feet long and immediately driveways to the adjacent properties. i don't know what the condition of the utilities in the street that has underground facilities. so i don't know how p that works and i don't know if two trees in that short piece of property can create more have a problem as they grow together >> i'm sorry to interrupt you are have two flowering cherries and they're doing well. >> how old are he. >> 11 years i planted the forestry. >> you know a big tree is not as much concern as a tree had that

is thick. and trimming that 20 to thirty percent you can't open it up >> but do i understand what we're considering the removal of the tree that you're willing considering putting two trees. >> i'm willing if it fits i don't have any objection. >> before you sit down. when did you occur the property >> it was owned by my cousin i've had it about since 2006. >> 2006? so seven years >> yeah. six or seven. >> okay. thank you. >> well, i've moved to continue

this if ms. short is willing to work with the appellant to see if we can craft some kind of a compromise is that okay. how much time do we need. from public works. we can do it we're launching the forest plan next week >> the 29. >> 29 it should be fine. >> is that okay with you mr. mcclellan. >> (inaudible). >> can you come up to the microphone mr. mcclellan? thank you >> i have a conflict but i can it looks like i can make that

conflict workout. >> i'm going to move to continue - i'm sorry. >> you can sit down. i really like that tree. it's a visual and i haven't been up close to see it and it's impact directly on your home but it's hard to think about having it cut down or removed after all those years. i also ask the question about the appellants longevity in the home and it's probably been 8 years and the time of issuing has been this way longer than you. while i understand the impact in terms of it's visual but just hard to consider bringing that thing down.

it's really kind of an amazing life form. so for those reasons i'm not necessarily inclined to consider it in exchange it's feasibility but those are my feelings right now >> i kind of feel the same way but i'm 0 open to hear alternatives. well, let's give it one shot. i'm going to move to continue this until january 29th >> we have a motion from communicating to continue this matter until january 29th.

commissioner fung >> i. commissioner hurtado. commissioner honda >> thank you. the vote is 5 to zero this matter is continued until january 29th. >> we're going to call 7 a and b interest the subject property on 19th avenue. the requester asked we take jurisdiction over the matter which of the issued on june 21st, 2013. the appeal period end and the jurisdiction request was filed on july 11th. the permit holder is here and the project is to complete work completed under a permit.

to erect a single-family dwelling. and the next is for the building inspection on 19th avenue protesting the ordinance on july 13th to obtain the final construction under the ordinance. seeing all work is completed and 8 b is filed by affordable housing have the same property address protesting the ordinance of an alteration permit and to change the foundation design tomato foundation. this is a vision to application permit in 2013. and with all 3 matters being

heard at the same time the requester and her agent have 17 minutes to present >> so before you commence our statement i want to get clarification from our director for everybody's benefit. item 7 is a jurisdiction request for a permit that is being considered in 8 one of the two >> in 8 b. >> that's right. >> so it's a jurisdiction ending in the number zero 86 and item 8 b is an appeal of the building permit that's a revision that ends in '86. >> maybe we can get clarification but that means that the jurisdiction request is going back to the original permit that's up on appeal as a

revision permit has it moved. >> well, that permit is under the appeal. >> not that one but the original. >> yeah. there's a request to revise it but it's being appealed. >> yes. by the requester. >> but it's been revised doesn't that move the original. >> well, if you decide to deny that permit under 8 b then the jurisdiction request would l will be at issue. >> maybe we should hear 8 b. >> you should be aware that construction has been done on that permit. >> if you like we can ask the departments to clarify.

