Let the engineers talk about it dan had some drawings not in the form of a permit but electronically i believe our engineer louie had more discussions lives with an approval by dbi the form off the board of appeals permit or a subsequent provision permit i believe that permit this is on the drainage issue so that would be approveable for us and one thing id like added is that all roof drainage is also directed into the citys sewer i was concerned about the drainage but want to make sure on to downhill lot water is gather the city sewer that was maybe that is some of the plans didnt mention im available to answer any questions i think this is about as much as i have to say. The presidios engineer indicated they added some strengthening to this wall at 4 different places is that based on the discussions with our departmental staff . I wasnt aware of discussions to strengthen the wall he let the engineers ill have to take the word of the engineer mr. Jones maybe you have a question for them but louie looked at the plan and did tell me they were approveable whether they included the drainage it is on there as well. The plans are small it is difficult to see. Mr. Duffy when there recent an issue with at Property Line and one neighbors words against another and neither is taking the time to do a full survey yet in this case without a permit there is destruction and the rebuilding of an unknown permitted wall now permitted what is the how does that work. We struggle on those nobody wants to pay for the survey the drawings every drawing have to a site plan so the permits applied for under 2018 filbert street he could get a survey and produce that if we saw that indeed his survey showing the work on his property and someone else taken that over we would issue a stop work order and address that the form of a notice of violation and sometimes the two parties get together and split the costs but it was hard for me to determine the Property Line i didnt know the Property Line was an issue to be honest i wasnt thinking of Property Line issues but they could get together and come up with a survey thats one solution but the permit holder will be foreclosing to construct on someone elses property because of civil litigation i imagine there are a lot of Property Line disputes we deal with some of them can be on dbi but end up in the courts wears certainly not i dont understand asking for a survey we dont like someone makes an accusation to ask the person to have a survey it is on that person it is unfortunate we like cooperation but the cost of survey is what it comes down to. I have a couple of questions inspector duffy so reading the brief two notice of violations or one. I have one. And if they continue to work after the first one is issued. Thats an accusation im not familiar with i think there is one notice of violation i can look online and get back on rebuttal. The other question the appellant mentioned the fence height it is that still within the code to build. I believe this is 6 feet on a retaining wall is okay. Ill let mr. Sanchez we like the height of the fences to be governed by planning if youre building a fence in our rear yard and just regular you dont meet a permit for 6 feet or less and the site of the rear yard is not visual from the street is it applies with a retaining wall but if you have a retaining wall and want to put an 8 feet fence youre up to 14 feet planning may have an issue there is the 10 feet rule and mr. Sanchez will speak to that. Okay. Thank you very much. Youre welcome. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott SanchezPlanning Department to the one question to the one relevant planning issue is the fence under 9 planning code your allowed to have a fence up to 10 feet in height on the subject property without neighborhood notification without a variance so this is what the code allows based on what i see here and whats been represented by both parties the if he has it is proposed the 6 feet above the retaining wall is code compliant there are disputes how high the retaining wall may not be raised at the highest point the retaining wall of the plans of the Northeast Corner of the property is 5 feet above the grade of the appellants property when they have a 6 footed effectiveness thats a total of 11 feet above the appellants property all 9 recommendations theres been retaining wall there have at least one fiat foot in height thats what were talking about one foot with the record and it is difficult with the grade issues and grade has changed and in different ways but what is presented i dont see anything that is compelling not code compliant no more than 10 feet above the grade when on the permit holders property that is where the Planning Department is im available to answer any questions. I have one mr. Sanchez the backyard is sloped daurndz; correct so the retaining wall the appellant said additional grading at which point adding soil does that trigger the building or planning. Some nevertheless of well, it depends on the amount of excavation it wont trigger a excavation a bit more than two to three feet can trigger and review but what were seeing not trigger a Environmental Review or planning review everything is in planning code. Thank you. Just to be clear for everybody the 1010 is above the original grade. ; correct. Modified grade. Correct to provisions the planning code acknowledging it may be necessary to take action having larger retaining walls rear yard on the ceqa lot in these cases we allow a retaining wall we dont want people falling oath but a normal height this is not the situation so it is code compliant thanks. A thank you any Public Comment on this item . Seeing none, we have rebuttal starting with the appellant 3 additional minutes. So i guess the issue my understanding it the height it is higher than 10 feet and im not understanding maybe the code im happy i dont know if so needed to see the pictures. Why not well ask. You know i think this the the largest outstanding issue as far as the ownership of the wall anguish we did not it was never suggested to us we needed to competing complete a survey and as i said the voicemail made