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 screen?

definitely not a mac. well right there that's the master right there. i'll be at this one that's the master orientation and the historic commission resource commission found the building that's protected under sequa so the maurnd finding of the significance it's plaster i've seen plaster today that's not possible to recreate and it's in the original condition they've described the club in the social haul in the art deco style it's contraband we're trying to protect that they're planning on building a building twice as at all without mitigation measures the temporary restraining order

and junction was denied because of the hearing they couldn't move forward but you saw the large machines for boring at the holes they went 14 feet deep and the sidewalk wasn't the current location so why we were they just a second hammering we noted the department to follow through yes, they had a permit but not to the agencies or for hammering it was for about boring and it was made to u.s. inc. that was the crane machine and i didn't see any hazardous dust and they had the proper water and there weren't children running by this was exactly what they said were going to happen so the

mitigation measures were insufficient and they did it right before the building permit was issued and contrary to what everyone said it was quite surprisingly you didn't find this was in inclines that the citizens all voted on no where did you mentioned that instead, you voted on the mitigation and planning program and we find out later we didn't know this was an issue of yours so you wholly said this was adequate to our surprises at the end. so here this is what you said was going to be just fine this was just enough the decision makers when the site mitigation plan was to be done prior to grounded activities so for the just a second hammering we've been trying to tell you we know

that's there is the deferral of the mitigation measures post by the clearance and would be inadequate to the community so this pictures appeals against the department of building inspection and, yes dollars a permit not for just a second hammering or the agents so someone needs to be doing reading not just saying the planning commission or planning department says it's fine. again, i'm not a lawyer and the lawyer couldn't get here. thank you very much so >> mr. wrinkle i have a question about the just a second hammering can do you think the work of the just a second hammering was for. can you use the mike

>> i apologize. >> that's okay. >> i've spoken to the person about this and she said they're trying to save money. >> what does that mean. >> you know they hired g c; s without the permit and do the boring on their own they have to go to the laboratory and it's 13 feet deep. >> hold on dollars places i don't understand so if there's a permit with the public health department to do the boring work that's what's the problem. >> it was issued to a g s inc. it was for and i'm sure the guy can tell you about the

regulations. >> so you're not aware with the a g s inc. >> what happened was there was versions their suggesting this the an option projecting program it's not like all the mitigation measures were going to be put in place their involuntarily going to say this is what we're going to do with the public health department you want to do exploratory testing on the sidewalk that's not sufficient instead that was bans the is a in question submittal and a g s inc. did the drilling they weren't supposed to be just a second hammering the public official she didn't have power

she told me only handle the programs to issue the complaints. i mean, that's not what she does at all >> okay. thank you. >> i'm sorry were there any other questions i'd like to try to explain. i have here from the public health department and this is not two per agent for just a second hammering >> thank you your time is up. >> okay. we can hear rebuttal now. >> good evening commissioners so the issue of just a second hammering seemed to be the main issue there was on original work plan submitted by is a in question the boring for 4

locations and a g f changed two of the locations that's where the appellant is claiming they were just a second hammering in unauthorized areas this was authorized at the time. >> who was is authorized. >> the permit says a g f but just a second hammering itself is jury charge just like there's no permit a 4 inch dynamic is a gardening in the background that's how much dust you're going to create it was concrete. >> but the boring itself required a permit. >> right. >> and the boring didn't require a jack hooerm. >> the lot is situated it's a concrete slab but we needed to provide access to the soil to we

just a second hammered the locations that were authorized to provide them access to the soil that's what we were doing. >> okay. any questions? >> no. >> okay. thank you, sir >> just for a brief clarification the board did hear an appeal of the large project that appeal was a hearing on that entitlement it looked at itself issue whether to see it's specifically the n m rp and the sequa review was not part of the appeal so the authorization did uphold that the planning commission granted it appraisally and met the plan.

