good evening. welcome to to may 15, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig is presiding. he is joined by other commissioners. to my left is deputy city attorney who will provide the board with needed legal advice. at the controls is the board's legal as assistant. i am the board's executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city departments. scott sanchez representing the planning department and commission. joseph duffy senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection and molly, deputy

city attorney representing the department of public health. the board meeting guidelines are as follows. turnoff or silence all phones and electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry conversations to the hallway. appellants and department respondents each are given 7 minutes to present case and three minutes rebuttal. rehearing three minutes each and no rebut. people affiliated must include the comments within these periods. members not affiliated have three minutes each to address the board. please speak to the microphone. to assist the board in minutes you are asked but noto them. we drive to the events they have on the weekends and present our project to the different organizations, meeting after school programs. and we try to be able to get everyone involved in the way we

have a project that is successful, that everyone can feel they have participation. >> co-chair senhaux: thank you very much. just because we're at time, i wanted to just do a check to see if we can run a few more minutes? but i don't know if our interpreters are available. thank you. >> that concludes my presentation. and we're open for any questions. >> co-chair senhaux: thank you for a very detailed and thank you for answering our questions. i'm going to answer up to council member questions. this is the line of order we have. council member helen, orkid and alex. please go ahead. >> council member smolinski: just quickly, thank you all for coming. we really appreciate it. anthony, great job. okay. i hope it was a good experience for you.

please know as a parent of a child in a wheelchair, that this is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. in fact, it was other parents who, while my child is -- has multiple disabilities, other parents have come to me with this very issue that they were planning birthday parties at san francisco parks, and had gone online on park and rec's website to identify a park to make sure that the playground had accessible equipment. and that's how we got here today. thank you. you and your whole department. lucas, et cetera, for being so expensive to this need that our council identified from the community. so that's huge. glad to see there is such progress and we're going to get to the rest of the playgrounds, right? okay. okay, because that is really the question that i hope maybe was

in your head while you were doing all this. you're not banned. you can come up. because it was really about, hey, i want to plan this birthday party for my child at a san francisco playground. not only is it accessible, but we're going to assume it's wheelchair accessible to get in and out, but is there playground equipment for my kid and his or her peers to enjoy? that was something that was needed. the information needed to be more easily accessible on your website. it sounds like there is a lot of progress toward that. that should be the question in your mind. that was the goal. and then just lastly, with regard to the outreach, again, it's all about, i feel like the website to a great extent. if you can make your website. there was an excel spreadsheet and i love your use of the word

generic. it had so much generic information next to every playground it made the excel spreadsheet meaningless. so a long -- you go a long way for your outreach if you just improve your website. my specific question for lucas, why isn't your department keeping track of the numbers? you mentioned a couple of times, we haven't kept track of that, but there was the one about kids who need accommodations and inclusion services. i would think keeping track of the request for that and the number that are fulfilled would go a long way toward informing your services and service delivery. >> and i think what i meant, maybe it wasn't clear, we're not keeping track of the percentage of people who need accommodations, but we do keep track of who is requesting accommodations and what

accommodations we're providing. and the other piece of that is just registration in general, how many people with disabilities are registering for programs. so we do have records and our rec therapists have files on all the participants. and you know, what their assessments say and what accommodations they've requested and what we've provided, but it's not -- i don't have those numbers in our rec stat system to show how many total we've served, but that is something we could tally up. we do it each summer or each season, but not total numbers. so i mean, you're right. there are all different ways we need to tell our story and present those numbers. and some we have not done yet. >> council member smolinski: to

be frank, i would be curious to see if the number of kids with disabilities that you're serving at rec and park is proportional to the number in our school district. you know, i think those numbers tell a story of whether park and rec is meeting the need. or if there is an outstanding need and you need more budget, right? >> so, yes, absolutely. >> council member smolinski: thank you. >> truth is, it's a tiny percentage and the schools have to serve all kids and we're serving a tiny percentage, so we do want to increase that. >> co-chair senhaux: thank you. >> council member sassouni: yes, okay, thank you so much for your presentation and especially for the asl programs. the summer registration is always filled and i learned from the newspaper, it said that

