date we've heard nothing from code enforcement the unpermitted lane closer is not an issue but you can't turn our backs on this commissioners it's a travesty to the environment and we ask you stop the deformation of brotherhood way and have the hillside be replanted we request this letter be posted we want the public to have immediate educates to that >> thank you. next speaker, please can you hand it to mr. pa check

please. i come as a student from san francisco state university and also someone who dwells in park merced. i never heard or saw anything posted to let me know this would happen and many of my fingertips are disappointed by what's going on without our knowledge. we were not forewarned and this is how it effects people like me. the erosion is a progress by the earth getting worn down and generally caused by water. the key to erosion and ice tends to flow from one place to another of the 3 liquid waters it's the common erosion. this must be assaulted it

creates dangerous mudslides and causes rock slides long-term. so short-term rock slides. so there are ways to measure the water how fast computer models can predict damage. i don't see park merced generate models do they really care. those trees held everything in police radios in 2003 they make sure all the dead trees were taken out if you care about park merced i've this is something we should preserve there is one in la beware and you can anchor those trees and protect them and make them a part of our lives

those are part of our lives those trees serve as co2 because their hundreds of cars passing by and the noise is blocked by those trees. the pollution is coming into our homes and entering our windows and this effects us makes us ill there's allergies and other congestion problems. there are recently mudslides in san francisco and it is explained by the computer studies that the process could quadruple so here we're going to have a huge amount of water and it's more expensive and make sure this land remains stable.

it's a mess and it will create more of a mess than if you had in and out cut them down >> do you care to is it your testimony today. jane >> any other any public comment? seeing none, mr. log i think so you have 3 minutes of rebuttal >> thank you, commissioners. as the old cliche goes every picture tells a story it should last the length it's a video and it should be a good reasonable doubt for what we're covering tonight >> do you ever wonder was it would be like (inaudible). by destroying all the national

beautiful in the homes of the wide life tree all in the name of greed and profit. for us humans we decided in the park community of san francisco had the misfortune of having the experience of the eco from the fall of 2013 along brotherhoods way. several groves of innocent and monterrey pine trees park merced developers (inaudible). a multiple million corporation that's in business of clear cutting force of mayhem for corporate clients including local government's.

for days open-end we watched heelsly as the long-standing magic pines fell one by one and for the purpose of clear cutting the path to the future merced plan be of a thousand commodities and only the middle-class need not apply. the occasional swierl and families of raccoons who call that hides their home all of a sudden become displaced and skafrtd to the wind. and for the rest of us who life here at ground zero park merced

our faith is out of your hands. for those trees still standing its really not good for them >> okay. thank you. >> do we have rebuttal from the permit holder. anything? >> i want to say that we have followed all the rules. we have all the permits, we have hired experts to give us recommendations, we have looked at what we are doing and we have civil engineers on a constant basis because of the constricts that's occurring on brotherhood way and we have boy and girl

stopped from continuing this work. the safety of the public is being threatened there recent trees that are down and we need to complete the work. the trees are down and we need to remove them from the hill so we can continue the work and actually do what we have recommendations and the next step that our expert has to do is analyis the soils and take and gives recommendations for the deformation of the area we can't continue our plan until we complete what we started >> now you're saying i were not able to analyze the soil. >> we were not able. >> no analysis the soil. >> wre we have engineers

looking at that. >> so you've not taken the steps to consider the deformation plan. >> we could start the conceptual plan. >> but you haven't. >> we don't know how long the process this is the figure out time facing you guys here for the same reap for the same appeal so we don't know how long and when the next step is going to take place so we don't want to start something. >> have you contemplated talking to the people that have created challenges for you in your process have you considered talking to them about a deformation. >> i believe on the second occasion i was approached and we

had a quick conversation and i explained that tried to explain to him. >> okay. >> have you contracted with the gentleman to do a replanting plan and we have actually mr. legit explained to you in the beginning of his testimony i hired mr. leg to do the analysis because she was on the opt side when we were sued when a tree fell i was impressed because i wanted to have some place with the exculpatory evidence he had and analysis all the trees and analysis what would be the next step. have we gone to the other step

