tv Government Access Programming SFGTV October 11, 2019 4:00pm-5:01pm PDT
to have a tangible experience, to be able to come in to taste things, to see things, to smell things, all those things, it's very important that you do so. >> good evening. this is the system for 205th, 2019 meeting of the board of appeals. to my left is the city attorney who will provide the board with any needed legal advice this evening. at the controls is the board's
legal process clerk and i am the board's executive director. we will also be joined with representatives from city departments that have cases before the board this evening. we expect scott sanchez, acting deputy zoning administrator also representing the planning department and planning commission and joseph duffy representing the department of building inspections. and we will have someone from the sentences go public works. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. we requested that you silence all cell phones and electronic devices so they not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the rules of the presentation are as follows. appellants, permit holders and respondents are given seven minutes to respond and three minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the seven or three minute periods. members of the public have up to two minutes each to adjust address the board and no rebuttal. please speak into the microphone
for rehearing requests, parties get three minutes each with no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, your aspen not required to submit a speaker card when you come up to speak. four votes are required to grant an appeal or a rehearing request if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the board rules or hearing schedules , please speak to board staff during the break or after meeting or call and visit the board office. this meeting is broadcast live on san francisco government tv, -- cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast on friday at 4:00 p.m. the video is available on our website. it can also be downloaded. now we will swear in or affirm all those who intend to testify. please note any member of the public may speak without taking an oath pursuant to the rights under the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings, on you want to have evidentiary weight, stand if you are able, raise
your right hand, and say i do. do you swear or affirm that the testimony you're about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? thank you, please be seated. we are now moving on to item number one which is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who like to speak on a matter within the board's jurisdiction that is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here for public comment? please approach. >> please do not start my time until i am ready. >> please speak into the microphone. >> i'm not ready. please do not start yet.
>> they don't understand what they are measuring or how they are measuring it. in fact, you guys don't even own the proper antenna for your radio meter in order to get accurate information to the citizens who request it. you must understand that microwave radiation is a series of peaks of power, electrical power that goes through the air in seconds. it goes up very high and it comes down to zero, and very high and it comes down to zero. and you get maybe 20,000 of those in a second. pulse after polls, 24/7, 365. this is the definition of a poison. it is a toxin. how do we know?
study of this was assigned to the national toxicology program. they studied poisons and when they do, they study the total dose of poison that you get. when we measured this, a lot of people made a little trip and they said, hey, let's just talk about the rate of the poison coming at us, not the total poison that we get over time. we will base it on the rate only and then when we do it, we will hide those -- all those peaks and we will only measure average because averages average is going to be 10,000 times lower than what the body actually experiences which is 20,000 bullets a second and really high levels. so when you ever measure this for real, in your city must do this through the proper probes and going through the proper steps, half hour measurements in order to show what is really going on with frequency
radiation. when you do, maybe the understanding will increase. let me give you a simple metaphor. i will ask you today that we will expose you to poison. imagine in your hand that beaker will have poison into these speakers and at two drops a second. which one do you want to drink? what i want to say is i will give you the rest of the information and i will be done. two drops a second for ten seconds and two drops a second for 24 hours. which one dude do do want to drink now? we're putting this in front of your house so you are forcing people to drink one. you will drink the one with this marriage. that is driving past the cell phone tower. the full beaker is living next to the cell phone tower. if i'm on the second or third story, i am drinking five the beakers. that is what is really happening
but it is not being measured. >> thank you very much. i would invite you to present documentation to the department of health who has asked and mandated this board to update the report of 2010 to current and we provide them copious data that we have collected from good members of the community to help in that matter. thank you very much. >> thank you. i did reach out to the man who measures it and we will recommend they get the proper probe. i also submitted calls. >> is there anyone else here for general public comment? okay. we will move on to item number two, commissioner comments and questions. >> commissioners, any? thank you. >> okay. we will move onto item number three, the adoption of the minutes. before you is a discussion of the adoption of the minutes of
the september 18th, 2019 board meeting. >> i move. motion. >> is there any public comment on that motion to adopt the minutes? we have a motion from commissioner honda to adopt december 18th minutes. that motion... [roll call] that motion carries 3-0. we are now moving on to item number four. this is a rehearing request for appeal number 19-070 subject property at 2620 lid do -- laguna street. they are requesting a rehearing. at that time, the board voted 3- 0-2 to deny the appeal and uphold the permit on the basis that it was properly issued. the determination holder is gd mobile net out of california.
