>> 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 the concrete piers >> i heard that in your report. >> could you provide those drawings to the permit holders? >> yeah. >> they have it. >>vy it here. >> no you have it? >> yes, i have it. >> you have not provided it to the permit holder. >> no, and you have been

reading it as a structural engineer's office. and you have presumed of the drawing and shown what we plan to do. >> you presented it to them. >> yes. >> yes. i did. >> and thanks. >> i am happy to show you to you right here. >> that is okay for now. >> when did you do that presentation? when was that meeting? >> after the appeal was filed? >> no. it was about three weeks ago, i think. >> three weeks ago? >> yeah. >> okay. >> it was far before that. >> okay, thanks. >> but we had a meeting and we discuss what our plan is to fix the foundation. >> got it. >> okay, we can take the rebuttal from the permit holder. >> structural engineer, you heard the consultant and they don't have a drawing. and i have not seen it. we met four months ago and give me your proposals and i will

review it immediately, they don't have a drawing. when we met they had a cross section of what is typically done. i mean typically to an, engineer for the last 27 years, i want a drawing and when we met, i made him an offer that i felt that they could not refuse. and tell you what that was. >> we will do the hand out pits and, we will extend and beyond our property line. and hence, provided in a continuous concrete foundation, for the entire length of their building. not the concrete beam, and hand belt pits suggested by them, but the cadillac version and an entire new foundation, all the way through. and how can we do that? because we are doing it from our side. we are digging four and a half feet, and we will just have to dig an additional 18 inches and

they have a brand new wall and we can do it at the same time. and they like it. i said wow, that is genius. who will do the work? we don't trust your builder. he will mess tup. your opinion. why don't you do it? >> and that was the offer. and then, they through the permit. they have to be nice and wait 20 weeks, and eventually see the drawings that they have created and that they finally have it in the briefcase. how long should we wait?

we could have had both foundations done, i have not seen the drawing commissioners, my drawings have been submitted, to dbi and they will be check and rechecked and through the engineers. and i brought another source of an, engineer, and unfortunately i will share that time because i am excited about it. we want to get back to work. not to punish them. but to proceed with our valid permits. and allow us to continue. i am not closing the door in communicating with the neighbor. that is becoming increasingly harder for me to be able to convince my client to wait indefinitely, thank you flt >> thank you.

>> mr. santos, i just want to confirm that the meeting that occurred several weeks ago, the other engineer, and indicated that he had a design and he presented it. you are saying that he did not? >> we did not, he had a sketch of a typical under pinning situation, that is that concrete pier and a back, there was no drawings or drawings or plans or details , calculations not just a sketch. >> that was my question. >> do you have any rebuttal from the department from mr. duffy? >> no? >> okay. >> well, mr. duffy, let me ask you the same question, that i just asked to see just exactly how far the negotiations have gotten, all right? >> and were there any designs shown at that meeting for the

appellant foundation? >> there, i think that there are some meetings that there was no one from dbi and there was a meeting out there and at that time there was no, there was no design from any side, and subsequently 3032, and went ahead and got their design done and got their permit that and is peeled and i think that the meeting that they are referencing happened at the engineer's office and not then, we would not have been present at that time. >> okay. and i would say one thing, you know, in san francisco, we deal with these under pinning permits a lot. because of the lot lands and the excavations they are normally, and what happened in this case was that we obviously had the collapse and that started the mistrust and the doubts, and if this was done right, and this could have been addressed early on in the process and they could have done, a section of 3034, and a 3032 at the same time just as mr. santos said and i am not opposed to that idea but the problem here is the big word

trust, no one trusts anybody on how to do it and who is going to do it properly, but the way that mr. santos is right, and you could do that with these holes and like with these pits, ex-vaited down and what is to stop them from going 18 inches, and how to coordinate that, if they want a contractor on 3040 and a different on 3032, that is difficult but not impossible, that is where the effort is falling short it is a new foundation on both sides and that is what it is getting and i think that is my fears got answered any way they are going to get down to the same depth and the code does speak to allowing access to your land for 30 days and stuff like that in section 8, 32 and so there is a civil code there in place and we have it in the building code for that, and exactly this type of scenario, except that we saw that the building, foundation collapse and that is what, what started, that is not

