♪ >> it is an amazing spot. it is a state of the art center. >> is beautiful. quarkrights i would like to come here and join them >> welcome to the wednesday, march 12, 2014, of the san francisco board of appeals the preceding office is board president ann and joined by commissioner president hwang and sfung and supervisor chris functioning and robert bryan

will provide the board with the legal advice. i'm cindy the boards executive director. we're joined by representatives representatives from the department that has matters we have bryan and norman from the sophisticating definition of stubble streets and joined but is building inspector and tom from deploying as well as scott sanchez representing the planning department and planning commission. at this time if you could please go over the boards guidelines and the >> please carry on commissioned in the hallway appellants and permit holders have 7 minutes to presented their cases and 3 minutes for

rebuttal. people affiliated must conclude their comments within that time. papers have up to 10 minutes to address the board. to assist the board in the preparation of the minutes members of the public have asked but not required to submit a business card when you come up to the pompous and speaker cards and pencils are available. the board welcomes our comments and there's survey forms. if you have questions about a rehearing or hearing schedules please any public comment? to the staff after the meeting or call the board office it's located on mission street room 304 and this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable

channel 78 and dvds are available. thank you for your attention attention we'll conduct our swearing in please stand and raise your right hand and say i do after you've been sworn in. please note any member of the public may speak without taking the swearing swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> thank you commissioner lazarus there's two issues on valencia street the matter please be rescheduled to april 30th to allow them time to

discuss the settlement we need a vote and recommendation to take that. >> so moved. >> is there any public comment on this item?. please call roll >> on the motion to reschedule the jurisdiction request to april 30th. commissioner president hwang. commissioner lazarus. commissioner honda the vote is rescheduled to april 30th >> thank you and the other hours keeping item protesting a permit that item is withdrawn and we can move to item one for items not on the agenda calendar

any. item 2 commissioners, any questions or comments? >> i just wanted to congratulate any new board president and vice president i'm sorry, i misses the meeting last time but appreciate the new leadership. >> we actually have a full board here. and we did this last time but you weren't here but we wanted to thank you for your services as president and you will not be missed but >> thank you. >> thank you public comment is closed on item 2 i'm sorry. >> i want to thank you as well, for brick and mortar being a great model and thank you for your leadership. >> any any public comment on this item? seeing none, then item 3 is the consideration of the minutes for the federal bureau 26, 2014 meeting.

>> changes or corrections to approve. i'll move to approve the minutes >> okay. thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, if you get call the roll. >> on that motion for the vice president to adapt the members for february 26th commissioner fung. commissioner lazarus. commissioner honda the vote is 5 to zero and we'll call item 4b 3 item requests for properties on fremont street the board received a letter from mark white in the metropolitan appellant for these two items

all decided on february 19th at that time the board upheld the permits and the permit holders equity jackson and the project is for the first permit to erect a 3 hundred and 48 residential condo building and the second permit is to demolish a parking structure with 89 hundred and 87 thousand square feet and to demolish a 4 story building. so we will start with the requester. who has 9 minute to present >> one second before we get started i did watch the videotapes so i can hear this. >> good evening, ladies and gentlemen thank you once again for hearing me a second time. my name is dennis martinez i'm

the president of the hoa at the metropolitan adjacent from the fremont project. i'd like to start off with a story on january 28, 1926, the space challenger one minute after launch explode and we now know prior to that launch there was information that was known about a shuttle that should have been a warning sign a sufficient warning sign to tell management not to launch that day and as a result management decided to launch and 7 astronauts were lost. the moral to that story is the pressures that nasa management

felt that day were felt by financial pressures they had 26 launches successful and political pressure because president reagan was going to have a press convention and close to 15 to 20 percent of america was watching it was a teacher day. prior to that launch nasa touted figures of 1 in one hundred thousands of did probability of a dangerous occasion occurring with the shuttle. we know many years literary that's 2 in one hundred and 35. the point is that had there been a review panel of some sort on r an unbiased inaffiliated panel to assess that days launch the