we will hear from the appellant first. >> may i ask a per lemon or question? >> sure. >> i understood from the opening remarks that it would require four commissioners to grant my hearing. >> that is correct. >> and since three commissioners only are present, if i open my mouth, i have lost before i have said a word. i request that my matter not be heard until commissioner wallace arrives otherwise it is futile. >> the procedure under the board rules is if the vote of a missing commissioner would have made a difference, the matter will be continued for a full vote. >> but it is not fair. it is impossible for three commissioners to grant my
commission. >> right, but the commissioners here tonight if they are in favor, or even if two are in favor, the matter will be continued so that the absent commissioners can participate in the vote. >> why can't we hold my appeal until after commissioner lazarus arrives? >> commissioner lazarus is recusing herself from this item because she owns property close. >> oh,. >> if you like to proceed pursuant to the board rules, if the vote of a missing commissioner would make a difference, the matter would be continued. >> i see why. i didn't need to be impolite. >> not at all. >> before i was fired 30 years ago, i was a practising lawyer. i am concerned about those details.
>> thank you. >> good evening, this board board denied my appeal by assuming that s.c.c. regulations permitted all local health and safety jurisdictions. [indiscernible] housing many vulnerable people including young children and pregnant women. i have attached to my rehearing brief a verizon brochure showing that's known pollution of our environment with hidden microwave carcinogens. this new document is an admission of pollution and a validation of thousands of scientific studies which have
overwhelmingly shown that all wireless out of valves are the epicenters for cancer clusters and other serious and chronic health problems. all public agencies are legally obligated to pertain public healthy -- health and safety. moreover,. [indiscernible] without their informed consent is an international crime against humanity. contrary to this board's incorrect assumption, it protects the health and safety of its citizens. plus their team mobile a decision that emphatically inform san francisco's right to regulate rights-of-way that
might cause negative health consequences or create safety concerns. moreover, the precautionary principle ordinance applying to all city projects and purchases was never preempted by long outdated 1996 s.c.c. health guidelines, only regulating microwaves. it preempts a constitutional rights against uncompensated taking of property or deprivation of human rights without due process. no san franciscan wants to live near a cell tower. they should not be forced to accept any more dangerous or unnecessary cell towers when fiber-optic his now afford much saved her, faster, and economically probable alternatives. i urge this board to conscientiously follow that
golden rule by enforcing the precautionary ordinance to prevent further irreparable injury to health and safety for a dangerous cell tower at 2620 laguna street. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. we will now hear from the attorney for the permit holder. >> good evening. i will be very brief. we don't believe there is any new evidence or manifest injustice that would justify this rehearing request. the policies and insurances is not relevant and is not new. we ask you reject this. >> thank you. >> thank you.
we will now hear from the department. anything to add? okay. is there any public comment on this item okay. >> how many speakers will be speaking on this matter? please line yourself up on the left side. good evening, welcome. >> hello, my name is cheryl hogan. commissioners, on april 3rd, 2019, seven separate cell tower appellants attended at 2298 pacific avenue, filed with this board a 64 page appeal brief which i have here with over 1200 pages of attachments which credibly accused representatives of fraud and possible crimes. that appeal was originally scheduled for hearing tonight,
but on august 12th, 2019, verizon noticed -- notified the appeal board that it was withdrawing its permit. so on august 13th, 2019, they administratively dismissed the appeal. thereby verizon avoided a public hearing on 2298 pacific credible up you -- occupations of rising fraud and possible crimes in obtaining san francisco cell tower permits. before deciding the appeal, i urge you to read carefully the 20 do 98 pacific brief and to discuss his credible accusations of verizon fraud and probable crimes with the san francisco district attorney district attorney and city attorney. and tonight, i support his 2620 laguna appeal on grounds cited in his briefs in the 2298 pacific brief and in my view
five to 29 at sacramento appeal brief. thank you very much for listening. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening. >> hello, board of appeals. thank you for your time. according to many websites, there is proof that cell towers cause issues to all living beings. study results may vary depending on who pays for the study. a doctor, president of the american academy of environmental medicine states that people who live near cell towers and antennas are in jeopardy. enclosing, i have a native american indian quote. only when the last tree has been cut down, the last fish has been cut, in the last stream poisoned will we realize we cannot eat money. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please.
