i am a mother, and i live on that block. i am four buildings down, and i am on the tenant council, and i am so worried. a part of selling drugs. a lot of danger. people injecting themselves openly on the streets, and also, when you have a baby carriage, not moving out blocking or pass. i ask you to do this. director told -- goldstein: saint you. next speaker. >> i have been for five years in the tenderloin. i want you to consider them part of your community, because they are, and folks here today are very concerned. not just the families, but also the seniors and the elderly who

are all concerned about the dangers in the tenderloin. regardless, it is going to bring an element. a drug dealing culture. we need to get control of it. you have heard from us. you have heard from the child- care center on the block. you have heard from the preschool around the corner and those from family housing. you have heard from the other tenant leaders.this is unanimoue community. this is really a concern, and we ask you please to say no to the pharmacy. please side on the side of the community. i thank you for your time. director goldstein: thank you. is there any more public comment? please step forward. >> my only plea to you is to consider this pharmacy.

my two children were born and raised in the tenderloin, and as crazy as it might sound, there are families who are living there. we are dealing with crime and violence. police. you heard it all. -- please. please consider not on turk. there will be more crime and more narcotics on our streets. director goldstein: thank you. anymore public comment is closed seeing none, commissioners, the matter is before you. -- any more public comment? public comment is closed. seeing none, commissioners, the matter is before you.

president goh: commissioners? >> [speaking spanish] gracias. >> hi, my name is -- rodriguez. i am here to ask you to consider the pharmacy. i have a son who goes to the daycare which was mentioned before, around the corner from that particular block. i just wanted to share with you that we are afraid it is going to get more dangerous around there, and we ask you to consider that. thank you for your time. director keppler -- director goldstein: thank you.

commissioners, the matter is before you. president goh: director gol dstein -- director goldstein: i suggested she could use the same size font to level the playing field. president goh: i do not remember if she did so. thank you. just to remind, and i had to remind myself, originally, the hearing was scheduled for august 18, and it was rescheduled to october 6 at the request of

>> you will need to either take a seat or leave the room because we need to have the whole is clear. the m4 hundred 21. -- room 421. thank you. good evening and welcome to the march 16, 2011 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer is board vice president michael garcia.

joining him on the dais is commissioner chris hwang, tanya peterson, and commissioner fung. president goh is absent because of a family emergency. to my right is the board clerk. i am the board's executive director. we have representatives from some city departments who will be speaking this evening. laurence kornfield is here. joseph duffy will be representing the department of building inspector. scott sanchez is here, representing the planning department and planning commission. he is joined by planner dan sider. carla short is here representing

the bureau of urban forestry. john hwang is representing street use and mapping. i will go over the meeting guidelines. the board requests you turn off all cellular phones so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallway. appellants, permit holders, and department respondents each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for a bottle. people affiliated with these parties must include the comments within this. members of the public who are not affiliated with the parties have up to three minutes each to address the board, and no rebuttal. please speak into the end of the microphone. you're asked but not required to submit a speaker card or business card to stop when you come up to speak. speaker cards are available on the podium. the board welcomes your comments and suggestions.

there are forms on the podium for your convenience. if you have a question about requesting a rehearing or a hearing scheduled, please speak to step during a break or call or visit the office. we're located at 16 is the mission street room 304 -- 1650 mission street room 304. this is rebroadcast fridays at 4:00 on channel 26. the beebes are available for purchase. -- dvds are available for purchase. if you intend to testify, please stand, raise your right hand, and say "i do." do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the whole truth? thank you. vice-president garcia, members of the board, we have one

housekeeping item this evening, in regard to item 4f, a jurisdiction request. this matter has been withdrawn and will not be heard this evening. we can move into item one, public comment. is there any member of the public wishes to speak on an item that is not on tonight's agenda. i believe mr. kornfield will speak under that item. >> members of the board, staff, and the "the deputy director of the department of building inspection. the department will be sending other representatives to the board. it has been my great pleasure to come here. it has been 22 years representing the department of building inspection as chief building inspector and deputy director. it has been the most fun of my job at the department of building inspection. it is an interesting,

intellectually challenging job you do. i want to thank you for that opportunity and the great pleasure of being here. i am sure you will be well served by staff who will continue to come. i should mention i will be working with a city administrator under the mayor's office on the earthquakes of the implementation program starting in may, to see if we can move the city forward in earthquake safety projects. thank you very much. vice president garcia: thank you, mr. kornfield. commissioner fung: since i third met mr. kornfield in 1986, he and i both had darker hair, and i would like to thank him for his service not only to the city, but also in terms of what he added in the discussions and