no, we have not. would we go to the networks step yes we will when we move forward >> this is undergoing the constitutional master plan process. >> no. it has nothing to do with the eir plan f 24 is solely a day to day - >> i'm sorry where your developments plans are currently. >> currently we're not even on the design phase i do building. >> you've thought about the environmental. >> yeah. we're still very far from the next step i'm not familiar with the whole process maybe i'm not the right person to answer that question. >> thank you. >> okay. anything further from the department?

>> no additional comments at this time. >> thank you. thank you >> commissioners, i have a question for mr. largo goes. even if no more trees were cut down what would you prop should happen to the trees already on the ground >> we believe those trees should be left there until they got up a plan to replant. >> they don't have a plan a replanting plan they can say whatever they want to but they don't have a plan. >> thank you. >> commissioners the matter is

yours. comments? >> to me this is a narrow issue having to do with a permit and i haven't heard niagara anything to say the permit was not orientated legally. frankly it has nothing to do beyond that and all the commentary is not in front of us. any other comments. >> i think commissioner lazarus is right in the in terms of the narrowness of the permit driving by there it's a disaster but i'm in agreement in general the holding up of this permit is not necessarily goes 80 going to solve the issues of the overall master plan in the future at some point that will be part of

the efforts with the planning department and the concern. >> i would have to agree that you know when faced with the permit that's before us we have unheard of very little to at least i have not been persuaded by the issue by the permitted what has happened is a lack of effort really to work with the people that are appealing the elevators permits and the various activities for something that is a very obvious and necessary thing not only a

residential space but it appears that will have an impact on the public even if it's on private property. and even i think we have enough here to work with i'm going to move to deny the appeal of the special traffic permit on the grounds it was properly issues >> do you want to say they update the proper dates. >> yes. that's a great idea i'll add that. >> we have a motion from the president to deny this appeal uphold the permit on the basis it was properly issued and with the director of mta to

recalculate the collusion period for this permit on that motion commissioner fung. >> i. . commissioner hurtado >> i. so the vote is 4 to zero and it's upheld open that basis. >> so item 6 has been withdrawn and will not be heard and 7 a, b, and c will be heard together. 7 b 14 dashl 771 and all of them were filed by the homeowners association and are for the planning approval per and the protest of the permit to erect a

building with 23 thousand square feet ground floor area and the protest is for the jackson of a demolition permit to demolish a parking structure with 14 thousand jeet plus and next open fremont street a demolition promise to demolition a four story with 89 thousand 4 hundred and 87 square feet of ground floor area they'll wait for the commission to return >> yes. yes, thank you.

>> okay victor we're all here. >> you have 3 appeals you have 21 minutes. thank you ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity i'm dennis martinez i'm the president of the homeowners association at the metropolitan that lies at the cornering of folsom streets we're the two tore facility that sits next

door to the proposed 340 fremont project i represent the owners and the residents and friends and neighbors and the people in our communicated we have 3 hundred and 45 unit total 3 of which are commercial and the rest residential. so we have a fairly good size community. i come before you because i'm concerned about the facility that is being built next door as my position i not only help to manage the monies and the facilities that are common easier to the building but we have a fiduciary responsibility to manage the issues that the management fags i have to keep apple eye on things and i'm here

to talk about seismic risk. i'm a scientist and i have a ph.d. in electrical engineering and physics i've worked in the aerospace in building and designing systems as well as managing the project of systems valued in the ranges of million dollars of bloifld of dollars. the one thing i know i looked at this project that's coming up adjacent to us which is a 40 plus story this it present issues in regards to our facility and the population in the local area. first i want to dispel any rumors i'm here to fight about air rights to the homeowners in our facility we're not here for

