terms of the case. because i do have comments for the drawings that i received on thursday. >> yes, i understand. >> inspector duffy. >> are you concerned about the sufficiency of the drawings from the point of view of the building department. >> that is correct. >> do you want to ask a question commissioners? >> so, in your mind, are they drawings that you... and i don't know which drawings you have, i assume that you got the ones that we got in the packet. >> i got a look at these this morning at dbi and i went to the site as well. >> you looked at the revised drawings. >> those are all of the drawings that i see and i as off and so i saw these this morning and so i am not sure what was missing off of them but i don't think that there was many changes. but there was some stuff that needed to be clarified and i think that they realized that. i think that i spoke to them last week. and advised them on what i

needed but what we would need for if we need to accept the things but to restore some of the things that needed to be done, but not a lot of changes not a drastic change. >> i am sorry, so with those comments, relevant to the updated drawings then, and so you. >> sorry, i still think that these drawings, if they are going to be a stamp on them and an approved stamp by dbi and the board of appeals if that is what we do, they need to be better than this, and there is still some, and a mark effect stamp for the address of the property, and this will need to be a checklist of items but for the discussion, on the scope of work, that needs to be done, these are okay. they are just clear enough to where we can discuss it tonight but i don't think that they are acceptable for the condition permit, for example, or a revision permit and they would need to be a little bit more information on them and they are not like a working permit or a set of drawings but they are okay for discussion tonight for the hearing.

>> maybe for our edification, did you look at the, i know that you said that you really did not receive them because you were gone, and have you looked at the earlier set which is the one that the appellants received as well. >> and i have looked at them briefly. >> okay, you are not in a position to say whether the ones submitted tonight are sufficiently different? >> i think i would like to remain, if i need to speak to the permit holder, because we, did we meet about this? or did you get these two? >> that is what i just don't care about from last year. >> i think that the concern will be if mr. duffy will refer to the new draw ands that is a concern of the appellant that they have not had the sufficient time. >> i understand. >> and so now i am trying to determine if there is major distinctions between the new drawings and the drawings that the appellants have seen. >> i don't think there is that big of a difference and these are better. and they are getting there but they are not there yet. >> and just speaking really from the point of view getting

that final stamp of the building department. >> yes. >> as opposed to someone understanding the work that is going to be done in the unit. >> yes, from the purposes of this hearing to show people what exactly this will entail and to show the floor plan, you can certainly see what needs to be done but they are not an ep able set of drawings to get a permit with. okay? and i don't think that there is a lot of changes from the first set if you want to call them that to this set, and i believe that we have both sets, but i don't think that there is a lot of difference, not drastic changes. but, it is basically, the floor in the bathroom, and showing that floor to be removed, and showing it properly on a set of plans that we could inspect, approve and inspect. and that is really. >> and that effect is the same. >> yes. >> and i think so. >> now, the tenant when i went to the site today, brought up a couple of things on the

drawings that and she did not see. and that is fair enough. we can get those out of there, but i told the permit holder that as well and met them after and i met the tenant. and i let them know that there was still some questions, and it is basically, if you want to look at the plans, she is a3, 1k3 detail one, existing partial cross section. and that is really only showing it from unit ten and you can imagine that detail be completely turned around, and what would show the storage unit coming into her unit and it is kind of, and there is one of the, one of the sliding beds, and goes into the unit ten and one goes into unit nine and that takes up the whole bathroom floor and so they are kind of like a side by side,

and so this really detailing and it shows the one for ten and the plan, does not show where it goes into number nine anywhere on these drawings and so that was just a point, that the tenant wants to make today and i agreed and i said, yes, it does not show it, you know? and that will only be for the hearing as well, and it could be a reference on the plans but all of the work is pertaining to unit number ten as far as we will be concerned on the permit, i believe. because, we are basically, doing away with the space and closing up the walls, between unit 9 and unit 10. >> actually, the difference between the two sets, is that the was originally submitted to all of us. and did not locate the roll-out beds in their actual position. >> okay. >> it did not show the extent

of the in-fill wall, which you were raising as an issue last time. >> yeah. >> i think that i had a brief discussion with these people last week after that. but, i just got these today and i went there. >> and so the question is two-fold, whether from a technical point of view from a permit submission, whatever is required there, and verses whether this shows the extent of the work that deals with the issue being raised by the appellants. >> if you would like me to comment on that, i think on the first sheet, existing conditions, staff of unit ten shows the stairs going up and the layer of the current bathroom and then the proposed unit ten shows that the regular and landing, and with that gone. and that is pretty much the work and the other details about the in-fill of the wall and the bed and the position of the beds, is i think, that they added detail number one, on the