first priority is low, that quite often the summer camps are full. and this is the fifth year that i couldn't register for as much as i would like to. i was only able to get my son into one program. i notice often that other parents, you know, sometimes parents -- the kids are saying it's not enough fun, so if you could add more diversity or variety within the program, that would be great. and just in summary, in terms of the deaf-blind program, how often do you offer that program? once a week or two times a week? i was wondering because my understanding, it seems just once a week. two times a week would be great. and also for those individuals with developmental disabilities, for example, it's capped at one week, it would be great if it was longer than one week.

asl learners. i have not seen a lot about that. it's like once every couple of months. and then families with babies who want to learn asl, it's limited. is it because there is not enough numbers? but i think it's great that you offer the twice a year, the deaf gathering in spring and winter, right? is that correct? i think that's great, continue that. that is a big positive. i just wish that there were more after-school activities at the play areas, because it seems they're just right now just located one place. and my son goes to school in a different area and so to get there, it eats up a lot of time. so that is another thing. i wish there were more asl programs offered around the city as opposed to just that one location and wondering if that is a possibility. i'm just throwing that out there. >> not sure if i remembered all

the question about the different programs, but the asl learning program is definitely one of our biggest goals is to provide a place for parents who have a deaf child to come and learn sign language. we would love to get parents in there with deaf babies to come and learn with us. we did expand that program to every week. it's every tuesday afternoon now and will continue through the summer. oh, the asl, the program that is for people who are deaf and blind is once a week. and it's a really tiny program. we'd love to grow it. and if it expands more, we could do it twice a week. the program we offer for the tool works clients is once a week, on wednesdays. it will continue through the summer. but one of the cool things, as far as inclusion, those clients through tool works are signing up for other -- they do water fitness and yoga and water aerobics and they do like five

different programs during the week. so we are providing a lot to those clients through inclusion services as well. i think i got most of the questions. >> co-chair senhaux: thank you. >> council member sassouni: after school? >> so, the one that is the asl after-school program, that is tiny as well. we only have eight kids in that program and that is just in the mission. i would love to expand it, too, or at least provide staff who sign more of our programs to make them accessible to signers and families who use asl. we do sometimes have staff people at some of those programs, but we don't have specific asl programs at any other locations right now. >> co-chair senhaux: thank you. council member alex. >> council member madrid: a couple of questions. one, how come on our data i

didn't see any -- particularly on mobility -- disability. are there any data for that? and making accessibility for all parks and kids. i just wondered even though you guys are trying to make playgrounds more accessible, i just want to emphasize the area has to be accessible, too. getting in and out. our park needs to be accessible.

>> it's true, i don't have any specialized programs for people with mobility disabilities, but that is something that we really want to offer, some sports. adaptive sports and hopefully competitive sports and opportunities for people with mobility disabilities. so that is an area we're hoping to expand into more. and, yes, the accessibility at facilities is really important. and that is something that paulina and her team works on. like anthony's project shows, there is lot more we can do with play areas and physical areas to make them more accessible. >> council member madrid: i was just wondering, you guys making the facility more inclusive. thank you. >> i just want to say that, we

did analysis of the san francisco recreation department accessibility for recreational elements included in the 2010ada standards, which included playground, golf courses, pools, courts fishing piers, all the ones that go through the department of inspection when we do renovation projects. we did a presentation here to the council around 2016. and we -- they were really happy to see that in our playgrounds, when we analyzed this, the study was based on accessibility to the playground itself, through the recreation, but also there

are many that serve them, like the restrooms, the parking. you know. if they were connected to recreation center. and our playgrounds run at 75% that we have accessibility, physical access. of which i think it was at least 50% or 65% that included not only the recreational limit, but the many that serve it. so in capital, when we do capital projects, renovations, new playgrounds, facility is one of the key elements we work with.

