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 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