reference to the wall on theyre side of wall again, i can play that for you when we purchased the property our contracting review mentioned the wall has to the extent had cracked and we needed to address this this is an issue to bear in mind for the future and this is the incentive of the ownership issue the drainage concerns what is imposed im not in a position to comment whether or not this is accurate it peers to be but approved after the fact and an 18 inch wall not consisted with what has been built so those are the issues the biggest outstanding issue ousted the fact the wall shouldnt have been built the in the first place. You want to show us your photographs. You ready for the computer you can stop that thank you. I submitted this previou y previously. Actually, we saw that in your brief do you have to photo of the entire wall of your murphys law. This is the original wall and the new wall and 5 feet one is from the mid point. Okay. Thank you. And since the question had come up. Sir, can you turn that microphone on if not already on. This is all new soil and new construction and the filbert property. Okay. With a degree of flooding thank you, thank you. Thank you. Okay. We can take rebuttal from the permit holder. So a couple that of things to follow up first, the wall location issue that has come up a couple of times unsupported accusation to suggest this this wall was located on the neighbors property it is in line with the rear of this property on the property and lined up with other walls and fences on properties to the east on lots that are the exact same dimensions as the rear of their property and not under the ownership of the neighbors we have made several attempts to reach out to the permit holder and discuss some of the issues unfortunately, we received no response to those attempts and aesthetics and other issues the wall as designed it is code compliant it is made of high quality and attractive materials that are lasting and the appellants concerns about the heights theyre not code concerns with this permit we have proposed revisions to address this and shared with dbi and investor code compliant we ask you approve the permit with those revisions that will illuminate water run off on the neighbors property i want to point out based on dbis comment theyve asked that the plan note that drainage from the deck and down parts will be connected the revised plan has to that effect and it will, included. Counselor if you do remind me how much higher is the new retaining wall versus the retaining wall which was destroyed. And highest point the retaining wall is 5 feet the Western Point that is 2 and a half over the original wall. 2 and a half feet over the original wall. Uhhuh. Im going to ask dbi about math later thank you. Thank you inspector duffy. Go ahead id like ill ask your question. Its okay. Im good. If the wall was two feet when you started and torn down 5 feet eaten on top of you add 6 feet this would make the new wall 11 but had the original wall been sustained to plus 6 equals 8 where to you measure from what end and where is the math clearer versus fuzzy. You mean the conditions are hard to prove 0 only what weve heard and so the code actually, i if i could get the overhead id like show you the San Francisco building co planning addresses fences chapter four the fences on the Property Line showing shall not be higher than 10 feet and 10 feet from sidewalk will not be higher than 10 feet measured from the level of existing adjacent ground the general area prior to improvement of the properties that are a fence or railing placed on top of the a retaining wall should be measured from the it up u top of the wall so this section tells us youll measure this fence from the it up u top of the retaining wall not the new retaining wall so were you know it is if they put the fence in as you said or the wall the same height and put a 6 feet fence on top of it it would be ify. What is confusing what is originally if a wall is a wall is two feet at all two feet of dirt behind it you raise the wall it 5 feet and fill in the dirt behind it now the dirt is 3 feet higher our measuring from a different basis so you know create our own code. You should show the existing code and a lot of people do those types of projects we see a lot of retaining wall on 3 sides and the grading of the landscaping people are spending a lot of money in yards ive seen this all of that needs to be reflected on the plans the neighbors sometimes love it and hate it we sesee people spending a lot of money and stuff like this it is common we expect that it shown properly on drawings and drainage and stuff like that and go through a process nothing really against it as long as it is all designed and shown properly on the design. So would you say that the core it seems to me two core flaws one core flaw Neither Party choose to do a survey exactly where the lot line is so and then the other core flaw that was no permit pulled on a wall that should have had a permit and if it was the ambiguity would be a lot more clearer to all involved. I will agree are there is also sections to the Building Code pour 4 feet or less not needing a permit so a lot of Landscape Contractor they think i do one last week there is that we then are in a position were talked with precipitates owners and the photos on height we use the google we have to try to get communication going onramp both sides and try your best to figure out but the retaining wall is annoying this neighbor if at the can agree on the height of the fence maybe that will take care of it. Thank you very much. Mr. Duffy obviously the argument is go driven by this wall and the probability the intent for the permit holders to do this wall he wants to level out this yard hard to tell from the drawings for him to do that then he has to place retaining wall on the other two Property Lines. Hes done that i believe. Yeah. I believe yeah. 3 sided. I was going to interrupt someone i thought that was understood were looking at the photos is basically like a baseline you come back from the backyard and have 3 sides and then you know do something with the soil to landscape