>> welcome back. >> hello, board members. my name is michael. i live in san francisco under the irradiation of 5g and four g. it is harmful to my health. if something isn't going to protect us, this will be a legally prohibited cell assault against us. and a dangerous and unavoidable tragedy. as explained to you by the briefs, the city and county of san francisco has the right and responsibility to protect the health and safety of its citizens. and to object the false acclaimed overreaching powers of the s.c.c. this was also explained in 2298 pacific appeal brief that was originally scheduled tonight until verizon withdrew the cell tower permit.
of greatest importance to this board as it updates its risk report, there is a confirmation by all involved parties including the wireless manufacturers, that the radiation is a pollutant that are described by the environmental protection agency, the f.d.a. and the who. they provide graphic evidence of the overwhelming concentration of pollution. with each company vying -- >> overhead, please. >> to wireless coverage. the amount of pollution increases each day. why would we want each house to be painted in lead paint? why would we want each home to have heat ducts surrounded by asbestos? we seem to reduce pollutants, not increase the density and harmful effects until even the healthiest of us fall victim to
this. the board has been railroaded by fear and faulty assumptions that the industry has a monopoly of legal authority. it wrongly says that article 25 in the 1996 telecommunications act preempted precautionary principles. the legal right and responsibility to protect the safety of citizens cannot be preempted by admitted wireless pollution in endangering life. this places the board on equal liability. and untested and experimental 5g is unleashed and becomes manifested throughout the city. immediate harm will appear. the pocket -- the precautionary principle ordinance protects the environment health and wealth of san francisco. now is the time to come to the aid of citizens of san francisco
and reject another cell tower at 2620 laguna street. thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> welcome back. >> thousands of citizens took to the streets on nasa -- took to the streets last sunday to say no. during our american right -- resolution, this goes hand-in-hand. we know when you organize against you and we got a knocked out program that the meter had nothing to do with self-monitoring electric gas usage. we knew it would be central to the internet of things. everything we buy will be indebted with chips to transmit
increasing amounts of data about us directly to the smart meter and onto company headquarters via 5g. it is applying to become a tech company. recognition is banned here in san francisco, but for how long? much of the rest of the country already has it. how long before social credit scores come to hear, to america, as this country becomes more tightly ruled by technology and a fascist cryptography behind it our democracy is almost a sham. the industry is tightly woven within our military-industrial complex that lobbies generously and extensively with other shenanigans to extend his multitrillion dollar empire. its passed is cleared lee spelled out in a brief that was dismissed by verizon. they didn't want their ugliness spelled out so clearly so they shushed it. they shift it with intimidation,
fears of litigation, actual integration and lies. the frequency was developed by the military for crowd control. officially called the active denial system, egg can be turned onto cause irreparable physical harm. soon there will be an exodus from san francisco to counties and towns that have banned residential 5g. cities come and cities go, empires fall. could this be the beginning of the end of western civilization? a compromised, sick population does not lead to a cohesive society or dynamic economic growth. commissioners, i believe you fear litigation for yourself in the city of san francisco and you have deferred to the san francisco department of health. i am hopeful but sceptical that it will review the scientific studies without being unduly influenced by industry studies and a pulpit from the s.c.c. i believe you can be a force for
good, for positive change. you have listened more attentively than ours. we would say, let the force be with you. it will be grossly sensitive to 5g in front of this apartment. please give him this appeal. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i am here to support the appeal because not only the 5g but the four g. is hazardous. these antennas were designed with that 1996 federal guideline for macro towers which are 200 feet in the air and 3,000 or more feet away. we will take a little step down memory lane so you can understand the intention, the congressional intent and the
writing of the 1996 tca and understand that the city of san francisco has the power to lower the power output from these towers. there is not a single standard, there is the ability for san francisco to uphold its local values. that is what the t.c.a. says. which is easier? i recommend you go to this page because you will find the link to this pacific avenue brief. it is the public record. it should be available to everyone. we preserved it and put it there what do you see there? you see the penultimate version of the bill. that is what existed in 1995. it took these lobbyists two or three years to write this bill. and on the right-hand side, you see the 1996 version in february
