Thats in general protection of the property. There are concerns about how this work is going to be done, given that breaking up the concrete in this particular way is a little bit more invasive, doing it onsite than it would otherwise be for cages where you normally just put rocks into the cages. Do you dispute the design they have come up with is compliant with the building and planning code . Yes. We would not be here otherwise. So what part of the Building Code does it violate . I believe its stated in our brief, and i believe mr. Paul can attest to better. We took issue with some of the engineering calculations and what was submitted in that regard. I dont think thats in the brief, actually. He has a if you would like to hear from our from an engineering standpoint theres no question pending. The design process its okay. I think you have a part in the brief here. I did have a question, ms. Raphael, if you did have a settlement, and you did have this design for five years, why was that not expressly stated in the settlement as the design that would be used for the wall. I would love that. We were not able to come to an agreement for the design of the wall. The parties were eager to settle, and we did as much as we could in the settlement while preserving our rights to have oversight of the process down the road, and thats why we are here. So you guys decided you would fight about it later . We were hoping we wouldnt have to fight and we would come to an agreement. We were hoping the design that was provided previously would become more attractive given there isnt if thats what you wanted that should have been part of the Settlement Agreement. Or dont settle. It should state this is the wall we have both agreed on. You sat at a table with attorneys on both sides charging i dont know how much per hour and you agreed on something and now you are going to come and tell me that well, we really wanted the wall but you are their attorney that you didnt fight for the wall . Our number one priority was to remove the encroachments and stop the bleeding because the encroachment is still there. Insurance coverage funding their lawsuit, our clients didnt. They were fighting the war of attrition and we did our best to fight that as long as we could and hold on as long as we could and continue the good fight. The question. You understand this is black letter law. We are not a court. The courts dont rewrite Settlement Agreements. We dont renegotiate it for you. We dont save you from the things you left on the table. Theres a general relief in the agreement. And the agreement says the compliance with the code will be determined by d. B. I. , not by you. The compliance with the code of both building and planning and that all drainage requirements, all of that is vested with the city and county of San Francisco, not with you. We are here testing that. Its up to you all, to you commissioners, and we respect your opinion with regard to that issue. We are here because we dont believe thats right, but we understand that we have agreed to your determination is the determination we have agreed to so thats why we are here. It sounds like you all have your opinions, so thats that. Thats not our opinion, its what you supplied to us. You literally told us what you want to get done and now you are trying to undo what you did. Well actually it wasnt attached to the appellants brief. No, it was in the permit holders brief. I disagree if thats what was specified within the Settlement Agreement. The interpretation of the agreement is a matter for a different forum. I can see where there is no design specified in the Settlement Agreement but that leaves the question open, which is why i think we are here, because it wasnt decided. Thats not our job. And then was it permit holder seems to be very sure that it was agreed upon that encroachment was okay. And that the one growing to 11 inches was something that was agreed upon in the Settlement Agreement. Im going to ask him to read where that why hes so sure about that when he comes up again. Why should he not be so sure that an encroachment is okay. And why shouldnt this wall be allowed to encroach on your clients property. According to the Settlement Agreement, not in your opinion, according to the Settlement Agreement. Can you read that in the Settlement Agreement . Without pointing to a specific portion in the agreement, i can tell you there was no agreement as to maintaining that encroachment. But certainly i dont think either party would say there was an agreement to maintain the wall in its condition. The agreement was to remove the encroachment. Theres another encroachment that was agreed would be maintained but thats a separate component, a separate building structure than this wall we are talking about tonight. Okay. So we are getting into dangerous territory because i hear commissioner santacanas words echoing in my ears which is we are not here to rewrite a Settlement Agreement. But would this wall, according to Settlement Agreement, which is a wall of any design as long as its approved by the city and county, would this wall be okay if it did not encroach in any way, shape or form, subject to a survey . Im sorry, could you repeat the question . Would this wall be okay . Youve already agreed the wall can be built. You agreed the wall can be any design. Thats clear. The issue seems to be an encroachment issue. If this wall, if this wall did not encroach subject to a survey, then where is your issue . I think its more than just the encroachment. The design of the wall was always at issue. That was actually the subject of the previous lawsuit was that it didnt have adequate drainage, it didnt have adequate engineering. The encroachment was part of that, but the structure and design of the wall was a critical issue in the litigation. It was subject. We are getting into the weeds here. Yeah, we are getting into the weeds. We end up let me fast forward a little bit. With regard to the drainage, the engineering, the et cetera, et cetera, the gentleman over there, mr. Duffy, i would