that makes it. but everybody, there are things, we need to put more swings that are accessible. but the fact that sometimes we're limbed by the space -- limited by the space that we have for the playground to create these traveling elements like in st. mary's park, you know, st. mary's, we have where a person can get into a structure with a wheelchair, it's a very long area. that is something we have to do and we have renovations in big areas to do it. but, yes, it is on our mind and we can do more of it. >> nicole: your point is well taken. i want to add. i know we need to end very soon. that as part of the planning, we

are also looking at the path of travel in and out of the parks. and play areas as part of what we're analyzing so that all of the features can be connected in the best way possible. >> co-chair senhaux: thank you, presenters. i appreciate your time. and waiting. so thank you so much. i want to open up public comment on this agenda item. and i want to thank the people that were waiting to speak for their patience. >> thank you for waiting. >> i want to thank mod for going late on this, i appreciate it. i want to address a couple of things about access with parks and rec. first i want to say that paulina during her presentation was talking about outreach and said that the average people near the park, 300 feet radius, that does

not seem far enough at all. i would think that if you're going to do construction in a park, at least three blocks would be reasonable. 300 feet is nothing. also, paulina has been very hard to get ahold of over e-mail. very hard to reach. it seems necessary to copy mod staff every time i want to reach them for something. it seems like a huge waste of resources. they could just respond and that would make life easier. i want to talk about the access of holly park, which is an important park to me. it has five entrances for able-bodied people and one for wheelchair users. that one requires me, once i get to the park, i have to go four city blocks around the park to get to the wheelchair accessible entrance. then i have a go up a huge hill and another couple blocks just to get to the bathroom. so i could be at the park with the bathroom in sight, 100 feet

away from me and i still have to go four blocks across the hill to get to the bathroom. that is crazy. i would love to get to this park and access it like able bodied people, without having a travel eight blocks to and from the non-accessible entrance i live near. also that park in 2013, my local monastery was killed by a park and rec worker driving a truck. i want to know if park and rec will make any sort of guarantee that they will stop driving trucks and motorcycles through our parks while we're laying down and relaxing and feeling safe. i see no reason motor vehicles should go through a tiny park like holly park. golden gate park is a huge park, but especially after someone has been murdered. i saw trucks go through that park and it's insane and unsafe for people with disabilities,

especially because i can't run out of the way of a truck. thank you. >> co-chair senhaux: anyone on the bridge line for public comment? okay. we're going to go ahead and close public comment. we're going to go to public comment number 9, item on the agenda, but within the jurisdiction of mdc. i understand that we have someone that would like to speak. >> yes, mr. bruce stier, california senior legislator. >> thank you, mr. stier, for waiting for your time. >> thank you for allowing me to speak. i know it's past adjournment time and i'll try to keep my comments to the required three minutes. my name is bruce, i'm a retired navy doctor living in san francisco. i'm here to talk to you about a

california building code standard that is that all public staircases must have handrails without exception. 20 years ago, when i was only 68, the giants opened up their new stadium. and i became a fan. i noticed in the first game, i sat down at field level and no handrails, but i was 68, so i was able to skip, jump, hop down, even holding a beer and hot dog. but as i got older, i couldn't do that. nothing to hold onto to go down

24 steps. sometimes as i got older, i would hold on the their shoulder, but sometimes i would come with an older person like myself, i have to get the usher. if there wasn't an usher, i had to put my hand on the strangers sitting in the aisle. as a member of the california sea legislature, i was suggest ed to get in touch with the american disabilities act people, and i did. someone who could arbitrate. and i met with him and four attorneys representing the giants at the stadium. four attorneys.

