Was 616 carolina street had not been twooieded. So no building in particular according to San Francisco has the 616 as the actual address. So the law firm felt that was appropriate to use this numbering when we went through the condominium process. Mr. Apalos purchased the front house in 2018, signed the t. H. C. Agreement. We assumed all along that this would be the street driveways numbering, but a couple of months ago when mr. Apalos went to the d. B. I. , we were informed that because you cannot have a new street address for a new building you cant have a new address for an existing building that the 616 would go to the front building. My feeling was that was a misinterpretation of the guidelines from the d. B. I. It says exactly that, you cannot reassign a new address to an existing building, but we were subdividing the property which had an address, but none of the individual buildings had an address. This has been my property for almost 30 years. This is where i vote, its my passport, my drivers license, its where everybody i know knows my address. All my credit cards, everything. I just feel that it would be very little opposition from anyone, certainly not the neighbors. Theres no safety or security issue. I would like to retain 616 carolina street for my own personal address. It feels like me and it is me. My coowner has no objection. As a result, i was hoping that we could reverse the decision and allow me to keep 616 carolina street as my condo address for the future, as it has been for the last almost 30 years. One small thing, it appears that the im not sure where this comes from because i have not seen it in writing, but there appears to be a sense in numbering of new street addresses, that the numbering should proceed according to the furthest property up the street. In our case, that doesnt apply because the cottage is back of the house. They are equidistant from the house. I dont have have a problem with e. B. I. They tried their best to interpret the rules. Im asking in this particular case, there seems to be no reason whatsoever to not allow me to retain the address that has been my home in San Francisco for almost 30 years. Sir, i have a question. Can you clarify before we hear from d. B. I. , where exactly are the mailboxes for the two . Right now there is and there only has been for these 30 years is one mailbox. The post office has always put all the mail into this 616 and 616 a. Thats the agreement we have in the post office for the last 30 years. The tenant has sorted his mail and ive sorted my mail. Its not a divided property. Thats the reason we have to go through this new street numbering is we have to go through the condominium process and thats one of the last steps. I very much would like to retain the 616 carolina address. Its in the t. I. C. Agreement. It would cost us money to change it and there doesnt seem to be a good reason. Clerk we will hear from an agent for the permit holder. I am a coowner of the t. I. C. I actually bought the property in the end of april and may of 2017. I own 70 of the t. I. C. I would like to address the fact that the appeal that was written was written out my knowledge and without my beneficiary of reading the appeal before it was submitted and it was completely a misrepresentation of my thoughts, ideas, and anything i may or may not believe on that currently. Ive been there since first week of may 2018 and my address, credit cards, voting, everything is also 616 carolina street, San Francisco. Forensic pathologist the building inspectors, thats up to you and i will leave it to you to decide on the address. One question. You dont mind either or . The t. I. C. Agreement addresses that the one in the front will be 616 and 614 in the back. When you moved in, when you signed that agreement, you basically said that you would be at the other address . At that point, i was okay with being 614. Unfortunately the Building Department has not allowed 614. So ive kept or everything has become 616 for me now. Thank you. Clerk thank you. We will now hear from the department of building inspection. Welcome back, Senior Inspector duffy. Hello. The permit is an m permit. Its in our system that way. Legalized rear building into a single house at block 4071, lot 002. Assign address to parcel number 4071002 as 614 carolina street. Just as you read in the brief. This is a process that is done by Central Permit Bureau and d. B. I. You set up an appointment and meet with a lady who is the manager of a Central Permit Bureau. She sits down and before that we had different people do it. Once you say address, we refer you to this lady. She does her job as assigning the addresses. In this case, thats what was done. I dont think there was anything improper done. People come in every day of the week. You set up your appointment. Youre required to have the two numbers. I hope i can ask your questions. Its not a process i deal with, but we could have the lady here and talk to you about it. Having dealt with weh fung, that is a fun experience. Is there a problem with switching the numbers . I mean i dont know. There whats the big deal . Im not too sure. Shes got her rules. I dont know whether that got whether that was appealed to anybody higher up than her. Weve got a director and a deputy director. There are probably people they could have went to rather than the board of appeals. I saw in the brief her reasoning for doing that. I do remember this project actually when the building was going