like to introduce you to him. Im being sarcastic. His very professional organization would make sure a wall that would not fall down, that would not create drainage problems, et cetera, would not happen. So what we are down to, and clearly the Settlement Agreement for me that your clients already agreed to a wall that is subject to the cosmetics of the permit holder. The issue seems to be encroachment. And so im trying to commissioner swig, the wall is going to be moved back on to the permit holders property so theres not an encroachment issue. The issue is she is disagreeing with the design. Im hearing that the wall so there is no encroachment. So theres no discussion on that. The issue in terms of the encroachment is the fact that the encroachment has to be removed and they have to access and do work on the appellants property. And thats part of why mr. Buscovich testified about the requirement there be a permit applied to and approved on both properties the same way we have companion n. O. V. S. She is liable for the encroachment and she would like to have that removed. Im hearing two completely different things. We just had a discussion with regard to if a wall is being built, and it encroaches, it needs two separate permits. If its being removed. The same is true is if its being removed. The demolition side. I got it. Okay. I take some time but i get there ultimately. I want to address mr. Pauls issues. And i hope the attorney for the permit holder may have some answers to it. The issues are that the twoinches are not properly detailed on the plans. Is that correct . Thats issue one . You have six issues here. The first one is that two inches is not listed. Thats not a question . No, thats not a question. Okay. So thats solved. Theres an issue about a fence. Is that an issue . Yes so you dont want it to be chain link . That has been changed you are worried its supposed to be 12 inches below grade and you are not see that clearly on the plans. Yes. Okay. And also the drainage of course is an issue that would allow the water to come in it seems like there was a suggestion the drainage had been addressed and researched but we can add that drainage. And you are worried theres not compaction sufficient because the fill is unknown stability. And also that you obviously dont want the rubble idea and that no calculations were available for your view. You want cal vacations made available for your view calculations made available for your view . In 2015, the designer sent a calculation. In the 2015 calculations . Yes. Thank you. We will now hear from mr. Trepa. Thank you. I think at this time ill just take any questions. I think, and i hope that cleared up the confusion. Because i was hearing the same thing. The new wall will not encroach at all. It will be placed at least one inch back on my clients property. I thought they wanted twoinches or something. The plans say two inches, yes. Now im wondering, what if, according to your view, which i think is my view of this Settlement Agreement, what if d. B. I. Had blatantly misapplied the Building Code and issued a permit for a wall that was unquestionably not in compliance with the Building Code . Is it your view that the relief that the appellant could get in that situation is they have to go to court . Well, as this process goes on, they can go back to d. B. I. And say they are not following the permit or there are other issues that have come up that d. B. I. Cant handle or they go back to court my hypothetical is the permit they applied for is different from this that you applied for is different. Its some permit that is blatantly in violation of the Building Code and somebody at d. B. I. Approves it. So now we have a permit that everybody agrees should not have been issued. In that situation is it your opinion that the appellant would have the right to appeal that permit or instead that they would have to go to court to deal with it . I think they would have to go to court to deal with it. Thank you. Can i ask really quickly on the engineering issues, which to me, im not an engineer, but they seem to be the only substantive issues in my opinion. Would your clients architect or designer be able to provide calculations for the design, if that was requested, to the thats part of the Settlement Agreement. That they would provide those . Its not provided that theyll provide calculations, but in the Settlement Agreement in the next 90 days, once this permit issue is dealt with, my client has to hire a contractor, hire an engineer. And i know if i dont provide that, well be back in court. It seems like the calculation, how much weight needs to happen, some of that stuff needs to be worked out and that will happen under those term. So you feel confident that will happen in the future . Absolutely. You have more time if you want to add to. Thats okay. We got to invite you back because we got people that use 28 minutes. Okay. We will hear from mr. Duffy. Joe duffy, d. B. I. , i did see on exhibit d on the permit holders brief that theres an engineer that did address some issues regarding the wall. And i read that letter. So some of the issues that got brought up, i just want to im not sure in the 90 days if we need another permit if theres an engineer going to provide more details or something that is going to require. We would assume that im assuming the permit got reviewed, was designed per code, reviewed by our engineers as i said earlier, and meets code. If theres more additions or stuff thats needs done, thats going to trigger revisions. I dont know why you didnt why everything wouldnt have been on the drawing and why we dont need more stuff. Because that would have been part of the work. So im just putting it out there. It sounds like if theres no other comments, its going to be a different permit. We dont know that, but im surprised to hear that i get the 90 days to get the contractor. I dont get the 90 days to add more details when we have a permit already that is for the work. And i assume it meets code. Sorry to be confusing you. Thats very helpful. Does