of 1996. what you will see when you look at the citing clause is it is very similar in every respect expect -- except there is a missing link. the conclusion is, both those cities never have the operation of cell phone towers preempted from their powers. that is the truth. why do we know that? when you look on the left, you can say what we want to do here is an effective policy regarding state and local regulation operation for the provision by mobile services. that is the wish list. they wanted all four. they didn't get that. our senators talked and it wasn't acceptable. there was a conference report that was all published. so when you read, now it says, nothing in this to limit or affect the state or local government. it all remains with you, except for decisions regarding
placement construction and modification of cell phone towers. we can't keep you from taking the spot. we can't keep you from building it, we can't keep you from coming back and changing it, but when it is time to turn it on, we can set a power limit because we need to protect our people. our representatives, your city council members must uphold that and let's protect our safety and privacy. you have to do that by turning the power way down. and what i will show you here is that everybody makes a mistake when they read this bill. paragraph four is really saying, you know what, most local governments can regulate the construction modification. >> thank you. >> thank you. is there any other public comment? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> who wants to start?
>> as sympathetic as i am to everything that was presented here, i see no -- the bar for rehearing is significantly high, and i heard no new information other than the information that was presented before. many of you in the audience know how sympathetic i am to these positions. i would like, i'm sorry, i'm going to put you on the spot. you may choose not to respond. can you provide guidance on our ability -- and we are not going to do it because again, i feel the bar has not been met, but the whole issue of precautionary principle, i believe you sent some guidance on precautionary principle invoking article 25,
which is the core of why we couldn't do what we did in the first place a few weeks ago. can you elaborate on precautionary principle, the legal aspect in the context of overriding that in article 25? and if you are not prepared to do so, i understand because it is a tough one. >> i don't think i am prepared to do so. >> again, the bar is very high. i would again encourage you, with all this information, to call the department of health and encourage him and your leaders to hear you and make the changes that will potentially override what you are protesting anybody else before we make a motion?
>> i want to thank the members of the public that have come up passionately for this week after week after week. we do hear you. evidently you hear some of the requests that we have been asking. what before us is a rehearing request. and as the president president said the bar, it is quite high. so if there was something that would cause manifest injustice, that is the bar for a rehearing. nothing that was brought before this board was not available at the past hearing. there is no manifest injustice. >> based on your comments, i would move to deny a rehearing request on the grounds there was not a showing of any material facts and there is no manifest injustice. >> okay, we have a motion to deny the request on the basis that there is no new material evidence for manifest injustice.
>> madame vice president? >> welcome vice president lazarus. we are now on item number five. this is danielle herrera against the department of building inspection. the subject property is three '05 book on a street. appealing the issuance on may 6 th, 2019 of an alteration permit. remolding the existing second floor and remodelling the kitchen, bathroom, and bedrooms. we will hear from the appellants first. >> good evening, members of the board. my name is danielle herrera, i am a native san franciscan.
i'm a resident for 19 years. i was visiting the reasons why i am appealing the permit application approved on may 6th , 2019, issued by the owner the permit states that the building is three stories, however, under san francisco planning department 305, it is two units. the alteration to be done on the second floor. that is the unit where i was. the alteration work is either being done in my unit and i was not being made aware of it. the application states are two, which is a building with three or more units, however, according to d.b.i. inspection records, it indicates it as a two units building. it does not reflect those of d.b.i. permit tracking systems provided by d.b.i. states a model second floor unit one. this is what i received.
d.b.i. on the first one says second floor unit one model. i ask the permit be corrected to match d.b.i. records and also, this is the building we are talking about. it is this top portion right here where i reside, and then there is... i reside on the top, and the bottom is vacant, it has been vacant now for over three years. >> you still have five minutes. >> i think i have made my point. >> thank you. >> we will now hear from the permit holder.
