thank you. >> the motion is then to deny the appeal and up hold this permit on the basis of the planning department's determination of it is accurate. and that the structure is code compliant? >> yes. >> hwang. >> aye. >> hurtado. >> aye. >> lazarus. >> aye. >> honda. thank you. the vote is 5-0 and the permit is upheld on that basis. >> we are going to take a short break, five minutes. >> welcome back to the board of

appeals and we are on item number 7, appeal 13-141. and this is patricia. calderahead verses the department of building of inspection.3032-3034 jackson street. protesting the issuance on october 18, 2013, to nancy wong, alteration permit (response to nov no. 201317501; shoring plan and sequence of excavation up to 20' at perimeter walls; revision to bpa no. 2007/07/12/6583; reference to bpa nos. 2009/09/24/7633, 2011/09/21/5155 and 2007/07/12/6583) >> and we can start with the appellant. or the appellant's agent. >> good evening, i'm mike bowling, construction on behalf of patricia calderahead. >> in my brief i do not want to be redundant and so i have outlined what we would like to

say but i would like to respond to their brief, which we received after of course, we filed our brief, page one of their brief states, they were on page one, they are appealing a permit based on financial reasons, not areasons pertaining to the building code this is a civil matter, and it is not related to the validity of the permit, however that could be true, i have done everything that i can to keep patricia from suing the architect and the contractor and the property owner and involving the city in a lawsuit because the city has stated that they have responsible here because they had an inspector that was there and saw the work being done and did not stop them. and if she had done that, the 2 and a half million dollars later and two attorney's fees and a year later we will be able to get some work done, my alternative was to come to the board and ask the board for some help, page 2, and in here, which is the posting and it has

continually reached out to the neighbor to come up with a working solution and will continue to do so. and as of today, the neighbors have yet to come up with a written plan as to how they plan to proceed and nor have they given any sort of solid time line for the work and filed the brief on december 12th and i have an e-mail from paul means and the engineer handling this case on november 20th. stating, once we received our plan, as to what we needed to do, this is what you say, and after your shoring is installed, and we would be allowed to build on that slab and he goes on to something that wo like to do and once that is done you can ex-vait and we are proposing this as alternative solution and the time is 20 weeks for the team to construct the foundation will be a hard sell to our client, they did receive a plan from us and they did receive a time line. 20 weeks to do the work that we needed to do but it is going to be a hard sell for their client and one of the meetings that i

had with the contractor, with santos and our engineer, and the contractor stated, right now, and i will quote, right now, my cash flow is being greatly affected and i want to get back to work as soon as possible, unquote. the problem or one of the problems that we are having here is that the work that they did, caused the collapse of the foundation of her building, not just in one area, but in another area in the middle of the building which they are not talking about. we have an, engineer and in my experience to the general contractor, i listen to the engineer and they say that he can do this to repair this and i can listen to that and if i disagree with it i will cash it out and i must listen to these engineers and i not only have one engineer, who is structural engineers i have hike that concurs with the engineer and we have a report that came in and we have ko copies of that

for the board members stating what will happen if they are allowed to do this work, as a contractor in san francisco, i believe that i have a great responsibility to the properties. and not just to the work that is being performed on my job site but to the adjacent properties but i believe that the building department and generally san francisco, we have a grave responsibility to how is the work that we are doing, impacting our effecting our neighbors? >> and in this case, we have already affected the neighbor. and number one, number two, i have engineers here saying that if they are allowed to do this work, the way that they did it the first time, which caused the collapse, there are going to be further collapses. and we have got the people in this building, and we are in the process of shoring up this building. and we went to them and we said that now that your foundation is now 20 feet below our foundation, we are going to need to go to the same level and it seemed that all of the engineers agreed with that and so the question is how can we possibly do is that?

now it has efrked patrica and will continue to effect her and if we have to replace the foundation, it has been said to me that i don't have a lot of concern of what you going to do with your foundation, mike, we just want to get back to work, that seems to be the theme here and in my opinion this is not acceptable and we have gone to them and said, you caused this problem and tried to hide it and this is the solution and how long it is going to take and we need to do this to protect this building and it seemed that to wait, 20 weeks, for us to allow us to do the work would be, wise, and we are asking this board, to, we are not asking this board to shut down a job, we are asking this board to delay, somehow get involved here to allow us to do what needs to be done in this building to protect the building. and i would like to have mike talk about what is going to take place if they are going to continue the work. and mike is a civil engineer

