okay. >> thank you, nate. >> thank you so much. >> thank you for waiting. it's coming up on 4:00. do we have any more public comment on this agenda item? zack? right now we're finishing public comment on this information item. 8. thank you. >> hi. i'm a wheelchair user. i need to use blue zones frequently and i do find them to be really helpful. i think they are abused by people who are not disabled. and think that's a separate issue. it's an important one, but i think it's separate. they recently added a blue zone to a park, holly park, near me. it was a huge help. the blue zone is nowhere near the entrance, but it did help.

i think blue zones are worth adding because that says specifically this is for disabled people. and i think that's what is really lacking. a green zone or white zone does not say that. and we have to compete with über and lyft drivers and cab drivers for my caretaker to drop me off at the hospital. i also think that when you cite people for violating blue zone especially, where does that money go? let me ask again? where does that money go? i think it goes into the general fund. it should go to disabled people. it should go to disabled services and programs. don't just collect money and cite people who are harming the disabled population and use the money for somebody else. that's a problem i see. also i want to know what sfmta is doing about private bus drivers blocking bus zones.

in my last two hearings with sfmta, which were horrible, the level of discrimination from sfmta against me for my disabilities has been unreal and is well documented with all my e-mail communication with mod. my last two ada hearings, both of which were because a driver would not pick me up, a muni driver would not pick me up in a bus zone, this is a bus zone, not a flag stop. the appointed officer in both hearings used obstruction of the loading zone by private companies as an excuse for not picking me up in wheelchair. i don't feel i should be punished not getting on a bus because someone is blocking a bus zone. my last hearing was friday last week, specifically, they said that there was construction and that explained why the bus driver didn't have to pull up to the curb. i couldn't even get into the bus off the sidewalk. so if you're going to have

construction in a bus loading zone, build a temporary ramp. if you're going to tell people that -- [bell ringing] -- there is construction that's why the bus driver want stop there, build a temporary ramp so we can get off the sidewalk. they did it on van ness. they have a great temporary ramp just a few blocks from here. they're doing better, but i would love to see more efforts in that vain. again, i think blue zones are great. i want to say i'm very much of the limitation, the time limits for green zones. it's been helpful for loading and unloading and -- [bell ringing] i don't think eliminating disabled peoples' access. >> ms. senhaux (chair): number 9. public comment. items not on today's agenda. any speaker cards? okay. staff? zack?

>> hi, i just -- i want to express concerns that i have for the way these meetings are held, but also i think the meetings are a good thing and it's why i have these concerns. i want to make that clear. the reason i fight for better access, i want people to know about them, they're good meetings. this time crunch we get in is a problem. there is only been like two or three public comments today. and i feel like the council could do a better job of allocating more time for public comment. and not making us just like crunch in. i think that there could be better outreach for the meetings. at the peak of the meeting i think there were 10 people in the audience. and someone spoke today they wished they'd known about the meetings a long time ago.

i have been here before speaking about how to do outreach through hospitals, organizations that disabled people commonly go to. i didn't hear about these meetings for an extremely long time. many, many years. i would have loved to have known about them sooner. i spoke just a minute ago about my hearing with sfmta on friday. it was appalling. i was bullied for two-and-a-half hours for a hearing that is supposed to be half an hour. they refused to record it. they refused to allow me to record it. even just myself. and so there is no documentation of what was happening in that meeting. the hearing officer, so-called neutral officer had leading questions, informing the driver how to give their testimony. refused to let me ask the driver questions directly or the muni representative directly. i still don't have working evidence, public video footage

that i requested multiple times. they've not given me a functioning evidence. a slew of unbelievable -- they cancelled my original hearing and tried to do all sorts of slimy stuff around that. and just an incredible degree of ableism i've not experienced with any other organization in san francisco. and i've sent a lot of documentation to mod about that incident and would love it if mod would take a stance and do something about the corrupt ada hearing processes that are not at all neutral, not unbiased. they're extremely biased. and they -- [bell ringing] literally help the driver come up with excuses why they don't pick us up in the middle of the hearing. when i try to talk, they yell over me. it's terrible. i want to reiterate the point, of making the notices on trees accessible for disabled people when dpw want to cut down trees.