on and i met that gentleman a few years ago as well. There were other issues that we got through. His satisfaction, he wasnt that satisfied at the start. If you go down there and you get something and you dont agree with it, your first order would be to go to someone higher up there to see if something could be done. It didnt look like she has done anything or made any errors in what she had done. Fine. Thank you, joe. Clerk thank you. Is there any Public Comment on this item . Okay. Seeing none, we will move on to rebuttal. Mr. Hassebrock, you have three minutes. I actually did go in to see the lady and even had a chance to talk to her superior. They said because thats an administrative permit, actually it was complete. And the only way it could be changed would be to go through the appeals process. Thats why i did that. As for mr. Apolos address, it surprises me that he claims that since may of last year he was putting 616 carolina street as his address on everything because until two months ago we both thought that the addresses would be reversed according to the t. I. C. Agreement. So that surprises me. Also, there is a structural issue with the permit. The permit addresses my t. I. C. Unit, the cottage, and yet the permit that mr. Apolos took out without informing me of the process all by himself lists him as the owner of that t. I. C. Unit or his l. L. C. That owns actually the front unit. So the permit the whole thing i feel was completely mismanaged. And in opposition to the t. I. C. Agreement which we had all accepted for more than a year. I appreciate doug may have put 616 on some of his addresses, but why he would do so prior to having this reversal issue come up is a surprise to me. And certainly my 30year investment in being 616 carolina street and part of the neighborhood and having literally the whole world know that is my address for the last 30 years is something that means a lot more to me, i believe, than it does to doug. He wrote a letter where he said he was indifferent and would honor any decision you made. He sounds less than indifferent tonight, but thats what he wrote in his letter to me. So i can produce that if youd like. It was meant to be submitted to the board of appeals, but he missed the deadline. But i have a copy of it if you would like to see what he has to say. In any case, i would love to be continue to be the resident of 616 carolina street, as has been my address for most of my adult life. Clerk thank you. Can i ask you a quick question . Sure. You live there . Ive lived there for 30 years, yes. Does the other gentleman live there . Yes. Youre both residents . Its our primary residence and its a t. I. C. Going to a condo. Clerk thank you. Dr. Apolos. The address 614 never really existed. The t. I. C. Agreement said 614 for me and 616 for mr mr. Hassebrock. I did pull a permit for some of the modifications i need to make it for a conversion. The Building Department said 614 didnt exist and so on and so on. I met with the woman you were speaking of, and i think she indicated the issue was that because the way the building was, the edge of the building was more north of the entrance, versus my building which is the 616 Main Building as opposed to the cottage was more south on carolina street, it related to that. Ill leave it to you guys for that. It looks like you did some surgery. You still have the ink on your arm. Yes, all day. And you still have the ink on your arm. Im glad it wasnt me. Thank you. Commissioners, sorry, if the commissioners want to change it, i dont think anyone at d. B. I. Would have any problem with it. Its entirely up to yourselves. Its not going to offend anyone if it makes if its something you wish to do, i dont think well lose any sleep over it. There is a process that was followed and thats where were at. You have a twounit building, 614 and 616. Does the Building Department label each of those units or i imagine 614 would be below and 616 would be above it. The northerly point or to use something on the maps to decide it and obviously shes done that and shes done it for a long time. I dont like arguing with her. She always wins. No comment. Can i ask a question of council while mr. Duffy is up there. Did the sweeping powers of the board of appeals allow us to request a change of numbers . I dont see why not. They havent provided the reason. I havent heard the reason why it needs to be this way. Before we go one way or the other we have broad and widening powers. Havent you heard that . The broad and widening powers allow us to broadly and widen the miracle add a couple more numbers just for fun. I was confused as to whether both parties had agreed, but it would be better if they could agr agree. What rings in my mind is why doesnt it stay the same as where it is 616 a and b. But thats the condo conversion process, you have to establish something. There must be a real reason. When you go condos, its the people. Its ju it just happened i the process. Clerk commissioners, this matter is submitted. After hearing both parties and there was an agreement prior, although this board isnt to uphold prior agreements, i would move to grant the appeal and condition it that the front property be 614 and that the rear cottage be 616 and that the Building Department would help us address that. Clerk im sorry, on what basis . On the basis clerk represents the agreement of the parties. There you go. And the Building Department does not object. Clerk okay. Joint motion. We have