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 the permit

and the 24 inch on the cross section that was similar to what mr. allowing submitted. we went ahead and put in the permit that's in question. furthermore, i want to rebut the claims that no engineer has been involved. i have a letterly will i october 29th that he states the performance has been submit >> - can we refer to the overhead? yes, please >> anyway, i think we are

beating a dead horse. we're more than willing to comply with that without having to go through this whole extensive measures. one before we put concrete their more than welcome the original engineer has to review the placement of the foundation. we told them we're more than willing to participate with that. and we are more than glad to work with them with that stipulation but reassigning the foundation it's going to delay the project another two or three months which i thought the

meeting we had was to quote that process. everyone came out of the meeting the appellant and ourselves we are trying to economy. we're in absolute compliance with what they require the 24 inches requirement >> i have a question - go ahead. >> before i sit down there's some questions. >> questions for you. i have a question for you >> yes. >> is this the same ownership that was done prior. >> same owner. >> okay. >> it was state by the appellants that part of the agreement that you provide them with the construction permits have you done that. >> correct and as i mention mr.

leo met with us - >> no, no, no the construction set of drawings did you provide them that. >> no, no we have not done that yet. we again get a chance because it of appealed before that >> okay. mr. duffey. >> commissioners just i thought we were doing the jurisdiction request but he everything got rolled going into one. i suppose from a building point of view issuing the permits for accident renewal y where work hadn't started or they stopped

the project there's nothing wrong with that permit so i'm not sure what the appellants is trying to get with that. that would stop the building of the building, of course, if it was taken under appeal there's a chance of that. so from the building department we didn't do anything wrong we rue renew permits everyday. so one thing about this promise is i do notice that i was there i gave up a morning to go out there and everyone was getting along and they were shaking hands i left 83 and then saw the appeals. it's a simple matter of figuring out this report and the depth of the foundation that's what we

need to figure out. i noticed on the permit to revise the foundation to change the foundation on design not foundation that the d b i engineer has special excavation i think that has to be done by a geotech they need to have one on board. and if there was required i don't know the answer to that question i have to go babe to structural inspection. i imagine there was one on the building in 2002 because that's definitely a requirement. i didn't look for it but if there's a new one for the foundation to be changed it was brought up i don't know that's what he says he's in there a lot but that would be something i'd

have to speak with the engineers about. from where we are i authenticity everybody was getting along. there was issues six or seven years ago. the people at the 25 we actually have permits before they start to build close those out and fix the mistakes. i can work with them on that. that's it for me. if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them >> mr. duffey a couple of questions. there was a time when a site

specific slow last report was not done if there was a report done within a reasonable distance that provided a profile; is that correct >> yes. >> did you e but you don't know if the report was done. >> i assume it was done on the original permit i can't imagine that there's not one. i know size reports if you didn't if someone had one as i said and next year i could ice that report so the department would have looked for that in 2002 but i can't say whether there was a report but i imagine our structural engineers a plan site would have required one >> is this case related to the

5 to 7 inches of concrete and the other is procedural. >> that's what i think it is to do without the 24 inches. >> they spend more on the hearings than the cost of concrete. >> i thought they were getting along and the foundation if they match you have to bring it down to your foundation and if you're going to build our new building you have to there pin it but it's one i haven't seen before. >> it's a little bit confusing. the geotech from the appellant

mentioned there's a 7 inch difference between and how does that get justified. since this is a pretty old permit during the revision and you mentioned something you're changing the foundation style to something that is a mat >> i see it occasionally because they want to get the building built the idea was between the design professionals they'll do a mat foundation that was part of the fiat e meeting. indian is this is what the permit does. so in order to have it piloted i think it has to do with what commissioner fung presented they're talking about the 24

inches it maybe 5 inches not 7 >> and again, i forgot my last question. this lot was part of the corner house loot wasn't it >> yes. i don't know. >> it was part of the 25 lot. >> because there were a big dispute regarding that. okay. thank you >> thank you. thank you, joe >> mr. sanchez has indicated he's not unless you have questions we'll took any public comment? okay. seeing none mr. allowing you have rebuttal >> may i have 2 minutes. >> yes. >> thank you. >> wait.

>> try to go ahead with that. >> okay. i think we've talked about this case before. the restaurants on union street. last enclosure.

>> sorry. okay. commissioner i want to make it - >> how much rebuttal time. >> 6 minutes. i want to say the easy ones first, the first one 13094. mr. duffey said he saw or somebody inspections saw the underpinning it was done, however, it was not done under the old permit that was approved by the joint. that effort was total failure and the underpinning as shown on

the perimeter of 2508 on 19th street was under designed by engineers. if you read my information you would cover those 3 permits. it's a simple thing the permit was issued in error. the work was never done. now getting back to what the gentleman testimony. he said we met before he filed the permit that's correct we met on november 27th in the lobby of 1660 mission street. at that time, he agreed to show 24 inches between the bottom of the foundations to the bottom of the underpinning peers but right

now if you go to the department and ask to see the permit as set the permit is set at the 18 inches. now i couldn't make copy because i have no right to that set of drawings. if you go i did i look at the permit drawings before i told mr. tanning and then she end up fighting the appeal permit. so he's not telling the truth. 18 inches on the drawings was handwritten in and not signed by tim o'sullivan. i want you to recognize that. thank you >> i want to clarify something else. when we met we talked about the