sheet a2. and that had not been on the original drawings and existing and those have been ruled out for unit nine and that did not show up on the original drawings and that is added in there i think, and then, proposed plans, and you can see where the infill of the wall, and that is in detail number two on the sheet, a2. and then on the sheet a3, the detail two and four, and it has a section of it could be better because it does not show a door, but it, it is clear that they are taking out the raised floor, and already with the steps going up to it, and where they have the built in, and this grade, and the built in roll out bed for nine, and unit ten, and that is the condition that i described earlier with

the beds. and one bed serves one unit and the one serves the other unit and very unusual condition, and never seen it before. and it looks like it has been like that since the building got constructed for some reason, and definitely, and so, if you want to go back to the other, and i will speak later about my thoughts. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> how would you like to proceed? >> it is my opinion that the issue has been and it is clear, in terms of what the appellant stand with this and whether the documents pass muster for the natural permits if it is not what is really before us tonight. >> i agree. >> that was the certain when we held the meeting last week is getting plans that showed in such a quick time but that is not really what we are hear to discuss, so i think that, and for this, and for this hearing,

i believe that i will be willing to hear the case. >> except that miss duffy raises a point that this board can accept plans on a conditional basis, that goes into the building department as part of the permit set. >> recommendation? >> i think that we should hear the appellants and let's get to the issues between them and the permit holder, and then see whether the technical documentation is really what is effecting our decision making. >> okay. and everybody that is my inclination. >> i am fine with that. >> okay. why don't you come forward, please? >> you have to go to the podium to speak. >> to the mic. >> so, i still have a point of order that i would like to raise. >> go ahead.

>> so, on given that normally, the permit holder would submit their plans recommended that the permit holder submit their plans as part of their documents, and as part of their plan. and then we would be like to submit our response and given that we have three minutes to submit our response to the permit holder today, we and there are a lot of points that we would like to cover we have brought a written response to make sure that given that this is a quasi judicial body to make sure that our points are documented today and in the normal course of things, there is like three-week

documentation, and then there is the response. and so we would like permission to submit our response to the permit holder's plans as a submitted on thursday. and as you can see, if these are architect plans, no we have an architect on the board, they don't follow the architect engineering plans of the stamp or a draft or anything written and these plans have been modified and there are a number of concerns that we may not be able to cover in three minutes that we have documented and in our response to the submitted plan that we would respectfully like to submit today. >> and have those been shared with the permit holder as well. >> that is why we brought it today to submit when we requested to be able to submit them earlier, this morning, given that yesterday was a holiday, again, the time frame of the turn around time given

that we received the plans on thursday. and yesterday, being a legal holiday. and the recommendation was that we asked the board for permission to submit these now. and since submitting them this morning was not a viable option. as a point of procedure. >> commissioners? >> okay, there is no harm. >> what is it that you would like this board to do with respect to your point of order? >> i would like to accept our response, our written response. >> something for the response. you know, it is something that the president can authorize at any point in time. are you indicating that because the revised drawings were only submitted at the meeting today, that you need more time to review those in terms of your specific response?

>> well, no, this was in response to the plans that were submitted on thursday. >> okay. >> so this is our written response to thursday. >> and now, because we have got new plans, we have not even had a chance to look at those, or to puruse those and so i cannot respond to those. i know that you have decided to go forward with those. and you would like to hear our arguments but this is our written response to what was submitted on thursday. >> okay. commissioners i think that we have two options. one is to grant them time to review it, or we can hear their comments and see what they have to say is impacted by the new drawings. and therefore, should have granted them more time. >> or perhaps, there is a third option, which is to hold this to the end of calendar, and if necessary, take a brief recess, perhaps, mr. duffy could take a

little bit of time to explain to them the differences in the drawings and then give them their rebuttal? >> that is an option. >> it works for everybody. >> that works for me. >> all right. then i will, what is the best, how do we handle that? >> do you want to continue this case until later in the calendar, tonight? >> yes. >> and only, one wrinkle is that we need mr. duffy for the next case and, so if necessary, when we are done, we will take a quick recess, and allow them to chat. >> okay. >> can we still submit our written response to the plans? >> i am going to hold on that decision. >> okay. >> so what the board is asking to you do now is to best go in the hall with the new plans and take a look at them and when we are done with the next item mr. duffy will join you and help to explain them to you and we will call the case again after the next item is decided. >> thank you.

