required ada accessibility laws and codes. this project was reviewed at every stage of devilment by mr. jensen -- development by mr. jensen and his signature appears on the documents. i would request that you deny the appeal and allow our project to move forward. we are in construction and any delays will result in a delay in the delivery of this project to the community who deserves it. thank you. of clarification. when you're going through the list of scope for the permit, the actual permit application also includes landscaping. i did not hear that in your list. >> my understanding is landscaping is exempt from permitting for the permits are related to buildings,

accessibility issues, items, and retaining walls over 4 feet in height. i will perhaps -- perhaps mr. duffy, commissioner richard and can respond to that. -- reardon can respond to that. president hwang: thank you. mr. sanchez. >> the subject property is located within a public zoning district. while it is unknown historic resource, it is not an individual landmark. it is not required to have a review from the historic preservation commission for the modifications. given that it is in -- not in a p district. review was done by the project. most of the concerns raised

relate to the environmental aspects and not the permits themselves. this are best addressed in a separate appeal. the permit that is before you that appears that everything is proper in terms of the environmental review on the scope of the work that is before you and the permit and it did receive the proper environmental review. the analysis of the categorical exemption did outline the character defining features of the park and found the proposal would not make any adverse impacts on the character defining features and therefore, the categorical exemption was granted. i am available to answer any questions you may have. vice president fung: i did not see any of your standard litigation such as archaeological findings. >> this was not a negative declaration so there were no mitigation measures imposed here but there was the complete

environmental evaluation, the categorical exemption. vice president fung: is there then a generalized requirement from the planning department regarding, should they find anything during excavation? >> if they do find anything and we're made aware of that, we can address that. it is my answer standing of the character defining features are clearly outlined in the evaluation and those are not being adversely impacted. president hwang: thank you. mr. duffy. >> good evening. the building permit application and as you heard, has been approved by our department planning, mechanical, fire department. it has gone through all the review. we simply -- they simply did not

come in and pick up the permit. we did it -- receive a complaint in early july from some other residents and we made them aware of that. they came in and picked up the permit and they realized the mistake. some work had started. a lot of the time the work starts and we are not needed until some of the work is done. any inspections that we have missed or maybe we have not seen, we can always catch up with. on a project such as this, maybe grading was done and the grading work would have been overseen by agent -- a geotactical engineer. we would expect a report to be submitted to us. other aspects of the work as well could have been inspected by dpw staff. dbi will be involved in the inspections going forward,

provided the permit is issued. we will be out there. on the accessibility work, i think you heard that mr. jensen from the city had reviewed this work and my experience, most of the time when that happens, everything is done -- ee checked sometimes by our building inspectors -- doubly checked sometimes by our building inspectors. if it is a city project, the city does not want to get sued for something like this that is done wrong. the special inspections that are part of the brief and not on the building application a present need to be added and that is something that i do say that has to happen and will happen like within the next few days if the suspension is lifted. they were on the approved

drawings and for some reason they did not get added to our tracking system. i spoke to some of the people from the project and they were aware of that problem. if there is any questions, i would be available. president hwang: thank you. we can take public comment. can i see a show of hands of how many people would like to speak on this item? ok. i will ask you to please line up on the far wall. the first person can come up to speak. if you have not already done so, it would help us in the preparation of minutes if you would complete the speaker card and give it to mr. pacheco or a business card to we can get the minutes accurate. -- so we can get the minutes accurate. >> good evening. in the president of the friends

of lafayette park. i can tell you that this project and the plans for the project is the result of a lot of community effort and a lot of community involvement with the recreation and parks department and with dpw staff, and with the private architect who has been engaged for the playground. there is a lot of support in the committee for this project. the process, the multiplicity of permits, we do not know about that. we were in charge of that. as president, i can speak for our group and speak for our neighbors and say that we do not want this project to be delayed. we want our part to open as soon as possible. right now, it is just a big pile of dirt. children have been displaced, dogs have been displaced,

picknickers have been displaced. anyone who drives by it is impacted by this horrible mound of dirt that exists at this point for -- instead of our part. we would like to have this continued, the work continued as soon as possible and not delayed. we hope that you can -- will oppose the appeal because it is our understanding that will delay all this. we do support the plans, they are the result of a lot of community input, and we also do know what the cost of the project to be increased because of any changes that are made. we did a fundraising for this ourselves and we have a beautiful new park that is planned. thank you very much. president hwang: next speaker, please.

