resident for approximately 19977 and, so that makes it 30 years or so. i am here, not to argue whether in fact there is jurisdiction or not, and whether my particular interest as a res did resident of san francisco is just the housing in san francisco. i think that it is admirable and ideal that the downtown developers are thinking or even more community conscious and seek to allow and include community organizations, community service organizations such as the proposed mexican museum. this county, to city and the state owes a great deal to our contributers in the past and i can go as far back as the russian resident. as well as spanish and mexican and irish and as well as

italians and well as others living in san francisco and contributing in san francisco. and allowing a museum that gives the new development to permit the people from out of town to see san francisco's commitment to diversity and san francisco's commitment to the historical routes and if you do have jurisdiction to rule on the item to be an asset to san francisco. >> next speaker please? >> good evening, lazarus and commissioners, my name is (inaudible) and i am a former president of the san francisco lawyer's association and also a life member. i am a former assistant district attorney in the city and county of san francisco. i am here comment on behalf of

706 mission and the mexican museum. those of us who have been members of this community for so long, the hispanic community about been waiting for a very long time to realize a dream.

you can be assured that the appeals are brought without permit, and they are indeed, frivilous on behalf of the lawyer's association and the hispanic community and in san francisco california, because we don't have a history here and in other states. i am here to urge you that you would deny the appeals that i speak for it and by doing so, you will enable the project to continue forward to become a reality and to serve the

community. and where people who visit san francisco can see this community at work. thank you for your consideration. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> i am sorry, could you speak into the mic? >> okay. good afternoon, commissioners, my name is (inaudible), and i am a member of the latin o (inaudible) and club, and i am here to speak on behalf of the 706 mission street mexican museum project. our organization represent the interests of the latino community in san francisco, we have followed the various city processes before the various commissions. on the vote and the supervisor relative to the appeal before

you. and they have been a fair and open process, of all levels of city government from the planning classes to the historic preservation to the mayor's office and the board of supervisors. for example, the eir, for the project was approved by the planning department and the opponents appealed to the board of supervisors and the board rejected the appeals and the er r, and certification by 11 to 0 vote, and just last week, and just yesterday, they were against voted (inaudible) to approve the height of the project. please, do not be fooled by the opposition false allegations before you. the truth is that the first residents and they viewed the block. and they are not protected. this truth is that all of the city entrances have done an

excellent job in possessing it over the project and please do not let a few nay sayers, try to allow these well sought out, and worthy process through a frivolous appeal. and please reject the appeal before you. by doing so you will empower the latino community to finally realize the dream of building the mexican museum of the garden art district. thank you very much. >> next speaker please? >> good afternoon commissioners, my name is (inaudible) and i am here as a member and representative of the latino leadership committee, our committee works hard to request the best requests of the community in san francisco and particular to the best interests of our children and youth. we want to assure you that the mexican museum is a beacon of light for the children and

youth and families and it is time for the museum to take its place at the garden art district. our community does not own deserve it but we have earned t many of the people and artist community leaders have worked countless hours for years to make the long held dream a reality and our art and culture deserves the place in one of the best locations in the city. and finally the amazing art collection that chronicles much of our history will have a home and i ask you to urge, and i ask you to urge you to reject the appeal before you, which ends to derail the mexican museum from being built and our community demands and respects that it deserves, 11 to 0 vote at the board of supervisors and please do not let a few get in the way of what is the right thing to do which is to support the mexican museum and please vote no to the appeal and let our community proceed to build the mexican museum. thank you. >> next speaker, please?