a motion from commissioner honda to grant the appeal on the condition that it be revised to assign 614 to the front building and 616 to the rear building on the basis that the parties agreed to this arrangement and that the Building Department does not object. On that motion. [roll call vote]. Clerk so that motion carries 50. Dont tell weh fung that i did that, please. The process for special conditions permits is a permit application number, but in this case this is not a permit application number, its an m permit. We havent done this for an address. Its a scope of work permit. We may need to work this out with Central Bureau how were going to do this. Would this be a special permit m. Im just thinking out loud. Weve never had this in my experience when an address changed. Maybe we want to add something to comply with d. B. I. Requirements as well. We would need to be involved. Its not going to be a special conditions permit, is it . Clerk i mean, it would have to be. Were revising the permit. I can work with you on that. Clerk thank you. I just want to put it out there. Sure, come on up. Seeming as it does go through 614 and 616 front and rear, how does the Postal Service get acknowledged that it is the new address. You might want to ask the department about that after. Sorry about that, doc. Clerk we are now moving on to item anyone want to take a break or one more item . Clerk were now moving on to item 6. This is appeal no. 19074, amy and Marco Rodriguez against the department of building inspection. This is appealing the issue. Announcer on june 20, 2019, to s. V. C. Corporation of a site permit, horizontal addition first and second level, new 9 foot high wood deck, new bath at second level enlarge bathroom convert existing garage into new accessory dwelling unit with two bedrooms and three paths per ordinance no. 9517. On august 28, 2019, the board voted 30 , to continue this matter at the request of the parties. Weve met the parties only once. They assured us this will be a minor construction and a member of their family will move into the home. Neither was true. The owners were not truthful in their application. They failed to disclose what they referred to as storage is an occupied twobed onebath dwelling unit. The new plans admit to the u. D. U. Which existed before 2013. So the permits should be filed under dwelling units constructed without a permit and any work would require separate permits. The missing u. D. U. Is not the only thing missing. The drawings for the proposed plan said they would be creating three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The tenants would seem to get quite an upgrade. Here are the drawings of the studio that the other Party Provided the tenants and here are the drawings submitted to the Planning Department. Youll notice were highlighted that this studio lines up with the kitchen, living, and dining room that they were going to build in the space. The owners will profit from valuing three separate rentals on the floor than one. They state the a. D. U. Would support their Affordable Housing. They state that providing Affordable Housing outweighs the status quo. The construction would at least displace all of our other tenants. According to the new drawings, they would not create new housing. Are they creating an addition or are we to believe they will expanding the current unit only to move the tenants back in as they claim. The law protects the tenants so they would be relocated from construction. I work from home and i would not be able to conduct my work due to the description. This project involves extensive excavation. They submitted misleading drawings to the Planning Department. In their application, they obscured the fact that there is a separate u. D. U. They have plans to have a separate studio unit. You can understand our concern by allowing such excavation be performed by a team who is clearly not abiding by the rules. Our home, our largest investment weve ever been made, would be at risk of landslides and caveins. Here we can see some of the existing footings and underpinning and their foundation touches ours. Theyre proposing to excavate 5 to 6 under the foundation. No one can guarantee this project will not affect the integrity of our foundation. Allowing this project to proceed, even if we were dealing with a team that is not circumventing and cutting corners. It could harm or kill us and lead to a domino affect to other abutting homes on the block. Here you can see there is a deteriorating retaining wall in their yard. Here is a page on their permit application where they claim that the amount of excavation is less than what would be required for a soil engineer to do tests which is necessary to conduct a soil integrity test. We had an soil engineer validate our concerns who said this would require more excavation. He also pointed out that their pans didnt include any allowance for the addition or the deck. Would anyone want their home or their familys lives to be hunged on risk like this. They should not be permitted to perform excavation that will put the land and lives of their neighbors at risk. Were all familiar with the parking constraints in San Francisco. Theyve already rented out the three rooms to additional renters. The new drawings would demolish the existing parking. The subject property was built in 1907 which makes this historical singlefamily residence over 112 years old. The s. V. B. Organization wants to keep this loto say can turn