and a structural engineer and a mechanical engineer and a structural engineer and i would like to have him to have a few minutes to talk about this. >> thank you. >> really quick, i looked at this site on october the third. by the way. here is my card. >> and, what happened was excavation took place, and the grade underneath the subject building was dropped down exposing this brick footing on miss calderahead's building and there was a blow out in two places this unreinforced ma sonry, foundation was made to act like a retaining wall for something that is never designed to do and there were two blow outs of this wall underneath the building, and this is from the current shoring plan, and they are doing very little to stabilize this wall and the only thing that they are proposing to do is put a little concrete up against the bottom of the wall, but they are not addressing the issue that due to the

excavation, dropping the grade down, that they are turning this into a retaining wall with no steel in it and we are going to have other blow outs causing further damage to the calderahead building and i will yield to mr. shadian. >> general board and my name is sadian and i am the structural engineer, and i am here to present the building at 3040 jackson street. and who has maintained my services to prepare the construction to repair the damage that occurred as a consequence of the excavation of the adjacent property at 3032 jackson. and we are requesting today that the board continues the suspension of the building permit and the construction of work for a 3032 jackson street.

>> your time on the opening is up. you will have time on rebuttal. >> excuse me? >> you will have time on the rebuttal. >> the sounds indicate that your time is up. >> you can come back later. >> okay. >> okay. >> we can hear from the permit holder now? >> commissioners, structural engineer for the project. and let me just start out by saying that we are not denying that there was an incident that affected an 11 foot portion around all of the brick foundation on the adjacent property. yes. we immediately contacted the neighbor, and the representatives. we urged them to work with us. we urged them to retain the

services of the structural engineer, whoever they wanted. and the engineer and the more technical experts the better. that was our pledge from day one. and we received a notice of violation from the department of building inspection. and mr. duffy wrote that letter. and they urge us to come up with a comprehensive structural drawing that describes what will take them to in regards to that section, and what we plan to do to continue with the project. i urge mr. duffy, to give me an opportunity to meet, with the neighbors, engineer, and the neighbor's general contract. and we have that meeting at dbi. and mr. duffy was there and mr. patrick over here was there. i wanted to make sure that

everyone concured with the process the agreement that he submit the drawings and you can convince him we will release that permit. that individual was dennis, and i have a great deal of respect, and 29 years of experience. and his comment was he brings me letter of compliances from the soil engineers and we brought in two soil engineers

the process and the interaction with mr. dank, took until two and a half weeks and we finally obtained a permit and during that process, i wanted to make sure that the neighbor was aware of the type of drawings that we were developing. i kept them abreast, with a note, if you have any comments or concerns, please contact me, we want to make sure that once we pulled the permit, you will not appeal this permit. but today, this is where we are. they are abaoeling the permit, and they want us to wait, three and a half months and they never give me drawings as to what they are proposing. if they are so concerned about the safety of that, that building is currently occupied. xhe. commissioners we have a

valid permit and scrutinized by soil engineers, structural engineers. but let me, end this in a friendly cooperative tone. the reason why, they want to replace the foundation from our side, is because it is cheaper for them. we gave them the content to do that. we recognized that something happened. and we are do not avoid the responsibility. and incidents happen in construction. and we take responsibility for that. that is professional ethics. and we will allow them to access this site.

and they have not, come back to us. the reason that we are showing the ceiling of the garage with a slab below the foundation is that they can get the foundation and take it out. and that section that he is showing, is a four-foot, five section and it is only a four-foot section that will be sectionalized over 16 feet and do not feel that that section is an extended open, ended condition. and it is not, and it is a small section. we will give them access so that they can replace the foundation. and it is very hard for me as a consultant to convince my client that not only are we delayed by this process but we have to give him access, but i was able to at least talk to them and say that we need to be able to present a cooperative

front. it has been four months. and the neighbors call us, and what is going on with this project. four months, completely idle. >> i urge you, to verify, and validate this permit. and allow us to go back to work, and we have a solid, structural system, >> thank you. >> mr. duffy. >> okay. >> commissioners, i'm a little bit aware of this project, and i was called out on the day i

was a senior building inspector for the area that had happened back in august and so i was actually right there early in the process. and i have a good recollection and i will give you the notice. sxe. during the excavation of a new garage, under the permit application a section of the foundation on the adjacent building of 3040 jackson street, has clansed the area of the collapse is on your property's west property line, stop all work at the base level and obtain a report from the engineer and the geotechnical engineer, and the recommends on how to proceed at the intended excavation and we called it the san francisco building code section 102 a, for the building. and obtain a shoring permit before proceeding with any work, the permit shall show a sequence of work with the details on the exact of the excavation, and we ask for a