and they prevailed, because they decided that they had hooked up the ada rules -- looked up the ada rules and if the disability is only for -- [bell ringing] -- not just disabled people, but people who have disabilities, they don't require -- it's not in their jurisdiction. so i'm here today to let you know, that without handrails, seniors, vulnerable people in the community are at risk for falling and dying and it's time that the giants put up handrails. they do have handrails -- [bell ringing] -- upper grandstand but the field level ones, they did not feel they needed to put the handrails there and i asked, what is your objection? it's not that costly for you people. and their objection was, it may block the view of people sitting

on the aisle. all they have to do is move their head two inches and they'll be able to see if the handrail wasn't there. i implore that this council and maybe the board of supervisors to act with haste to make the giants understand that they are not exempt from the building code. thank you. >> co-chair senhaux: thank you, sir. we're going to go onto information item number 10. any correspondence? oh. my apologies. zack, please proceed. >> co-chair senhaux: do we have a comment on the bridge line? i'm sorry. okay. no problem. thank you. thank you, sir.

i meant to say this at the beginning of the meeting, but i wanted to extend an invite to an event i was hosting. featuring five lightning talks from entrepreneurs. you can register for the events at diverseability. [please stand by] [please stand by] in subsequent

testimony tonight

good evening. welcome to to may 15, 2019 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. president rick swig is presiding. he is joined by other commissioners. to my left is deputy city attorney who will provide the board with needed legal advice. at the controls is the board's legal as assistant. i am the board's executive director. we will be joined by representatives from the city departments. scott sanchez representing the planning department and commission. joseph duffy senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection and molly, deputy city attorney representing the department of public health. the board meeting guidelines are as follows.

turnoff or silence all phones and electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry conversations to the hallway. appellants and department respondents each are given 7 minutes to present case and three minutes rebuttal. rehearing three minutes each and no rebut. people affiliated must include the comments within these periods. members not affiliated have three minutes each to address the board. please speak to the microphone. to assist the board in minutes you are asked but not required to submitter a speaker card or business card to the staff. given that we have a vacancy on the board only three votes are required to grant appeal or rehearing request. the board rules please call or visit the board office.

we are located 1650 mission street room 304. this meeting is broadcast live on cable channel 78 and will be rebroadcast friday on channel 46. the video can be downloaded from sfgovtv. please note that any member of the public may speak without an oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony weight. please stand and raise your right hand and say i do. those giving testimony if you can stand. do you swear or affirm the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, hole truth and nothing but the truth. thank you. item one is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone to speak on a matter within the board jurisdiction

that is not on the calendar tonight. anyone for general public comment? you are not speaking about an item on the calendar, right? i'm sorry. >> thank you. i am an educator in bayview and have to return to students for a graduation. i would like to share something in the public comment section now. >> regarding an item on the agenda. >> i will refer to president swig. >> president swig: fine. >> thank you. my name is jessica samples. i live at 55 page street. my unit directly faces rose alley, and the restaurant's smokestacks. i live there with two small children and my husband.

when we moved in my unit filled with smoke that continues to make our eyes itch and stomach turn daily. folks might say you shufchecked it out before you bought it and realize it was next to a smokestack. we bought the unit through bmr program. we were not allowed to see which unit was available before we applied. i am an educator and we were relieved to have one shot of stable housing for my family. we knew if we passed it up due to the smoke it could be years or never we would have stable housing in the city. we went for it and believed the city of san francisco would never allow the smoke to continue to be what it was and is. when we moved in did we learn first hand the seriousness of the smoke situation. when we keep our windows and

balcony doors shut the smoke enters through the cool duct ventilation system and electric wall sockets. options were to sell and move which we would never be allowed to participate in the bmr program again or live with it. in direct response to the smoky invested over $7,000 to date to buy filters for our home. we spend over $1,000 each year on cartridge filter replacements and it is a nuisance not to be able to open windows and doors especially on a warm day. after the restaurant shuts down and staff goes home sometimes ambers burn and the smoke is there at 6:00 a.m. the air is still smoky due to something burning all night. we are low income family with young children and bmr children