outcome would have been different. i'm a scientist and we have deficit dialogues and it's among dialogues that acknowledge progressing. we correct things and enter the mistakes those new pieces of information that we learn end up becoming the foundation of our acknowledge gain and that progresses forward and thus civilization is able to move forward. what we're asking here is not to manage the project next door is not to design the building for the project next door we're asking for information. we want clear information that indicates that the risk associated with the design with the engineering design of the property next door is going to

be minimal it's going to mitigate explore to our property as well as the pg&e facility. that's what my job is to manage the risk that's why i'm here. we had one round of open technical dialog as an example in talking about the shoring design and during that dialog our technical experts met with dp r experts and the design had a flaw there was an error in the calculation had the dialog not happened it would have the went forward. we're asking for information that is our right to have. our right based on the rules that the city dictates and the california legislator says we

have and our rights as america citizens our constitutional rights. we're not asking for anything unreasonable we we have no desire to build the building we want to have an open dialog. i'm hand this over to our attorney mark white >> good evening, commissioners. at the hearing the initial hearing we've learned from the fritter with mr. han so that tom he's a senior member of dbi we learned that the review panel that's been engaged by the city to scrutinize the project had

issued a letter of the things in question. that's the first time we've heard about it i got ahold of the dbi representative that works with the communicate making it public and a gentleman that i pointed out to him this is the first time we've heard it we asked for such information if the past and this was not included. the gentleman of dbi then retained to get us a copy of the letter and the log. this letter was restricted as it turns out to only the basis of the design for the sack time so the details are when we requested the original back in november and actually before november but november we went through the process of requesting those letters and when he quota to the process we

got 96 sheets with no letter of the log entries that was all brand new. and that disconnect which is the request for the appeal. we've learned for the first time the review panel look at the underline design basis that was the first step requires that the only to go through the stage to get final appraisal for the progress. we believe the hearing should be conducted we learned we hadn't been given auto the public records required and there's an implication we never requested

the documents that's completely false and council went on line and didn't get the information i'm going to put up on screen the request itself. the gentleman can bring it up. i have copies of this. i'll turn it around. this is the request that was made on november 22nd a second of form written requests and at the back we have an attachment that covers exactly the thing that mr. tom referred to when he testified at the last hearing. you'll see this is a laundry list of things we were looking for. at the top on november 27th and included all materials. all we got were the materials

that were troichd to one of the briefs submitted by opposing council 96 sheets. as a result of that discovery last time we've had discussions with dbi and they're continuing to produce several page of new material they're not done they're not clear on the panel whether they're required to produce the documents so there's two pieces of documents. first there's the opinion that the supreme court of sacramento issued is called the partridge case the calculations we need those are public records they've not been produced and secondly there's another case that was published last month from cac that holds that materials

signatures the consulate the review panel public materials held by consultants must be produced and that's not happened yet. we've asked the city attorney's office to produce those and until those are produced we should have had them long ago before the appeal we should have seen all the material to see - >> mr. white your time is up. >> when you say the consultant in the language of the case or the statute your siding who's the consultant and how it that defined. >> yes. the consultants are the review panel those are the 3 gentlemen selected by the city.

>> how is it you derive that interpretation. >> 883 says the panel will be engaged and private folks to do the structural review. >> as a consultant in the language our reciting as a consultant. >> let me give you the citation for the case that's something i looked up in response to the opposing you couldn't briefs it's called the youth center vs. the youth i've made copies of the pages that relate to outside you compounds that are engaged to consult the city.

we believe the design board is exactly that entity. isle i'll be happy to share the two or three pampers of the opinion >> i'm kind of interested i don't know if the other side has had an opportunity to see it. >> this was just the case. >> is this the competitors. >> this is the competitors it's one hundred and 50 pages long which the the real case. >> i don't have anything further for now. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. >> sir.

