so yes, we came up with all new drawings and, all new drags were, and there were two things. and this design, this design of the open drain, and this drain of v, and because of the three foot tie, we are making a four-foot high, retaining wall. and tied together and digging it inside, and at one point, the initial, were that we had ties in the soil. and when we had a job site meeting between the appellant and engineers, and the building inspecters and the appellants that you are damaging the trees, well these trees are on

the property, that belongs to my client. and so, at that point, the building department, and the inspector and i decided that we are going to call an arborist in to get a professional opinion in who came the next day and explained to us that the roots of the trees go uphill when the roots are setting in the slope, and the slope is 1.5 to 1. and it is steep but it is not, it is taken and we can walk down and we could say that it was stuck in the trees and he did say in a letter, in my belief to you that the area should be closed and used for the backfill and whatever is there should be having the same soil. okay? bottom line, is, in november we could have been when we started this and you know, we said, okay, we lost very precious time at this point, we could

have been done, and we have in conjunction with the building department and the engineers guidance and we dug three holes and we are done, and we are ready to pour and we still have this appeal which stops us to finish it. >> okay, your time is up. >> i am sorry, this is my first time. >> that is okay, sure. >> mr. duffy. >> mr. duffy before you start, yes. >> let me add a side bar, the briefs that were presented and the testing that was presented so far, i was still confused. >> i was going to say. >> and you know, that i read them enough times that i tell you, none of it is clear, >> no. >> and so i hope that you will

take that into consideration and explain it to us appropriately. >> you took the words out of my mouth and i am going to try to simplify it if i can and we have to work at dbi and the senior building inspector for the area and he would have been here for a while, but he is going to come here tonight to speak about it and we had several meetings and working closely in the last few weeks and we have also been in contact with the staying with the board about this case, and it is on that hillside, there is a process, and that needs to be take place, prior to the issuance of any permits or any work, i believe that some work started in the middle of the year. and the permit holder ended up with a building department and he needed to get an emergency permit and it was work that we wanted to get done before the rainy season and we wanted to go with that work and the permit got appealed and he was right to appeal the permit. he is concerned about it, and

the people living below and down at the bottom of the hill and had concerns about that. so, what i think actually simple enough that if we could i know that the building department wants this, and we are even with the three piers that they are working on as we speak and i think that i am going there tomorrow for an inspection and we want to get the pire.s done and the wall done and the backfilling done and then we are stopping all of the work and we are going to make them get through the proper review that this should have went through any way, and we are putting them back to the pier review because of the slope protection act. and so, that is if we sum and condition the permit, that all of these permits must go through a pier review that should satisfy both sides, i spoke to the permit holder and he is okay with it and i think that the issue is the parking

from the planning department and i believe that cory is going to speak about that. but, it is not any simpler han what you have heard before? >> but that could also be handled since it is an emergency order it could be handled by a continuance. >> if the building department and allow, certain types of emergency work. >> it could be handled by a continuance. >> yes, it could be, and i will tell you at that time, where we can report back with where we are with that and we could even start the pier review if that would be okay with the board on the suspended permit, we want to send that for a review. >> okay. >> sure. >> and i think that probably continuance is a good idea. >> okay. >> and cohen suggested april, i believe, is that? >> yeah. well, it is going to be, we are going to be finished or we, but the work that the phase of the work that we want done is going to be completed next week if not the following week. >> you would not need a

continuance that long. >> i don't know what the reason for that is. >> okay, we will hear more later. >> mr. duffy, how long will it take for the committee to review this? >> that is a good point, that could take a while and that could be a few months, i would need to go back to the building department for that and they will have to put a building committee together and that is by done by the building department and one of the managers in the and he is a structural engineer and he is going to put a committee together and review that, and so it might need some time. >> okay. >> and you know, to be honest, there was not a whole lot done for a number of years and a lot of these building permits that are issued are to close out permits, i believe for work that was done and if that work was done and these most of the permits that we are talking about the rest of this year, are good permits and they need to clean up the addition and they need to do that and they can keep and work on that and get those done and in my opinion if the work done and a one dollar permit does not permit you to do any work, it

is just an administrative permit that shows an expired permit. and they can work on that and we would be happy to work with them on that. >> thank you. >> mr. teague? >> good evening, commissioners cory for the planning department staff and just to go back to 1997, 2000 there was a permit in 97 and a board of appeals case in 2000 on that permit where the board of appeals did rule that the schedule of work had been exceeded and that part of that work was the removal of the one existing off street parking space and in the garage, which was removed, and without authorization, and it did require that parking space to be back for the project to meet the planning code which

resulted in a notice of special restrictions being recorded on the property. and in conjunction with a building permit to correct the violation, and which basically stated that for a period of a year, the project sponsor may obtain the off street parking through a nearby property. and in the meantime, they would file a permit to construct a new garage or otherwise provide the required off street parking space, which would require a variance, the project sponsor did that in 2000 and the building permit to construct the garage and a variance application was filed and the variance was approved and the building permit was approved, and issued, and however, and that was in 2000, and 2001, however, the building permit was canceled, and december in 2004, due to inactivity.