>> good evening, commissioners. i prepared remarks today but i will give it to you from the hip. i am they represented -- of the representative and a member of friends of lafayette park. i am here as a stakeholder, as a neighbor. the expense is my -- expands is my front lawn. i spend two hours a day, in a dog owner and lafayette park is a place that i have worked tirelessly for the past four years to be engaged with this project renovation. i will not go into details. i prepared remarks but i feel like they're a lot of people who want to speak. i ask that you oppose this. i believe that this is, she raises great points but i believe fully that we need to get our park back on track. again, i have been a neighbor,

but i have been engaged from the beginning of the bond process from soliciting people to support the clean and safe bond. i will speak to the fact that i have worked closely both with mary hopson and with lizzie hersch. they have taken into account every aspect, they have tried to work toward a resolution that would allow everybody in the neighborhood to enjoy this finished product. my personal opinion, which i can give here, is i never saw ms. gallagher at any meeting. i find that this objection at this time is a tactic and in fact is delaying a process that should be completed within a year's time. any time that it takes beyond what the planned scope of the renovation was firstly needs to

-- it needs to complete within a timely manner and within budget and i feel like this is doing that. i would ask you to please deny ms. gallagher's appeal and please reinstate the permit and have us get back to the park that we know and love. thank you. president hwang: next speaker, please. >> i recently bought a condo across the park -- the st. saar was not involved in any of the community meetings until i started seeing the work coming -- going on in june. the first thing i want to state it as i have been working with shannon and ms. gallagher in terms of reviewing the project and what has been going on. she did not live in her condo at the time where they had meetings, she had renters and the notices went to renters and

not to her well -- when she lived in chicago. that is where she was not involved. my concerns grew when i was watching the demolition going on. i made a call to the building inspection and i asked there was a permit on july 2. i filed a complaint when i filed -- found out it was not a permit and went down on july 6 to discuss this with donald duffy who was the inspector for this project. ms. gallagher and i sat down and show them the pictures and they were concerned and said they would go straight out to the park to see what was going on. at that point, they indicated they had seen the architect with the plants running around the building inspection place to file them so they could get that permit issued. i find it ironic that i am hearing it was an oversight they did not have the job card which is supposed to be posted at all times at the job site. i am not sure how work started

on june 3, continued for almost six weeks, and no job card or permit existed. that is more than oversight. what i want to stay here is some of my concerns with the inspections and we've talked about it. it is my understanding that this particular form -- i do not know of you can see it. this is a form required to be submitted with the permit. it needs to identify what special inspections need to take place. when we pointed this out in the appeal brief, the comment back from the responder was that look at the sheet for the special inspections. this form does not exist with the permit plants making it very difficult to know what special inspections are required for this permit. i am going to sum this up with

saying that i think that documentation was lacking here. i do not think it is clear what inspection should be and i would like to see the appeal upheld, suspended until documentation, especially around inspections, are completed. thank you. president hwang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> i live across the street from the park at 2190 washington. i am a frequent visitor and supporter of lafayette park. i want to express my opinion on this issue here tonight. i am a member of friends of lafayette park, i know from direct personal experience since 2008 that the french have worked tirelessly to help the rec and park department raise public awareness of the renovation and about the opportunity for public

input. san francisco recreation and park department has notified park users and neighbors about the renovation of lafayette park and about the opportunity for anyone to have their say about it. recreation and park department has held numerous public meetings that were well publicized to gather public input ever since the bond was passed and the posted notices in the park and sent notices to those who live near the park. the project manager has announced her direct phone line #at all the meetings and gatherings to maximize public opportunity to express concerns and the recreation and park commission has held hearings to get input and get public approval. there has been ample opportunity for objewered prior to the starf the renovation. the appellant referred to the sf mime troupe. their 1965 arrest on august 7,

1965 in lafayette park inspired the idea of a community gathering space as a minor design feature but it has nothing to do with this appeal. it was a product of a lengthy and transparent process that the santa fe -- san francisco recreation and park department provided. anyone who cared would have had the opportunity to know about it and make their opinions known, ask any questions. there was ample opportunity for all that. i am in support of the renovation project and have actively participated in the planning and development of the plan. please denied the appeal so this project will move forward and the project can be renovated as quickly as possible for the benefit of the community. thank you. president hwang: thank you. next speaker, please. >> good evening. i have lived for 28 years one

block east of lafayette park. when i moved to the neighborhood, i had done to it -- young children and they used the playground. i have had three different dogs who use the park. i am very familiar with lafayette park and had used it virtually daily. i sit on the friends of lafayette park board as the landscape chair and work with the cleaning and greening effort every first saturday. during this time, i have never seen shannon gallagher at the park. we could just miss each other. i am -- i care very much about my part -- park and have worked tirelessly towards this plan

that has been talked about tonight. which was approved in 2008 through the bond. it is very disturbing to think that one person can file an appeal and we can get a project lead to the extent that we have. i feel very certain that if ms. gallagher really had interests, she could have presented this before we started construction. when we in fact sat at my house for a week, night after night filling out envelopes to the owners of the people in the neighborhood, she could have received this in chicago as well as in san francisco. i feel certain you will understand how important this is