again, the issue of mitigation measures there are mitigation measures that is, you must do that before this and that those are on enforcement issue and not directly related to the issuance of the building permit any complaints not meeting pits mitigation measures can make the complaints to the planning department and they're the permitting authority make complaints to them as well. i do also have from the project sponsor a copy of the permit in t ph for the soil borges and that was dated january application january 15th starting date of january 22nd and the complaint to dbi was

made on january 27th. i did speak with the building inspector and he confirmed what mr. duffey said it was unclear what the just a second hammering was for but consulted with dph that the complaint was closed. available for any other questions >> thank you, mr. duffey nothing else. >> commissioners the matter is submitt submitted. >> i did call for it but there weren't any people. >> please this lady. >> she arrived late. >> i'm a member of the public.

>> did you not here the call for public comment. >> no, i've been here. >> we've called for public comment a while ago that was the time to speak. >> yeah. you can have 2 minutes. >> would a state your name for the record. >> i'm a member of muni half of the neighborhood association. we i can tell you that if you hire someone to take a sample a soil sample you don't decide where the sample is going to come from. there not not a geotechnical report that was done that was

done prior to the issuance of the sequa and all the other you approvals. the geotechnical report that was accepted by planning department was when the building was already there there the building the whole envelope of the property was covered by a building and there was - this is the geotechnical report so the whole neighborhood has no really confidence in the planning department, planning commission because we have been put in a situation where we didn't have a voice. this was a rubber stamped project we came hoping that we would have some say so about the fact united nations it's no a character for a 6 story building

here and the largest building is 4 stories. and we were not offered any voice because it was rubber stamped so how can you negotiate when it's been noeshd from the beginning the neighborhood had no is everything we said was ignored >> commissioners the matter is before you. >> somebody else. >> is there anyone else who wishes to speak. >> 3 minutes okay. i'm the "x" president of the club and now part of the board of directors. the club members are concerned, you know, they oppose the building, of course, but we're

just concerned about the historical preservation of the building it's been around a long time nobody's contacted me besides what's happening. the boring or the just a second hammering. you know, we also have a children's music school driver's license and nobody is gotten ahold of them we're concerned about the building and the club itself the building is so large it could be the end of the club. thank you for your time >> you state your name for the record. >> you should be aware in the community they have to provide a liaison. >> dollars activity we have photos of, you know, we're not contacted and, you know, we're just going to - we're being left

out. >> did they talk to your orientation of putting a monument on the top of your building to survey. >> we have not heard anything we've not seen anything in writing nobody's contacted this manager i'm not responsible for the day to day activities at the club that's our concern. thank you >> well commissioners if you looked at the brief it's prominently dealing with sequa issues. i'm in concurrence with the

planning department with the charter changes that pretty much going to a different avenue and not to this commission. i'm not sure there are overlaps whether in the monitoring or litigation issues or other elements that relates in some form or manner however slight to the building permit, however, the issues that were brought up by the public comment speakers was quite different than the brief in terms of the comment related to the neighborhood character and the context of the building. it's in my opinion a lot of the issues were discussed in the

project authorization review we did last time we discussed at length last time it was not just the decision on the mitigation measures we discussed the variance that were required because it's a corner building and hue that then establishes the mapping of the building to wrap around the corner and therefore the rear yard go entrance and the light in there for the windows off the court yard requires some of the variance and the scale we'll discuss and the shadow al at length. i've not heard anything that will change any opinion in the previous and i'll support the permitting of this permit >> can i make a motion.