those trees are gone forever. i ask that this body ask dpw to suspend that -- [bell ringing] for disabled people until they can make the notices accessible for disabled people. thank you. >> ms. senhaux (chair): thank you. one more public comment. flo? thank you for waiting, flo. >> this is my first time here commenting. my name is flo and i'm a san francisco resident, a native, born and raised here. now i'm an adult and i have children and as a parent, i come here to talk about, there is issues, times i've been very frustrated in my communication with city agencies. they've asked me to lip read, or i feel stress and i asked them, can you provide an interpreter?

they say we don't have anyone. you provide other languages, why not provide asl? and then, well there is a service called video relay interpreting, or video phone interpreting. in the event they're unable to find a live interpreter, you can go to the app, this software service and there is asl interpreter and i can have access to the services. here when city hall surprised they have a video interpreter before for that exact service in city hall, but then was moved to another department i believe the mayor's office on disability, but i believe that service should be available not only in city hall, but other city agencies. i'd like to see every city agency be helpful and work together to provide access for asl users as opposed to being

separated. i feel i've been discriminated than other people who have language access issues. i'm requesting that the barriers be removed. i'm not the only one. i have friends who are deaf who are afraid to approach the city for help because of this issue. i'm recommending we take action. and i thank you for your time and attention to this issue. >> ms. senhaux (chair): thank you, flo. any more public comment? we're going to close public comment and go on information item number 10, which is correspondence. >> nicole: there is no correspondence today. >> ms. senhaux (chair): we're going to move on the information item -- >> quick comment. >> i have a quick comment. i want to thank you for your patience. flo was struggling, she was

asking me who should i talk to and was very frustrated. so i think the problem really is that there is a system out there, video relay interpreting service out there, but it's not being taken advantage of. and i feel that in many agencies have this attitude of looking at people who are deaf and expecting them to lip read. which is very offensive. and really, i think they should be saying how can we communicate best for you? it's language access. i needed to put that in there. thank you. >> ms. senhaux (chair): information item number 11. any council member comments? >> yes. two things, there is an event i would like to mention. one of my colleagues, city college, informed me about. and it is called coming of age

stories by people with disabilities. it's friday, september 27 at 6:00. at a temple and the address is 290 delores street. it's a book of best voices of disabled writers. and it should be very interesting. i plan on going. i just wanted to mention that and get that on the record. >> nicole: if you could send that to us, we'll make sure it gets out to the distribution as well. >> great, i'll do that. and then the second thing is as a new member, i also have a question. is there some way we could hear back -- when people make public comment and you are responding to them on behalf of the council, or behalf of the staff, is there some way we can be in

the loop of how that communication went? >> nicole: yes. so you'll learn at your first executive planning meeting on tuesday that we have a process by which we delegate how the council is going to respond and what the response is. >> great, thank you. >> ms. senhaux (chair): thank you very much. i'm going to proceed to adjourn. i thank everyone for their time and patience for the meeting going over. and have a nice weekend. .

>> good evening and welcome to the september 18, 2019, san francisco board of appeals. to my left is the deputy city attorney who will provide the board with any legal advice. we will also be joined by representatives from the city department that have cases bf the board this evening. up front we have scott sanchez, also representing the planning department and planning commission. we expect joseph duffy, senior building inspector. and we have leo polosis. and we expect chris buck, urban forest

forester. we also expect charles shehan, san francisco department of environment. and the project manager with the sfmta. the -- please carry on conversations in the hallway and turn off your devices. each applicants and respondents are given seven minutes to present their case and three minutes for rebuttals. members with the public have three minutes each to address the board and no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, you are asked to submit a business card to board staff when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the left side of the podium. four votes are required to grant an appeal. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, please speak to board staff during the

break or after the meeting. this meeting is broadcast life on sfgov tv and will be rebroadcast on fridays. the video is available on our website and can also be downloaded. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note that any member of the public may speak without taking an oath. if you intend to testify at any of today's proceedings and have the board give your testimony weight, please raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn or affirmed. do you swear or affirm that the truth you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. number 1 is an opportunity for