>> good afternoon, my name is pete (inaudible) and i have been in the mission all of my life and i was there and i lived in there when it was first conceived and i know the history of it and i have been watching what has been going on with this whole process. and for me what it boils down to is (inaudible) and good luck. and simple as that. and some people don't want this project to go on and it will be in the backyard and using every resource to come up to create good luck to stop it. all of the commission and planning commission and they all approved it and know what is going on here and it is about we have deep pocket and fight it and fight it until someone believes and hopefully we will get our way and we got to put an end to this in the city and this is the kind of thing that just tears a city apart and not only in this

issue but on other issues but we are not washington, d.c., you know, we don't have all of these lobbyists and paying all of this money to force their way. this is san francisco. and i want to repeat what everybody has said you know what the deal is, please, support the mexican museum and the project and let's stop this madness. thank you. >> any other public comment? >> seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i have a request for counsel for the appellants. in your research on the various city attorney opinions did you find anything beyond the 84 opinion? >> no. >> nothing? >> no. >> that is the city attorney

opinion. >> it might have been doing land use law for 25 years and these motions do not constitute a permit is absurd. >> thank you. >> commissioners in reviewing and having to remind myself about prop k and the various processes that were installed to deal with that and the fact that it crossed jurisdictions with multiple commission its was clear in my mind any way, that the nature of the 295, and

determinations was pretty much what i would call a conditional or an environmental type of review and therefore, not a permit type of review. and we know that those types of reviews as conducted by any of the departments that are not appealable to this board and i think that is a correct call. i think that i agree and i don't see anything in the charter that will give us jurisdiction over this determination and nothing under a 309, 295 and so i would not support the jurisdiction request. >> >> okay. >> move to deny the jurisdiction request. >> okay, thank you. >> if you could call the roll on that please? >> we have a motion from

commissioner fung? to deny this request and not evoke the subject matter jurisdiction. on that motion to deny president hwang's absent, commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner honda? >> aye. >> thank you. the vote is 4-0, and subject matter jurisdiction is not evoked, thank you. >> thank you. >> item four b is reschedule, and we will call four c.

subject property at 1980 golden gate avenue. letter from raquel fox, attorney for john tynan, kurt mueller & jason thrupp, requestors, asking that the board take jurisdiction over bpa no. 2013/05/16/7130, which was issued on june 24, 2013; the appeal period ended on july 09, 2013 and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on july 15, 2013. permit holder: urban green investments llc. project: revision to bpa no. 2012/10/29/2977; cost revision; unit 1998 need to replace entire slab and replace with structural slab; units 800-1, 802a, 804, 806a, 808 will need to replace floor joists under kitchens; all as per original plans. >> i am a second year student at the college of law and i am working under (inaudible) in the housing klen ing clinic and i will be representing these tenants of the golden gate street property and we request

the jurisdiction because on june 4th they filed with the planning department requesting notification for all permits in the building after receiving notification that they were applying for a building permit. but before, the permit had been issued. and the tenants feared being displaced from the homes during the course of these renovations as they would have to leave the property during that time. the permit in question was issued on june 24th without any review from the planning department as a result of that, the tenants were not aware that the permit had been approved until july 15th when the counsel fox happened to be checking the department of building inspection for another matter regarding inspections of the unit. the tenant filed this request for a jurisdiction on the same day after being notified that the permit was issued it was 16

days after it had expired, the reason that it was 6 days late because they rely on the notification, regarding the issuance of the permit and receiving notification from the planning department or from the permit holders themselves and the suggested changes are significant enough to require the approval of the permit and the change that the permit is seeking and including the foundation of the building and the floor joists. tenant john who is a carpenter believes that this will take at least three months which is a significant amount of time for displacement and should be subjected to planning department review. the owners of the property have not been responsive with the tenants when they asked for more information, where they can keep their items during the displacement or information regarding their renovation plans. and they are not seeking a permit revocation of the permit or a delay in the process merely seeking to petition the permit to prevent a displacement from the

affordable housing and vn living in the units for more than 12 years, is that right? >> they request that you grant the jurisdiction to grant an appeal. >> do you want to respond to the permit holder's claim in the brief that your institution knew about this permit? >> yeah that is false, we knew that they were applying for a permit but never received notification that it was issued. they put a notice that they were applying for a permit in may and i forget the exact date. may 22nd. but, we never received notification that the permit had been approved and that is when the 15-day period would start. all right. >> thank you. >> thank you for your time. >> could we hear from the permit holder now?