24 inch from the bottom of the mat foundation to the bottom of our footing and the thickness of the slab would have to be adjusted. they're not proposing a thick mat slab which is going to be six or seven inches above the street because i don't know cars that go over 7 inch slab. i don't want to be at this hearing i suggested if you have an engineer let's talk to them tonight is the first time i've heard they have an engineer. they were he supposed to submit a closure letter saying they've reviewed the design. there's nothing on the application saying they've done that. so if they've done that i don't

know why we're asked to meet here. they don't want to communicate with us for some reason. the last time they dug out there someone spent a quarter of a million dollars. they don't have a letter. they need to submit this as part of the permit it's a public document and we would like to talk to the engineer they've figured a way to drive over a 6 inch step but they can't change the drawing if they've got a drawing we'd love to see it. eddy is correct you can't make copies of the microfilm. we'll e people need to be submitting the 0 plan so

everyone gets to see what's submit. they need to go along with the plan. the attachment would have been on the second floor when i went down and checked this morning. they zoo don't have the record for a completely different type of foundation. the soil is incredibly lose dune standing sand. we're asking for a continuance and hopefully, they'll talk to us and figure out a way to give us the 24 inches they agreed with. >> gentleman if i be, look at this letter i want it back tonight. mr. duffey anything further.

i'm sorry. i'll hear from the permit holder next. we're ready for your rebuttal. 6 minutes >> i know things might have been done but again we're discussing the same privilege they want 24 inches from the bottom we're willing to give that to them. in those plans they were submitted to disallow before that meeting at the building department. before we submitted we called them again and said fine. we met that day it showed 24 inches. fine we'll label the section this is the copy of the approved plans that specifically show the 24 inches from the bottom of

they're under pinning. i showed them back to a him and he agreed. he didn't say anything he look at it and we preceded with our application and the next thing we heard was an appeal. so again, i have to grant to them that we've been trying to - they have not happened the way they should have one hundred percent on their part. the meat of the problem is the 24 inches. we don't want to see this drug on another 3 months. now the fact that this foundation for the type of soils i'm not a sole loose engineer but the opinions that mines

before you have a standard foundation which was a little bit deeper so you're spreading the forces of the building on specific areas. n this map foundation and my engineer can correct me if i am wrong. this provides a more steadier foundation and if you want to require a new report it would be point less but the map foundation spreads the weight more evenly on that soil. 24 is better defined than the previous one. thank you. and here's the previous plans >> you want to show us on the overhead?

just the relevant portion >> bring it down. >> excuse me. but you've presented to the commission? >> ho >> hold it this way. >> got it? yeah, so we're looking at this wall section number 3 for the cross section occurs. this 24 was put in there by myself with the authorization of tim sullivan. after i marked it i shimmed does this satisfy our concerns we're

building less than 24 inches he didn't make any comments so i don't know if he agreed or disagreed. so the next thing we heard is an appeal >> have those approved. >> yes. >> so were they restamped again. >> we hadn't started the permitting process yet we met with the gentleman to make sure he was okay with the information as shown on there. he then at that moment pointed out it wasn't clear so i asked if i add those dimensions would that satisfy and he said, yes. and i showed it to him and like i said he didn't express any way

mr. whether in agreement or not. we went upstairs and got the plans approved >> okay. thank you. unless someone asks you a question. we're ready for mr. duffey >> sorry commissioners. when you start off with a jurisdiction request i think we're jumping from the third and back i take it confusing i'll try my best as well. i want to say one of the comments he wants the permit resented for appeal number 8 a which was permit application

2017167. that's a permit to obtain a final spriks for the application which is for the underpinning protection for soil. they said the work was bun done and never got to signed off and now they're saying they're going to get it finished. and there's outstanding plans. it was part of the plan for the underpinning occurred whether it was at the rear of the site or on the south property line or north property line it needs to get closed out. i'm assuming the work got done but i wouldn't want the permit

rescinded so for that one i'm not sure maybe the permit holder can speak to that and answer was the work done and he needs to get it signed off in 2014. and i'll available for questions on anything else. >> you said they're still outstanding the permits for 9508. >> in 2005 because the site got excavate. not only 2512 there was one - there were 3 properties involved. that's why they needed underpinning permits. those are the permits that were taken out around that time.

as far as 2512 their work was done that's not a problem but this is one of the permits open this site there was some underpinning protection for soil excavation that was done i assume to mitigate the problem and it's cleaning up old permits and that's good >> but the appellant has indicated they think the work was not completed. >> that's what they said. >> the permit holder says that's completed. >> we would go out to the site the appellant would schedule an inspection and we typically go

to the site the building inspector shows up and a wants to say see the permit for 2005 and wants to see what that was and make sure it's done. and that's what we sign off on the new renewal permits >> but based on the photographs that were provided shows the spray-painted rough = vacationed that were shown. this whole area has been back filed >> i'm not sure i think that area is a back filed it was for 2512 for the foundation under the appellants foundation. this permit we're talk about open this appeal number 8 a i'm not sure where on the site the

plans aren't here. i will tell you on those underpinning photographs sometimes something happens in between and we need to give them a permit right away but 134 that sometimes happens it's a permit that needs to get taken kevin >> that was permit 275. yes, it's 250179 accounting oath it's for soiles evaluation on 19th avenue. it's not one of the adjacent properties they must have had to do something for excavation and without the plans it's hard for

me to tell but it sounds like it is something that needs to be done >> yeah. this whole thing is not totally clear. based on what i know about the case the appellants case has been under pinned >> yes. in their opinion it has - i saw the permit it's closed out and completed. >> and the underpinning was done by the permit holder or is so. >> i believe so they agreed to have that happen i think i read that in one of the briefs. >> so if it needs to be i'm willing to spend time to meet them again, if we need to continue it or revolve it tonight. i think the