decision making of this board. thank you, mr. kornfield. vice president garcia: i feel sometimes i have been here a long time, and i have been here only a fourth of the time of mr. kornfield. i always felt we were in capable hands when you stood before us. there were plenty of times when you help us work out solutions to problems we were having as to where we needed to go. i am very crippled for the service in the past. i will -- i am very grateful for the service in the past. good luck. commissioner peterson: i want to congratulate you on the new position. you have been a gentleman. it was a pleasure to work with you. thank you for all your service to our city. commissioner hwang: i have had the least experience with you, but when cynthia sent us the e-

mail saying you are no longer with us, i said this is such a bummer. in my short time working on this board, i have appreciated your input and the education. thank you. vice president garcia: thank you. >> is there any other comment under this item? seeing none, will move on to item two, commissioner comments and questions. commissioners? seeing none, item three, the adoption of minutes. but for you for consideration are the minutes of march 9, 2011. vice president garcia: seeing no comments, i move we adopt the findings. >> the minutes? vice president garcia: thank you. >> seen no public comment, i will call the roll. commissioner fung: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye.

>> president goh is absent. the motion carries 4-0. moving to item 4a, adoption of findings for the property at grant avenue, also known as 460 greene street. crown importune properties -- fortune properties. the board voted to grant an appeal and overrule the zoning administrator with the adoption of findings at a later time. notice of violation and penalty dated august 17, 2010, addressed to pgb regarding the business professional service use in violation of the planning code. the indication i have received from the zoning administrator and the appellant is that they are in agreement with the language of the findings as

written. at this time, you can ask to hear from them if you wish. otherwise, if you have any revisions to suggest, you can bring them forward in the can be entertained. public comment on the adoption of findings? seeing none, we need emotion. commissioner fung: move their adoption. >> motion by commissioner fung to adopt the findings as written. vice president garcia: aye. commissioner peterson: aye. commissioner hwang: aye. >> thank you. findings are adopted. we'll move on to item 4b, which i will like -- will now call. jurisdiction request. the subject property is on filbert street. we received a letter asking the

board allowed the filing of appeals against the building permit applications, which for all issued on january 31, 2011. all were issued pursuant to a conditional use authorization and thus unappealable under the city charter. the permit holders are dominique lahaussios and david low. the project it is renovation and remodeling of existing landmark cottages and an artist's studio , and addition of a garage. the matter was continued to allow for the sub middle -- submittal of additional

evidence. that was provided to you in your packets and by e-mail. you should have hard copies on the dais. we will not take additional comment from the parties unless there are questions from commissioners. vice president garcia: this any commissioner of the question of either one of the parties? commissioner fung: i have a question for the jurisdiction requestor. >> ms. brandt-hawley? >> good evening. commissioner fung: i saw your submission, but i was not quite sure what you were trying to say with it. if you could be sent and explain why you provided this particular -- if you could be

succinct and explain why you provided these particular materials. >> the plans were revised. the of original plans show a retaining wall being totally replaced. the plans were revised. he was given a copy by the planning department in october. the revised plans show going around his retaining wall. he was told the project would not touch the retaining wall without his permission. we were showing you that this is what we have been concerned about. the plans were changed and there has been no oversight. the materials given to us by mr. junius have given a lot of new information we did not have before. the approved plans, unknown to us, have gone back to completely replacing the retaining wall.

there is an easement agreement we did not realize was an issue. they do not have a right to take away his retaining wall. they also submitted a report by mr. lewis, which in essence agrees with dr. parks' report. it has limited discussion of groundwater and did not do it well. that underscores the problem we have here. i do not know if you will permit me to talk about the building commission appeal. i did check with them, because there are questions from the board about that. normally, they did not accept appeals of building permits. normally, it must be a decision regarding an application. in this case, we have the permits already issued and it would be too late. i would certainly ask that you leave the question of jurisdiction open to see if we are allowed to go before them or not.

we believe the proper jurisdiction is here. commissioner fung: thank you. commissioner peterson: do you want to give the permit holder a moment to respond? commissioner fung: that is only fair. commissioner hwang: would you talk about the change to the retaining wall drawings you just described? you said it very quickly. we also did not request any written comments and i am hearing it for the first time. >> we just understood in the last couple of days, through the sieve middle of mr. -- through mr. junius, that there is a change to the retaining wall. we thought the plants were what was handwritten, revised. we have just learned is that the

plans that were now approved show the wall like the original, is my understanding. somehow, it that changed back from the revised plans, which were never approved. that was actually approved, something else that requires the will to be taken down. this is news to us. that is why i have a copy of the easement agreement i would be happy to submit to you. the cannot legally take down that wall. that is what the current plans, i believe, show. commissioner hwang: on that issue, mr. sanchez, would you be able to speak to that? no. who here from which department could talk about those plans? were they taken in reverse, such that the retaining wall is going to be removed? >> removed and replaced. commissioner hwang: that is what was originally proposed? i am confused. >> it was originally proposed.