it into an apartment building. Were asking that in light of the uncovered deceit, the falsified drawings, the huge risk to the abutting properties, and the negative impact the project will have on the character and community of the historic neighborhood, let alone the petting effect on the existing tenants living in the homes for the separate occupied rentals, that the appeals board deny this application. Thank you. I have a question. I read a brief that there was a vehicle with someone living in it in front of the house. Is that true . At one point there was. That didnt bother you as a safety concern . No, we spoke to the man. He was friends with the previous owners. Thank you. But also i would like to say that anybody who bought the house would have taken care of that as well. Thank you. We will now hear from the permit holder. Good evening. Welcome. Good evening. We are partners on this house. We already have a briefing i believe to review. The statement from the appellant could you speak into the microphone. As you can hear a lot of those assumptions, there was a van living in front of the house for almost a year. The guy lived there with everything and that is not a concern to our appellant. We met the household the way it is now. We included some pictures you can see. Before it is like a junk yard. And now it is a house that everyone sees we can appreciate. So we think we have done things to increase the value of the neighborhood. Now our intent is to make a good neighborhood. We just want to do our own project. So a lot of assumption in a complaint based on assumption, not something already happened. So i will have my partner, david, address the rest. Yeah, appellant is asking the board to find us guilty of actions that as we see have never committed and does not intend to commit. Based on the appellants belief that we will commit these unlawful options. So most of the complaints are talking about what things were going to do in the future, not things that we have done or committed back. We inherited a property with garbage up to the ceiling in each room. There was mice, rats, bats. This situation was ongoing for years. There was somebody living in a van in front of the property for more than one year. Within that also were dealing with drugs and stuff. We inherited the property with a lot of problems. What we want to do is improve the neighborhood and thats what we did. When we did the neighborhood notification, that was the the moment when we meet our neighborhoods. The main concern was about the privacy. They told us that they like to do parties on their jacuzzi, some kind of parties with the neighbors, and that would be affected some way if we do some kind of improvements to the property or we extend the property to the back. That was their main concern at the time. So we agreed that was still some kind of concern. Maybe we can raise the retaining wall or the fence of the property. Maybe that would address those concerns. And then they are also bringing, like, tenant issues here that we will here in the future. We have an agreement with our tenant. We are going to fulfill whatever agreement we did with the tenant. We are not thinking of doing any unlawful things. I dont think there is a landlordtenant situation. This is a situation where we want to work with the city to be granted permits to enhance the property. We have been following all the guidelines and all the rules and regulations. We know that we can have an access into the property. Because all the homes in this district are available to add one extra dwelling to the property per ordinance 1917 and this puts San Francisco in compliance with californias state law. So we made some changes on the plan. They addressed that we were missing something on the lower level. We corrected that. We think that we are in compliance with all the rules and regulations to expand the property and make a good property. We even when we paint the property, we tried to match to the opera house that is like two blocks away. You have pictures. I think the property looks beautiful now compared how it was before. We dont understand why all this opposition from the neighbors, when now probably the value of the properties has raised with this property looking better now and with less problems with the neighborhood because there is no People Living on the street. There were two cars that were parked in front of the property. One was on the driveway and one was on the sidewalk. These two cars were parked there for more than one year. This was not an issue for the neighbor at that time. Why suddenly it is an issue right now that we are renovating the property . Its just because of privacy concerns i think. They are trying to bring a landlordtenancy issue that doesnt exist. We are in a good situation with our tenant. We have done some agreements with them and we are going to fulfill those agreements. The present is that we are following guidelines and we are going through the guidelines and thats how we were granted a permit. I dont know why things that may have occurred on the future or not is a concern right now. Are you done . I want to add just a few words. When we bought the property, we found someone lived downstairses. Its an illegal unit and we went to the city and asked for guidance. The suggestion from the city was to legalize. You do your plan and submit it and review. You become compliant with the code and legalize it. Thats how you deal with tenants in an illegal unit. We