can speak to. i think that ties up the concern for mr. duffy unless you have any concerns or questions, in which there myself and mr. prodo can answer. >> what were the circumstances that led to the work being started without a permit? >> that would be mr. prada question. >> i don't know when the work started commissioner, i am sorry. >> and i don't know when the work started and the permit situation. >> the work started was mostly demo and we were already working on the permit on for the foundation. and the excavation that we did is to verify the neighbor's foundation, and there is so the photo that you see there is only one excavation at that time. and we did not proceed until we got the permit, and started excavating the rest of the foundation. so it was for a verification

purpose. >> but it ended up with a notice of violation, but nothing should have been done without a permit, correct? >> i think that i am allow to do investigation, and on this, and my previous job, i was told to, you know, dig the excavation to the verify the neighbor. >> you are not answering the question, the question was why was there work done without a permit and there was a notice of violation given for the scope that had been done prior to having a permit. and so the question is why was there work done prior to having a permit? >> i have to do an investigation, and during the excavation, if there is a slab and walls and i have to take

the walls out, and the complaint that is issued is for the plaster in the second floor that i removed and i did not remove the walls and i did... i did not put any sheetrock yet. and so, it is just. >> maybe we will get the clarification from the department. >> yeah. >> i have one more. >> question for you. mr. duffy also said that these things are not uncommon and it is to thing for the engineers to work out. did you talk to the engineers his engineer? >> i did. but, his tone was threatening and his sentence he told me was, you know, i am about to write you a nasty letter, and right there, and then, i was already like i don't think that this is going to work. and the other thing was he wanted to discuss to me

something that i don't know. i have not seen their brief yet. and so, if he wants to discuss to me something, he needs to send it to me first, so i can prepare for our meeting. but, he wants me to see him the following day and the day after he called me. and there was no, i don't have any copy of his findings. and that... and basically the tone was, you are not going to like what i am going to write you about you. and about your drawing, and your drawing is, i will put my name on that kind of drawing. he made that kind of, those kind of statements and that was like, what, and it is just, go with the hearing, then, and i mean that i want a copy of your brief first, before we even, i even sit down with you. i also discussed with tom and my guys did discuss with tom

and he just closed minded and he just won't, and will not accept our procedure and our method. it is all wrong to him. he wants his way. >> okay, i think that you have answered the question. >> don't run off yet. >> you know, with our discussion, i was trying to get a feel from both of the appellant and yourselves, as a permit holder, on the relative height differential, between the structures, and we talked about that at the front of the building. but, the question now really comes into play, as to what is occurring at the rear of the building? >> okay. the picture that he showed you hold on. >> the overhead please? >> the picture of the door on the left that tom showed you,

is the door that leads to this level. >> and our excavation is below that door. our door is near and their door is further back. let me just explain. >> our door sits right here. and this door 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7.

right there. this is the walkway. this area is higher than, what this does not concern him because this is just a walkway. what this, there is no issue here, there is no foundation here. the only issue is this area and here the great elevation is less than 4 feet. and if this, this area is similar to the... that i showed you and also the photo that he showed the concrete, that you see on the left side, of the board is this area. and it is level. >> okay, i understand it. but, when i look at your detail, then, how does that work we back, where it is much

higher? >> it won't work in the back. when i prepare the detail, and everything was covered in concrete. so, i didn't see anything like that. i assumed that the top or the foundation was level all throughout, we only found out when we took out like a covered concrete, that when we took that out, we saw that the dirt really slopes up and so, around us it will not work with the director the back of the building. but that area is not adjacent to the neighbor's foundation. >> understood. >> but, what you are saying then, is that the framing and the back corner of that building was sitting on dirt? >> that is correct. >> it has footing, and the

footing is sitting on dirt. but the footing is sloped up. from over here, >> so you are saying that there is a footing but that at the excavated portion of your basement, they had used some thin concrete to cover... >> yes. >> and in between that footing and the floor slab. >> yes. >> okay, mr. duffy we will hear from you. >> so, commissioners, just on the notice of violation for the complaint come in to dbi on 8-5, august 5th and it was working without a permit and

