Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 13, 2014 12:30am-1:01am PST

12:30 am
as you know i come before you on behalf of overview have a tanning. i'm licensed in the state of california as a technical engineer. i have over 45 years of experience in practicing so so to technical engineering. i spent most of my professional career involved in work in san francisco. i support the appeal for the 1311051188. therefore i'm not going to repeat what was down, however, i'm prepared to answer any questions. let me respond to the rebuttal. i maybe overzealous in calling
12:31 am
the notice red tagged but as i recall it was touch and go to whether ms. top of could stay there her home in 2005. this was serious and it led to the then district supervisor shawn. several of the visits from the inspection namely raymond louie to name some. in the previous version of the construction drawings that i've reviewed in september 2013. i indicated the 24 inch would be measured to the bottom of the concrete foundation. let me see. i think i can -
12:32 am
maybe i can work maybe i should turn it around. okay. this is the line of the original foundation of the north foundation of 25 trouf and the bottom of the under pinning piece. we want to have the underpinning not to expose them. the agreement was to provide 25 inches to the bottom underpinning piece. the drawings show it's not 24 inch to the bottom of the foundation but 24 inch to the bottom of the drain route.
12:33 am
so i have been working with mr. yeez and his team. now, mr. you rained a new structural engineer the team was solomon to replace the fan who was the civil engineer on the project but he since then moved out of the area and declined to participate on the project no more. i filed on appeal on december 29th on behalf of the issuing of the permit 20131188 because we wanted to see that the appropriate revision could be done to protect ms. taungz
12:34 am
property. now allen of the mechanics engineer i asked the team to bring him on board so he can continue participation on the project so we can have a meeting of minds and come up with solution to protect ms. tannings foundation. i requested the meeting and that conversation but that meeting and conversation has never come through. now in my letter of december 19th i requested the permit be rescinded. however, i believe that a more positive way to move the project is for the board of appeals to continue the hearing hearing with the stipulating stipulation with the issues at hand obey
12:35 am
resolved by professionals on both sides. including due to the technical engineer. in addition in coloring i want to call your attention this permit was issued before we got to the requirements of submittal of the new building as stipulated in the new information sheet number s dash 05 issued by tom huey the department director on august 15th. now as of today we're not aware that a new update to the 2005 report was ever submitted for the permitting process.
12:36 am
commissioner thank you for the opportunity for me to speak. as director by ms. top of my assignment is to protect the integrity of her house and to prevent the construction on 29th avenue. i'm going to put this information sheet on the desk. i'm only presenting the first sheet. that document has 3 sheets. >> referred to the overhead. i don't hear is that a question >> i referred to the overhead no, no. maybe we should - >> yeah. that's the one -
12:37 am
yeah. >> is it on here. >> you want to have me read it out allowed to you. >> if you have time. >> i have item one new building with the exception of one story occupy 0cy this is referring to the technical report requirement. >> okay. >> this is my presentation if you have any questions, i'll be happy to answer them. >> i'm going to put up my copy. i was the structural engineer that did the repair work at this
12:38 am
highway that was in serious condition they undermined the house by 2 feet and it's lucky known died. i remember playing on the plane in the 60s it was korean yet. the issue there's a 2 photo agreement. it's important to understand there's only one technical generally involved in any of this right now it's eddy. i'm a licensed engineer and they have a licensed structural engineer. we've met out there and marked it on our underpinning permit everyone's happy. the problem is their building a
12:39 am
garage and their sidewalk is 7 inches below that the mat. they have not addressed that. if they make the mat at the top of the sidewalk i understand the board didn't want to get into those issues. this is the thirty foot evaluation. the code requires a geotechnical engineer whatever you build a building. they have a technical engineer in 2002 who's no longer involved. they're going under the foundation to a max foundation. page 2 of the same bulletin says when you going to a nonstandard
12:40 am
design even when our not going to a grading or using a special foundation or not compiling with the bearing. so here's the process you do the report and submit it where the drawings and they ask for the geotechnical engineer to write a closer report saying the drawings match my sole last report and then the permit issue. it's a completely different design they've submitted a permit here's the permit application and the only person involved is the structural engineer. that's you can't what i am i would not go practicing technical. if you look at this note right here it says the calculations by
12:41 am
mr. southern california sullivan. i looked for a technical report none exists so if they want to revise the design get a new sole last report and a closer report they're not comblooil that the contains. the solar report the structural engineer has to address and this is why they have to explain it. the same problem that happened 10 years ago. if the technical engineer complied with the code and they'll be working out how to work with the underpinning issues. we've schd asking them to submit a report or use the old report