they do not have permission to do that. somehow, they are back to the original. it is so confusing. we do not know why or how that happened. in october, we were given the plans we marked as revised. commissioner hwang: if you have an easement issue, you would have a different avenue of recourse. >> i do not even know what that is. it just seems if they are going to replace the wall -- there are a couple of different issues. one is the permission to replace the ball. the bottom-line issue is that no one has looked at the ground water issues that i guess to keep the underwater -- to keep the underground garage dry, we now have the applicant's report that concurs that the groundwater study had one line about ground water, that is in

the letter from mr. junius. no one has analyzed it in any independent forum like this. commissioner hwang: thank you. >> we will hear from mr. junius now. >> i am here on behalf of the permit holders and project sponsors. let me start with just the basic premise that what we provided in our pocket where the approved conditional use plans and the approved building plans, and the fragments of plans that were produced by susan were in between those. there were clearly, from the time that we got approval at the planning commission to the time the building permit was issued -- a lot of things happened. a lot of permits had to get prepared. the foundation permits, the

architectural permits, a lot more drawings in process right now and being planned checked. the sequence of events was essentially as follows. we worked for almost three years with mr. dimartini to get an agreement we thought we could get. we got that arm for other properties. we are working fine with them. we are going to do a different foundation system with respect to the retaining wall. it did not happen here. after the planning commission approved the project, we had to shift gears on the foundation issue for that corner of the property. we thought about encasing it and doing an little bit of a different approach. we thought more about it as the process went forward and we were getting ready to have the building permits issued and the structural done. we finally decided that since

the retaining wall is at least 2 feet on our property, it is our retaining wall and parts of it can be removed and improved. we have a structural engineer who is happy to talk more about the details with respect to the foundation issue. i think back to the primary issue of jurisdiction. the permits that are before you are connected to the site permit set. these are the drawings that need to be consistent with the cu. the technical issues that come after this are not appealable. susan is trying to appeal those aspects of the project when the basic issue is that the site permits that must be consistent with and issued pursuant to the cu set. happy to answer more questions. vice president garcia: mr. duffy, if you would sir.

one issue that has been raised by the request for jurisdiction has to do with seeping of water from one property to another property. that is against code, correct? or that the case, that would have to be corrected. >> that is correct. i would imagine that going through the review at dbi by structural engineers down there -- obviously, they are going to review the g attack -- the geotech reports. that is still going through review. if it was a problem later on, obviously we would look into it. but it is a dispute obviously between two geotech reports. we are going to review it as part of the approval process. vice president garcia: mean

staff at -- you mean staff at dbi? >> we would be looking at all the geotech plans and calculations. all of that should be reviewed thoroughly and then built accordingly. it should be designed not to have any problems with water. commissioner fung: -- vice president garcia: thank you. >> i think we should call for public comment since we have heard from various speakers. is there any public comment on this item? seeing none, the matter is yours. if we move into deliberation, i need to tell the folks who are standing up the need to have you take a seat or move to the overflow room across the hall. the cannot have that door with blocked. thank you. commissioner fung: i can start.

the issue before us, i think the request from the last hearing was whether to accept this appeal. the reason why we would even debate that is the issue of whether the permits were as a result of the conditional use that was granted for this particular property. our efforts to request additional information was to see if there were potentially components of the permit that were not related to the conditional use that was found. in my opinion, after reviewing the entitlements package, the

geotechnical report, the environmental report, and the three sets of drawings, it is my opinion that all three permit applications are directly tied to the cu. the relationship of the cottages to the large addition to their rear, the retaining wall that is required to support the rear, and its relationship to be a higher properties above it -- to the higher properties above it are clearly reflective of the cu, and i do not think we have jurisdiction over this particular matter. commissioner hwang: i reviewed

by television the hearing on march 9, 2011. a very interesting case, complicated. the issue before us i thought was relatively limited. unfortunately, the additional evidence from the requestor did not convince me we had jurisdiction. i think there are interesting issues in this. but i think in terms of a pure jurisdictional review of this that we do not have jurisdiction and that these permits are indeed tied to the cu. -- commissioner peterson: commissioner hwang: i think the jurisdiction requestor made a very compelling case. i think it was troubling to learn there is no further level of review for permits