september 19, 2012 board meeting of board of appeals (8) appeal no. 12-094 piper murakami, appellant(s) versus department of building inspection, respondent. 117 broad street. appealing the imposition of penalty for construction work done without a permit. we will begin president permit holder, the appellant, piper murakami. >> my name is piper murakami. thank you for letting me have the opportunity to make this appeal. i am just asking for the appeal for the violation fee of $1700 for the unpermitted removal of the -- tower from the firehouse on 117 broad street that i live in. it was during a rainy season earlier this year. i got the notice in late april, violation i items.

and when i met with the -- i met with someone -- i came to the planning department to meet where someone who gave me the violation to find out what he needed to do, and he helped me get through the process and i was aware that i needed the permit when the -- came down because during the storm this year it started raining raining. you provided written statement and pictures. once the workers were up there we were going to flash and fix the -- tower but it was very unstable and not built very well. and so i made a hasty decision to have it taken down, trying to fix something that was broken, and i didn't want it to fall off and i didn't want it to fall off the building. to -- it's in the works now. so i'm just asking to have the violation fee reduced. >> that's a pretty substantial structure. were you aware that you would need a permit to remove it?

>> no. >> thank you. >> thank you. mr. o'reardon. good evening, again, commissioners. patrick o'reardon, dbi. a complaint 2012, 17641 was filed on april 18, regarding the demolition of this hose tower at the old firehouse building which is now residential at 117 broad street. site investigation followed by the district building inspector on april 23, and a notice of violation was issued. the notice stated that the hose tower at 117 broad street, a

known historic resource, built in 1896, has been demolished without permit or city planning review. the notice of violation also requires a building permit be obtained for the rebuild of the structure, with planning department approval. permit application 201207245594 was filed on july 24, 2012, reviewed and approved, on september 10, 2012. now, what was approved was a site permit. so it wouldn't qualify for actually doing the work. it was a conceptual design mainly for the purpose of having planning approval. so they now have a site permit which has been approved, but not issued, and we are here, i guess tonight, to deal with the penalty issue.

the nine times penalty is required for work performed without permit per table 1-a-k of the 2010 san francisco building code. i sympathize with the fact that the owner was getting water in their house, and, you know, any of us would want to remedy that situation. my thoughts are that it would have been probably better had been -- would bei, and i, for glad to go out there and look at the situation, give them advice regarding water-proofing or what permits would be necessary. and it's really unfortunate to see this structure that was taken down. so i leave it in your hands for decision on the penalty. i'm available for any questions. >> how old?

198096? >> that's what was mentioned on the notice of violation. and some of the pictures in the materials -- >> yeah, i see them. >> show -- or indicate that it's an old structure. >> okay. >> vice president fung: you'll get a chance for rebuttal after the department's. >> is there any public comment? okay. seeing none, then we can take rebuttal. >> thank you. this is all very new to me, and i do currently have an architect that's working with me to come up with a similar same hose tower. and right now, the structural engineers are working on how to make it so that it will be more stable. so it's not like i'm not going to put it back up because my idea is to preserve. the money part is very little to the whole amount of what i am spending to preserve the

building. but every little bit counts to me so that's why i'm here tonight. >> sorry, what was the last thing you said? >> every little bit counts for me because i'm self-employed, and i really love this building. and i didn't like the fact that i made this bad choice to take it down, but now i'm just working with the system now to get it back on track. thank you. >> president hwang: we have questions. go ahead. >> commissioner lazarus: you talk about workers who found the structure to be problematic. what kind of workers were these? were they -- did they have engineering understanding, or familiarity with these types of buildings that we're telling you that basically you were better off to tear it down than to try to fix it? >> right. they were up there saying that it was moving -- >> commissioner lazarus: who's they? >> oh,, the construction -- the contractor workers i had. hispanic workers.

i use those construction company, the contractor i mean. and it was based on his advice. >> commissioner lazarus: contractor that you had used before? >> i'm sorry. >> commissioner lazarus: a contractor that you had used before? >> i have. and because of what he was telling me, i probably got very more concerned about the structure and stability of it versus thinking of the process with the city, and permits and all. i think they were up there and made a hasty decision that day. >> vice president fung: further questions, commissioners? >> thank you. >> anything further mr. o'reardon? commissioners -- >> vice president fung: anything from planning?