to put in plants or whatever. The permit holder is asking us if we deny the appeal there theyre asking us to condition the permit for the plugging up the loopholes which you and i know they shouldnt have done in the first place and adding the drainage they want to do ; is that correct. Thats correct. You want them to tie it to a sewer line. Yeah. I did see the note on this plan they have submitted it does say that i if read it prior to making the statement but they were connect for decks and roofs to sewer system thats on there this is one of the issues a this is a why were getting so much water bunk what it is always better to speak to the neighbors before you start it didnt happen i dont have have problem with stone retaining walls dont work forever someone wants to do Something Different if the neighbor obviously didnt like the project i can see why he was upset at the start i would encourage them to plan theyre talking about but code wise from dbi was if i can give the neighbor any you know dbi did look at this it went battery a couple of times before the drainage was taken to be that it will to be approved from our geotech engineer. At the contacted him after the appeal was filed. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Sanchez. Thank you Scott SanchezPlanning Department just to clarify i wasnt clear the heefth of the fence is 10 feet this is the permit holders property in this case theyre proposing a health that is 6 feet above the grade as they additional it based on the previously existing grade and representations of the permit holder is that they increased the height thought about 2 and a half feet at the Northeast Corner from 2 and a half retaining wall to a 5 foot retaining wall when the height of the fence it is grade but typically applied that to be preexisting grade the lower height 2 and a half above the neighbors property zero for purposes of measuring and 10 feet blow that theyre doing less than this this is a code compliant fence worst Case Scenario is a matter of reducing is one feet 10 feet belief grades on the appellants property but as it is before you this does appear to be code compliant and ive not heard anything that would lead me to building otherwise. Your close but the one photo theyre showing not only the wall the new wall you but the fence to the adjacent property as you can see the differential that is 4 feet. That will be unfortunately, we dont have the previous conditions situation were in. Commissioners, the matter is submitted. Mr. Duffy has one more point. Sorry commissioners one more thing i shove mentions the work was done without a Building Permit so the concrete was powder without special inspectors i would ask as well that the permit holders be give us some sort of xray that it was the rear bar was installed properly to guarantee that wall is you know with the rae bars we again get to see it ask that will added on as well. Commissioner fung i know you agree with that. Thats why their strengthening it in 4 applause well need it as evidence i dont have a problem as i mentioned it was supported without the benefit of a building inspector commissioners, the matter is submitted. Thats too bad im not totaling supportive you know Small Business does something without a permit the point is if we dont do this the water will continue to come through from the place especially, if they fill it up higher than the pressure is greater so theres an issue there the question of whether we would do what the appellant wants to revoke this permit is a code compliant if we revoke this permit likely to come back the same form one way or another. Im inclined at this time to accept not everybody will be happy but we need to at least keep the water off the appellants property. So what are you proposing one condition. Condition the permit. I agree it is sad that the permit holders is awarded for doing work without permit and consulting the neighbor the fact the poles were put in gives me an idea the person was not informed they campground wee what they were doing i feel comfortable the department requested the roof drains go to the city pipes and. The water from the roof as well. If youre sensitive of this approach youll be adopting the plans as a condition because it includes above those items. Ill stick with the xray. I just to your point mr. President , i would like to make sure the conditions of the xray is there because as you said anyone that pits poles in that wall didnt know what theyre doing so they may not have known even as far as putting the proper rebar that is critically important along with adopting the plan. Going to move to deny excuse me. To grant the appeal and to condition the permit on the items weve talked about the plugging up the poles and the tide in of other drainage lines to the sewer as indicated the drawings and also, they have to demonstrate to dbi that theres rebar inside of the concrete wall. Commission the other question though do they fill the repeat holes theyll have to be on the appellants property and so the construction well not deal with. Okay. Vice president functioning two of the 3 things are revised on the permit is from the board on the adoption off those it will refer to those and the third one what the board has to duo issue a revised permits and thats what youre doing so you have that can we indicate that the permit holder will need to provide xray documentation of reimbursement stole to dbis approval. Okay. Id like to indicate in issue with that. All right. Does that make sense madam director. Yes. I can reiterate but i ends to grant the appeal to issue the permit on the condition the realized plans dated december 7, 2015, be adopted and on the condition that the permit holders provide prove that the reinforced. Reduced was placed the wall. Okay go is there a basis for to motion. It would be based on the nov. This addresses the notice of violation . Okay. Thank you then by commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson that he commissioner swig that motion carries that basis thank you very much we will move on calling item 6 kilroy versus the department of building inspection were going to switch