people to speak on anything in the board's jurisdiction but not on the calendar. we'll move on to number 2, which is commissioner comments and questions. seeing none we will move on to item number 3, which is the adoption of the minutes before you. that is the minutes of september 11, 2019, board meeting. >> comments or a motion, please. >> is there any public comment on this item? we have a motion from the vice president to adopt the minutes. [vote]. >> that motion carries 5-0 and the minutes are adopted. we are now moving on to item

number 4. this is appeal no. 19-069. ruth krumbhaar vs. san francisco public works, bureau of street use & mapping. the subject property is 428 amatury loop. appealing the issuance on june 18, 2019, to gte mobilnet of california, lp, of a personal wireless service facility site permit. construction of a personal wireless service facility in a planning protected location. permit no. 18 wr-0372. on august 28, 2019, the board voted 3-0-2 (commissioner santacana and commissioner tanner absent) to continue the appeal to september 18, 2019, so that the absent commissioners can vote on the matter. so commissioner santacana and tanner, have you had an opportunity to review the materials and video of the hearing? >> i have. >> yes, i have. >> thank you. for this case, since it is continued, we will hear at the president's direction from the

parties. each party has three minutes each, no rebuttal, and there will be an opportunity for public comments. is ms. krumbhaar present? okay. >> hi, my name is cathy yu. i'm also an appellant. members of the board, we have submitted substantial evidence to you about the constant stream of everyday passers-by who walk by to see historic homes. we have provided numerous photos and firsthand testimony of those with direct knowledge of the visitors who walk daily. our evidence of the popularity of this landmark is unrefuted. the appellant even considered that they never visited the site, except for an engineer that was sent to that address to

conduct technical tests. without such a visit, they could not make the required individualized assessment of the esthetics. visitors don't get dropped off by helicopters at the top of the li lions steps. they walk up and down and look up and down the corridor. visitors walk up and down from union to broadway to enjoy the spectacular scenery, to see the historic homes, the trees, movie landmark homes and gorgeous gardens on the route. so that is a similar pole and if you go this way, you will see there is additional two boxes.

the top extension and the additional boxes are wider and taller than the original pole. how this will impact the lion propos proposal. here's what the pole looks like. sorry about that. there is the lions desk and that's the pole today. here is a photo simulation of what the completed proposal would look like. this would significantly impede the esthetics of a corridor that is otherwise uncluttered with electrical wiring. all wiring is undergrounded along the entire corridor. we ask you to protect the esthetics, which we believe the

ordinance requires. as per the note, the only official who visited the site was the engineer who was sent to the poles. if that engineer had gone to the 428 address 2 miles away he would have been pretty far. >> thank you. your time is up. >> i have two paragraphs. can i -- >> no, i'm sorry, your time is up. we'll now hear from the attorney for the permit holder. >> good evening. thank you for your time on that. i'll put up our photo simulation of the site. first i need to point out that since the adoption of the ordinance as of september 9 of this month, permits are no longer required for these facilities. so your actions as you voted last week with respect to the the laguna facility in essence is moot. the limited esthetic impact of

these facilities has led the board of supervisors to no longer require a permit, but a san francisco p.u.c. license for these facilities. so we would ask that you consider this to be moot. be that as it may, the address that was provided to us was provided to us by the department of public works and planning. there is no address for this, and the principal concern was that somehow the notice was misleading. we feel that the notice was not misleading. there is no prejudice. there are three grounds for a notice to lead to some sort of change in a decision, if there is prejudice and injury, it would change the result. we would argue that there is no prejudice here because the appellants all appeared at the public works hearing. they have appeared here now twice as well. so they've been able to express their concerns. there's no injury because they've had that opportunity for their due process to be heard. this design, as you know, was reviewed by the historic

commission, architectural review committee to be compatible with historic locations, the consultant combed these areas to try to find poles that would have the least esthetic impact. in this case we feel there is none. the pole is not adjacent to a home. it does not affect the steps that are further up. we think that the esthetic argument is exaggerated to say nothing of the least. and i think the board of supervisors could agree because there's no longer a permit required for these facilities. so we would encourage you to approve this well-conceived design that's been used throughout san francisco. i think in a very appropriate location, as you know. some of these have been 4 and 5 feet in front of people's homes. this is across the street from homes and views.