being done properly. >> it started right and they want to get it done right, and i hope that they do. >> i have two further questions, you have been in construction, and how long will it take to do a new foundation for the appellants? >> on that one wall? >> yeah. >> if everything, went well, i would maybe i am wrong, i have worked in construction a long time, 4 to 6 weeks would be a reasonable time, you know? you got a lot done if you get into your... and it all, i have to hand dig it is going to be a bit slower, but six weeks i would not be far away, i would imagine. >> and if access is not provided from the permit holder's side that means that they will have to go through all of the floor structures of the existing building to be able to put in a new foundation. >> you are exactly right and that would be a nightmare i

would say. >> okay. >> there is not a lot of head room. >> they are both big buildings by the way, they are not just small, they are big buildings and you know, big apartment buildings. >> this is purely a side and not dealing with this case, if a property has or is missing part of its foundation, would they get an nov from you. >> no. >> you gave an nov to the side that created. both sides. >> we have given it to the people who had their on the second notice of violation, because they have not got the permit and so they are now in code enforcement. we are trying to hurry this up. we have cited both sides i had to. i did not read out the other violation, it was due to the excavation of 3032 jackson, your portion of your foundation collapsed and we have to do the same thing as we asked 3032 jackson. >> so there are two novs on

properties and both sent up to the code enforcement. if they don't take care of it, we will go ahead with the hearing and we have to, we have a non-compliance situation, just because people can't get along, next thing that you get an order of abatement and that goes on the title and then the loan companies if there is a loan on it, they get... so it is better for them to hurry up. >> but the issue in front of us is a code compliance permit that your department has issued, and you vetted it and you have issued. >> yes. >> but we would like to see the other permit in place. i don't know how we will, and that is a challenge, you know? and it has not ended up in court yet and maybe that is where you get injunctions on these things and to stop it but there is a code compliance, and permit in place, and if we did let them work, and they went ahead and did their site, it would probably be a terrible

shame, that that this other work that we are talking about could get done quite simply, and so i don't know, okay. >> okay, thank you. >> commissioner, the matter is submitted. >> okay, commissioners my concern is there is no meeting of the mind and there is no communication. and which is fine, but there is tenants involved here that are in a building that does not have a foundation. i don't understand why it is taking this long for the appellants to come up with a plan when the permit holders have given clear and present plans. and during this whole process the tenants are at risk. so, i mean, i am inclined to deny the appeal. >> deny the appeal.

>> yeah. >> and so, hopefully at this point, their communication will be swifter because there are people's safety involved here and to not have a plan after how many weeks when people are literally hanging in the air is unacceptable to me. >> and i am not sure that we have too many options here. >> yeah. >> i would concur. do we have a motion? >> so, i will make a motion to deny the appeal, but could we, i mean, any thoughts on, from the commissioners of how we maybe can condition it so that they have some conversation? >> is there a way? >> i don't think so. >> i was think about the same thing. >> or maybe we can... you can continue. >> you can continue and have them... >> or a very. >> suspended in the air. >> i mean that is the problem, with a continuance, right? >> yeah. >> and i am not sure that is going to get it. >> that is my concern, they had a lot of time. >> okay.

>> so i will, i will make a motion to deny the appeal, on the merits that the permits were issued by the city departments >> we have a suggestion mr, duffy. >> okay. if you don't mind, commissioner, i am probably more involved than i am in this one and trying to hopefully help them resolve it and there are certain areas of that building that don't impact 3040 jackson on the east property line, that the code work, but the problem is if it is under appeal i don't know if you guys can have them work on not work on the impact it had side and not go on the other sides. and we have been working very closely with miss goldstein on letting them and we did let them pour some parts of that and if it got continued and there was a request to let them work on the other parts for the safety issues to get the