>> welcome. >> hello. i am the owner and i am here to respond. >> can you move the mic up a little bit? >> this is why i am doing this. when i received this, i went to d.b.i. and i asked d.b.i. how many floors and they said, yeah, they showed me some pictures. so the second floor, that is the first unit. i do -- i did make a mistake by putting on the permit address, unit a, instead of unit b., it
was clearly my mistake. in the lease it said a and it should have been be. based on the plans, it has been submitted. you can see the plan for the remodelling unit that is empty over the garage. in terms of the building, they said all of them are properly listed. it has been approved by d.b.i. based on the report and the permit was submitted. i was there last week to withdraw my permit and get a new one. they told me not to. just come to the appeal board and say it was a mistake. plans are clearly showing that, and you guys will advise me what to do to change that permit so i don't use that permit money and
change however you guys wanted to do it. i checked with the appeal board when i talked to you. he said the same thing. d.b.i. said the same thing. i just want to be clear what needs to be done from changing that because it was in my summary for the appeal. >> thank you. we will make that correction for you. >> thank you. we will now hear from mr. sanchez. >> thank you. it is located within in our age two zoning district. based upon our records, it is a three units building and i am -- i know the appellant decided that it was information recaptured from the assessor's office.
when you look at the building, it is fair that there are two stories of the basement. we do not rely on those records for everything. i will refer to the department of building inspection for the correct building permit. our records to indicate three units. there's also a pending permit that was filed earlier this year to convert to garage and storage space to a new dwelling unit. that is currently under review. [indiscernible] they could cancel it, d.b.i. could work with them on that, and they could do special conditions permit to correct the change. i don't know if there is one that is better or easier than the other, but in appellant is satisfied with getting the record corrected and it could be simply the permit is cancelled and refiled with the correct information.
that would also be appealable. any new permits would be appealable except for a special conditions permit. >> i think joe will have the magic wand when he comes up. >> thank you. >> where is the third unit? >> i don't know the location of all of the units, our records indicate three but i would defer since the plans were provided that they can maybe describe the units where they can describe where the unit is. >> i think they can answer my question in rebuttal. >> we have time in rebuttal. >> thanks. >> we will now hear from the department of building inspection. >> good evening, commissioners, commissioners, joe duffy, d.b.i.
i went through the intake, planning, mechanical check and then fees and then the permit got issued. and just on -- the permit appears to be property issued. there wasn't anything that i see wrong with it. i did hear sometimes about the wrong unit number. if this hadn't been appealed and the customer realized after the issuance they had made a mistake , they would apply for a cancellation refund on the permit and then we would do that for them. we would give them back some of the fees and tell them to file for a new permits with the proper unit number on it. that could still be done if you guys continue doing this. we could give them the opportunity to cancel the permits and then they could apply for a new permit, or you could do a special conditions
permit, it definitely needs to be corrected. as i say, i did read the permit holder's letter in the brief. that does happen. we get a lot of these at d.b.i. and we need to tell people, you have to cancel your permit and reapply. it is an over-the-counter will -- counter approval. it should be the same day. as mr. sanchez pointed out, if we do a new permit, it is appealable. >> quick question, if we cancel the permit, how much of the fee you get back? >> we will probably get about 60 % back. >> if we do a special -- if we do a special condition, that way he keeps his fee and it is the same fee, right? >> we do need four votes.
it would have to be continued until october 16th. >> okay. >> previously, sometimes what happened in the past was before the hearing and they would realize that this is a mistake on the permit and we would sometimes allow them to cancel the permit. it stops the work. >> i understand. we don't seem to do that as much anymore. we want to give the appellant a chance to go up there. there might be some other issues but we used to sometimes allow cancellation of a permit. >> do you ruffly no amount of the permit fee. >> i did not pick it up with me tonight. i could ask d.b.i. to do a full refund on this one. i could ask them. >> we have people who come before us with all kinds of different stuff. this seems to me a genuine mistake.