it only raises the height by 2 feet and we don't think there's any esthetic impact created by this facility. thank you. >> thank you. >> in terms of of your mootness argument, if we grant the appeal are you saying that verizon will move forward with this regardless? >> i never make categoric statements, but all that would be required is the license that already exists for this facility. so that sfpuc has already acted in a capacity that would grant us the right to place this facility on the pole. >> understood. >> we would encourage you not to grant the appeal. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the department. >> good afternoon, president, vice president, and members of

the board. we believe this was issued in compliance. if the permitting procedure at the time of issuance was right. the health department is not here, but they are available to take any questions and respond through e-mail. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez, anything to add? okay. is there any public comment on this item? >> well, it's kind of more interesting. my name is julie nice. i'm a professor of constitutional law at the university of san francisco. i am here because i'm an avid walker of the lions steps corridor. and i do not believe members of the public have received sufficient notice in this particular instance. i do find these issues interesting. these are issues of federalism which is a division of powers between nation, state, and local government.

there are issues of due process and mootness. i want to say a few words about this in my view after having done research. the residents have it right under the law which is an application to this case, not what might have happened with any changes. the federal law established federal authority over the radiofrequency aspects of these of these towers. whether the standard is met, that's a matter of the data and scientific evidence. but state and local governments were left to regulate the standards of land use, which is an inherent local police power that is part of our federalism system. the wireless companies as you all know argued this all the way to the california supreme court, saying local governments do not have this power and they lost in a pretty powerful unanimous decision, confirming the local governments to protect the land use. now with the local power affirmed, san francisco's ordinance governs and it was the

ordinance that was in effect, as this case has gone forward, not any changes that have happened since that time. in my reading of the ordinance, it requires an affirmative demonstration by the appellant that there will be no impairment here. there wasn't a side visit of assessi assessing esthetics. based on the record in this case, it appears to me that there was not sufficient demonstration by either the appellant or a determination by the department. i understand that [ indiscernible ] -- is more efficient, but there is a law that applies here and it requires this determination of esthetics. again, having been up and down the steps many times, the esthetics there are amazing and people come for the walk and the visuals. as for the due process in this issue, it is hard to imagine a

more egregious failure of giving notice to something 2 miles away from where it is to occur. san francisco sought to protect its inherent power, and it's the board's duty to make it so. thank you for your attention. >> thank you. ms. nice, can you please give the speaker -- write your name down on a speaker card. thank you so much. >> come on up. >> we'll hear from the next speaker. >> welcome back. >> good evening, commissioners. the quintessential all-government agency that follows the national toxicology study studied by the national institute of health, a study. it was so comprehensive that it cost $30 million. all of the study's rats were housed in cages. the rats were exposeded to 2g for two years. and 1 in 12 rats got cancer.

the scientists doubled the exposure to microwave exposure and the numbers doubled. because of the shield, the control rats were not exposed to wireless technology. the study also found evidence of d.n.a. damage. this study represents a paradigm shift much like smoking and cancer. of course the telecom industry states more studies need to be done. this is the same play the tobacco used to fool the public into thijing that smoking was not detrimental to your health. it should not come as any surprise about this study. all our cells all communicate via small pulses fine-tuned to

keep our bodies in a state of homiostasis. we see gun violence, suicidality, and 6 and 7-years-olds in wifi-ed schools with pace makers. $2 million cancer treatments. e.m.f. refugees deserting their beloved homes to live far from this microwave madness. a client of mine sympathized with my sensitivity. he admitted his workmen get microwave sickness when the company failed to turn off a cell tower when they didn't need to work on or near it. the ordinance was passed six years after the telecommunications act.

this law was not a discretionary law, but one to protect the public from harm. sanctionary laws supercede -- i know that changes. i want you at least to grant this appeal and additionally i want you to put pressure on the board of supervisors to pass residential ordinances banning 5g much like other counties and cities in california. >> thank you, ma'am. >> here are copies of the studies -- >> thank you, ma'am. >> yeah, i'm just telling you what i have. >> may i ask you to do us a favor. >> sure. >> or serve your own purpose. would you please send that study to the head of the department of health who is updating, at the request of this body -- >> i don't have a computer or nothing. i have no way of doing it. >> you can do it in the mail.