working on the foundation in the garage, and on 8-6, 2014, and the inspector green was out there, and inspector matt green and he knows that the excavation work was being done at the ground level and was dug down two feet and installed at ground level and plaster on the garage level and in the front of the middle floor have been removed and he noted that there were no active building permits, and he issued a stop work order and a notice of violation on the same date, and the 6th of august, and stopped work and issued notice of violation of the site. and then, on the 8-11 we have the filing of the permit to increase the basement height and the permit that is under appeal and so they had obviously started to do some of the excavation based on the notes here and so the work out period started without the issuance of the permit and i think that answers someone's question from earlier on. and just, we want, and one thing that, and that is really,

and in these situations, and i dealt with a lot of them in different areas of the city, and it really is imperative that engineers talk to each other. and if someone does something, and it is okay, it is done without a permit and let's just, kind of figure it out and it fits both sides and if this neighbor, hired an, engineer, and this property owner has an, engineer those are two professional people, they are both licensed by the state and they need to talk to each other and figure this out. dbi will accommodate that as well, and i have gone many times to these types of meeting in dbi office or at the site to figure out a way forward. but, obviously, there is something here, that i don't think that has happened. and all of these things, and the owner with all due respect talked about a little difference, a little difference in someone's foundation, be it 6 inches or 6 feet is something that needs to be documented properly, and if there is a different condition in the plans that is a revision permit

and needs to be documented and it could change the size of a footing i am not an, engineer, but these things do change, and i understand that. and i get that. but if they, and if you didn't know, before through the detail that something was going to be different you got to stop, and take care of that. and so, it is just my comments from what i am listening to here tonight, and the notification, and from the property owner, i did not see any notification on the documents that i am looking at and i don't know how that notification was done, for the civil code part on section f32 and so that is in there and if there is documentation on that notification, i don't see it. so, that is just my observance, so, just okay? >> okay, mr. duffy? you and i can't deal with attitudes, whatever occured between certain parties, however, this particular instance it appears to me that

the structural detail provided and the analysis done by your plan checker do not jive with the site conditions. >> and based on what he has given me, probably they did, but sf there is something out there, maybe they don't. >> because, if the rear portion of the permit holder's building is on a spread footing but it is up high, and they are excavating to that point, or, you know, if it is already excavated but they are lowering that point, and then, this foundation detail does not work for that. >> probably right. >> and that needs to be revised. >> and so, there is probably a revision. >> yes, the district inspector should be watching for that

because when you go there and the okay to pour and the things are not as they are drawn and we ask for a revision permit and that does happen a lot in san francisco based on the hill, and a lot of the changes in elevations from the front of the site to the back of the site from one property line to the other prop line, side and side it and happens all of the time. you know, and we find that we do a lot of correction notices of looking for a revision permit based on something not showing properly on the plans. but, this is something that we deal with every day. and at dbi. >> how do we deal with this situation, to correct it? >> i need moretime to figure out what needs to be done, there is not, there is some certainly, if i was dealing with this without the board of appeals, just from what i can see here, i would be asking for a..., would i like to see the plans that you have approved

and i would like to see verses the site conditions, and see what we have. i would like to do, i had one last year in jackson street where we had to do a notification, after the fact where you know, what the at some point there has to be a comfort level between these two property owners that this work and that they are, and that this gentleman's property and the appellant's property and see if that is what he is really more concerned about. and that is dbi's job and in my opinion and so whether we go out and see if he has done everything right. and see what has happened and what i am concerned about is we are getting into the rainy season and if no work is taking place and we do have excavated started we certainly would like to try to get this taken care of. >> yeah. >> so i am not, if you want to continue it and i am willing to go out there myself, with one of the other senior inspectors and not one of my areas but i will be happy to go out there and i could report back that

everything is okay. >> you mean for what is approved on the permit, i still don't see a proper everything is just, it is just not, this is just some stuff missing. >> and you know, i think i am more concerned about the structural. >> i know. >> side of this. >> yes. >> and my personal recommendation to the permit holder to look at, you know, providing either a fabric or a system against that new retaining wall or something, or otherwise they are going to get the load in their place, but that is a different issue and i am not going to design it for them. it does seem that the structural appears to be off. >> i had the same concerns myself, when i read, some of the brief about the concerns about the water proofing and stuff, and that is very important. and especially if there is a hill and because that water is going to go in one place and from one property to the other and it is not taken care of, and it is going to be a problem