that. i'm not asking this facility never be built quite the oppose i want it to be banishment you're going the best engineering practices in order to insure that the seismic performance of the 340 fremont facility meets all the code requirement of san francisco. and to this date those this information has not been forthcoming to the board of directors that i represent as well as to the group of consultant that i've hired to look at the details of that. i'm not an expert in caesar's seismic risk of a high-rise structure i've hired people to do so. at this point i'm going to turn it over to our attorney mark white who will go through the

details of the matters. thank you >> good evening, commissioners thank you. just an administrator matter we're going to be showing some slides continuously so i'm going to ask the clerk to keep us open delay. straightforward for the 21 minutes i'll ask for that is it acceptable >> yes. >> i think the first one i'd like to he'd is the main or pivotal issue on those appeals. we'll start with the site permit. from which we've appealed. the site permit deals with the facility as a whole. it authorized the construction

of a 42 story high-rise on top of a podium. we're focusing on the issue whether the developer has demonstrated that the projects seismic design is fully compliant with the policies. that's in part taken from the text of the developers attorney. this is not something we've unilaterally concocted. this is the standards that have been enacted in san francisco in the last few years if you drill through the papers i've submitted the capable engineer team that's working with the developer noted they've worked on several projects and which were completed before the enactment of the new stadiums

that applies to this project and no where in those papers do they intended to comply with the standards so i'm going to tell you the way we believe that the current design that's been approved fails to meet the requirements san francisco's unique requirement. i should mention that the two gentlemen that are in the audience here have helped did board and helped me in evaluating the information. dr. john is a very senior engineer with the exponent firm firm based on the peninsula. he's very, very acknowledgingable. the structural engineer that works with the dr. he is david

he's a structural engineer and, in fact, has designed buildings similar to the one in question and he worked open the structure at the fremont and mission. the two have look at the information made available and those are the things we find lacking in the design as trademark by the owners design team. articulated by the design team. i'll read this out if it's a little bit hard to see i have copies of those slides. so as a general matter it is a synthetic slide of the four major areas we find the lacking.

the structural design for the design fails to meet san francisco seismic performance requirement it fal to a reduce structural and non-structural safety and minimize property disadvantage in american people earthquake. this is an important edition to your general plan infected by the board of supervisors and the planning commission in 2012. it's part of the community safety program or element i think it's called that was added it is a requirement to have property damage reduce is it was not in san francisco's design policies before 2012. this is one of the most important elements missing. the second category that we're the designing question is

deficient it fails to protect against injury or loss of life in an earthquake. this language has been around before 2012 it's been part of the general plan but in this case, the language was repeated and expressly made available by the planning commission in 2006 when the original entitlement was granted we don't see a commitment to prepare the situation the greatest capacity to handle earthquake preparedness. we would rather see it minimizing property damage and maximizeizing the greatest possible preparedness for earthquake performance. the third category with the design it fails to insure that

resident will be able to stay in their homes after an earthquake. f this was part of san francisco's caps program. there were two a t c contracts that were worked on for several years and this is an important element that doesn't exist in other jurisdictions. the structures mob reliant enough homeowners can return to their building. this requires the building to be able to sustain minor damage but remain operable. there's a point they need to be torn down but the connecting category is part of the caps program and the community safety 4re789 to the general plan.

it's to protect the high-rise from being significantly damgd by making it reliant the term comes from the general plan amendments that have been made in existence 2012 sorry in 2012. those are the principal areas that we find the design to be deficient. so at any point if the commissioners have questions i'm be drilling down but i'm open to questions and we have the two engineers here if we have a technical questions. i'd like to ask a question >> yes. >> the last two elements there you're saying that the changes in the general plan policies is taken the structural design to a point beyond what was currently known ass as life safety levels.

it depends commissioner as you'll see in one of my detailed slides you coming up we believe if for sdwien basis event the hazard our speaking to go the facility should be reliant enough so it's performance is midway between life safety and the next major category which is the optimistic. when the design was approved for the addition to the san francisco museum of modern art the middle safety was not used it was an elevator standard halfway between life safety and immediate occupancy. that's the type of performance t