>> can somebody give me an address? >> somebody can. >> thank you so much. >> ma'am, if you give your e-mail address -- >> you don't e-mail? >> i don't. i'm e.m.f. sensitive. >> if you give your address, you can mail and your name. is there any other public comment on this item? seeing none, this matter is submitted. >> okay, commissioners. comments and/or a motion. >> i'd like to understand from the city attorney whether the new ordinance applies to this case. >> i think as i said last week the ordinance was amended to remove the poles. the board of appeals is required to apply the law in place at the time it considers a case. >> law of the day.

>> the law of the day. >> yes. >> i'll start. so i feel that the notification process was deficient and the fact of the address, i put it simple if sfmpa were to site a vehicle parking in the same spot, i doubt if the address would be the same. so i think it's very presumptuous to figure out that the neighborhood would understand and do that math as well. >> i agree with the commissioner. i don't think the notice is sufficient. i understand the reasoning by which the public works department went around to determine the address. however, if a little more work had been done to look at all the addresses that are assigned to the parcel, a closer address could have been found that would not have been 2 miles away from

the subject pole. >> yours truly made a real snarky comment which unfortunately was interpreted as a semi-attack or maybe a direct attack on the speakerer from b.p.w., for which i apologize. it will probably happen again because i get emotional about these things because i care. i agree with my fellow commissioners on this issue. it's all about a standard of care, as well as notice. because i asked the representative at that time, was a site visit done? and the answer was no. that led to my snarky comment with regard to the use of only a computer to do your work. again, i apologize. but you hear tonight from the public, and the public comes up and says all you should do is

make a site visit and you'd see. so with that and with the standard of care to make sure that notice is therefore proper. i think that the public should be served in that fashion. it's only fair. it's a golden rule. do unto others what you would do to yourself. so i don't think the standard of care was there. i don't think that the notice was proper. again, i apologize for my snarky comment, but i really care. that's why sometimes this mouth gets into gear before the brain does. that's my thought. any motion? >> i would move to grant the appeal on the basis that the permit was not roller issued, due to inadequate noticing.

>> okay. we have a motion from commissioner tanner to grant the appeal on the basis that inadequate notice was provided. [vot [vote]. >> so that motion fails, it lacks four votes. so is there another motion on the table? so that means that the underlying departmental action holds. so the permit's issued. okay. thank you. we will now move on to item number 5. this is appeal 19-066. xu chen vs. department of building inspection planning department approval. appealing the issuance on june 18, 2019, to e & b no. 3, llc,

of an alteration permit. on august 7, 2019 the board voted 4-0-1 to continue this matter to september 18,2019 to allow time for d.b.i. and the planning department, if necessary, to inspect the property to determine what work might require further permitting. so as a preliminary matter, commissioner honda -- >> i watched the exciting video, and i am willing and able to participate in tonight's hearing. >> wonderful. so we will hear first from mr. duffy. >> joe, you look really good on film, just so you know. >> thank you. >> is there a time limit for mr. duffy or is it just unlimited because -- >> each party gets three

minutes. >> thank you, commissioners, joe duffy. i did, indeed, follow up with a site visit on august 14. i met the property owner and the permit holder. i reviewed the work that had been done and the drawings. i'll just put up -- if i could have the overhead. >> yeah, i think it's a picture. it's pixelated. >> the building permit that was appealed was to comply with the notice of violation, adding new posts and installing new fence boards. that work had been completed and that work would be the work you see around the perimeter with the fence right on the site property and ends on the back

property lane. it's like a city street, a laneway. there's a gate at the top of the stairs there that opens up onto that. so the only thing that wasn't covered on the building permit that i could see was this, like, real patio area. there had been a previous retaining wall there that we noticed from the maps. it got sort of maybe taken out. this concrete got poured in here, this raised area. there are steps going up. there would have been access up to this before, but i think it all got redone. there was a guard rail and these three steps. that wasn't covered on the building permit that was issued by d.b.i. then this deck here is less than 30 inches from grade so it doesn't need a building permit. it doesn't cover under -- it's exempt from a building permit. so what i did is i spoke to the