the client that work on that case is no longer with the department and it is unclear why exactly that permit was canceled and why no new permit was required or followed up on. and having said that, it is a clear that the conditions that nsr, and the original board decision have not been met. and the planning department will move forward on that as an enforcement action to ensure that the project sponsor regardless of the out come of this appeal will be required to either provide the required off street parking or get a variance to not provide that parking if they can justify that so to that end, the department is mutual to the issue of this appeal and whether it is continued or not continued. and we will deal with this situation, again, as an enforcement of the original, decision, and the original nsr that was recorded on the property that has not been met. and with that, i can take any questions that you have. >> is there any public comment

on this item? >> please step forward. >> my name is nancy cokes and unfortunately i leave on the other side of mr. fujii's lot. and i never know what to expect when i get up. he has so many building permits and when i called the building department, they don't know which one he is working off of either. and when i called because they were trenching down the hill, four trenches, okay? going down that we are about three feet deep and that is like a 60-foot long lot and this is edge hill and we are not talking about dirt, we are talking about boulders, i watched his work people fall down the hill. and when they dug out the dirt

from behind maria's house they just threw it down the hill. now they try to repair it. by covering it up. and that is basically what they did. the man is just a menace and he is dangerous. thank you. >> sure. >> any other public comment? >> okay, and then we will take rebuttal from the appellant. >> >> let me make it clear that this is exactly what we want. we want tomorrow to pure the three pits and then do a structural advisement committee to look at what they did at the wall and whatever they say in april, after it rains, they can finish the wall and in addition, there is a carport right here. and you see that they are going to build it, and if they are going to build it, they need foundation, and a structure advisory committee for that. and this foundation for the

garage and here is the wall that they are talking about overlaps. and so we asked the board to continue the case, with your jurisdiction so that in the next three or four months we can have a committee figure it and everything that we can do once and for all, they can work out with planning by parking or not once and for all and starting in the summer, next year, build whatever they want, with the structure and the committee blessing and be done with it. and we have to look below this and it has been a journey to get the project sponsor to agree to do a structure advisory committee. and their idea that this was a normal course, when the building permit issues and emergency permit, it is bad and so we just ask that the board take jurisdiction, and continue it to april with your authority and force the project sponsor to deal with the planning and the building department and the structure and advisory

committee so that these people have a safe house to live in and don't have to wake up every moerk *f morning and say what is in world is happening above us. >> any rebuttal in the permit holder? >> i have no issues with what did the dbi discusses i don't see anything wrong with it, at the time that i inherited this, i was not aware of issues with the, or of the structure advisory committee at that time. and none of the earlier permits, that i have had a notification on it. and on the permit, that it was a slight area. and apparently it was, so ordered and in 2002, and then, i see that the permits were given on the drainage up to the

2003, 2005, and 2009 and so at leaves me a little confused if there is no area and so why did we get permits in the past? >> and now, we have this area, yes? and i am a menace that she referred to but i also recognize that there was a problem and i stopped and i got the proper people out there to resolve the issues. and therefore i am willing to work with dbi in every aspect that they decide, as far as the garage and the retaining wall, two sets of issues and two separate walls and two structures the rooms do not tie together. and there is a difference of area. and it does not take on the job site, thank you. >> thank you. >> anything further from the departments? >> no. okay. commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i gave the wrong... yeah. >> we have a rec menlded course of action. >> yeah, but i would like to

say a little bit of something. a lot of these are issues that the building department needs to address and take care of. and i'm not prepared in the future if this comes back, to take care of administrative aspects of the permit history. i think that the department needs to go through those things there and i am not going to condition our actions to take care of what somebody wants or not wants. okay? >> and we have a motion. >> okay. >> i move to continue this to... >> april, madam director? >> april ninth or 16th. >> we have the meeting. >> what would you recommend? >> there is nothing on the calendar at that time. >> so. >> april 9th. >> okay. >> okay, so if the continuance to april 9th, is to allow time

for the structure advisor committee to review the proposed work. and also, to allow the work that dbi believes is necessary to abait the emergency, >> and so i would rather state that it is to allow for dbi to formulate what emergency work needs to be done and what processes needs to be followed based upon their requirements. >> okay. >> i am not requiring them to go through the group. >> but you are beyond formulating what the emergency work is, that emergency work will proceed in this interim? >> that is correct. >> yeah. >> okay. >> okay. so perhaps then commissioner fung this will be to allow dbi to formulate and have the permit holder carry out what the emergency work that the dbi

seems necessary and what additional process is necessary. >> are necessary. >> to finalize the permit. >> yes. >> are necessary by the department. >> right, okay. >> on that motion, then, from commissioner fung, to continue this matter to april 9th, 2014. president hwang? >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you. >> the vote is 5-0, this matter is continued to april 9th. 2014. >> thank you. >> okay, so we are going to return then to item number 7 appeal number 13-141. and we have a representative from the appellant and... >> is there someone on behalf of the permit holder? >> thank you.

>> i would like to hear what happened in the hallways, please. >> we discussed it and we talked about the 20 weeks that we need, to replace the foundation, there is no way that this can be done in four to six weeks, no way. and they don't want to allow us to be on the property. for 20 weeks, they think that is too long and we can't do that so we don't have an agreement out here. >> okay. >> thank you. >> back to our do you have anything to add, mr. santos. >> i am disappointed. one item that i would like to if i may, my understanding is that their insurance company has agreed to a 1.8 million dollar payment to replace the foundation. that covers the tenants at the fair month for a while. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> so back to our original motion. so we are going to deny the appeal.

>> yes. >> on the basis that the city departments issue the permits correctly? >> yes. >> okay. >> and i am afraid that all that we can do. >> yeah. >> and we tried. >> okay. >> we have a motion then from commissioner honda, and again, this is appeal 13-141 item 8. and to deny the appeal and up hold the permit. on the basis that this permit was issued correctly. >> on that motion, commissioner fung? >> aye. >> president hwang >> aye. >> commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> and vice president lazarus. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 5-0, and this permit is upheld on that basis. >> okay, with no further business, the meeting is adjourned.

>> we are on item a, we will be voting on the regular minutes may i have a motion and a second? >> moved, second. >> thank you. >> are there any corrections? >> seeing none, roll call, please on november 12th, 2013. >> miss wade. >> yes. >> mr. logan. >> yes. >> miss