smoked out by the restaurant. how is it okay we have to spend thousands of dollars we don't have on air filter maintenance to keep the air breathable for my family while the restaurant an income generating entity escapes responsibility. i ask to deny the appeal. no more continuances, no more delays. i appreciate your time. >> thank you. any other general public comment? okay. seeing none we will move to item two. commissioner comments and questions. >> president swig: no thank you. >> clerk: item 3 adoption of the minutes. are the minutes of the may 8, 2019 board meeting. >> president swig: any comments. >> adopt as submitted. >> clerk: any public comment on the minutes? on that motion commissioner

tanner. (roll call). >> that motion carries. the minutes are adopted. one change in the order of agenda. item 6 will be heard next. appeal 19-022. judd winick and pam ling at 1621 diamond street. to paramount estate of a site permit to existing single family house, add two nanowatts and two new half baths. application 2017/08/10/4463. we will hear from the appellant first. >> hello. my thanks to the board.

i appreciate your time and patience. i will be brief. i am judd winick representing myself and my wife pam ling. our house is next door and attached to 1621 diamond street the property in question. our concern is excavation and construction of the foundation for 1621. our home attached. we share a foundation. all we are asking the city please insure the safety of our home and all due diligence taken. a full documentation of the layout, shoring drawings be created, professional third-party review of plans, survey, specifically preconstruction survey to document existing condition of

our house and neighbor's house at mr. fong's expenses. it has this note exploratory pit to verify location of adjacent foundation to be made if underpinings adjacent method of construction i is necessary. work will be done under separate permit. we ask that we and representative be allowed to attend the site meeting with engineer to review the recommendations. we ask we are allowed reasonable now anchored -- and to coordinate it with us. we are not contractors or developers, not experts. we are lay people. we ask the board's guidance and

protection. in dealing with the proposed renovation we had to seek out lawyers and contractors. it is a financial burden. in our dealings with mr. fung they have not had our best interest at heart nor do we expect they should. they have misrepresented themselves. i bring this up because it has created adversarial relationship we do not feel comfortable relying on their suggestions how to proceed. they have not had our best interest at heart. they are rebuilding a house and are going to sell it. this is our home. our only asset. this is the last home we will own. for them they will build more houses every year. we understand that. this is why we hope you will help insure the safety of our home. we request we should not have to

bear any further financial burden. we are not building a house next door. these are not neighbors renovating a home. it is a business transaction they should pay for that. why they do not see fit the survey the neighbor's property prior to construction and our property seems suspect. everyone we have spoken to asked why they don't want to do this. as construction commences we could make a claim they damaged our houses without documenting the state of our homes before construction we could claim the construction caused this dang. it is in the best interest of mr. fung. we don't know why they don't do this makes it suspicious. they are rushing. to reiterate we ask for guidance of the board to insure safety of our home and actions taken will

not damage our home. this is our home for the next 40 years. we would appreciate the help. thank you for your time. >> we will hear from the permit holder. >> allen murphy on behalf of the permit holder. thank you for hearing us tonight. i would like to very briefly give you background on the history of the project, move to the main issue and respond to the specific points appellant raised. as a little background single family home renovation and expansion. detached single family home detached from appellant's home. they previously filed and withdrew discretionary review.

that was following negotiation between the planning attempt and consulting. there were questions over the building and they came to agreement. we are pleased to reach that agreement. those issues are not before the board this evening. at this point, the issue as thepe appellants mention is the foundation and the concerns about construction method. d.b.i. and other city departments provided the oversight by reviewing the plans with site permit application. when more detailed plans are submitted those plan checkers will review the plans to insure they are safe. d.b.i. would not have issued the site permit without insuring the project could be constructed in a safe manner. we are confident those measures have been taken.

we would like to address the specific request of thal appellants and these are met or are something that we agreed to here tonight. just to take them one by one. first, appl appellants requestee full documentation. they have been provided. exhibit c shows e-mail correspondence with appellants. first set of plans were supplied in january. there is also a set more recent in april we provided giving more detail about foundation work those were shared. d.b.i. will review those in the normal course. second and third request are for paramount to have shoring drawings.