>> yeah. if everyone is okay with that that's most helpful. mr. duffey >> good evening, commissioners joe duffey. to answer your question the main permit it's only a change to the foundation debate for the building so you'll still have our building direct e direct the 3 story building >> that's the subject of the jurisdiction request. the main permit is the jurisdiction request and the 4 o'clock is the subject of the 8 b >> right. >> the jurisdiction request is for the main building for the permit ending in 1301 to build the building. >> i'm sorry one more question. so the jurisdiction request permit is a boarder permit than the 8 b

>> yes. yes. >> okay. that's helpful. >> please explain and summarize what is remaining on it permit that hadn't been done. >> on the main building permit the work hadn't been started. >> oh, okay. >> they called for some early inspections site verifications which isn't the construction on the terms on the code they actually renewed the permit bans the economy. >> the vacant lot. >> so they had the building cleared and something happened with the economy theirs different reasons. >> can i suggest we hear the

jurisdiction request first then. >> instead of hearing them all at the same time. >> they're separate issues in my mind; right? whether we grant the question is separate >> we don't grant it then we only hear about the revision on 8 b and not the building. >> okay. >> i'm okay with that. >> i'm not sure you're going to be able to separate the jurisdiction. >> simply what the basis for the detail is. >> that's what i'm interested in knowing. >> but if we hear the merits. >> you're going to hear it anyway. >> we'll see that. >> so the decision is then to

hear the jurisdiction request separately. >> no let's see what's presented hopefully, i'll get the answer i need. >> are we're ready to begin with the hearing on all 3 matters if you could return to the microphone, please. thank you >> good evening. i'm overview have a taing. i own and live at 2512, 19th avenue. i'm a single mom raised two sons there are. that's not only my home but the place i work i'm a piano teacher and my studio is there. i'm not opposing the construction of the 3 story residents on 19th avenue. all i want to be sure is the construction joining in the design so this 7, 8, 9 my house

mr. not be damaged again. since 2005 it was nightmare for me when mr. you started construction in the lots to the north side of my house. he exposed and undermined the north foundation of the footing of my house. the sentiments and cracks in the garages and gas leaks were all development in the house. this resulted in the department of building inspections issuing 3 notices of violation may 3rd, 2005, and june 2005 along with 234ish9 abatement proceedings. the footing was under pinned in july 2005. litigation was initiated and settlement and mitigation was

done. it was agreed that the gentleman would perpetrates his construction drawings before filing for building permits. the medium chemical grouting and patching and >> prayer by the chaplain. >> of the walls were performed. since 2005 i have spent concluding construction, professional and legal expense over 2 hundred thousand because of his wrongdoings. the 25 story 19th avenue lot was 1r5k9d until july 10, 2013, and july 10th i noticed mr. you started to put up a pole for pg&e to connect to the electric meter for construction.

i asked him did you get the permit he said, yes. so i came here to the department to file on appeal but i was too late. so that i went to mr. sweeney i didn't the head of the department then and he suggested to me to file the jurisdiction request. so all we want is for me and my engineer to be able to review the construction drawings so my house will not be damaged again. thank you >> hi, commissioners i'm eddy low i'm a technical engineer.

i'm going to present two cases one is 13 dash 094. i think that is a straightforward case. we are protesting that permit is issued in error. the permit was the intent to upgrade to finalize what was done under the old permit. but from my observation ever since the junior 2005 to help ms. hanging no work was done for that particular permit. so in a sense that permit was issued in error and i submitted it a while back in august. so i'm going to talk about appeal 13 dash 67. as you know i come before you on

behalf of overview have a tanning. i'm licensed in the state of california as a technical engineer. i have over 45 years of experience in practicing so so to technical engineering. i spent most of my professional career involved in work in san francisco. i support the appeal for the 1311051188. therefore i'm not going to repeat what was down, however, i'm prepared to answer any questions. let me respond to the rebuttal. i maybe overzealous in calling

the notice red tagged but as i recall it was touch and go to whether ms. top of could stay there her home in 2005. this was serious and it led to the then district supervisor shawn. several of the visits from the inspection namely raymond louie to name some. in the previous version of the construction drawings that i've reviewed in september 2013. i indicated the 24 inch would be measured to the bottom of the concrete foundation. let me see. i think i can - maybe i can work maybe i should

turn it around. okay. this is the line of the original foundation of the north foundation of 25 trouf and the bottom of the under pinning piece. we want to have the underpinning not to expose them. the agreement was to provide 25 inches to the bottom underpinning piece. the drawings show it's not 24 inch to the bottom of the foundation but 24 inch to the bottom of the drain route.

