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

there are so many ways that the internet provides real access to real people and resources and that's what we're try to go accomplish. >> i was interested in technology like video production. it's interesting, you get to create your own work and it reflects what you feel about saying things so it gives perspective on issues. >> we work really hard to develop very in depth content, but if they don't have a venue, they do not have a way to show us, then this work is only staying here inside and nobody knows the brilliance and the amazing work that the students are doing. >> the term has changed over time from a very basic who has

a computer and who doesn't have a computer to now who has access to the internet, especially high speed internet, as well as the skills and the knowledge to use those tools effectively. . >> the city is charged with coming up with digital inclusion. the department of telecommunications put together a 15 member san francisco tech connect task force. we want the digital inclusion program to make sure we address the needs of underserved vulnerable communities, not communities that are already very tech savvy. we are here to provide a, b and c to the seniors. a stands for access. b stands for basic skills and c stands for content. and unless we have all three, the monolingual chinese seniors are never going to be able to use the computer or the internet. >> a lot of the barrier is knowledge.

people don't know that these computers are available to them, plus they don't know what is useful. >> there are so many businesses in the bay area that are constantly retiring their computer equipment that's perfectly good for home use. computers and internet access are helping everybody in the community and people who don't have it can come to us to help with that. one of the biggest problems we see isn't whether people can get computers through programs like ours, but whether they can understand why they need a computer. really the biggest issue we are facing today is helping people understand the value of having a computer. >> immediately they would say can i afford a computer? i don't speak any english. how do i use it. then they will start to learn how to do email or how to go back to chinese newspaper to read all the chinese newspaper. >> a lot of the barrier still is around lack of knowledge or confusion or intimidation and not having people in their peer network who use computers in

their lives. >> the important thing i learned from caminos was to improve myself personally. when i first came to caminos, i didn't know anything about computers. the second thing is i have become -- i have made some great achievements as an individual in my family and in things of the world. >> it's a real issue of self-empowerment where new immigrant families are able to communicate with their families at home, able to receive news and information in their own home language, really become more and more connected with the world as well as connected even inside their local communities. >> if we value the diversity of our city and we value our diverse neighborhoods in the city, we need to ensure that they remain economically viable. equiping them and equiping residents in those areas with jobs that will enable them to

stay in san francisco is critical to that. >> the important thing that i see here at caminos is it helps the low income community, it helps the women who wouldn't have this opportunity otherwise. >> the workers with more education in san francisco are more likely to be able to working that knowledge sector. where they are going to need that familiarity with the internet, they are going to find value with it and use it and be productive with it every day. and half of the city's population that's in the other boat is disconnected from all that potential prosperity. >> we really need to promote content and provide applications that are really relevant to people's lives here. so a lot of the inspiration, especially among the immigrant community, we see is communications with people from their home country but we as much want to use the internet as a tool for people to connect within the local san francisco community. >> i think it's our job as public educators to give them this access and give them this

opportunity to see that their efforts are being appreciated beyond their immediate reach. >> you have to blend this idea of community network with computer equipment with training and with support. we can pull all that together, then we've got it. >> it's as much about social and economic justice -- in fact it's more about social and economic justice than just

>> roll call. commission members please respond when he call your name. commissioner ellington? >> present. >> commissioner [speaker not understood]? absent. commissioner sen? >> here. >> vice-chair rowal he is? >> present. >> madam chair johnson? >> here. >> commissioner mondahah is absent and all other commissioner are present.