12:42 am
and submit a closure letter and pretty much that g.e. will be calling up this g.e. and workout how to do the problems. let them build the building and comply with the code and the safety issue of her house will be okay. we're asking for a continuance >> we can hear from the permit holder now or his agent. >> good evening board members. i'm the actual the person who is helping the c e and how to best effect this. i want to say we met about 3 months ago all parties involved
12:43 am
and the building inspection and we were all in agreement that to mark on site the level in which the finish slab was going to be and that was going to satisfactory everyone. further we adding to procure a permit because the belief was the sign was not quite meeting that because mr. allowing had some concerns about the gravel thing. so we argued to do that unfortunately at that time, we didn't know that the original research jeer e engineer was not available and we r0i7b9d mr. solomon who amended the plans they were given to ms. leo and
12:44 am
we started to process the permit and the 24 inch on the cross section that was similar to what mr. allowing submitted. we went ahead and put in the permit that's in question. furthermore, i want to rebut the claims that no engineer has been involved. i have a letterly will i october 29th that he states the performance has been submit >> - can we refer to the overhead? yes, please >> anyway, i think we are
12:45 am
beating a dead horse. we're more than willing to comply with that without having to go through this whole extensive measures. one before we put concrete their more than welcome the original engineer has to review the placement of the foundation. we told them we're more than willing to participate with that. and we are more than glad to work with them with that stipulation but reassigning the foundation it's going to delay the project another two or three
12:46 am
months which i thought the meeting we had was to quote that process. everyone came out of the meeting the appellant and ourselves we are trying to economy. we're in absolute compliance with what they require the 24 inches requirement >> i have a question - go ahead. >> before i sit down there's some questions. >> questions for you. i have a question for you >> yes. >> is this the same ownership that was done prior. >> same owner. >> okay. >> it was state by the appellants that part of the agreement that you provide them with the construction permits have you done that. >> correct and as i mention mr.
12:47 am
leo met with us - >> no, no, no the construction set of drawings did you provide them that. >> no, no we have not done that yet. we again get a chance because it of appealed before that >> okay. mr. duffey. >> commissioners just i thought we were doing the jurisdiction request but he everything got rolled going into one. i suppose from a building point of view issuing the permits for accident renewal y where work
12:48 am
hadn't started or they stopped the project there's nothing wrong with that permit so i'm not sure what the appellants is trying to get with that. that would stop the building of the building, of course, if it was taken under appeal there's a chance of that. so from the building department we didn't do anything wrong we rue renew permits everyday. so one thing about this promise is i do notice that i was there i gave up a morning to go out there and everyone was getting along and they were shaking hands i left 83 and then saw the appeals. it's a simple matter of figuring out this report and the depth of
12:49 am
the foundation that's what we need to figure out. i noticed on the permit to revise the foundation to change the foundation on design not foundation that the d b i engineer has special excavation i think that has to be done by a geotech they need to have one on board. and if there was required i don't know the answer to that question i have to go babe to structural inspection. i imagine there was one on the building in 2002 because that's definitely a requirement. i didn't look for it but if there's a new one for the foundation to be changed it was brought up i don't know that's what he says he's in there a lot
12:50 am
but that would be something i'd have to speak with the engineers about. from where we are i authenticity everybody was getting along. there was issues six or seven years ago. the people at the 25 we actually have permits before they start to build close those out and fix the mistakes. i can work with them on that. that's it for me. if you have any questions, we'll be happy to answer them >> mr. duffey a couple of questions. there was a time when a site
12:51 am
specific slow last report was not done if there was a report done within a reasonable distance that provided a profile; is that correct >> yes. >> did you e but you don't know if the report was done. >> i assume it was done on the original permit i can't imagine that there's not one. i know size reports if you didn't if someone had one as i said and next year i could ice that report so the department would have looked for that in 2002 but i can't say whether there was a report but i imagine our structural engineers a plan site would have required one
12:52 am
>> is this case related to the 5 to 7 inches of concrete and the other is procedural. >> that's what i think it is to do without the 24 inches. >> they spend more on the hearings than the cost of concrete. >> i thought they were getting along and the foundation if they match you have to bring it down to your foundation and if you're going to build our new building you have to there pin it but it's one i haven't seen before. >> it's a little bit confusing.