paramount's experience have determined that shoring will not be required for the project along the appellant's property line. they showed the foundation of the project. shoring will be installed within the property. that is horizontal to the property line. no shoring on applelant's property line. the reason is that the bottom of excavation will be about half a foot above the bottom of the foundation on applelant's property. as a result when you have the higher level on the property will is no need for shoring. that is clear i in the new set f plans. we can attest to that tonight. i should add we have our engineer consultant here this evening. if there are technical questions he will respond. i will also anything i am able to as well. the next point is a request

paramount provide a survey of neighboring properties. there haven't been surveys conducted before. paramount is monitoring the condition of foundation of the neighbors since we have a shared interest to be sure everything is done safely. paramount agrees to survey the appellant's property and the neighbor on the other side before construction and after foundation and frames is complaint. that is something we are happy to do at my clients expense and to applelant's point to everyone in the neighborhood. the final point they requested paramount coordinate with future work plans for under pinning. the engineer consultants have done a detailed study and determined there is no need for under pinning whatsoever. that last item won't apply. you can see in exhibit d to the

brief the letter from the engineer consultant indicating why under shoring will not be required on this project. i am happy to address any questions the board might have at the appropriate time. >> i have a few questions. >> one of the things you noted there was not any shoring upon any further review because of the foundation of the home is lower than the subject property. in the brief it talks about surcharge. one of the ways is by having the foundation of greater depth. i wonder if that is a solution at that point with shoring of the neighboring property be necessary and how would that become part of the plans? >> there will not be shoringness. you will be bringing the foundation down to an equal level. that is a separate issue when you have foundations that are at

a different level than yo you wt to mitigator that in some way by the same level or piles and that will not require shoring. >> i was curious about the monitoring that is happening on the properties that are neighboring the subject property. can you go into more detail? is that photos what professional is performing that? what records are being kept of the neighboring properties? >> i should ask our engineering consultant to address that if you don't mind. >> thank you. >> good afternoon commissioners. if i understood the question correctly, the question is if the monitoring will happen during the construction? usually how it happens is that

survey of the neighboring adjacent properties before construction is started and after. during that we can also make arrangements for that to happen. usually that happens before and after. i have been informed by the property owner the licensed surveyor has been hired to do that at the moment. >> i want to understand a little bit about the back and forth that occurred as a result of the discretionary review that was withdrawn to understand the issues raised and the negotiations developed. were they related to the issues present or can you walk us through what the discussion was in. >> the issues were not primarily related to these issues. the apple laboratories did raise -- appellants did raise a

concern about safety of construction. it focused on the building envelope. there were concessions made on those points. they did broadly raise a concern about the safety there was no detail like this. >> one of the things that seems to be if i look at it would be concerning things like with the shoring upon close review we don't need to do shoring. perhaps there was proposal of shoring at some point. i want to understand how or why you feel they should feel confident that their foundation won't be damaged at all, none of their property will be damaged during the construction of the addition. >> sure. i will let amir expand. my understanding at the time the appellants filed this appeal we had not determined whether shoring would be required.

we had not been able to access from the plans of their own house. after the appeal was filed we went to look at the plans on file and were able to determine the bottom of their foundation has slightly been -- am i getting this right, beneath the bottom of our foundation and there is no shoring required. it is just a physical type arrangement. >> thank you. no more questions. >> if thank you. we will hear from the planning department. nothing from mr. sanchez. mr. duffy, building department? >> good evening, joe duffy. on the permit under appeal horizontal vertical addition to the single family home two new baths and half baths. it was reviewed by planning,

dpw, ppc and central permit borough issued on the 23rd of march 2019 and suspended on the third of april. this is the site permit document that will be an a be an a ddende work. i listened to the testimony. the concerns are valid. we hear them here a lot. that is if way it is in san francisco. the building code does address that under 3307. i have read it here. any damage to that neighbor's property would be an issue. they are required by california civil code 10 days prior to excavation starting to give the neighbor notice of excavation that needs to be done as well.

