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 main comment is that the appellant didn't have a problem with the structure they need to figure out the depth and what this 24 inches is about. it's a pity theier we here tonight it would have been helpful for everyone. there's a letter i saw for the first time that everything was okay >> okay. and we have a engineer in dbi i can offer to have that person going go in i have no problem with that either. >> okay. >> commissioners unless you have questions for the parties. >> i have a couple of questions

for the parties. mr. leo this permits said shows 24 inches. >> no. if i went to the building - and the drawings that they showed us showed 24 inches >> the drawings show 24 inches, however, the permit that said that i -- i looked at on the fourth floor at dbi the changes was made by image i am going by handwritten form so what's presented here tonight is not the same my you're concerned that if this drops below 24

inches it is going to sewer charging. >> it's not sewer charging the most critical time is during - >> during construction. >> when we open up, you know, to meet their 14 plus 2 plus 5 then basically, it puts the underpinning another risk. so once you put everything he together then you do have the confinement >> that issue has nothing to do with a mat or spread foundation. >> no. >> thank you. >> thank you. clear as mud

>> pretty much. it sounds like we need to continue it to let dbi sort of so sort it out there's no way we can do it tonight. there only concern is the 24 inches and if we can continue it to clear up the set that the dbi indicates 24 inches wouldn't that be okay >> that's how i understand. we could take the following. we could deal with this tonight and condition it >> we could do that. >> and could condition on the following basis. >> could we do t it in order. >> i remind we deny jurisdiction.

>> i concur and we condition the main permit which is of concern in the following way one, if they agree and this is had an agreement to provide the permit section. secondly, if they agreed to do 24 inches in their agreement that's a condition. i'd want the department then to deal with it. i'm not interested in dealing with their questions on structural design for a mat versus a spread that's up to the department to review. but if those two were conditions that both parties agreed to then we should do it and let the department do its work >> motion. >> yeah. i'll entertain that

motion. >> you want to make it. >> go for it. >> commissioner fung is that for 8 a and b. >> and 7 is a separate motion. >> i'm saying in terms of the conditions. >> i'm not likely to and i think there's subset i want to do that in order. >> item 7. >> i'm willing to move we deny jurisdiction. >> so on that motion to deny the jurisdiction president hwang commissioner hurtado sxhvdz commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 5 to zero and the jurisdiction is denied no appeal is available >> he let me see if i can craft this. i'm going to move that we grant

the appeal >> both appeals. >> both appeals and uphold the permit with the following conditions: one is that the construction permit set of drawings be provided to the appellant, and two, that the agreed upon 24 inches between the bottom of their footing and the bottom of the under pinning be maintained as per dbis review. >> to reflect on the drawings that - >> it doesn't matter it's a condition that's required now. >> could you restate just the item two for me, the condition

two. >> yeah. >> would you do that. >> between bottom of permit holders footing. the bottom of permit holders new footing >> between - >> and the bottom of the installed underpinning of appellants property. >> the bottom of installed underpinning of appellants property. >> right. >> okay. i think - and is that clear mr. duffey. you're going to have to advantage this. that's why we pay them the big money >> sorry i don't want to delay this. there's a 24 inch plan to the bottom of the adjacent body >> on those plans. we heard earlier on the agreement

>> i'm 99 percent sure so and so go out together. p you have two sets of plans we give you one plan i don't know the opportunity to defer >> let's make sure they have the same thing. >> they physically change it on the spot. >> they can change it with the department as they go through the platoon reviews. >> it would be on both sets of plans. >> there's ancient history. >> you want 24 inches on the bottom of the new footing to the adjacent footing on the - >> the underpinning. >> on 9 underpinning the 24 inches. that's fine i think they added sand and gravel in there but

authenticity separate. i think that's what it is >> maybe condition 2 has been satisfied dbi will - >> if they do it on conditions we have to have a special conditions that's the process. >> you mean is 5 drawings. >> yeah. any condition that changes the plan like this side requires a special conditions permit. now, mr. duffey is saying 24 it would be redundant in a way but if it satisfies the appellant we can do a redundant special conditions permit >> let's pit this to rest can we do that. >> it would be - >> okay.

>> so the motion is from commissioner fung to uphold both permits and on conditions that the appellant be given a copy of the financial construction plans and a further condition that the agreed upon 24 inches to the bottom of the installed underpinning of appellants property. >> be maintained. >> yeah. 24 be maintained. on that monoxide to uphold both permits president hwang. you commissioner hurtado. commissioner lazarus. commissioner honda. thank you. the vote is 5 to zero and those permits are u78 i upheld with the conditions >> thank you, commissioners there's no further business.

thank you. we're >> we've never been in so much focus worldwide and will not be this this is a the moment in time when a story going and make

a wish is a program that fulfills wishes for children we operate in every cities there are 62 chapters. our chapter was formed in 8984 we fulfilled 24 wishes. our chapter covers from movntd ray 17 communities and we expect to fully 3 hundred and 50 wishes this year. we send verizon's it out to the wish families and interviews the wish child and if you do their heartfelt wish then go to work to make it happen. dismissals is a 5-year-old boy

who was diagnosing diagnosed with life without parole when he was 20 months old he's 5 hose now in remission he had his port removed hose monopoly on the chemotherapy. this particular wish the parents wanted to wait until he had energy. i began assigning this wish with the family in march and started to understand the two miles how are we going to achieve that i made a bold statement into turning this into goth am city. it codify catapulted. so, now it's a much for

ininaccurate indicate from the divorce. people starting twoet and reposting and it went viral. it was incredible about make a wish he wanted to be thinking about being batman. there's been a lot of super issues that have happened cross the country but i think that can only happen in san francisco the mayors on board and the city hall it's an incredible outpouring and i love how san francisco is in the spotlight here and people around the world sending their love to san francisco. you kids we thank you for your encourage and we wish we can

erase the pain we hope this is the day of magic and that you'll remember this forever. bat kid forever in san francisco >> san francisco is unique in this way and it's part of our compassion and we have a civic duty to be involved and people are stepping forward if in huge way. it's about san francisco and it's inspired by miles and about every child who has a severe

>> wow, are the beetles here or are we just reoping the playground? i'm not sure which. thanks to the 2008 parks funds, where you're standing is the home and all of you san francisco voters gave a $20 million investment in this neighborhood. i was born and raised four blocks from where we stand today. i came and played in this park, on the equipment, in the you know what i mean you know jim gym and structure today. >> to make this a park that everybody can enjoy, a diversity that would show the city that this is what san francisco is all about. >> what we got here is 3,000

new square feet of places for people to be healthy and be active and the community to gather. >> if you see /kaelly's mural in the building, there cannot be an imagery that's more related to this place. what people told us about what the importance of the windmills and the green houses and the flowers that used to be grown here and the wind, let's not forget the wind. >> we have to continue to invest in our city's infrastructure and creating new. this is a recreation center for the 21st century and for the 21st century communities. >> we finally made something after somebody that everybody needs and this is the park.