didnt create this illegal unit. I talked to the tenant probably four weeks ago. She said that was created probably 15 years ago even before her mother bought the property. We didnt create the problem. We inherited it. My recommendation is we need to legalize it and that is exactly what we do. Thank you. I got a question, sir. We know that if you have an illegal unit, the city requires you to legalize it unless its physically impossible to do. So youre creating one a. D. U. And one living space above . Downstairs. Okay. And currently as your brief indicates that you inherited a tenant. So youve been going through the rent board as far as the relocation goes . No, we didnt. We never tried to move them out. There was a settlement. In the settlement we settle with the one on the first floor. At the time we asked the other side council, can we have the settlement include the tenant downstairs. The answer is no. The opposing counsel said he only represents first floor, not downstairses. So we never negotiate for them to move out. Youve never asked them to move out . No, never. So evidently the place is remodelled. So the top floor, living level, is vacant now . The first floor is occupied. On the top floor is. Yes. That is relocated now. So youre going to relocate the tenant for the lower section and remodel that . Only when we start the renovation on the downstairs then we will start to relocate them to other place. That was the plan. Thank you. I have a few questions. There was an assertion that there was a studio drawing that the appellant presented as something that you had shown to the tenant. Is that an accurate representation of what you showed to your current tenant in the downstairsed . The drawing we submitted to the city means its part of the design, the studio there is part of our plan. I guess what i understood whether this continued to produce accurate plans. Is that an office and the Planning Department has plans for us. What i want to understand what troubles me the most of the assertions that youve made, some of them im not as concerned about, is this idea that youre untruthful in your representation of what you plan to do. It is an r3 building, but to submit plans for a twobedroom threebathroom a. D. U. And that not be accurate to what you are trying to do is troubling to me. Is that, in fact, what you did show to your tenant as a proposal for what you want to do. And it matched our plans. Those new plans . Well see those later, scott . I guess ill just say truthfulness and honesty is the best way to come to this board. So any untruthfulness and dishonesty would not be looked favourably upon. The other renovations you have permits on . Yes. And as far as the excavation, did you do the soils report . How did you determine the amount of soil that would need to be excavated for the proposed renovation . Although theyre done by professional as well, not a professional in excavation. So we hired a professional so an engineer provided that required cubic amount. The soil report, structural report, whatever report the city requires we do and thatsing the reason we got this drawing. Structure drawings are not part of this permit. So you havent been there. We dont have details of that construction yet. Clerk can you fill out speaker cards. Whatever the city require us to do we will do. Clerk your time has elapsed. I want to make sure youre clear now. Your plan right now for the downstairs a. D. U. , the plan is for it to be a studio or a twobed, threebath, which is it . The plan we submitted to the city no, my question is right now do you intend to make the a. D. U. A studio or a twobedroom a. D. U. , which one . Its a twobedroom. Part of it looked like the drawing. I dont call that as a studio. I call that as a master bedroom. Thats a twobedroom. Thats a piece of the puzzle that wasnt part of the twobedroom. Scott, clear this up. Would the board of appeals be interested in plans . No, not at all. I have many copies here. You come prepared. You must have been a boy scout. Not at all. This permit was submitted last september. It also includes a horizontal rear addition. The property was an rh zoning district. This provision was actually in the appeal processes surrounding this and recently amended to give expedited appeal review as well as no rehearing request and also very strict standards and how it was under review. So actually for the person of this permit that provides the a. D. U. Under section 207, the Planning Department doesnt have the ability to deny that. If it meets all the requirements, there is no discretion. They do have as part of the horizontal expansion, the expansion of the dwelling unit upstairs. That is something susceptible to discretion. The permit was noticed around section 311 for pretty much the month of january. Their 30 days expired in early february 2019. There were no discretionary views filed. This was brought to our attention more recently by the appeal of this permit and appreciate the appellants brief and showing there was an existing legal unit there. We did find given that is the case that needs to be shown on the plans and that wasnt. So we did have the permit holder submit resized plans. We received those last week. Theyre also there before you in your hands. They were also submitted to the appellant. We reviewed these to be submitted with the planning code. They dont need to file under a planning provision. They can legalize with this. We are obligated to approve this permit if it