copy of the permit. and as well as that prior to any work starting on the said permit, we wanted them to do the required, notification to the adjacent neighbors on both sides, of the intended excavation, and so, i believe what we got on this permit was a permit in my opinion for the sequencing of the excavation, and they were showing it being done in alternate sections. and it is the permit that we wanted. and now, my issue all around has been, i think that you have heard it as well is that the cooperation between both sides, on the 3040 jackson, we got the permit to show how they are going to shore that building, but if we have not seen that permit and i think that gets stated on how it effects the foundation of the 3040 jackson and so that things has been setting up in the air and so to speak in the last few months

and it just seems like a lack of cooperation on how to go forward and one thing that got brought up tonight by the engineer here for the 3040 jackson, is the depth, they are going down to 3032, jackson and going to 20 feet and going to put an underground garage under there and this is a deep cut and i think that the concern and the engineer was getting to that is what happens are they going to match, or they going to allowed to match the foundation down to the bottom of that, or of the new excavation for the garage? or is the design going to be allowed to go ahead and so i think that there is a fair, and it is probably a fair enough fair, from 3040, jackson, on how that, this permit going ahead will impact the building and there is talk of a retaining wall type of system and so, and again, it is more than a lack of people getting together and getting this done and we did let the work and it happen actually up at the other property line, and even though this was under appeal, we

thought that we needed to get some emergency work done and this building is open, on shoring, and i would really like to see, more work happening right there if possible. but, i don't know if the board is in a position to hurry them up but that is what we need from a building department point of view, obviously i will stop it again and so, there was, and there is definitely an issue with the way that that wall collapsed and it should not have happened but it did happen and we spoke to the contractor about it, and contacted with it and it was one of the things that happened and it was not one of these things that should not have happened and i think that he learned a lesson from it, and you know, that is where we are and we are available for any questions if i have not been clear enough. >> well, can you, from... from your opinion, what occurred at this meeting between the two parties? >> you were there, and patrick was there >> yeah, we were there, at the meeting. >> you know, i think that mr.

santos was accurate, and there was an agreement that they would move forward with the plans to try to get this thing moving, you know i am not privvy to the things ha happened after that and the lack of conversations or the lack of e-mails and it seefmd like we were getting somewhere, that is my opinion. >> and i suppose that it is going to come down as well, and you know, i have often thought about this, and this is, if someone, like, if your target is damaged so how much does it cost to get it fixed you can tell me $20,000 and it looks more like $3,000 and there is a meeting of the minds here on what the actual cost of this is, and i don't think that they have got the right things yet and that is my personal opinion and maybe they will tell you something different but i don't think that they have got the agreement of what actually needs to be done to this building, to repair this and there might be some doubts on one side to the other they are trying to get a foundation and stuff like that, these things all happen away from the building department.

and so, i might make it an issue as well. and we open it and someone might get it here. we always recommend that the insurance companies are involved as well. one thing that i did notice in the building and the 3040 jackson is there are still tenants living in the building and i was in there and there were a couple of small things and there was the door sticking but there was not any major damage, i believe that when they realized that the foundation for the 3032 was collapsing, and in front of their eyes, they poured the concrete and that could have saved something but maybe the engineer kaos speak more to that. >> in your opinion, can you or not opinion, but could you describe how much work has been

done at 3032? they have done quite a bit of work and the shoring but with that permit it did not give the details that the building department would have wanted and even though we had the building inspect their was out there a couple of times and they had, they were only probably starting to do the shoring, because it might have been a couple for it and it was not a lot and there was some demolition done in the upper part of the building, but they have a long way to go, and they did have a long way to go and they do have a long way to go, and there are stages. >> the excavation, is it only on one side? or is it across the lot? >> it is across the lot. >> yes. >> but it is not, all the way back, is it? and you indicated that it has not been completed. >> no. and there are some, shoring right at the back property line and inside of the property line as well. that were done fairly 22, and