>> but you do have time now to review the plans that you have been given tonight. >> thank you. >> so we are going to hold off on finishing item 6 and we are going to hear item 7 which is appeal, 14-148, thomas goddard verses the department of building inspection, 4121-20th street, protesting the issuance on august 12, 2014, to 20th street trust and alteration of the permit to increase the ceiling height from 6 to 8 feet, and place the new concrete slab and repair the cracked mras turing on the first second and third floors and we will start with the appellant. >> you have 7 minutes. >> i live at 4119,-20th street and my name is thomas goddard.

and i have lived there for 12 years with my family and i am appealing the permit of my next door neighbor, 20th street, trust, and purchased the property in may of this year, 20th street trust is represented by sara garlic who has been fixing this property for resale. and in late july, they began excavating in the basement without a permit, about a week later, another neighbor filed a complaint and a week following that on august 11th, they submitted and applied for a permit and on august 12th, the next day that permit was issued and the permit called for he is ka vaiting the basement down two feet, and putting in the slab floor and because they are excavating the basement down, and putting in a footing under the existing foundation and that foundation, and that boarders my property and it is exactly on the property line or to houses are right next to each other and the siding is an

inch apart and so our foundations are next to each other, and the reason for my appeal is that i believe that more work than is stated on the permit is needed, in particular, a retaining wall is needed because my property is on a higher level than their property. and so, i think that showing you a picture i could clarify that. and the need for a retaining wall. and can we switch to... >> boom. this is within the basement of the permit holder property and on the left wall, that is exactly on my property line, and we have excavated down and this picture was taken a week before they applied for the permit and taken on august >> sorry to interrupt, so the picture that we are seeing now is atatyour foundation or their foot and foundation? >> it is theirs. >> it is a picture within their

basement. so if we could go go back? >> great. this base sxment they spend the boarders on my property is 20 feet long and at the front, the drop from my property to the permit holdary's property is at four feet and in the back the drop is about 8 feet from my grade level to their excavated deck and it is higher at the back, and while the excavation is level, my property rises up and both of our properties are on a steep hillside. and so what i would like to draw your attention to is the back corner and so approximately, i know that it is kind of hard to see in this picture and i don't have a better one, about 6 feet and, they have removed, some concrete, which appeared to be a foundation or a retaining wall, when i say retaining wall, i am talking about their foundation, and against my property line, which prevents my foundation from caving into their property.

and they removed the concrete and it was not a foundation it was a layer of concrete covering a dirt wall and you can see in the back corner there was a vertical dirt wall and a section of the original foundation, on the top, that is about two feet high. and with their excavated depth from the ceiling to floor and 8 feet is about a six foot, vertical dirt wall and on the back of the basement, there was about a 12 foot extent and you can see some concrete, on the right, but they started taking that off, and within a few days of this picture, and a few days later they had removed all that have and that also is a vertical dirt wall and we have got the six feet high, with the two feet of foundation on top. and so i think that the need for a retaining wall here is clear, but the permit just says that they are putting a footing under an existing foundation, which does not exist in this place. so i tried to discuss this with them and i have managed to speak with sarah and her engineer on one occasion, and i

saw them all one weekend visiting a property and i ran down and told them of my concern of the retaining wall was needed and i had been looking at the work as it was going on, because the workers were very friendly and i come down in the morning and they are jackhammering and showed me and that is when i took the picture. and i spoke to antonio and they said that they will not discuss the matter with me, they said if i have concerns about it, i should talk to the city. and so i, then talked to the city, inspector at dbi and the engineer, and asked them about it and they said, well, we have issued this permit already and so we can't review it so we suggest that you talk to the owner and the owner's engineer who submitted it and, that is why i filed this appeal. after i filed this appeal, i hired an, engineer to do an inspection and i sent sarah a letter by e-mail and asking her

if in two weeks my engineer could inspect the site and she never replied to this and so i was not able to get permission for my engineer, and also, i went to the permit office to print a copy of the plan for my engineer, to do the inspection. and this is the letter from the city saying that the owner denies permission for me to print the plan. and the engineer inspected any way from my side, taking measurements and checking the concrete and examining my pictures and then called antonio the engineer for sarah, who submitted this permit and asked to discuss the retaining wall and he declined to discuss it with my engineer and so i have had no luck getting them interested in talking about this, and there is only, since they purchased this property in may, there has been one occasion, when they initiated contact with me and that is the day after i filed this appeal,

