this plan to our knowledge is not properly reviewed we do is open space is proper we do not know any of those things -- we the parents request la porte school be given a reasonable setback to bring light into the preschool while allowing the new and the oldest and next agenda with pleasing effect. quick >> commissioner i the question of 1 m supporters. let me repeat it. you are school did some tenant improvements to the building for its program. why were the three rooms, classrooms, based onto the side >> testifier: based on discussions we have heard, with la porte, that the three classrooms it is actually for classrooms in total on the

second and third floor have core doors on the south side classrooms on the north side. that was due to requirements by , we believe that a prominent building inspection. we have heard from la porte that birth egress of students they wanted the court were to be on the south. now, so i do not have any documentation about that because that is something that happened with la porte. i know we signed up with la porte in june of 2013. i was one of the first families to find out for my son and we were never told that there would be a building behind when i was the first person to see this on the planning commission signs on the building in february. where brought the plan to la porte they were shocked as i was about this. >> commissioner okay. wended

la porte sign a lease with the property owner kubrick >> testifier: the lease, i believe, was signed in september or -- i would say around september of 2013. the construction began in february of 2014. >> commissioner thank you. >> clerk: we can take rebuttal from the permit holder now. >> testifier: thank you. steve -- him after the permit holder. a couple points i want to make. one is, was a document and this number of construction mitigation measures that support them the secret document incorporated into the planning commission approval. the construction and demolition measures that we agreed you would la porte go far beyond those measures and the exhibit b to our grief has exhibits that show those construction

measures. window point threatened to withdraw the offer for those construction matters of import if there was a final agreement mac we did, however, condition a commitment to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to add windows to the la porte school under being in agreement that was reached. as the commissioner fung took pointed out, the issue is, the property owner was advised of our project in 2013, 2014. we do not know the communication between the property owner in the lease he. the less he decided for reasons we do not know to use those property line windows as windows into classrooms and core doors. reading of this is happening until much of 2014 -- 2015. as soon as we became aware that we entered into these discussions and we believe that the solution we reached a providing a late and are you sick of

those windows were not currently exist, and adding 11 additional windows would have a beneficial effect for the school and that mlb 24 windows. was 24 windows will be protected by light and airy easement are currently the 13 existing windows have no protection. the coast up at any time by this project. we also voluntarily said that the building-a feat that was always part of the plan because were aware property line windows by having a 5 1/2 foot separate those windows could be maintained additionally no code requirements that occur. i do want to point out the standard of review that i believe is an appellant's body ui to be looking at as zoning administrators code interpretation and the planning commission's decision. because the zoning demonstration tradition was authorized by the planning code and was a

reasonable application, of the intent of the code, the zoning administrator not use his discretion. the courts direct account body such as the court of appeals to go for two reasonable code interpretations. as -- were an official enforcing ordinances as interpreted differences granted the agency's interpretation lessons clearly erroneous or an authorized. local officials interpretation be overruled only if a reasonable person cannot reach the same conclusion. so under this deferential standard, we do believe that the zoning administrator made a reasonable interpretation of the code, that the planning commission in reliance on it interpretation made a reasonable and fact-based decision that a small exception to the code was wanted. thank you. >> clerk: >> commissioner i believe in your brief you indicated that there were multiple design concepts for this property. did any of those concepts create a greater setback adjacent to the

la porte school site and change the same density kubrick >> testifier: no. this form, was the claimant went for starting in 2013 with the planning department. it was disclosed to the property on -- >> commissioner the apartment did not ask you for any additional studies? keswick we went to a -- prices but the form of the building. said from the beginning. >> commissioner i have a few questions that first summer from the public mentioned regarding the below market rate units they are holding them on-site and not in lieu is that correct >> testifier: that is correct directors 50 units on-site up to 55% of median incomes are low income >> commissioner on-site? >> testifier: on-site correct >> commissioner can you expand the hours of the concession because we got several notices

where things are brief regarding the of 24 hour construction. >> testifier: mark batson for -- organa bye-bye typical construction hours. where we will agree to do is any work within a think it is 20 feet of the building. will not do during school hours. record have to work on weekends and evenings of two -- evening hours when of the school is not in session that is for demolition of the adjacent building and any construction within a think it is 20 feet without the property line is not doing any extra hours between -- >> commissioner i believe my question was did you get special authorization per 24-hour -- >> testifier: no. i believe you are only allowed to go to 8 pm at the latest. 7 am-8 pm

particularly further the map that rossi constrain hours not expanding them >> commissioner the last question was, can you explain your percentages of ground-floor coverage was so off >> commissioner and what prompted the recalculation of a generic >> testifier: when the architects pursue the calculation they were just looking at the ground they scrape the floor area of the particular for. it turns out your balconies overhanging summit area. there was drive iowa brain summit area and the zoning commission to look back and said, some of the calculation was improper because that area was not opened his sky otherwise gorgeous couch destruction switch without any area within obstruction to it that is how we got to from 84 to 89 and i was in exception the planning commission had really considered. that degree of exception and it made sense to not state an exception on the

ground floor, but to reconfigure the building so there was no lot coverage requirement. >> commissioner on the number, was also an expansion joint run the building which the archetype architect value counted in the zoning of mr. chose not to count that that was the biggest drop have it put around the whole building. it adds up. >> commissioner last question was [inaudible] from the aaa? >> testifier: not on [inaudible] >> testifier: a salvage company has come and taken all the detail. were going to incorporate several elements in our lobby and other parts wake is a big -- that semi-repairs as our lobby desk never stop a salvage company will show up and is going to see the light of day again. >> commissioner [inaudible]