>> good afternoon, vice president lazarus, and commissioners, my name is patterson for the permit holders. and i will very briefly tell you about the alleged basis for this request, about the notice that the tenants actually had about the basis for the appeal and that is lacking. and about the reason that we are here today. the requesters alleged that the planning department failed to provide notice under the notice system or bbm system which gives notice of planning review permits. and but the requestor did not apply for the bbm notice until after the permit had already been filed and reviewed. the requestor's attorneys are simply off base with this. the criteria only looks at city actions and not permit holder

actions. but i will mention that the permit holder gave the requesters, even more notice than was required, notices were posted on may 27th, and june 6th posted on the doors and mailed to the tenants which is not required and upon issuance. on top of that, the attorney admits that she was monitoring the permit tracking website as all appellants are supposed to do and so they had plenty of notice, more than double the notice that is required. the requestor wants to appeal the permit because it should have received planning review. but this is a non-subnative permit to cost changes with no new plans, the original permit that this was in fact reviewed by planning and received approval. and back in april, and the requesters never appealed it. and so if they knew about the permit and chose not to appeal it and had no basis for an

appeal why are they asking for jurisdiction today? the real reason is leverage in a different case, my boss, reached out to miss fox, the tenant's at the pointer before the permit was issued and she blew him off.. and my boss refused to buy out a tenant in a different building at 642 rush avenue who she represented she responded by threatening to appeal this permit. again two different tenant and different buildings, and this is documented in our exhibits a, f. >> e-mail trails and so miss fox is either trying to trade our clients off like baseball cards or trying to bring a political issue to the board of appeals, either way of which is inappropriate. he is going to speak about the need for this work. >> i am the peer reviewer and the engineers were not available and ron hamburger one

of the leading engineers in the nation and there are substances and foundation issues and we have a retaining recall and this permit needs to move forward and i am concerned about the safety of the building. >> and i am the construction manager. and representing the owner. and i concur with what has been stated. and one of the tenants actually came into our office inquiring about the permit after our first posting. this is about a completely separate building or it is about trying to squeeze more

money out of the owners, either of which snot a legal basis for granting late jurisdiction after the requestor simply chose not to appeal. and thank you. >> thank you. >> and any departmental comments? >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you, scott sanchez planning department and does commissioner fung have a long history of the board of appeals dating back 7 years and previous issues related to a fire escape which was proposed to be added to the building and concerns about impacts on the potential historic resource here and it has been addressed and they have given a new fire escape that was appropriate and what is at issue here is a revision permit and the revision permit was not routed to the planning department and there is a block and notification request on the property that has been in place since early june. the revisional permit that this permit revises, was submitted

last october and issued this last april on april 18th. and that permit was to repair the basement and frame and replace the basement and it was routed to the planning department to review and we review ited and approved it and our approval was from october. and so, we that permit again was issued and this permit is a revision and the description of this, it is a revision to this previous permit cost revision and it does not actually include any new plans it was all work to the original plans on may and may 16th and was issued on june 24th that was not routed through the planning department and in terms of determining what permits get routed to the planning department that is in the roll of the department and planning inspection and typically if there was a revision to the permit that we had already reviewed we would see the revision permit and unless the

event that revision permit has nothing to do with planning and that it can be a difficult call to make and in this case, the revision permit does say as per the original plan there was were no changes in the plan it would be if they approved for the permit and they made the changes for the plans and they were able to confirm that they were code complying and there were no changes to the plan and it is unclear what changes if any could result from the land use impact and it said that the clarification of the bbm and that is a notice. when we review a planning department and the planning department reviews the permit it is not a notice for an issue ans and only those for the planning department. and we will give a ten day notice to the bbm requestor to with which they can request more information or request a ddr and they will approve the