>> addressing the historic nature of the structure? >> dan snyder from the planning department. i think our only comment would be to provide some some background and context on the history of this building. it was built in 1896 engine company no. 33 firehouse recognize in the here today book which is an acknowledged historic survey. this property was considered for city landmarking in recent past. it did not receive that designation but it was considered. it's a category a known historic resource. and commissioners, that's the basic set of preservation fact. we're of course happy to respond to your questions. >> vice president fung: thank you.

>> it says -- i think you wrote here that you're a designer. what kind of designer are you? >> i'm sorry? >> what kind of designer are you? >>ographic designer. >> thank you. that's it. >> vice president fung: well i think the advice you got -- i think we already -- unfortunately the advice you got, i think probably was not correct. it would have been not so difficult to brace this portion of effort, and then to replace it -- excuse me, not replace it,

but to remove the materials that had been damaged, and reattached in a form because that potentially could have been a lot less costly than if you had gotten into the black hole of preservation. but given that this is -- she already has a site permit, and the issue before us is the penalty only, i'm prepared to give her a break and reduce the penalty as best we can. and just a little hint to her that, you know, her final permit, you probably want to make sure that what you rebuild replicates as best you can what you saw there. given the fact that it had already been manipulated from its original condition.

>> i was just going to remind the commissioners if it's needed, that you can reduce the penalty to no less than twice the amount of the fee. >> thank you. >> vice president fung: that would be my motion. >> to reduce it to two times the permit fee? >> vice president fung: yes. >> is there any other commissioner comment? no? okay. call the roll please. >> on that motion from the vice president to reduce this penalty to two times the regular fee, president hwang aye, commissioner hurtado is absent. commissioner lazarus this is reduced to two times the regular fee. >> item 9 has been continued to october 10, 2012

(10) appeal no. 12-093 keith doerge, appellant(s) versus department of building inspection, respondent planning department approval. 2865 vallejo street. protesting the issuance on august 01, 2012, to shane busch, permit to alter a building (work related to approved bpa no. 2011/10/14/6816; underground expansion to garage - addition of 697sf; all new work is underground; new elevator up to 1st floor level; seismic upgrade; interior remodel of 1st floor level; mandatory sprinkler work under separate permit). we'll start with the appellant. you have seven minutes. >> thank you, president, commissioner lazarus, vice president fung. i put this picture -- can you see that? this is the property in question, where the construction

is going on. and you can see just to the right, in the photo, is my house, which is -- starts at the street, and goes directly back. the house under construction begins a couple -- back, and then the houses are cojoined at that point. the purpose of our appeal is not to overturn the project. we would like to reduce the risk to my house. and by the way, i have my engineer here, rhine hart -- who knows much more about this. if you have a question for him, let me know. we'd like to narrow the scope to make it safer to reduce the amount of risk where we're really concerned is the excavation of this property, and the geogrouting that's occurring up to the very property line. this area is hillside, and it is do you knodune sands all the wao

broadway. this tunnel of a double -- the double garage in the front of the property is, from that sidewalk, straight through, and slightly expanding as it goes back to the east and west, will go almost 50 feet to the house, 10 feet high, there will be a new ceiling to the garage, and all the trees and the plants that you can see in that photograph will still be there the whole time, and the concrete walkways and everything else, all supported by this geogrouting and the shoring and whatever else happens. the total effect is a really high risk for an adjacent property, which i am. the excavation will be three feet from either side. their neighbor on the other side has a setback house too. so they're not as concerned because it's their yard. but my house, it's my house, all the way back, and up the hill. so the tunneling, the

excavation, the shoring, the original plans that they put in, in awk, they had a firm geogrout incorporated, a very experienced firm, who put in the plans for the geogrout which came right to the border of my property. and in their two page report to them about it said they would need my sign-off in order to do the project that way. in late august, you can see on their sheets, it's august 30, is the most recent date for the geogrouting, it's now moved back one foot so that the two foot injections of the personaliation grout would somehow amazingly go down exactly like a cylinder two feet all the way down into the property and not leak over into my property. everything i read says that would not be the case, that it's not that controlled, it depends on the density of the ground below it, and whatever. i would like to start -- and want to mention a couple of the