the appellant made reference to ashored foundation. that is the wrong term. that is foundations 1 an 1 and 2 buildings on one foundation. separate would be important to know because if they were shared that would be an impact. i think he meant they are beside each other, not actually shared. they are side by side. the survey is definitely a good idea. it is not required by the building code. anybody doing development these types of projects we see them and they are good because it lets us if someone complains they are getting cracking or something, we look at the survey, it gives you a lot of information. the note on the plans if they did go beneath the foundation they would have to do the underpinning. that is a general note on the plan.

d.b.i. want that on the drawings. it is usually on there just in case. from just reading the brief they are doing an 18-inch slab foundation which isn't as deep as a typical foundation. it provides the same strength as a regular foundation. they have chosen that method which means the bottom of the slab is not below the neighbor's foundation. i think you heard that. i did do some research today after reading the brief, and i did dig up the plans from the 1615 diamond street work done back in 2006 por 2006 purr mitt. if -- permit. if i could have the over head.

overhead. so in this detail we have foundation detail from the neighbor's property back in 2006. they are showing the new foundation here going level with the neighbor's foundation. you can see it is a fairly deep foundation. they have already stated they have checked where the bottom is and they are not going below it. we are okay on that. these are in d.b.i. records. i am happy to give them to the property owner if he wants them. if there there is any problem if the neighbor is concerned he can always file a complaint and we will send an inspector out immediately. we do take concerns seriously. we are usually on them the same day. i am available for any questions. >> a few questions.

one thing that you could explain for the benefit o of o appellan. this is everything but there is more information to be provided in the future about the construction here. >> site permit allows them to apply for a permit to see what they are coming out with. you would never do a full design. when you get the site permit it has basic information. the statements about the structural work. the work then the structural design comes after the site permit is issued. it lets you see what you are going to build. you wouldn't want be to structurally design something that could get changed during planning. it is a good process that comes in phases. most people take advantage of that. >> in the future phases do you

imagine some of the issues the appellant raises will be addressed as more structural detail comes or what might we expect to see in future permits? >> that is a very good question. from reading the brief and from hearing the testimony, it looks like they have done homework. they have this slab design. they know the bottom of the foundation. i wouldn't anticipate changes. if there was something after the addenda it would be a revision if they want to make changes. it seems they have done the homework on where the depth is. a lot of people don't go to that much detail that is what i am seeing. i hope that answers your question. >> how typical is that work performed and the type of structural activities going on in this property in san francisco? >> we see it all of the time. anybody who has done a major extension, remodel, new building, they have to take into

account the neighbor's foundation and design it appropriately. if they go below it they can under opinion his foundation. that happens all of the time. worst soil conditions. this would be good conditions. in other areas it is tricky. there is a way to freeze the sand and under pinning. it is pretty common because of the lot lines. >> last question. some of the challenges are regarding the trust placed in the plans submitted which are performed by professionals. can you talk about d.b.i.'s review of these plans or future things? how does the city make sure houses aren't going to found down? how do you look at these plans and permit applications?

>> the structural plans are going to be submitted to d.b.i. as addenda, routessed to the structural engineer at d.b.i., designed by the structural engineer, reviewed by d.b.i. engineer, and it has got to meet code. there has got to make sure it meets the codes. it is reviewed by d.b.i. structural plan check, i believe they call that. >> thank you. >> at the risk of being redundant, in the interest of providing comfort to the appellant and so the appellant is prepared in subsequent testimony tonight to ask more detailed questions. going down the list. we have the plans available so that is an issue that should satisfy appellant.

the issue of the shoring. at this point the shores is not required, but at some point when the knowledge plans and permit is filed for, if indeed shores is required, then we can revisit this issue or the appellant can revisit this issue by potentially filing a further appeal if they get uncomfortable. at this point you are comfortable no shoring will be required, correct? >> based on the testimony we heard that they weren't going to need shoring, that is one area not near the property line. yes, i mean if you are putting in the mud slab there is no need for shoring. i am not an engineer but inspector. it works well in san francisco. in this case if things change because plans change and that is