so i have been working with mr. yeez and his team. now, mr. you rained a new structural engineer the team was solomon to replace the fan who was the civil engineer on the project but he since then moved out of the area and declined to participate on the project no more. i filed on appeal on december 29th on behalf of the issuing of the permit 20131188 because we wanted to see that the appropriate revision could be done to protect ms. taungz property.

now allen of the mechanics engineer i asked the team to bring him on board so he can continue participation on the project so we can have a meeting of minds and come up with solution to protect ms. tannings foundation. i requested the meeting and that conversation but that meeting and conversation has never come through. now in my letter of december 19th i requested the permit be rescinded. however, i believe that a more positive way to move the project is for the board of appeals to continue the hearing hearing with the stipulating stipulation with the issues at hand obey

resolved by professionals on both sides. including due to the technical engineer. in addition in coloring i want to call your attention this permit was issued before we got to the requirements of submittal of the new building as stipulated in the new information sheet number s dash 05 issued by tom huey the department director on august 15th. now as of today we're not aware that a new update to the 2005 report was ever submitted for the permitting process. commissioner thank you for the opportunity for me to speak.

as director by ms. top of my assignment is to protect the integrity of her house and to prevent the construction on 29th avenue. i'm going to put this information sheet on the desk. i'm only presenting the first sheet. that document has 3 sheets. >> referred to the overhead. i don't hear is that a question >> i referred to the overhead no, no. maybe we should - >> yeah. that's the one -

yeah. >> is it on here. >> you want to have me read it out allowed to you. >> if you have time. >> i have item one new building with the exception of one story occupy 0cy this is referring to the technical report requirement. >> okay. >> this is my presentation if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> i'm going to put up my copy. i was the structural engineer that did the repair work at this

highway that was in serious condition they undermined the house by 2 feet and it's lucky known died. i remember playing on the plane in the 60s it was korean yet. the issue there's a 2 photo agreement. it's important to understand there's only one technical generally involved in any of this right now it's eddy. i'm a licensed engineer and they have a licensed structural engineer. we've met out there and marked it on our underpinning permit everyone's happy. the problem is their building a garage and their sidewalk is 7

inches below that the mat. they have not addressed that. if they make the mat at the top of the sidewalk i understand the board didn't want to get into those issues. this is the thirty foot evaluation. the code requires a geotechnical engineer whatever you build a building. they have a technical engineer in 2002 who's no longer involved. they're going under the foundation to a max foundation. page 2 of the same bulletin says when you going to a nonstandard design even when our not going

to a grading or using a special foundation or not compiling with the bearing. so here's the process you do the report and submit it where the drawings and they ask for the geotechnical engineer to write a closer report saying the drawings match my sole last report and then the permit issue. it's a completely different design they've submitted a permit here's the permit application and the only person involved is the structural engineer. that's you can't what i am i would not go practicing technical. if you look at this note right here it says the calculations by mr. southern california sullivan. i looked for a technical report

none exists so if they want to revise the design get a new sole last report and a closer report they're not comblooil that the contains. the solar report the structural engineer has to address and this is why they have to explain it. the same problem that happened 10 years ago. if the technical engineer complied with the code and they'll be working out how to work with the underpinning issues. we've schd asking them to submit a report or use the old report and submit a closure letter and

pretty much that g.e. will be calling up this g.e. and workout how to do the problems. let them build the building and comply with the code and the safety issue of her house will be okay. we're asking for a continuance >> we can hear from the permit holder now or his agent. >> good evening board members. i'm the actual the person who is helping the c e and how to best effect this. i want to say we met about 3 months ago all parties involved and the building inspection and

we were all in agreement that to mark on site the level in which the finish slab was going to be and that was going to satisfactory everyone. further we adding to procure a permit because the belief was the sign was not quite meeting that because mr. allowing had some concerns about the gravel thing. so we argued to do that unfortunately at that time, we didn't know that the original research jeer e engineer was not available and we r0i7b9d mr. solomon who amended the plans they were given to ms. leo and we started to process