meets the requirements of the planning code. Theyve gone through the a. D. U. Process and theres been some issues raised about the existing tenant, but that is a separate issue from our view of the a. D. U. I was concerned and confused when i saw the overhead of a studio unit and i appreciate the board for getting clarity on that. As i understand the appellants argument and even what the permitholders initial response, it sounded like a third a. D. U. Unit. That would be a different case here. What is before you on the plans shows two separate units, the a. D. U. Under the state law on the ground floor, and the existing unit on the second floor having been expanded. I did look at the permit history. There is an existing permit to make interior modifications to the upper unit that was issued that has not been completed. So im assuming this would tier off of that permit and they would have have an expanded unit that is in the process of being remodelled. In order to move forward the Planning Department requests that you grant the appeal and base it on the plans that show the unauthorized dwelling unit which the permit holder has shown on the plans and submitted to us the required affidavit stating that they have an unauthorized dwelling unit on the property. Under the planning code of 317 they couldnt remove that unit. They would be very clearly required to legalize that. That is this permit. This permit corrects the violation. It complies with state law and local law and would respectfully request that the board grant the appeal and condition it on the revised plans. I credit all this to gold old exsupervisor david chu. State law requires if it meets the requirements of the state law that we require that we cant say no to it. T does it have the parking requirement . Parking is no longer required anywhere in San Francisco except for mortuaries. Thats great. That answers that. As far as kind of understanding these plans are not stamped or dated and i dont know if thats normal. Weve seen this. When they come in for revisions they may have the same date as the original plans. We would ask the board to use the plans that have the date accepted. As far as the excavation, it may be more of a question for the building. I think it does the second or third page. It would go on needing more reports. They were required and the licensed professionals are required to be truthful and honest and accurate in all of their findings. If that is not found to be the case, there are additional requirements that are required. They are subject to all of the requirements, but i would refer to the senior building inspector. Last question. Is this the permit that also by expanding the lower level expands the upper level. And is that included here or is that a separate permit . One permit would cover the expansion of both, the ground floor and the upper floor. There was only one permit i could see which was as a remodel. Thank you. Are you serious, the only people requiring parking is a mortuary . And it was increased. Oh my god, theyre dead. Thank you. Clerk we will now hear from the department of building inspection. The permit under appeal on the first and second level, new high deck, new bath, second bedroom. Two bedrooms, three baths. It was reviewed by planning. This is a site permit building d. P. W. , p. U. C. , back to planning again, and finally issued on the 20th of june and suspended on the 2nd of july. Just hearing from the appellants. Their concerns about the foundation, the excavation are valid. We talk about them all the time. Obviously this is a site permit. The excavation on this structural work is going to be shown on the addenda. The permit issuance would need to be on the permit lines. I cant tell how far theyre going, but if it does below the level of the bottom of the neighbors foundation, theyre going to have to bring that into consideration. It could mean underpinning or geotechnical report if it means the ground is solid enough. It does also carried under california civil code 832 where they have to notify the neighbor ten days prior to excavation to have their engineer look at it. Both engineers can look at it or they can pop their engineer into the project who can talk to that or contact the department to deal with that. Im actually dealing this week about cases that i dealt with months ago with the board of appeals. Now theyre starting work. Were dealing with the addenda and the neighbors concerns about the depth of the excavation. Thats all ahead of them. As mr. Sanchez said, we need to put our faith in the contractors. If theyre going down below the neighbors foundation, they better do it the best way. They better need exceed the foundation. Theres a lot of steps that they have to take if this permit is approved and we look forward to them doing that. Im available for questions. Lucky its not sacramento street. Clerk i have one question if you could explain for the appellants knowledge. How would they be abreast of the plans . Could they go down to d. B. I. And review the files . Yeah, they could do that. The department realizes that these excavations on property lines, theyre on that sort of subject, but its okay for them to contact the plan checker and come down. I dont like to suggest that they need an engineer. The d. B. I. Have engineers, but if they feel they need some, theyre welcome to hire their own engineer. During review theyre allowed to ask questions. If someones not getting back to them, theyre allowed to voice