this feel more like a site permit . It shouldnt be it shouldnt be, but it feels like a site permit because the details are not available for the permit. And my question to you on top of that, does this feel like a site permit, is that can you give us comfort, and can you give the appellant comfort that the issues related to drainage and the sturdy nature of the wall and all the things that have been brought up here tonight will be investigated and made compliant in the process of completing this permit . Commissioner swig, five years of settlement, do you think anything is going to make them happy . No. But im asking my point is. Are you going to look at all this stuff, you know . I mean this seems to me this is what d. B. I. Does. D. B. I. Is going to look at the plans that are created by the contractor, they are going to make sure that the drainage is right. They are going to make sure that the structure is built correctly and its not going to fall down and go boom, and that all the other things that might go wrong will be addressed as part of signing off on the final plan. The building coda allows for that code allows for that. If pees people file a complaint with d. B. I. Or if these people file a complaint with d. B. I. And the engineer says you have made a lot of mistakes, we are going to have to address that. We would allow that. And its a pity its being brought up now. But i would assume when i get up here and tell you about a permit thats been issued, its been reviewed by our Structural Engineer for code compliance. I have to say that permit is code compliant unless someone says its not and they want to go back to d. B. I. , they can do that. There werent plans in the agreement which is unfortunate. I did answer a question there, can i say the permit is issued correctly . Based on the information i have, yes. I havent seen the plans but i want to clarify that. When you have a wall like this, and ive seen these walls forever and ever, its really not other than maybe the imbalance of the stones inside the cage, its the integrity of the cage and how the cage is affixed to the ground is what its all about, because isnt the inside of the cage for the most part cosmetic . And wouldnt the cage be such structured steel and engineered so it would keep anything that was put inside it inside as long as what was inside that wasnt susceptible to deterioration by the elements . Yep. If you put water in a paper bag, its not going to last. You imagine that the way it is. You see them around. They work pretty well. I like the walls actually. But if theres drainage to come later on, im not sure how thats going to be done. I wish that had been part of the permit. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioners, this matter is submitted. Can i ask one question, based on what mr. Duffy just said in regards to future engineering or future drainage or future things, is that conceived . Is that beyond your knowledge because you are not an engineer . What are you thinking . Im not an engineer. I would submit that i believe that it is structurally sound and engineered. I dont believe that i wont have pushback from ms. Chapman on these issues. I think within the next 90 days, i will have to address those issues because of the dynamic. Okay. Great. Thank you. My recommendation would be that we accept the appeal and condition the permit to address that it should reflect both 765 and 775 as the Building Department has recommended. If thats going to cause an issue, then i would just deny the permit. I mean deny the appeal. I think mr. Duffy was suggesting there needs to be two permits, not one permit with two addresses. If thats what you want, commissioner honda, it just had to be a separate permit. And i do not support the appeal. I think this permit was properly issued. I do too. So if theres got to be this unfortunate parallel permit, i would submit this settlement is authorization to do that. I dont know the building requirements, so they got to figure that out. But this permit was properly issued. How they are going to get the second permit, we might see them again. I agree. And its not clear to me that they have to get a second permit. My point early was they can show up and demolish this wall, which is exactly what the Settlement Agreement demands that they do. And you know, if ms. Chapman wants to take them to court over that, she can. But i see no reason why some other permit will ever be required based on the Settlement Agreement. So deny the appeal that the permit was properly issued. Thats my motion. Okay. We have a motion from Vice President honda to deny the appeal on the basis that the permit was properly issued. On that motion [roll call vote] so that motion carries 40. And we do have one last item. Oh, we do. I plan this because i know Everyone Wants to go. This was by design. Okay. Increase it by 20 . Everything goes up. This is the adoption of the boards budget for fiscal years 21 and 22. The board is on a twoyear budget cycle of city departments must submit twoyear budget proposals by february 21, which weve done. However we do need the board to adopt the budget. Our budget, nothing much has changed. Nothing has changed, basically 96 of of our revenue comes from sun charges put on permits. 4 comes from filing fees. And those have not changed for ten years. 2010. Moving onto page 4, the expenditure budget is very similar to what it was last year. Almost twothirds as with many departments almost twothirds of the expenditure budget covers salary and fringe benefit expenses and 26 goes to Services Provided by other departments such as our wonderful city attorney, and actually he always comes in under budget. So its not as much as we project. Good job. I thought i would go work for the government. And a portion also goes to sf gov tv, so if you are watching, you guys do a great job. A smaller portion of our budget covers Specialized Services like interpreters or neighborhood notification. We have to provide notice of the hearing to every, generally, usually, all residents within 150 feet of th