>> commissioners good evening. i'm with the law enforcement of rose i'm here instead of mr. dennis who is traveling i'll do my best so talk about the brief. let's start right off the bat that this testimony gives rise to some interesting fabricates that will trigonometry a new hearing his testimony was one hundred percent accurate regarding the acceptance les and the appellant know that going on in you can read that clearly from the administration bulletins and the testimony was clear also in our briefs once the design is accepted by city

it's accepted and this permit can be issued. and commissioner fung went straight to the point when he questioned the gentleman at the february hearing hanson conforms that was the sequence of events and then the permit is issued. he also confirmed the rest of the process is aside from the process it's two different worlds. the design has been important the public to see and that this is the packet the basis of the design was in our original belief and at least portions of that he's had this document since november. it city wouldn't give them this he asked for them and, in fact,

we've been cropping with the gentleman from july of last year. all the correspondence is in our first brief anything anybody needs to challenge the permit it's in the package and the briefs. the site briefs that's at issue here today is not the bulletin. the documents the new documents that were referred to first of all, i think it's hard to continue to collect documents after the original hearing was held. they've had 4 months between the time the permit was filed and this is the first time we're hearing they don't believe they got the documents from dbi. i'm not sure i understand how that could possibly happen.

i've reviewed those requests i've got copies for you to look at. they make 3 different requests and every time they appealed it made a document request and here they are. i'm sorry. i'd like for you to take a look at this >> is this what mr. white out open the overhead. >> those are the original requests they've made 3 questions and the obvious question we want to see a copy of the plans they asked for the calculations and they didn't get them and that's what the hearing was in february but that the calculations and about the process and the calculations are separate in the process.

i mean let's be honest the appellant knew they weren't going to get the calculations and knew they exist with the department of building inspectors but none of that effects the site process they've got smarter engineers and attorneys for them to say their surprised and didn't know how to get the documents i'm sorry it didn't make sense. again, what's surprising avenue after the hearing they continued to step up their requests. i'm wondering why they didn't make the requests earlier they had four months ease everything that was available for them if at the asked for it properly.

mr. white referred to the december 3rd, that was the acceptance by the design panel of the basis for design that letter was referred in our brief on january 9th and mr. white wanted it he could have asked for it there's no substance in the letter it's a summary and a confirms of the process has it was completed. >> you get all those copies. again, this letter ties to the site permit and before the site issued and those are the documents and the panel is good to go a and that's the process

that mr. tom was stat we got the letter and signed off on the site permit. the demolition permit auditoriums that were made in the briefs i don't think i need to take time on that. where respect to the 340 permit they're raising the height of the building and that building has been around and the height of the building hadn't changed since february 19th and to call it a new material fact didn't make sense. it's been there a longed and the height shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. that argument wasn't made. the final demo argument they haven't made new arguments and have not put out a new issue

there's nothing to talk about. this matter has been pending before you in 4 months you've seep detailed briefings and it's every the bit of information you needed to make our decision. nothing new has been presented in the testimony today or anything that relates to the site permit onions. your standard is clear new evidence that would have made a difference is not about the second bite of the apple and not arguing new points the appellant has not met the burden so, please deny that request. i'm available for questions >> thank you. mr. sanchez anything no. mr. white there's no rebuttal >> i'm available for questions. >> we have to hear from the

departments thank you. mr. duffey? mr. tom. thank you. >> good evening commissioner. my name is hanson tom i'm the principle engineer with the department of building inspection. i want to add a little bit on the september 30th letter. when i went back to talk to my colleague of whether or not the letter is given to mr. white my colleague informed me what he received us saw the calculation of the requests. so he given all the calculations

to mr. strong and mr. strong gave it to mr. white the calculation. there's no request of the letter so, and, secondly, i want to make sure that if you read the september letter it is just a letter proving that the design criteria is sound and the building can be continued the design and carry on through the permit process. so nothing is really hidden from the september 30th letter saying the building is not safe. so the letter you see certified and the review process should be able to continue the review and permit. there is no hidden agenda when i

identified that the september letter is available because