an issue throughout the city, where we have the trees that are on or near the property lines and how the private property owners deal with that situation, and it is generally, left to them to figure out, because we just don't have any guidance, or any controls in the planning code or the design guidelines. >> just a technical question, the three feet measurement, above natural grade, occurs through the top of the wall. >> yeah. >> in the rear wall? >> yes, to the roof line of the structure. >> the roof level or the rear wall? >> with the three feet above grade, it is kind of like we measure the height of the building and we measure it out of the roof line in terms of the height above grade. >> their section shows top of the wall is not the same elevation as the roof line. >> the top of the wall? >> it is higher than the. >> yeah. you mean, the, there is a fence. >> there is a fence. >> no, there is like a curb.

>> the configuration that they show in their section, >> okay. >> is that the exterior wall of the rear, the top of that wall, is higher than the main roof line. where the plan is located. >> let me take a look at that real quick. >> so this is the section and this is the roof line, measurement here, with the vegetation on top, are you referring to this portion, and i am not sure where you are referring to it being higher than the roof line?

>> you can see the edge and there is a little something there, and i don't know what it is, because this is a, a concept drawing, verses just a working drawing. >> sure. >> and then you see that the roof is also concrete and you can see at the edge that there is a little something that pops up? >> almost like a very miniature parapet. >> or a curb or something, and i don't know how they want to detail that. the water intrusion, is that measured to that point? >> or is it measured to the roof? >> the main roof? >> it should be measured to any roof portion of that structure, and so it should be to that point as well. we don't measure the vegetation, but it should be the top point of that structure.

commissioners the matter is submitted. >> i would like to hear from the permit holders, because i believe that they are here. >> he has given us a letter. >> and the one that you submitted and i have read that? >> thank you. >> we actually have a new letter from the arborist that was given to us this morning. >> in response to what? the appellant's comments? >> yes, it was just... >> how long i believe that my understanding commissioners is that if they built on one level, they can go

from property line to property line, only at the second level does not require these set back,; is that correct?? >> only 12 feet back. >> actually, i learned something new today, i never even heard of this. could i call my next addition a garage. except for the trees, i mean, i think that it is a very thoughtful design, for light and air for both the neighbors as well as themselves. the tree roots, if it is at the property line, are we saying

that the tree roots are going down and the arborist here from the permit holder is not here to give us any representation other than what is submitted. >> they are saying that the tree roots are going laterally, because the soils conditions would not have allowed the root to go downward. >> because of the rock. >> it is interesting and i concur, that this probably has a fairly minimal impact if you think about the issues that we normally hear at this board related to shadow, or a view or the blockage or things like that. and it... based on the issues

of the appellant i don't see any reasons to revoke the permit, i think that the they should continue to as they do their excavation, be carefully to be able to determine the root ball for the large cypres s, at this point i am not prepared to support the appeal. >> i, concur.

>> no one has come up here to talk about the law and i am sure that there is many of a dispute in the courts but that is not what is before us. that is the concern that i have here, but that may be resolved in another forum, to the extent that there is an issue, and a construction creates the issues. do we have a motion or the further comments? >> i will make the motion unless you would like to. >> i am willing to move that the appeal be denied and to up hold the permit on the basis

that the planning determination on height is accurate and balanced of the issues that were raised are against a co-compliant structure. 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