building supported onthies you to give them more time to get the property line in dispute. and resolved. but i don't, and i am not sure how that will work. >> that only works if you issued an emergency order. >> we didn't do it on an emergency order, we have been working closely with the board on certain conditions and these permits that are under the payment suspended where we feel that we want to let the work go for the safety of the building, if it is the safety issue, it is, you know, so, there are >> is that the best that we can do at this point, if we can't put in that kind of a condition, right? >> but i would be clear that i don't want anything happening at the foundation that is adjacent to 3040 jackson street and that might help to move things along and it might help to slow it down, i mean, these guys and maybe you might want to get check with both parties on that. >> we have one more case before us, correct >> why don't they meet in the

hallway, while we can hear that case first. >> i mean is there a possibility that you guys could have some conversation in the hallway? because we are going to make a decision. >> okay. >> please come. >> we asked that we be allowed to do what we asked to do several weeks before the appeal and let us replace the foundation from your side and it will take 20 weeks. >> there is no plan and no nothing, that is not what we are talking about. >> the plan that was presentsed to them was presented. >> stop. >> the question to you is if we give you an additional 15 to 20 minutes, do you think that you can hash it out. >> i doubt it. >> i don't think so. >> i will do my best. >> i say that we give it a shot. >> okay. >> i am comfortable with that. >> i will do my best. >> please, there are tenants involved here. >> if you could just take it out in the hallway and try to resolve it, you have a window

here, to make that effort. so we are going to hold this case, for a short period of time while we call the next item. so i would recommend the parties to item 7, go into the hallway, and talk to each other while we call item 8, appeal number 1 3-142. agreeing blednkh and maria mazzie verses the department of building inspection, the property is at 181 edge hill way. protesting issuance on october 23, 2013 to steven fujii of alteration permit drainage of property at rear, revision to two other building permits and this is on for hearing today. we will start with the

appellant agent. >> good evening commissioners, before i start, i want to make sure that i get this out there. i want to thank the building department for their active role in investigation of this issue. if it was not for joe duffy or senior inspector kern we would have had a bad situation, so they have helped to get us to this point which is really important. and this case starts and i believe one of the commissioners what is here a decade ago, regards a project where 1997, the project sponsor same owner decided to do a project with this house and gets the permit and he grocery exceeds the scope of the work, to give you an idea that this is the project right here. and this is here and my client lives below an incredible steep

section of edge hill drive and it is famous, for the land slide, and the project sponsor wanted to build a garage here, and recently the project sponsor decided to do some irrigation work and so if you look at a site map this might help a little bit. this is their house, and this is the this is my client's house, and this is 1997, there was permit to do the remodel and the board revoked the permit because it was a violation of the planning code and it violated the land sider edge hill mountain protection

act, the board also required required them to get a committee report no one was complied with this to provide the parking because they tore the garage down and the board caught them on that issue and now in 2001, two mer mitts happened, a permit to remodel a house that moved forward great and in agreement between my clients who are here who have to live below this disaster, and the project sponsor, to build a detached garage, and in compliance with the planning code and they will speak to themselves on this and that garage is right there and the retaining wall that is the subject of this hearing tonight, is directly on top of it. and so they mesh together. and they are one in the same you can't take them apart, and

deal with this the way that it is currently being envisioned. and so there was an agreement, where my client agreed with the owner, and it was done ten years ago to enter into an agreement and a variance was issued ten years ago to build a one car garage and then years of silence and starting last year it started again, we have 26 building permits for a house. and here is the start, so, this year in june a building permit was filed and a one dollar permit to renew a permit that renewed the 97 permit that you guys revoked and this permit was filed by majestic and the building department before we had any involvement properly caught it and said, wait a second here, you are renewing a revoked permit, you can't do

that, the board revoked a permit and they revoked it the project sponsor also pulls a permit to renew drainage, a one dollar permit. and which is one dollar permit he proceeds to dig 15, 20 yards of dirt out on a hillside this deep in a known land slide zone the project gets ahead of him and he rushes into the building department and says oh, my god i destabilized the hillside and you need to give me an emergency permit and they did the only thing necessary that they had to give them a building permit and the client found out about it and we got involved within one week we had meetings with them, and we said, great, if you want to do a tie back design, fine, do a tie back design and be aware that you are going to put the tie backs under these 100 foot tall pines and if you destabilize the trees they are going to wipe out our house because we are in the fall zone