risks and quotes we have. but i'd like to start by just mentioning that i'm not trying to be oppositional in this. and the brief writer, ms. dick, got some bad information. she was not on the project last year on the other side. we had a project last year, with mr. tim lee, who did a geogrouting for his new garage and undercut my garage with the geogrouting to do the project. i hired mr. mudky for that project. he met with the engineers. we made a couple of improvements through a couple of structural questions. they built the project. there was never a complaint. there was never a hearing. there was never an appeal. so it's really -- in fact, he also paid for my engineering. so there was no battle in that issue. secondly, this year alone, i let mr. butch come across into my yard by scrastleddin scaffoldine

backyard to set up and put in sheer wall and new stucco that he wanted on the wall of my house. he said i'll pay you 5,000 to do it. i said you don't have to pay me. if it's a good project and you need to do it and it will help, that's fine. so he came in, he did it. at that time, everybody was happy. however, he then decided to do the garage. now he's been a year and a half from this state that you see on the drawing. it's been like that with the big dumpster coming out from the backyard for a year and a half. i know you have a letter from one of the neighbors talking about that. this project has such a higher degree of risk to me. the yard -- i mean it's a 25 foot lot, and the house -- even though it's two flights back, there's a huge backyard. so the volume of soil that he's moving by going 19 feet wide for

a while, and then slightly less, all the way back 50 feet, 10 feet high, and then when he gets there, he has to excavate two floors for a 14 by 18 room, that will be a bathroom, and a extra space room, and the elevator, which will take him up to his first floor. so i mean it's about the most dramatic possible amount of construction you can do in this much of an area. so i would just like to -- within our project itself -- i'm not going outside of things that people have said here. i'd just like to mention a couple of quotes about the riskiness of this project. my engineer said to me, one line, the construction involves tunneling and tunnel shoring. this is a very complex and high risk project. we had a meeting in august with geogrouting incorporated, who had been dropped from the

project as of late july. they're the ones who filed originally back in october 2011, on the plans. we met with him in person, don jordan. he went through how incredibly complex, it's risky. he said worker safety is a big issue. everything is underground so it's highly technical work. i have a quote from mr. carp, who is the geoengineer on this project. says the success of grouting is highly dependent on the skill of the speciality subcontractor. it is not a procedure that always produces the desirable results. structures near the area being grouted somebody monitored and grouting should be discontinued and care taken in intrusion of conduits. finally, i have a letter from mr. carp, but i don't think was in their packet to you, but it's dated march 11, 2012 --

>> how long is it. >> i'm not going to read it. >> your time is up. >> this whole page and a half is just about worrying about the garage, roof, and the possibility of it caving in, and how it could be structured differently to make it more stress resistant, et cetera. >> you can have time on rebuttal. >> okay. thank you very much. >> ms. dick. >> good evening, madam commissioner and members, ilene dick on behalf of shane bush the owner for the property which has been appealed. hind me is what i like to think of the braintrust of the design team. i'm just a lawyer. i don't understand most of this though i will ask these gentlemen to come up and give a short presentation mostly to clarify and rebut what was said. let's be very clear here, dbi is the city agency entrusted with reviewing these permits. they're skilled. they did an independent

investigation. the plan checker spent over nine hours. everybody here is licensed and the structural engineering, geotechnical engineering, shoring contractors that are skilled in this. they knew what they were doing. the reliance that the appellant has placed on geogrouting is mind-boggling because nobody be, mr. bush or anybody associated wi said jieio grouting was the selected contractor. they were one of two bidders. their plans are not at issue. that's not what was approved by dbi. i think that's important to keep in mind. in terms of the risk with regard to the tunneling and grouting i want to turn it over to mr. collins who is the structural engineer and mr. carp can come up, and any of them can ask questions as well but i think that's the best way for you to get a grasp on what is proposed and the mitigation by the code, industry practices, and everybody doing this is of the highest caliber.