permit and in the permit righting sequence we are always just typical and generally always the first department to review a set of plans or a permit. and so having known what this revision permit on the 16th and having been routed to the planning and they have been able to approve this over the counter on the same day on may 16th. and that would have been a relevant date for triggering the bbm notice and not the date of june 24th. and once the permit has completed out the review and if someone filed a bbm request, after that, but before the permit has been issued. we don't vai mechanism to recall it just in order to provide the notice and so we do it and the bbm notice again is while it is under our review. and so, in this permit was not routed to us and has not been routed to us and i think that it is likely that it would have been approved and revised and

approved. and so that is some information, that may help the board in their decision making. >> if it had been routed for the planning it would not have been routed because the plans were the same? it is just a revision? >> that is my assumption for the determination that dbi made and not routing because there were no changes. >> we will hear from the dbi and the second question is the request for the jurisdiction request is based on the fact that they don't want to be displaced while this work is ongoing and so would that be a consideration that planning had reviewed it would take into account. that is why we have the rent board for and to address those when the landlord tenant issues and although, this board has taken that into consideration and you know, certainly, the planning commission has the same level of discretionary

authority to consider the matters as this board does and make it just into consideration and just at the staff level review and that is what we have the rent board protections for. >> and mr. sanchez, you are pretty sure that the plans that is on the basis of this current permit are exactly the same as the previous ones. >> yeah, excellent question and there were no plans for it, it is my understanding that the revision permit did not have plans because there were no changes. and so... >> it was just a permit form itself. >> that is my understanding, and so it was evaluation issue and i think that they changed the cost of construction to reflect, you know, i don't know, the accurate cost and so maybe that is something that the department building of inspection could shed more light on. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> typically that permit will not be routed to planning, and it was a form three, and just for information purposes, we have a form that is a form three/8, and the form three is a job that is submitted and goes through the plan of the youth process as opposed to a form 8, which someone will take through and walk over the counter and in this case, this was submitted and went to one of our engineers, and we had an issue a housing clearance. and the engineer to determine the valuation was correct and approved the permit and so it was a routine approval and as well as the notification that was required for structural and the permit was issued. and in the previous comment, was stated that in most cases when the original permit is reviewed by the department of city planning, if there is a revision, it will go back to the same review agencies that

provided the initial clearance and there are occasions when the applicant or the permit holder would not want to go through his extra steps in the revision did not effect those and however, we require that those agencies review it and on occasion, although, the staff will make an error and we will not have the planning review that. this particular permit will not be reviewed by planning if the scope of the work and the permit is to adjust the evaluation. okay? >> thank you. >> is there any public comment on this item? >> okay, seeing none, commissioners the matter is submitted. >> on the 50 original permit was not challenged. and since the notice was

normally provided by the bbm system, was not submitted early enough to be in the original review, i find no basis to accept jurisdiction and prepare to deny it. i don't have anything more to add, i agree. >> i too, agree. >> i move to deny, the jurisdiction request. >> thank you. >> could you call the roll please? >> we have a motion from commissioner fung to deny the jurisdiction request. on that motion, the president is absent, commissioner hurtado? >> aye. >> vice president lazarus. >> aye. >> commissioner honda. >> aye. >> thank you >> the vote is 4-0 to deny jurisdiction and it is denied. and no appeal may be filed on this permit. thank you. >> thank you. >> so with the vice president's consent we are going to call

item 7 next. appeal no. 13-070friends of yerba buena, 765 market street residential owners association, matthew schoenberg, joe fang, margaret collins, paul sedway & ron wornick, appellant(s) vs. planning commission, respondent motion holder: 706 mission street llc706 mission street. protesting the adoption of findings for a planning code ♪309 determination of compliance (rehabilitate existing 10-story, 144-foot tall building and construct a new, adjacent 43-story tower, reaching a roof height of 480 feet with a 30-foot tall mechanical penthouse). motion no. 18894. for hearing toda. >> we will start with the appellant.