i don't feel that the permit holder should be penalized for it. >> i don't think so, either. there are some other issues that the appellant wanted to bring up about work times and stuff, so there might be other issues, but i could push for a full refund on it if the customer wants to work with me. the permit holder can work with me directly. i'm happy to tell the person in finance we will get a full refund on this. >> thank you very much. >> if you were going to do that, should we apply for the appellant and cancel the permit, >> we would continue it. [simultaneous talking] >> if the appellant has other issues -- >> okay. >> it will be another permit any way before they work in the
proper unit on it. >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? we will move on to rebuttal. you have three minutes. >> you didn't finish yours earlier, but i notice he did have a question in regards to the construction time. >> once a construction starts, if we can limit it to business hours and not have it gone like starting at 8:00 a.m. in the morning -- >> okay, are you starting? >> i'm starting. sorry. >> welcome back. >> thank you. i do live directly above the apartment being remodelled. there will be noise, vibration, both of my neighbors have respiratory issues, so the hours
could be limited. if they are going to shut off my utilities, at least let me know. at least an hour before. we would greatly appreciate it. >> just so you know, the landlord would have to let you know in advance unless it is an emergency stop because someone could crack the pipe open or something. >> i understand. >> ideally, what would your hours spee if be if you were to give an hour? we will ask the permit holder, as well. >> if he could start at 8:00 a.m. and stop at 5:00 p.m. >> i am just asking what your perfect dream world is. >> perfect scenario would be between eight and five. >> and six days a week rather than seven? >> it be nice to live in a peaceful environment, and also he lets me know so he doesn't
shut off my utilities. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i think everybody has already been said. i think 825 is very reasonable. >> okay. are you finished? >> yeah. the hours that are specified are actually much longer. she has asked for a little bit shorter time. will that work for you? >> it should be fine. >> and then five days a week, six days a week, seven days a week? >> six days. >> no sunday work. >> then you will let her know in advance if you have to turn any of the utilities off? >> of course,. >> thank you very much.
i hope it works out for you. >> mr. sanchez, anything further mr. duffy? commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> i think we should follow mr. duffy's advice, and file a motion to continue to enable and sort this out. >> we are hopefully not going to see you again. >> maybe we should ensure mr. stegall understands what is happening. >> what we're doing right now is we are continuing this case to a later date but prior to that date coming up, the department is going to work with you. if we cancel your permit, you will be responsible for what you base it of the fees that will -- that you will you lose. they said they could fix the air so there's no penalty involved.
and especially since you are willing to work with your tenant , that works for us. >> can you come up here, please? >> the only question i have, when i was at d.b.i., is a regional copy has already been scanned to the archives. it already says unit a. [indiscernible]. >> joe duffy, d.b.i. i would cancel everything. the plan is originally in the record. i cancelled permits of the plans we would all realize the plans are not valid because the planning got cancelled after the work was done but the new plans to be the ones that we would be coming in with the proper -- i work with the customers and the permit holder.
>> thank you. >> if it is cancelled, then we would dismiss the appeal because the new permit would be issued. >> question, do i have to come back? >> as long as it is resolved in the department, you will not need to come back here. >> thank you so much. >> how much time do you need, mr. duffy? two weeks? we will administratively dismiss it. why don't we just say the 16th >> it doesn't matter. we are expecting never to see it again. >> do we have a motion? >> motion. >> we have a motion to continue this matter to october 16th so the parties can work on cancelling the permit and getting a new one issued with the correct information. [roll call] that motion carries 3-0. we are now moving on to item
number six. this is appeal number 19-086. appealing the issuance on 840 42 nd avenue. and alteration permit. this is a revision to permit application. revised detail at both property line walls. this is -- we will hear from the appellants first. >> good evening. thank you for being here. i appreciate the invitation to be here. first of all, we are for disabled veterans, 100%. i did a couple tours in the middle east and we have lots of medical conditions. but construction from the beginning drove us crazy because
of our medical conditions, but we put up with that. it was by november of thanksgiving, back in 2018, we started noticing our doors wouldn't close. at the the door to the dining room had a big space underneath. things weren't right. we cut back the construction post and said no problem, come out and we will go ahead and shake the doors for you. we decided we would have this done. there's something else going on here. we started to notice some cracking the dining room area. we then noticed that through further investigation, the property had been undermined. there was a big tunnel between both properties. we contacted the other side, they came out.
