april 9, 2014. welcome to the san francisco board of appeals at the control is the boards legal assistant and our legal clerk i'm cynthia gold at the scene we're joined by the representatives for the board corey is the assistant zoning administer and rep the

planning commission and planning department he's joined by joseph duffey representing the board of senior inspectors. at this point please go over is board meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests you turn off all electronic devises the rules the permittees and public has 7 minutes for cases and 7 minutes for reasonable doubt. members of the public not affiliated with the parties have 3 minutes but no rubbles and to sought the board the member of the public who wish to speak on

an item are asked not required to submit is a speaker card they're on the left side of the presumed there are customer satisfaction survey forms phenomenon the left side of the podium if you have questions please speak to the board staff during the break or call the board office tomorrow morning it's on mission street room three to four. this meeting is broadcast life on sophisticating cable channel 78 and dvds of this meeting are available for purchase taungs and at this time we'll conduct our swearing in process if you plan that on testifying and wish the board to give your comments

weight please raise your right hand please not that any member of the public may testify without giving this oath do you solemnly 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, sir item one is general public comment this is for anyone that wants to speak on items not on tonight's calendar seeing none. commissions questions or comments. seeing none, item 3 is the adaptation of minutes commissioners are the approval of the minutes for the march 2014 meeting >> is there another motion to

adapt the minutes as submitted. >> go ahead commissioner fung. >> we do have the adaptation. is there any public comment call the roll >> so we have a motion from commissioner fung for the minutes commissioner fung. commissioner hurtado. commissioner president hwang commissioner honda >> thank you. the vote is 5 to zero those minutes are adapted. >> thank you. we have with the president's content going to call item out even if order 6. mike vs. the code for the planning department this is on katrero avenue to the permit to

erect a building 77 unit with a mixed be building with ground floor area. so we'll start with the appellant >> excuse me. i have a conflict recuse me, please. >> so you have 7 minutes to present our case. >> before my time spoke i believe you spoke to commissioner lazarus about a continuance she e-mailed me and everyone two members but not the former appellants can't make it by 515 to jean and another person can't be here. so juan was coming from a water

commission in sacramento and flying out later this evening and jean had another meeting i had 10 e-mails from ms. gold's steno to ask if it could be rescheduled so i thought one thing would cancel but not everything. it's important to my community that they provide comments it's not all my story yeah. i humbly request if they can't be here >> ma'am, is there a reason why this is move forward up. >> yes. a request by a permit holder for an accomodation.

so if the board wants to entertain at that motion to continue that or else we'll precede >> i think we should leave it as the regular meeting and whoever is available we'll take the testimony. >> may i make i mean, i was told it was moved forward especially, if it's the permit holder both sides have to agree. >> it's clear when people file a appraisal it can be called at any time we're telling people to be here in guarantee of app an

hour. >> now finding out it's the permit holder she could have connected me he was told if you can't be her at 515 then forget it oats over that part i didn't know that's surprising. >> stay with the original - >> can we hear about the and a half of the accomodation request or no. >> not appropriate. >> so if i want you can ask the permit holder to speak or we can - >> they should be given the opportunity to speak. >> okay.

>> good evening, commissioners i didn't ask to reschedule it to another day just wanted to see if we could move up. i'm going through some personal issues i don't feel comfortable discussing i discussed them with ms. gold at the scene if it can't be accommodated i understand if you want to go with what the appellant said we'll go ahead and hear from the appellant what they said >> commissioner lazarus. leave it as it's originally calendared >> we're not asking for comments. >> i'm sorry. >> stay with that and nobody

has a complaint. >> it's now 515. i personally don't have a problem with hearing it had now >> your choice. >> okay. all right. then. >> precede with the hearing now. okay. go ahead >> all right. well, then i want to start off with abuse discretion and the fact that everything didn't cancel ahead of me i should you have been told he strongly obtain after i heard back from ms. gold's at the scene i heard back from someone saying don't both to be here you you'll have a protocol

so if you can't be here by that time i told them - >> this is not a rescheduling this is taking the items out of order the board can do that with discretion. >> you have the rescheduling form we went through that. >> which was done before the last calendar. >> can i interpret is this part of the time? start his time now and we'll start the hearing now. >> thank you honorable members of the board of appeals. so based on non-compliance with our sunshine ordinance after the planners refused to provide the correspondence that i requested

address made the complaint with the sunshine ordinance after 10 months i want to give you an update john has been sent to the ethics committee for willful violations and after 10 days passed this hamburger i was given the first banish of information as i recall, i this was about the shadows in the park and the shadow study was requested it can about and then after i couldn't file a rehearing request they provided the documents and in the middle of the sunshine ordinance it passed the hearing i put in the cd and the first one was the planner john lewis with the larger application said you shouldn't run the shadow study

we have to redo the sequa documents they were instructed to lower the shadow study so shadows would not think passed on frairng park i devoted any time that was clearly not right. now john with the sfmta decided to send this to the commission since 2005 this is the first for willful violations. mine was the 7th order of determination for them to comply and they didn't they withheld the documents so i couldn't file a request so you can google it on line and i have a copy if

you're interested for willful violations of the planning department with the case. can we - this is actually right there. i think yeah. what you see there is two just a second hammers just a second hammering on katrero avenue without a permit and the explanation given well, i'll start at the beginning the developer began just a second hammering the foundation of the site approximately 8:00 a.m. and continued for 3 and a half hours

until the planning department came out and tagged them without a permit creating hazardous dust and our previous appeals to you had been with the mitigation mortgaging and reporting program didn't mitigate there was nothing to enforce any of the provisions so the explanation felt parting interest the reason for the just a second hammering they were doing exploratory for the public health it's true the department of health issued a permit but not to the permiter but to the company that was hired to do the boring. as you can see at this one with the just a second hammering during the time numerous