going forward. and so, >> concrete is not imp erviou. s. >> no. >> but there is help with the drainage and if that is a condition out there, that needs to be on the plans and we need to see the mergering and we need to see a drainage, or a stone or rock and pipe and that all needs to be drained off properly. so that has got to be done. >> and i don't know if that exists out there, but i think that we need to go out there and see that. >> and so, sorry to... >> and those questions,. >> one of the neighbors has indicated that this building had another level added on it does the permit history have any indication as to ha happening? >> i don't have that with me. our permit in dbi tracking system that i can look up on a daily basis goes back to 1982, i didn't see anything around that time and not that there was something for the front stairs thatwise done, but nothing if it was done, it was done before 1982, and you know,

not everything requires notification of the neighborhood, but, maybe, that can be explained that they can get a dbn in >> and yeah, i was thanks for remining me, but that comment, and it sounds like that was more of a maybe an addition permit and that was where you involved the planning department, and 311 notification and you do a notification and even before the 311 and you get at proval and this type of a permit will not require the notification except for the structural notification for the adjacent property owners and it would not require that and it is not, it is an over the counter permit and it is creating a ceiling height difference for the storage area and not any additional height of the building and it is not... and it is not getting any and it is not going out to the building envelope and that is the notification that we hear about all of the time.

this permit you will get it over the counter and to give them some credit and the detail as i spoke about for the enough to pour in the sections is a good way to go and zero lot lanes when you are excavating close, and on in this area, usually the soil conditions are pretty good for that and it is always even hard in the sandy areas of the city and it is even hard to do it in a sequence pour >> how they got to it and there is no clear evidence of where they got there. and so the public, and the neighbors that are watching. you can ask the inspector regarding a bbn that gives notification of any permit whether it is over the counter for you to get in, no? >> and i speak on that and i know that this, and dbn would be only something that could go through the planning department. >> okay. >> and yes. >> and you know, i always tell me, if you sort of put it on the calendar, you can do if on the website but you can look up the website as we do here and see the permits but, for the dbi there is no notification and we don't do a bbn.

>> okay. >> thanks. >> and commissioners the matter is submitted. >> commissioners, i would recommend that we continue this case. and of how the permit holder to meet with the building department, to review the site conditions to verify exactly what type of revision permit is, if it is necessary. to be developed. >> and if it stopped work to be enforced until the continuance? >> and i guess that goes without saying. >> i think that it goes with it, because i am not convinced at this point that the structural solution, addresses all of the site conditions. >> i agree. >> if we try to get this done quickly in light of the lany season. >> i would ask mr. duffy for do it as quickly as possible and, to get with the permit holder

to see what they need, and the appellants will have their option because they will receive notice. >> all right. >> so we meet next week and then not again for three weeks? >> right. december 10th. >> is there any estimate as to when you can respond to a meeting with the building department to go over and in detail the site conditions? >> we can do it this week. >> okay. >> please come up to the microphone to speak, thank you. >> sorry. >> excuse me. with the crutches. so we could do it this week, if we can put it on the calendar for next week and tell you what is found as long as that is okay with mr. duffy.

>> is that works for you mr. duffy. >> and i am just going to... >> i would like, but, if we have to get it done in a week, it is... >> it is a site visit. it should be okay. based on the place, and with the holiday in the middle of the last week and i was off and i am going to try to get out there on friday and get some better, and some more stuff for next week. >> if it is a revision permit it is not going to occur anything less than probably a month or two. >> right, we may have to do some, and if there is a hold up on that getting back to work, and i want to see if there is anything that needs to be done for the water run off in case we do get a storm. >> the department is allowed to go ahead and low them to protect their property. >> yeah, i hope that we have good news next week and so i would like to make both sides and try to get them together with the engineers and try to figure this out. that is where i will be pushing for. >> and then the commissioners i

would move to madam director is that okay, schedule wise? >> it is your evening. >> you are not going to ask for any additional briefing are you? >> do you just want a report back from the building department? >> i think a report back is sufficient. we will move this to november 19th. >> okay. >> and again, this is to allow time for the permit holder to meet with the dbi to evaluate the site conditions and whether any permit revisions are necessary. >> is that right. >> that is correct. >> would the goal commissioner, be to have any revisions brought to the board so that the board could possibly condition the permit on that? >> or do you just want to have that information presented. >> they won't make it in one week. >> okay. >> if the revisions are required they will never make it. >> okay. all right. so just a report back, then? >> okay. if you could call the roll please? >> the motion is from

