it is approximate to when it was issued and within the regulatory timelines of the city. that is not a good enough answer. >> similar question,

mr. sanchez. you don't have the staff recommendations. is it your opinion this would be approved? >> i think we still need additional details on the material, but i think it sounds like the size of the windows aren'ten of an issue. it comes to the finish. there are different options. >> no one is throwing darts here. >> if i can in my opinion, i will go out on a ledge here to see the department supporting this. we don't have final. >> i get it. as my fellow commissioners said understanding the permits issued in error the city is indemnified from they are not responsible for. it would be nice to see since there are constraints this gets fast tracked through, depending on what this board comes to.

>> i made that commitment to mr. hacker a couple weeks ago. that remains. i have talked to staff about getting this assigned as soon as possible. that will happen. we will do our best. we can only work as quickly as we get the information. >> thank you. >> just a little question for clarification. so the two permits that have to do with the interior stuff. what are we doing with those tonight? >> i think they can remain suspended and then as the permit holder picks up the next course of the revision permit. once that is sought we can retain it, we can release suspension on the permits. they will be superseded buyer be

new permit. they don't want those permits any more. >> in the issue of an appeal on those permits, even though the project sponsor says we are not interested in those, how do we administratively deal with that tonight segregating those from the other two? >> the suspension remains upheld. the suspension is an action placed by the planning department, request to d.b.i. by the planning department. we can undo that. if you uphold suspension we can deal with that with the permit holder at a later date. >> deny the appeal and sustain the suspension as properly done? >> if the board is inclined to move forward to allow them to do the work under the permit, that would not be our advice because they haven't obtained the