20, over, 20 plus feet. and probably four by four, and maybe, five by four, shoring pits that have been harmed and because a lot of this is hand digging i believe, and one thing that got mentioned it me and it may not have happened and even with that, it should not and it does not really matter, but there may have been a change of the size conditions in the front of the building, and actually right there, you sometimes hit the sand and it changes from block to block, and that is my experience. but, even with that, foundation of 3040 jackson was exposed and those need to be repaired poperly, and these two sides need to figure that out, and so... >> and i have a question that i had inspector duffy and you may or may not be able to answer it is that we had a couple of cases similar to this come before us, and i have been a commissioner and so if you repair one side of the foundation, and what happens to the other side of the

foundation? >> well, and... >> and it may be a question for the engineers to answer, especially if it is one is 20 and they need to be at that and that means that the other side is... >> yeah. >> that is right >> the section, 3307 and the code and then there is 32 in the civil code and it talks about, and when you excavate below someone's foundation that you have to do in my experience, i have seen, they have to bring that foundation, and then down to the bottom of that foundation and a lot of times who pays for that and that is not very, and that starts to get into who is responsible? but, and in answer to your question, the, i think that they had one a few months ago and there was the impact of holding a brand new foundation in one property and not taking care of the other one could cause on the engineers need to speak to this and the tilting theory that you are putting a load on something and it is going to effect the building and i think that we had it a few months ago. >> thank you, i will ask the

engineers, thank you. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> anything? >> no. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> seeing none, then we will take rebuttal, starting with the appellant. >> unfortunately i have been able to finish my report here, but there are some portion by mr. duffy here, and we recently met with the structural engineer of 3032 jackson and they offered to resolve the foundation issue and in addition we had a job site meeting with them, including the general contractor of 3042 jackson street and we presented them with a time of 5 months. for the foundation, and we put it in the competition of the temporary shoring that we are

doing right now. and also, it inspected my clients general contractor to provide the shoring of the eastern portion of my client's property. and to protect it, and the building code, and occupants and my office has also prepared the shoring plans for time of submital and the general contractor obtained the construction permit for the temporary shoring and this is on the rate. the proposed for distribution for my foundation which will require access from and locater of 3032 jackson street, and on the construction and some consideration. and which you will provide an opportunity for the foundation work at 3032 jackson site to proceed. after once the ground foundation is completed.

all of this work must be performed by having access from 3032 jackson street. if the construction work for 3032 jackson street proceeds, and then the current construction permit, and i would, and it will block access for all work required by this. and if the work is to be performed and in the access formed 3032 jackson street and it will impose significant hardship and declare the building, and placing the tenants from a filling of the occupant in the building, and i am sorry. and it is imperative, that the owner of 3032 jackson street, provide access to my clients and on the eastern property line to allow the construction team to replace the foundation along the property line of my clients's building, it is very

important. and otherwise it becomes impossible. >> board members, do you have any questions for me, i was able to hear mr. santos and i want to get direct and put my heart out and go directly to the problem. dot construction wanted to dictate how they are going to do it. collapse the foundation and hide it and wanted to dictate what was going to be done and we could not allow them, if you do it one time, how do we allow you to come back and repair the foundation and replace it, we have already showed us what is capable of happening. >> i have a question of i heard the engineer state that you need access to do the work on your own foundation. right? >> yes. >> and i heard, mr. santos say that access would be given. >> no. he is saying that they would not... the reason why we are here is because of the e-mail the last contact that we had which is why i filed the appeal

was the time frame of 20 weeks for the construction will be a hard sell to the client and they were saying that the owner was not going to go for it. >> and i must be misunderstanding then, i heard or did i hear you wrong? >> yes, >> before you do, we had a plan. >> gave it to them, 20 weeks. >> and then they told us that they don't thifrpg that they can sell that to the owner. >> the proposal was provided because i also heard mr. santos saying that no proposal was submitted >> it was and they want it propose a plan but didn't think that the 20 weeks. >> rejected out of hand. >> i don't think that the owner was going to allow us 20 weeks because they were going to start work again. >> okay. >> finish? >> yes, go ahead and i see the two letters from the structural engineer and, have you done a design for fixing your foundation. >> we all agreed, what we were going to do.

>> have you done this design? >> no. it is not complete the design yet. >> and so, they are replacement, foundation design at this point? >> we don't have the completed design yet, no. >> and okay, so the recommendations in here, are there are some remedial issues there, but there is no design for your foundation at this point. >> well, yes, we do have a design but it has not been permitted yet. >> yeah, what is your design? >> our design, exactly, on the opinion, and procedure that must have been done at the very beginning of the project. and that means, building a concrete beam to support the building and support the concrete beam on a concrete pier, and then using the back on to the top to anchor th