jonathan black, the law, for, saraher said that i may be liable for the expenses of delaying the project and i should drop this appeal and wait and see how the work comes out. and he also said in this phone call, that this work was being done on their property and it was none of my business and so then they unreceptive toward discussing this issue that i think is apparent in the picture. what i would like and what i am asking the appeal board to do and this is just my idea and i don't know if this is the right way to get this moving forward, to have a safe retaining wall, for my property. i would like the appeal's board to revoke this permit, the three things, and secondly, i would like them to remind the building inspection department that they should notify me, when a new permit is applied for, and that includes a retaining wall and i think that large factor in why we are here and why it has come this far is

because they never notified me of this permit was applied for. even though california civil code requires excavation on my property line requires notification and the third and the last thing that i would like the appeal board to do, is to instruct the dbi before they issue a new permit to require, to allow, to not, sorry, i would like to ask you to ininstruct the, ininstruct the dbi to not issue a new permit until my engineer has been allowed to inspect this site. >> and he will be able to provide a report. >> okay, your time is up and you will have additional time. >> one question before you leave, so when, what did the work start? >> when did the work start? >> the exact date when the excavation. >> correct. >> i would say about it was late in july, i would say july,

28th or so. >> okay. >> the work started about two weeks before they actually applied for a permit. okay. >> pictures from august fourth. >> okay. >> can you put that photo back up? >> you have indicated that your estimate of the differential height between your building and this was around 5 to 6 feet, how does that relate to either the wall on the left or the floor? >> so, i... and i mentioned that, i think that i mentioned five to eight feet in my written report and i said 4 to 8 here, the 8 is... and the part where there is dirt in the back, where there is no retaining wall. >> i am not talking about the linear relationship,... >> i am talking about the height differential between your... >> yes, it is the, it is the

level of the floor in my basement to the excavated depth of their basement. >> as depicted by the floor in that picture? >> sorry. overhead. >> see the picture? >> could we have the overhead back? >> please could we have the overhead? >> in the picture this is, and i say this a week before they even applied for a permit, in the middle they have excavated. >> you can use a pen, to indicate. >> correct. >> so here, in this middle region it is excavation has been done, within one and a half feet of the foundation, the excavation has not been done there at this point because i think that will destabilize the foundation, whether this excavation in the middle is the two feet of excavation that they cited in

the permit, or whether it is less, or whether it is one foot, i don't know. i can't tell from the picture. when i site these heights and the drop from my grade level to their excavated depth it is on the assumption that they have excavated down two feet and that... >> the wall on the left part of that picture shows a concrete wall. >> yes. >> above it shows a wood framed wall. >> yes, you are saying that your floor of your basement is up above that wood framed wall? >> no. in the front, that, the difference in height is 4 feet. that concrete wall in the front. i will point here. >> i think that there is approximately 3 feet high. but, when they excavate down at the base, it will be two feet

deep and her so the total height will be approximately 5 feet. >> and where is your floor relationship to the top of the wall? >> based on our measurements it is approximately 1 foot below the top of this concrete. >> okay. >> and in the back, i have a picture that i could show you... >> that is okay for now. >> getting your opinion, as compared to what the data. >> okay, thank you. >> we can hear from the permit holder. >> good evening, members of the board my name is jonathan black and i brought this with me. and to discuss this matter further with you. he did not answer some of those questions, but, i think that the big issue here as far as

excavation goes, is mr. prada experience, of what she does have, 20 years of experience and included in the resume in there, and i believe that it is 5 or 6. two of those years is working as quality control for the city for muni on the excavation and so he understands the excavation very well. and also, as far as the detail goes, if we look at exhibit we should have, and i am just going to go to exhibit 3, and or excuse me, exhibit 2. and in which it is going to show you the front of the house in the basement, and in which it is going to show you the actual measurement of the stem wall in which the foundation is, and that is about two feet and so i don't know where he is getting his measurements that is over, 6 to 8 feets and right now, where that door opens up to, there is a stain about 6 feet on the ground, but what we are trying for do is go down

two feet lower and so it is 8 feet. and then, the other thing on the plans is which mr. prada will show you is that only 14 feet of that wall is actually shared, that back part isn't. and so i am going to turn it over to him so he can kind of explain the pictures and go through more of an, engineering side. >> good evening, board of directors, i am going to... and board and good evening. ladies and gentlemen. i have a picture here. my name is antonio, prada and i am the engineer, and the contractor for 4121,-20th street project and you can see here is the front. this is the door and leading to the basement, and this is the property of the appellant. and you can see here there is a

window, and it shows most partly, the floor is over here, and above, just above this concrete wall stem wall. and i have another picture here. this is a stem wall of the appellant. and this is the door that leads to the basement, where we are digging two feet below this slab. i am close with a picture to the appellant's stem wall. this is our job site stem wall that very much level. and so based on this, we do