12:53 am
the geotech from the appellant mentioned there's a 7 inch difference between and how does that get justified. since this is a pretty old permit during the revision and you mentioned something you're changing the foundation style to something that is a mat >> i see it occasionally because they want to get the building built the idea was between the design professionals they'll do a mat foundation that was part of the fiat e meeting. indian is this is what the permit does. so in order to have it piloted i think it has to do with what commissioner fung presented
12:54 am
they're talking about the 24 inches it maybe 5 inches not 7 >> and again, i forgot my last question. this lot was part of the corner house loot wasn't it >> yes. i don't know. >> it was part of the 25 lot. >> because there were a big dispute regarding that. okay. thank you >> thank you. thank you, joe >> mr. sanchez has indicated he's not unless you have questions we'll took any public comment? okay. seeing none mr. allowing you have rebuttal >> may i have 2 minutes. >> yes. >> thank you.
12:55 am
>> wait. >> try to go ahead with that. >> okay. i think we've talked about this case before. the restaurants on union street. last enclosure.
12:56 am
>> sorry. okay. commissioner i want to make it - >> how much rebuttal time. >> 6 minutes. i want to say the easy ones first, the first one 13094. mr. duffey said he saw or somebody inspections saw the underpinning it was done, however, it was not done under the old permit that was approved by the joint. that effort was total failure
12:57 am
and the underpinning as shown on the perimeter of 2508 on 19th street was under designed by engineers. if you read my information you would cover those 3 permits. it's a simple thing the permit was issued in error. the work was never done. now getting back to what the gentleman testimony. he said we met before he filed the permit that's correct we met on november 27th in the lobby of 1660 mission street. at that time, he agreed to show 24 inches between the bottom of the foundations to the bottom of
12:58 am
the underpinning peers but right now if you go to the department and ask to see the permit as set the permit is set at the 18 inches. now i couldn't make copy because i have no right to that set of drawings. if you go i did i look at the permit drawings before i told mr. tanning and then she end up fighting the appeal permit. so he's not telling the truth. 18 inches on the drawings was handwritten in and not signed by tim o'sullivan. i want you to recognize that. thank you >> i want to clarify something
12:59 am
else. when we met we talked about the 24 inch from the bottom of the mat foundation to the bottom of our footing and the thickness of the slab would have to be adjusted. they're not proposing a thick mat slab which is going to be six or seven inches above the street because i don't know cars that go over 7 inch slab. i don't want to be at this hearing i suggested if you have an engineer let's talk to them tonight is the first time i've heard they have an engineer. they were he supposed to submit a closure letter saying they've reviewed the design. there's nothing on the application saying they've done
1:00 am
that. so if they've done that i don't know why we're asked to meet here. they don't want to communicate with us for some reason. the last time they dug out there someone spent a quarter of a million dollars. they don't have a letter. they need to submit this as part of the permit it's a public document and we would like to talk to the engineer they've figured a way to drive over a 6 inch step but they can't change the drawing if they've got a drawing we'd love to see it. eddy is correct you can't make copies of the microfilm. we'll e people need