>> good evening, commissioner. my name's randy collins, a structural engineer under contract with shane bush since about february. quite frankly, this is a complicated project. but we've been doing project like this in san francisco since the 1920's. so that's why structural engineers are here, that's why geotechnical engineers are here, that's why we're working with a contractor that's been around for 25 years. the procedure we're using here is very well established in san francisco. the shoring and the methodologies that we're using to construct this is very tedious and very time-consuming because we're only going to excavate four feet at a time. and then construct temporary construction, temporary structures to completely brace four feet at a time, and then another four feet, another four feet. once that temporary structure, which is completely designed for all permanent load cases, once that temporary structure is

built, we're then going to build anywhere from 12 inch thick to 18 inch thick concrete walls, ceilings, and foundations, to support the final building condition. so i've written a letter that addressed the initial concerns of the appellant's engineer. and just want to ask if you have any questions to my letter or any questions in general. one of the issues that has -- seems to be in question here is the actual personaliation grouting procedure. that is done, as i explained in my letter, that's done by injecting microfine cement grout into clean sand and it essentially turns the sand into

stand stone as we all know because we've been in the beach and start digging into the sand, it starts caving in. what the geogrouting procedure allows you're excavating in sandstone ground rock, and we're only going four feet at a time after we've grouted this. the grouting procedure is very well established, very widely used procedure. this isn't a new technology. these aren't new characters involved in the procedure. do you have any questions? >> well the appellant is obviously concerned about the risk of it extending under his structure. can you address that? >> the way that the grout is injected is through a tube that gets advanced about two feet at a time. the grout contractor is actually

paid by volume of grout. and that is what they're monitoring the whole time. so with the geotechnical input that larry's provided, that mr. carp's provided, they know how dense the sand is, as they're going down. it's a very experienced firm that does this. so they only want that two foot bulb of grout, that two foot column of grout. because anything more than that, they're going to have to excavate it, and they're going to see it in the volume. so i'm not sure why that's such a concern, when the -- are right there controlling this procedure. they're controlling the volume of grout. >> there is no risk of it expanding underneath impact -- >> there's not zero risk. >> what is the risk? >> the risk is very, very small. this procedure's used extensively in san francisco and other places in the world. >> and what are the implications

of it expanding into the property of the neighbor -- of the appellant? >> then there's grouted sands underneath his property. it would improve -- >> what would that do? >> it would improve the soil underneath his property. because he now wouldn't have dune sand. he would have sandstone. >> good evening, board. i'm lawrence carp, i'm a geotechnical engineer. i been working in the foundation engineering here in san francisco since the late 50's. i taught at berkeley 14 years, stanford three, foundation engineering. i was involved in the project that mr. doerge mentioned on the west side for tim lee.

and there was -- it was a very successful project. it was much more difficult in some respect, it was a 22 foot deep excavation, up against his building. and we grouted everything. and the grout is a benefit to anybody in sand, because in an earthquake, the sand doesn't shake loose later, after the grout dries. it's much stiffer. it's like building on be bedrock originally. so it is an advantage. but he's afraid, his engineer has told him the grout should not migrate so we have kept it three feet away from the building. sot injection points are four foot, six inches aque away frome building. as randy collins mentioned if the tube withholds and is electronically monitored from a hose to a truck. it's a very sophisticated

procedure. and it's going to be very successful project. there are other houses where they initially built the garages back where they have elevators so it's very steep, somebody comes home late at night, they have to go in the garage, and go up stairs. they like to have -- above. so if you have any questions about this, i'll be very glad to answer any aspects of this project. i did the project down the street. and i've done grouting projects going back to the hampton hotel at union square since the early 60's. >> without getting into the specifics of the other property, mr. lee i think was the name. >> sorry? >> without getting into the specifics of the other property that you consulted on, the other neighbor, can you give me a general sense of what issues were addressed in order for that project to go through, as it relates to your specialty area. >> well the engineering issues

or the political issues? >> engineering issues, please. >> okay. it was a similar type of job. as a matter of fact, same contractor. but the subcontractor was geogrout, which they have called in. we did not give -- or not we. but the specialty contractor, the class a engineering contractor, gave the job to another grouting contractor that had just finished the job up on broadway, 2600 broadway. and more sophisticated an operation. they had better foremen. it was more organized -- >> maybe i didn't frame my question very clearly. what i wanted to know is i thought that there were some adjustments that needed to be made with respect to the other property that made it acceptable for that project to go through. do you recall -- i mean i don't know how long ago -- >> i have a web page on that project with --