their concerns. I did hear someone we know these things, the Building Code does provide for that and rightly so. If theyve got any questions, reach out to d. B. I. And well do the best to answer them. Clerk thank you. Given the fact that subject property is 1907, i mean what the foundation on that is is i mean yeah, its coming out. Theres a new Foundation Going in. In the past, weve if there is underpinning we can have it marked so the permit holders feel comfortable. They talked about a lot of things, but hear anything about their intent to handle it. It looks like theyre going a little bit deeper than when they are at the minute. If the new foundation is coming out, it might get below. Normally a contract would try to determine that before they start because its not something you would want to be in the middle of. They probably know that already. Is the Current Foundation on reinforced masonry . There is no structural drawings, but i think it is. Thank you, joe. Maybe i should address this to mr. Sanchez, but ill address it to you and you can pass it on to mr. Sanchez and address it in rebuttal. But you said the whole 311 notice process has been disregarded and or undermined by virtue of the fact that we just got plans today. They werent even done in time for the briefs to be filed. So how could there be a satisfactory 311 notice process with discussion back and pingponging back and forth to arrive at a compromise or a consensus . I know mr. Sanchez will address this and the changes that are proposed may not fall under it. Ill let the Planning Department answer that. Ill let mr. Shan ches answer that. I asked you so he could prepare for rebuttal. I really hate coincidences and one of the coincidences is on page a1. 0, which is the excavation accounts. Isnt it a coincidence that these total 39 cubic yards that fall just under the level that would trigger a greater study . These are the coincidences that drive me nuts. Okay. You and me both. Is it true that this is our last bite at the apple with regard to this appeal, because when we approve or not this site permit or if we approve this site permit then the next phase is addendum and we dont get to see the addendum and we never its out of our hands. Is that correct . That is correct. I think the comment by mr. Sanchez and you can of course ask them for anything the calculation of the excavation, showing how they arrived at 49 cubic yards. The 50 is obviously a Planning Department requirement. Whatever theyre kicking out from a structural and a d. B. I. Point of view, its not really ours as opposed to the 50 kicks in some planning stuff. Youre right, it could be the boards last unless we cause them to get a revision permit, then it would be appealable, but the addenda is not appealable. What also bugs me here is you popped right up and responded to commissioners questions with regard to unreinforced masonry foundation. You were assuredly confident in your statement that its probably going to result in a new foundation. So new foundations, i dont think theyre reflected in here. And therefore they couldnt be reflected in the investigation counts. A new foundation is going to mean more excavation. Certainly that would lead to a commonsense assumption that it will be more than 49 cubic yards. The problem that i have with this is if the project sponsor is even close to being responsible as a developer and responsible for understanding renovating a house in San Francisco thats 1907, then very quickly they would make the same observations that you have made and that is that were going to have to do a new foundation here and the excavations are going to be probably pretty severe and go beyond 49 feet. Thats whats bothering me. Whats your thoughts on the subject . Without seeing the structural drawings, i assume they are doing a new foundation. There are ways to keep the Old Foundation. My understanding is youre adding onto the building, youre excavating below. Its an older foundation. Whether the Building Code kicks in or not, most people do it. It makes sense to do it. There are ways where you could keep the Old Foundation and they could take out a section underneath the Old Foundation on very small sections and pour it. Put this type of project here, i assume its going to be a new foundation. Thats an assumption. The people who have the permit are the people to watch or ask. In the spirit of our concern that it might require a new foundation and in the spirit of our concern that it might go over 49 cubic feet, can we condition approval of this permit on also including a study that would have been triggered by it being over 49 cubic feet . I think you can ask for anything you want, but i definitely want mr. Sanchez to address that. He can prepare for that. Its a Planning Department requirement. 50 cubic yards Means Nothing to me. Mr. Sanchez is the expert on that. Just one thing on this building as well. I did check. There was a lot of complaints from the previous owners about maintenance issues. The guy in the van, i read about that and stuff like that. It looks like the new owners thats yesterdays news i think. Yeah. I usually state that. Thank you. Clerk is there any Public Comment on this item . How many people are here for Public Comment. Okay. You can approach, somebody, go up to the microphone. [ please stand by ] revision looks like. In a twoba twobedroom unit. Shes lived ie time shes lived there. And the, ive probably been in more homen pretty much any other person ins