and they immediately revised the design and come up with a new design. during this period we say start digging and get ahead of the winter and they start digging and we mention to them, why don't you protect the hill because if it rains it is going to wipe out our house, what is interesting is that in your package they did not give you all of the drawings, they only gave you one sheet and there are two sheets and they have filed a revision permit to change the design that we are okay with this and we have a fundamental problem though. is the project sponsor does not want to comply with the rules. and the building department is said as soon as you get the three pits in, and there are five, you are stopping the job and we are going to send you to a structural advisory committee and we want to make sure that what you have done is not destabilize the hill and secondly, there is a garage permit from 16 years ago that does not exist. and either, react ate the

variance or get a variance that you do not need parking and the last thing that we want is the committee looking at pieces of the hill, if you want to build a garage, great, but you have to integrate the garage foundation with the retaining wall foundation and you are stuck with the retaining wall we don't like it and we are below it but you got to put it in so let them put it in and we asked the board to take the jurisdiction and continue the case to april and the building department will let them put in a portion of the wall enough to stabilize the hill so that we can get through the winter and pour a section of walt and the planning department is going to step in and let them speak for themselves about dealing with the garage and have you guys force them to coordinate the garage issue with planning, the building, and the hill issue with the building department and the structural advisor committee with a contractor

that just does not want to follow the rules that pulling permits when they say that there is no work and so we asked the board to help out and get in front of this and get it straight. thank you. >> we can hear from the mer permit holder. >> good evening. my name is brent sxh i am the contractor. i inherited this project december of 2012. from a client that i asked to sort out the amount of building permits that were taken out for a period of ten years. and so on december of 2012, the

dbi and i sat down, and we went through all of the building permits. of 26, permits which were plumbing electrical and it took many scopes of work and we came up with 8 permits. and out of those 8 permits, i am the one who mistakingly took one permit because one permit was based on the administrative view. and that is where the dollar came in and actually, the drainage and the irrigation was not the case. it was drainage. and excavation, and that portion was never completed from 2000 from the time that it took out the permit to the

present. and so, in june of this year, because of my issues, the a group, of guys went and dug out or take a portion of the area which is not on the drawings, the drawings of the actual drainage permits which was designed and approved starting with 2001, 2003, 5 permits up to 2009 frp taken out to install this particular drainage and excavation, and as i said it was completed. and so, actually, and the reference. >> yeah. >> okay. this is the property, yes, and he owns two lots, and but the property in question, and the

area in question, is this parcel right here. and this parcel, is the pulling apart, or the part that will eventually have a single car garage, 18 feet wide attached directly to the house which is not quite the way that i do not have the other drawing that the appellant shown but any way, it is not quite the size and the changes were made. and i was trying to dig out the architect who designed this change, and he lives in vegas and so he was not very helpful for me when i was doing the research on these documents and then the one that approved and the civil engineer that would try at home and stamp the drawing for an open design of drainage, throughout the

property. and this is three feet wide and that is what they wanted to have, and in this parcel. and right here, along the fence line, zig sagging across the open 7,000 feet area all the way down and going into an existing sewer. and now, the drawings, that patrick had, they did not know that. and but i am showing you now. but these were the original drawings, for the purpose of the drainage and to be excavated. and we the guys, we started on this side, yes. and we dug exposed a 3 foot beam, 35 foot long and five foot wide area as the photograph shows. and now, that is the area that was exposed.

and when that happened, i did not run to the building department, i called a soil engineer and a called a structural engineer, and asked them to help me establish a guideline and establish what needs to be done and they came up to the design that i then took to the building department and i, that is at that time, the building department, because of the initial one of five building permits which were originals, and assessed to this drainage, design, and i went to the building department and said, do i need to have the same drawings that you have here revised and the building department said, no, you need to have all new drawings. 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 ar