>> move to reject the appeal and uphold the permit. >> commissioner fung two things one because the board is the last decision making body for this and it's subject to my attention measures you have to uphold it a draft is permitted and it's entered into the record. >> you want to do that. >> why don't you read it. >> i'll read it then and i was wondering if there's a basis for which you want to state the upholding of the permit. >> well more myself i've read it therefore concur with it. >> not basis for the denying of the appeal under our normal procedures we have to have a

stated for the denial of the appeal. >> okay. that's two simple but i will say then that based on the fact that the project is co- off and on and gone through a tremendous you amount of review and approval. >> okay. all right. so the draft environmental finding are one on august 8, 2013, by the motion found that the constructions of the new 6 story mishgd or mixed use had ground floor area the project and didn't have an effect on the environment by motion number one. and approved the project authorization and decided there was no substantial evidence the

project will have a significant effect on the mitigation mortgaging - monitoring program. the board of supervisors upheld it on october 22, 2013, and the board of appeals found it was adequate as a decision making for the denial of appeals more the motion appeals number 813 dash 11. the planning commission number and the architecture plan has been made available by the board of appeals and the public and it is part of the record the board has considered the record as a whole including the finding and motions and all written and oral

information by the planning department and other experts and the administrative files for the project. accident board of appeals finds it's adequate for the use as a decision making body and denies the appeal and incorporates the sequa vthsd contained in the motions. by with this reference there to as so forth in this motion having reviewed the record the board of appeals denies the appeal protesting the issuance of the application on the basis this the project has gone through excessive review and that board acceptance the conditions for the project >> i know that's my word. >> okay. thank you.

>> if you could call roll, please. >> motion than from commissioner fong to deny the appeal on the basis it's code immigrant i compliant and with sequa finding it recording on that motion commissioner fung. commissioner hurtado. commissioner lazarus and commissioner honda oh, recused the vote is 4 to zero and the permit it upheld on the basis with that finding >> thank you. >> shall i go get the - >> then i can read the next item. okay. so we we'll call the next two items this is item 4a and b which are the hearing requests

the subject project on van ness street it's from the permit holder for the appeals and also received a letter from the appellants attorney. numbered 1397 and 98 both matters were decided at the time the board voted to uphold all permits and adapt the findings with revisions as stated a that the ground floor commercial space be limited as defined by san francisco planning code and the entitlement as the density be maintained and c there is setbacks of 10 to 12 feet depending on the articulated opinion of the sponsor. we're hearing those together and

we'll start with the project sponsor requester gentlemen you have filed 4 hearing requests and have 12 minutes to present >> good evening mark permit holder we're asking for the appeal i'll do the first one and then we're asking for the appeal based on new evidence and b restrictions imposed on the project were predicted an false and misleading testimony and the rules were violated exhibit a the march be building does have sound proving something that's been denied. the appellant was asked to comment on the acoustics and she

would that amazed nothing to incorporate and commissioner fung was asked about the awe alcohol analyze. it was evaluated before bugging it and documented it for theatre purposes they need absolute silence so this is an important report. the report and exhibit b shows dollars a lot of work and the appellant knew that. this is an important document it's highly unlikely that a theater owner who purposed a building has adequate proving and she submitted it to the city and asked for her loans to be forgotten it clearly shows did

appellant knew dlfs more to sound proving. the report explains why the marches have been able to operate in slight silence next to a late night restaurant and parking lot the restaurants have reported music and why the appellant turned down our mutilate offers to have sound like proofing done. on the matter of disclosures the appellant said the noise would cause more neighbors to complaint and file suit i have here an e-mail confirming that the march has received no complaints in the neighbors or anything else this contradicts that nearby residents will be bogged and they august that the

restaurants and the residences are in nearby proximity. they pulled permits. the permits to sound proof the building this was done in the 80s dollars more people living there now. if the march had a problem neighbors would have filed complaints like bay jones and finally the rules of the board was violated when 5 members testified in violation of the board rule and i have a listed of those individuals. this particular case is about noise and 4 meetings narrowed testimony the board only asked a couple of sound questions and those were answered federal and

local. the march sound proof will not be concerns and i'll do the appellant damages they want a rehearing a there's no hearing to reduce the fifth floor of the project and the cost of implementing it will render the project unfeasible and the next is is violates the california accountability act and they've failed to approve the overall city objects the board has asked for the fifth floor stairwells and elevators and including the mechanic sprirnlz this constitutes another sees of 50 sa