property owner and we agreed i would write a notice of violation for the work without a permit. it said inspection has revealed that work was performed without the benefit of a building permit. a low permit application was issued for work in the rear yard which included work at existing property line fence. additional work at the rear of the yard with a retaining wall of 4 feet. obtain a building permit to document the work noted above and also plans shall show the property lines of this property with all work, including work to be done inside the property. i added a couple of comments because the plans last night didn't have the property lines shown correctly defined as we would like them. also, they added some height to the fence that was probably not

shown on the plans. it could have been shown better. the work is -- that i could see is all done within the property 1946-18 avenue. i think the appellant had some concerns about the area of responsibility of the fence. from my -- i have a photograph of that, actually. i'll put it on the overhead here. i maybe could have done a better photo. this is a fence running from the rear of the property towards the property. this is the subject property where they're doing the work. this fence is all attached to the trim of 1946-18 avenue. it doesn't go over the property line that i can see. there's no survey and we wouldn't require one because it was -- from what we can see, it is all inside the property. that was a concern i think of the appellant. he's welcome to get a survey and go after that in a civil case if

he wishes, but if he provided that to d.b.i. if it was over the property line for some reason, we could take action in the future. from what i could see, it was all on 1946. ironically if the appellant or the property owner has just decided to reface the property like he did and not raise the 1 foot to make it over 7 feet, it wouldn't have fallen under our review or the building permit requirement, because 6' or less, the rear property lines do not require a building permit at all. although i issued a notice of violation and just read it out for work without a permit, we're finding a db.i. that a lot of these landscaping gardening projects, some people get -- they're not clear about the code requirements and go beyond. if we didn't have a permit and

we didn't get a complaint, we probably wouldn't see it. but now there's a lot of elaborate work being done. unfortunately, there is a section in the code that says retaining wall 4 feet in height from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall needs a building permit. so we've got this in d.b.i., if it's more than 4 feet, it falls into the category of needing a building permit. had that wall been shorter, i wouldn't even be citing them for that. although i issued a notice of violation, it's not the worst one i've ever written. i had to do it because of the code and the appeal. here we are. i did advise the property owner to get a design professional, get some drawings done. so i think he's in the process of doing that. but that's where we're at at the minute. so i'm available for any

questions. >> what do we do with this? we have -- >> the fence is in front of us, not the rear yard area. >> so what do we do with this? it's a fence that clearly -- in your opinion, will a retroactive building permit be issued in response to the notice of violation based on plans and based on the fact that it is clearly on the owners -- not the appellants, but the permit holder's side? >> correct. and actually, i didn't -- i forgot to mention, i did meet with the appellant as well at d.b.i. and explained from what i could see, it looked like it was all on the other property, but he was saying he would do a civil lawsuit. >> what i think i would suggest is maybe a special conditions permit to cover all the work on a clean set of plans.

that could be done just uphold the permit under special conditions. that may not make the appellant happy, but that's what i think mr. sanchez -- >> thanks, mr. duffy, that's what i was looking for is your direction and your recommendation on how to handle the finding, should we go in that direction. >> it's a weird landscaping project that just went over the boundaries of requiring a permit because of the fence height and retaining wall. the plans will need to be reviewed by building and also planning. of course they have the issue where they poured the concrete without our inspection. we need to talk to them about getting some details. i did have a clear discussion with the owner and the contractor so everyone is clear what we need. >> do you have two n.o.v.s? >> yes. >> so you're going to have one for the fence and one for the platform is. >> yes. >> so we don't touch the

platform tonight. we touch the fence? >> i would just put everyone on a special conditions permit. the fence -- no, not the -- just the platform and the guard rail and the definition of the property lines could go on to a special conditions permit. the fence, it's up to you what you wanted. the fence, i don't think anybody had an issue with the fence, apart from we had property lines showing. it's up to you on the height. >> thanks. >> the appellant might want to speak to that. >> the question is just for the poured concrete. what would you do? so those show plans that are in place, but how would you be able to verify that? >> radar. >> if we could do -- we could give him a job as inspector. there's ways to do an x-ray of that or if they had photographs of it before they poured it.