to all of us. we have had tremendous relationship building from the landscape architect and many other people involved. our goal is to do the right thing, but we want our part gone in a timely manner, and we are working toward a common and are trying to address all issues before it started. please understand how important this is to all stakeholders and do not allow the appeal to move forward. good thank you. >> next speaker please. >> good evening. compared to my other neighbors, i am a relative newcomer. i have only been in the neighborhood five years or so,

and lafayette park first came to my attention -- i have seen it when there was no vacation -- notification of the plans mary and her team have for the park, and i know she listened to my concerns, and they are trying to implement something i advocate, and she listened to concerns of my neighbors, and to make it short, i support her plans, and please let her continue her efforts. >> thank you, next speaker. >> hi, my name is patricia, and i use the park at least five times a week and have for years.

i would like to say i did go to some of the planning meetings and was rather surprised after hearing a number of speakers -- i guess the meeting was an hour and a half or two hours -- many of whom had a lot of issues with the park, and i presume the meetings would be presented to the commission. i was rather surprised when i saw miss thompson got up before the commission and reported there was no community opposition, and i think this is where some of the concerns have been all along. i know i also called rec and park every time before there was a meeting and said there are no signs of the part regarding these meetings. could somebody please get a signed up -- get signs up?

one person had a lot of additional access, and i say it for whatever reason we do out reach, it kept many people out. i would like to say there are a couple of issues, and i would like to see the appeal of held. one is they have connected the ada accessible route to the no. 10 bus on washington street. this is problematic. they require the side entrances be connected to public transit. it is not a wheelchair accessible on washington street. buses cannot let people off on the sidewalk. there are no sidewalk ramps. the person would have to wheel into the street to get to the

entrance. we brought this up with mary, and she basically said what went on in the park was her business. what is outside in t is not. i am disabled. there is no point of having accessible teachers inside if people cannot get to the park. the no. 1 bus would have been a great alternative. it runs all the time. they have got bulldozers. they could make it more compliant. they could have two joint together. they were told they were not to change the size, the shape, anything about these in order for it to comply with a categorical exemption. these things are being changed. the summit is being cut into and taken away, which is not reversible act, in order to put

in a much larger maintenance facility, and i believe it is a violation of standards and they were mandated to follow in order to get a categorical exemption. therefore, the permits are in violation of what they were supposed to do. thank you. >> next speaker please. and why i have a few brief comments. i reviewed -- >> i have a few brief comments. i reviewed the introductions, and what is most disturbing is there seems to be a conflict between facts. when the brief says this is a fact, and another says this is the fact that is in conflict. i am satisfied at a brief that was filed by the recreation and parks department has much more

credibility than the so-called facts presented in the appellants degrees. it does not make any sense. i live across the street from the park. i am also an architect, and i am familiar with the project process of many agencies all over the bay area, and when i read things saying what they say, like the light and dark colored tables and the bus stations, if you are familiar with the building code of san francisco, there is nothing that requires that the reaganite i think there is something about the limit and definition of the project -- and requires that. i think there is something about limit and definition and the appropriate response -- there is nothing that says you have to have light or dark colored tables, so when i read

statements like that, it suggests to me the appellant does not understand or even read the building code but would rather make statements about what she believes the code should say or would like it to say. access to the site is not in the building code, so i find the appellants brief does not have any credibility, and i urge the commission to deny the appeal and get this project built. >> you care to state your name for the record? >> my name is linus. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> my name is jeffrey miller. i am the landscape architect the park hired to design the playground, and i would like to address the 80 a review of that

facility -- the ada review of that process as well as the overall -- you are shaking your head. >> i am wondering if you are an employee of the rec and park department or an adviser. >> i was hired to design the playground by the friends of lafayette park. not park and rec, but our work was coordinated. >> that is all i need to know. >> through that process, we went through and ada review with mr. jensen, who was very careful about looking at our plans, which is unnatural -- none natural design for the park. it is going to be an unusual redesign for the park. he was there a excited as were

other folks in the presentation. it was interesting how his review brought up several things about accessibility that were incorporated in our plans that we were happy to do so. the park and recreation commission thought very highly of the overall scheme and the playground design in particular. the design was vetted through numerous meetings that were announced in the neighborhood and held at a neighborhood facility. i think everything was done to outreach to neighbors. good from my point of view, a project of this source i have been involved in in the past, and other public parks, buena vista park, lafayette park, and

other projects i have been involved with, there is always a degree of disagreement in these parks canno, and i think we areg last vestiges of disagreement with lafayette park. i would encourage you to set aside a disagreement, what the project go ahead. there has been quite a lot of process put in the park. it is going to be a great facility, and i do not see a reason to hold it up at this point. >> next speaker. >> i live at 1900. i am not a member of friends of lafayette park, but i am a neighbor of that region. i oversee the park. i have lived there