commissioner fung, to continue this matter to november 19th, next week, public hearing has been held, and there is to allow the time for the dbi and the permit holder to conduct a review of the site conditions, and no additional briefing is allowed. >> on that motion, to continue, president lazarus? >> aye. >> commissioner honda >> aye. >> commissioner wilson. >> aye. >> thank you, the vote is 4-0, and this matter is continued one week to november 19th. >> okay, we are now going to take a five minute break to allow the very popular inspector duffy to meet with the appellants in the previous case. >> welcome back to the november, 12, we are returning back to appeal number 1 4-151,

and commissioners do you want to have the appellants address the board since they did not have a chance to do that before the break. >> yes. >> so miss miller and miss bhadauria your time to speak to the board is now. >> the point of order because we have had a chance to review the plans, we would still like to submit our written comments on the previous plans in case we don't have time to go over all of our discuss points. >> has the permit holder seen those comments? >> we can submit those. >> okay. >> why don't you go ahead while

you are speaking and have them take a look at them and then when you are done we can... >> okay, great. >> let me just speak..., okay. >> i will be using the overhead. and so the new drawings still are missing the existing proposed cross section view from the hallway where the... for the unit 963 is located the drawings only show the existing and the proposed work in the cross sections view from the one direction, where the cavity for the unit ten drundle bed is

located and our main concern is that the wall between units 9 and 10 should not be violated in the subject for approval for san francisco, and the fire department will be installed. and the fire department never had an opportunity for an extra scope of work, and because it was listed in the permit application and no plans were submitted at that time and the it was not the unit the ten only, and no egress changes and the jones from the fire department and the plan check said that the permit applicants are requested to submit the plans that were representing in their proposed project and not in complete or the deficient or without a stamp with the plans that we are receiving today and the license and architects are required to put both the signature and the stamps in the act and the landlord is not required to bring the existing conditions up to the current code, and according to the

chapter 34 of the california building code and the building structures and the section, 3404, alterations provides the exceptions for the existing staircases, the correction is that the landlord reference is not a notice of violation, and it is just an informational sheet that leaves, a current code sections applicable to the bathroom remodel and it has not received it because of a violation, and here is an example of the proper notice of violation, and it has, and it orders to comply with the list of violation and list how it has to comply and when, and when the inspection is schedule and what fines and fees are applicable and is it a violation does not comply with the next inspection, the correction notice is not a notice of violation and it does not require the landlord to remove the floors of stairs and most importantly the drawing only shows one option desirable to the landlord with the disadvantage to the tell ant and in the brief, page 5, item 21, on the alterations are listed for the landlord to

comply with the code without impacting unit nine and according to the board of appeals, article one, section 14, in deciding the board may only up hold or return a place conditions on the departmental decision and it cannot remanned or send back a decision for the underlying the department for a further review or action and it will violate your own rules to require any san francisco department to further review or take additional action for this permit and according to these rules and to correct any of the effects of the permit, that involves the unit will be to reject the current permit and to request that a new permit is obtained that go to the process and without any short cuts and that can have safety or legal implications. >> okay, thank you. >> thank you. >> and would you like to hear further from inspector duffy? i think that he came up the first time to address your questions, but didn't actually come to speak.

>> okay. >> commissioners i am available for any questions, if you want, i can describe and i went to my site visit there today. we are just to see, what actually needed to be done based on, if we were looking at this work without a building permit and as i said last week and i and the site visit reiterated with that today and this does need and this work is the removing of a raised floor and an existing bathroom, and it is altering some framing and it does need a set of plans and it is, it is filling in the wall now between the units which will need to be two-by-four walls with five 8th of sheetrock to create and

obtain a one hour separation between the dwelling units and it is unusual condition to say the least and it appears to have been up for many, many years, and i can see why, the owner wants to do it and when you go to the bathroom, you have walk up three steps and in the newer buildings you would not see this and i have not seen it before and the sad part is obviously under the risk belongs to it is part of the unit and unit number 9, so that the young lady in that unit is going to lose some space, and so, but i can certainly see why they want to take that out, it is not and it does not look good, and it is if it has been there for a very, very long time, and if they would just changing out the fixtures, we would probably let it exist, but, the building owner told me today that he is pretty determined to get or to take the