they noticed violations on both sides. we don't have the money to fix this. we have been playing, and mouse with the permit holders back and forth. we noticed they went out and got a permit. the permit was issued after drawings -- there were no drawings at all in the permits. no drawings whatsoever. they went out and got a permit for each permit. it was issued after the temporary shoring was put up. it was put up after the permit was issued. that comes to my point here, we are objecting the issuance of the permit with the revised foundation details. this is probably -- this was both illegal and reprehensible. does not express the damage.
[indiscernible] we hired david cain to come out and do the drawings for us and we gave it to the other sites mac. they had to come back out and do the temporary work because that was not even the specs. we had talking back and forth and we had them come out and do the fixing of the undermining. we completely refused because they can't even do these -- this temporary shoring properly. it has been like that for a while now. we have been waiting for the winter season to come in when
the rain starts settling in and our property continues to sink. we don't have the money to fix it, bottom line. i've got a family, we will be just want to a more homeless veterans out there with three kids. like i said, we have been playing cat and mouse with the other side. his comment to us was, believe it or not, we will sell the house regardless. and i thought, we just got in our car and left. with no type of morals, basically is the way i look at it. as you can see from the photos
there, it is pretty deep. and through this whole you can clearly see the construction of the other side. the black typing that they use on that side. my question is, if there is one piece of foundation, how are they able to move to the next piece of foundation without noticing the undermining out there? that is my question. i will stop and say, wait a minute, timeout, we have something going on here. there were no drawings for the previous permit that was issued. we have no money to fix it. the drawings were provided by three brothers construction and did not include any proper details of foundation work this
was illegal construction. that is all we've got. thank you, panel. >> thank you very much. >> we will now hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, board. i think we have some confusion. there are several permits on the property beginning november of 18. the issue that i believe that is confusing us is the detail for the foundation that was changed on a piece of paper probably about this size from our engineer. it was approved -- it was improved when the building inspector came out and he had to add to the full-size drawings. there are sign offs of terms, signoff that it is okay to pour, that is information on the permit that was pulled. we have a notice there was an
issue with the complaint on the property with there. we met with them, came up with an agreement, had an attorney draft it. there is no denial there is undermined meant going on. we are not denying that at all. we are willing to fix it, willing to pay for it. week one we met with them. we came to terms, we hired their engineer and we said just tell us when and where. that went dark for three weeks. week four, she threw her engineer and said she doesn't want us to fix it. week five, i think we had a meeting with the city, two building officials, and the homeowner, and we tried to come to an agreement, which we didn't come to an agreement. on week six, her engineer called us back and said she will let us fix the foundation only, not any other damages in the house. they give us an estimate of
$100,000 to fix the rest of the home. our contractor, who was falling back on said i will just charge it to our insurance company. at this point, there was a claim within his in -- with his insurance to take care of this matter, but we have a little bit of discrepancies because in the appeal, they said there are no permits or details but there was permits, there was details, it was signed off by the city prior to this issue to pour concrete and finish. we didn't do anything illegal, bottom line. that is all i have. >> thank you. >> could you pull out a speaker card? are you chris gibbs? >> i am. >> thank you. we will now hear from planning department. nothing? department of building inspection? >> commissioners, joe duffy,
d.b.i. i will try to give you guys so explanation. there is a lot -- there are two sides to that story and i just read the brief last night. i was involved with the case. the permit that is under appeal is a revision to permit application 2-018-102-3901. it is under approval. [indiscernible] there were drawings with that permit. now i refer back to the 2018 permit. the permit that that revised was four level one that had two bedrooms, a family room, a study , a laundry room, modify existing bathroom. level two, change existing room,