children were walking past. here we've got strollers. here we've got kids going to home. and see that was not boring. this is what boring looked like. they have drills to drill into the ground at specific locations and specific debts. see this one right her when they did this day's later this was what the permit this was authorized. other than the planning commission said no work was to happen at 480 katrero and the building permit was no to the the issued until the club underwent conditions for

approval it's not only the motion on the last page but reported on the deed as notice of special restrictions. so the specific reason that commissioner sugaya who works with the sequa inclines as that firms business he was the only one 0 on the commission that understood it's a made sure of significance when you have a project that will harm possibly a historical resource that an eir has to be prepared so they created admission measures the last 4 items saying there many you describe protective fencing and consultant an architect so largely machines wouldn't be

drilling next door. i left the admission declaration back at my seat but the negative declaration said there's no resources present that's why none of the measures excited so when supervisor cowen asked so who's going to be taking care of - in regards to the technical and the consultants sorry. one thing i heard from the protection of the vertical club mr. john said it doesn't have to be in the sequa comes at a time it's addressed through the permitting process the building itself didn't have to be a potential for the building permit process so the building permit process is, you know, they have the building permit that's what i'm appealing how

exactly has it and i can show you the potential damage to the advert club. thank you for your time >> thank you. okay. i'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening, commissioners thank you four hearing this case. i'm with the law enforcement i'm the attorney for and partner with the sfmta projects. the paelths appeal first addresses the just a second hammering the just a second hammering didn't require a buckle permit only a public health department permit. so department of human being health asked for the exposurey

for the mitigation plan. so to this stent sf hires someone to do the testing and january 21st it had the building permit and on january 27th they punched poles in two spots to provide access to the soil to test the soil. that same morning the appellants mother foiled a complaint with dbi they're to open the complaint and the complaint was immediately boitdz there was no notice of violation because after the vex there was no "huh-uhs" hazardous dust so it didn't require a adoring permit and we were following all

procedures and the brief yours we've 1r0i89d the mitigation measure but her no construction activities have started the construction includes demolition and excavation none of this has occurred so no violation. sf g has complieptd with and continues to observe the measures. sf g has begun this to phase one the assessments have been insinuated and on february 11th it prepared an investigation report and now we're working on the site mitigation plan it's going according to process and

following the mitigation measure further it will go through the dust there the air quality division and this is the best dust mitigation measure so the project will be subject for dust control and hazardous dust removal. appellant raises concern about the construction on the club but this was addressed and the construction in san francisco is very common no unusual circumstances no underpinning of the vertical club it will be the same foundation so no underpinning is necessary if f even if it were necessary it is protection for the building in san francisco. future the planning commission adapted the vertical club protection providing barriers for the training club for the

contractors to protect the vertical club during the construction and conducting an analysis in order to insure that no damage is caused by the project since sf g is clooip with the conditions of approval there's no impact on the resources. i want to close by, 2011 this construction has been significantly detailed we've had complaining what the superior court the judge denies the product implementation we ask you to deny the appellants appeal and allow us to move forward with the project. thank you, commissioners >> counselor. >> you have a question. here's a question from the board

>> what are you going to do to monitor the adjacent structures. >> we'll be hiring a historic preservation it for the she means to any contacts they'll be taking pictures before and after the survey. >> the presently itself will provide the survey. >> we'll have a land preservationist to provide the survey and we have a setback this shows on the overhead so this is the vertical club in blue and this will be at the same level no pressure put on the foundation. >> thank you.

sir >> good evening for planning staff this project has a long history you're aware of the environmental review was appealed to the planning commission and upheld and then appealed to the board of supervisors where it was also upheld. there was also a lawsuit that was recently concluded and the court upheld the sequa review there as well if not all the issues raised in the brief for the appellant seems to be super related and generally not before the board of appeals it was exhausted. it appears the building permit was issued preoccupyingly and

on, on mitigation issue is not reflect to the validate or the appropriatedness of the permit being issued first place. that's all i have i'll be available for questions >> you want to respond to the commit made by the appellant whether an eir should have been done nicole related to the potential historical resource. >> sure that issue was discussed and debated at the length at the planning commission and also at the board of supervisors and an eir was found not necessary. >> okay. thank you mr. duffey. >> good evening, commissioners

duo i don't have too much to input but speak about the complaint we received we received a permit for the concrete creating hazardous dust it was assigned to howard on 27 of january 14th and his not i'm going off the ipad the case was investigated and it was found after research it was determined that the contractor had a department of public contract and the case was closed. he didn't know if they were working without a permit but when he saw the jackhammer he thought it started with the neighborhoods but when we can be

it was a public health department issue so as far as i know there's no violation and it's closed. i don't see that on the system but not to say we issued a notice of violation we heard earlier >> okay. mr. duffey. in the event that there was a lot of discussion about the native of excavation in an urban setting if the foundation of the vertical club in the excavation and it was disclosed it's going to be above the foundation what would the building department require >> we come across across a lot of this in san francisco because

the permit appellant during the project will need to contact the neighboring contractors to bring their foundation down to the level of the bottom of the building that's to be constructed. they're supposed to give actually under section 3307 of the san francisco building code i think it's 32 of the civil code prior to excavation for the determination of the depth of the foundation. that's a good question i what sure if they knew already they weren't going to be above it they could have done investigation obviously that's what's happened but prior to it if you found out prior to excavation you stop immediately and it happens all the time

>> any public comment on that item? you have your rubble 3 minutes. >> can i load the power point to show the pictures? thank you. and so the sequa case - i'm sorry. can i have full