it's not going to be the biggest structural issue because it's not really retaining a whole lot, but it's definitely something. we want to make sure it's done right. there is ways to do that, and i did explain that. >> my question, mr. duffy, is the 4 feet, is that because of the back wall goes higher, according to the drawing here? it doesn't look -- where the railing is, that doesn't appear to be 4 feet above the grade. >> it is. and we measure from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall, so you have to go underground to begin your measurements. it's from the bottom of the footing to the top. that's what gets people. >> you guys are tricky. >> that's what they say. we say it's from the bottom of the footing to the top of the wall. so we have to go to the support, which -- you can only see maybe 2 feet above ground, but there's 2 feet underground or more. >> thank you. >> it gets a lot of people

because we do get a lot of complaints on these type of things now for some reason. i didn't even know i needed a permit -- >> that's what keeps c.t.s. kind of busy? >> yes, exactly. >> thank you. mr. sanchez, anything to add? we'll hear from the permit holder and then the appellant will have the last word. is mr. wong here, agent for the permit holder? >> good evening, members. my name is john park. i am the resident of 1946-18 avenue. as a follow up to the august 7 hearing, as the inspector mentioned, he had a site visit on the 14. we have been working closely with the drafter. our aim today is show the progress made following the previous hearing, as these are the site plans that we are going

to submit to d.b.i. in the next few weeks. in the previous hearing, the appeal was issued for the back yard fence. since then there are two points to clarify which are included in the updated plan. the fence which borders the 1942 and 46 properties was to add 1 foot and 2 inches to the existing north side. all work has been completed within the 1946-18 avenue property line. i have some initial drafts of the designs that we worked with our designer on. if i could get the projector. i don't know if you would see the full design, but this is basically to show that we have been working with the designer to provide existing and proposed, as recommended by the board of appeals. so given that we're continuing to comply with the requests from planning and d.b.i., to provide proper documentation for the special conditions permit, i want to use this form to confirm

that we should move forward in this direction as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. we'll now hear from mr. chen. you have three minutes, sir. >> good evening, everyone. i am the appellant. so today i will take the opportunity to talk about why the respondent is a dishonest opponent and also the permit should be revoked. so the respondent is a dishonest person. on april 15, the respondent told [ indiscernible ] about the project. in fact, they don't have a permit. so the respondent told the board he didn't know his back yard and

the fence construction needed a permit. this is a lie. first, he lied to the appellant. he got a permit. second, his contractor would have known this. so the respondent is also not a good citizen. in their brief, the respondent complains that appellant filed complaints which were in response to violations of the law. the respondent was essentially complaining that the law breaking was noticed. the respondent complained they have safety concerns because appellant rang their doorbell and claimed the appellant was aggressive. the fact is the appellant wanted to know why the respondent cut the appellant's fence without permission and the respondent accordingly responded with unhappiness. the respondent should consider the neighbor's privacy, especially when using privacy as a reason for their own structure's heights.

so the permit should be revoked. so why -- i just show this picture. here is a part of the the new fence. the respondent are in our property. so you can see here this blue color is our house and this gray color is the respondent's house. this part is our part. so the owner of 1946-18 avenue, cut the appellant's fence and added new posts without the appellant's permission. the appellant initially allowed the cutting of posts due to the respondent's lie of having a permit. they didn't respect this and cut the posts. no permission was given to allow this at any point. so you can see here that the new platform is too high. the height of the platform affected our property privacy. you can see here that when you

stand there, they can look through all our back yard. so i'm a very reasonable person. so my aim is to get fairness, respect, and justice. if i can't get them from this appeal, please give me suggestions what next steps i should take. thank you very much for your attention. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any public comment on this item? okay. commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioners. >> [ indiscernible ] -- conditions to the permit. >> i can't hear you. is the mic on? >> it's on. >> inspector duffy, was that your recommendation? >> sorry, commissioner, start