>> commissioner i have a question in your brief you to run a meeting with the owner of 50 -- on august 28. duffy said in 2014 the school [inaudible] i just tried to clarify the sequence of events. was your meeting as far as you know prior to the lease being executed with the schools? edwards the building owner became aware of your plans >> testifier: in 2013 >> commissioner in 2013. this meeting is late august of 2014. >> testifier: matter president i should have the meeting i talk to the owner of the building may comes in 2013 and i presented them the plans in august of 2014. he was most cooperative. we were s&m or plans to show the safety considerations are we were developing. i believe you got

posted to do that right away that we actually were not planning to do that and we developed. we started working on the acoustic boxes and things like that in september of 2014. i do not know when he signed his lease. as of august as of july, i have heard that this was having problems with the city and an age with the major said he had to personally get involved in fighting he knows can get improved. it actually did not end up getting approved until august. i did not find out until september, october >> commissioner: the building owner was clearly aware of your plans going back potential year before the lease >> testifier: yes. in his defense he was waiting for us to follow-up on safety things but absolutely >> commissioner lazarus: but either the building [inaudible] >> testifier: yes >> commissioner that answers my >> clerk: mr. sanchez >> testifier: planning

department. just to address two issues, first, omission or politics? any mitigation measures there were three specific spec mitigation measures adopted reward related to archaeology admissions and soil in addition to the standard billing code opponents for construction back second, i am in the history of the 50 s. side, the # actually, in july of 2013 eight ltd. project assessment was submitted to our department for development on that site of a nine story building that would be on the west side of the property. the property itself, the building in the historic building them and would be pertained but they would develop the tower along the west side property line adjacent and putting the 100 van ness property. that was in july. some of the issues related to the site at some

point some time ago in the 80s, i believe, is about basically all the development potential of the site as pvr's. they cash out the development potential of the bauman site and when they came in for a project i think that was one of the issues that was resolved or discovered. in or to do any kind of the moment their director buyback pvr surveyed about the site they do not pursue that. and the subsequent to that, in september, they had these to report preschool. this project itself was submitted in 2013. this was the environmental review process there was a notice mailed to owners and occupants within 300 feet on august 28 of 2014. at the time, it seems the preschool would an under construction when we send these notices out big review documents to the address. to the contractor did not report that to the school, but certainly the property owner

were well aware of these in 2013 and 2014 2015 but the project occurring at the site. so that is all wanted to add and am available for any questions that >> commissioner: it could have been the notice went to the authorized representative of the school. maybe not to any -- all the parents >> testifier: the notice would have gone to the registered owner of the property as listed on the assessor's record. when we do occupants, since we have no way of knowing everyone it is a generic occupant at the at-risk mac so polly said oxidant 50 fell. that is within what delivered to misread: can you speak to the light issue that occurred? i do ask either side because i sort of wanted an unbiased response. >> testifier: certainly, the measures that have been taken

-- the difficult situation because because your property line windows. typically, those are not allowed one need to be posed. some have enclosed already. because of other development on this property. so i think it is always a difficult situation when your property line windows. i think the project sponsor has taken extraordinary measures to try to address those concerns when they became aware of the concerns related to light and air by doing [inaudible] that they have. it is only open up windows on some and also property. that is what is going on above and beyond typically what we see is in my colors. those countermeasures but we think they have adequately addressed those concerns. >> commissioner: with those concerns raised that the planning commission? >> testifier: yes they were raised prior to the planning commission when it seems the majority of the people do not

become aware of this until we expire the hearing until the notice of the hearing went out -- we do not receive many comments at all when the birds went out in august 20 14th of environmental review we received no public comment. but, now the people were in the building, occupying the building those concerns were expressed. the project sponsor came up with a plan to address those. to the extent that those could be adopted as conditions in the planning commissions approval they were but some things cannot be adopted as conditions because until the work on the adjacent property that is not something the commission but the commission did adopt to the extent it could those measures. >> commissioner thank you. >> testifier: thank you. >> commissioner one last question mr. sanchez. dc three district i did not go back and look at the venice market special residential district specifics. to see-three district used to require a

podium portion >> testifier: are you talking about for tower heights? >> commissioner yes >> testifier: yes it is more of a factor of a height limit. >> commissioner that does not apply in this instance? >> testifier: in terms of awful lot coverage ground-floor, no >> commissioner could you clarify what is ddr >> testifier: transferable to bauman writes if you have certain historical moment sides you can sell the development potential because of your sar which of the amount square footage you can develop certain districts if your building is built to 5000 ft.2 but under the zoning you built 50,000 ft.2 then you could sell off that 45,000 unit potential to someone else and they can go above their otherwise maximum on another property practice was something that created as part of the downtown plan in

1985 as an incentive to maintain and store properties because they take that money than invest back into the store property. >> clerk: i think inspector -- is about to walk in the door. i note commissioner had a question frame if you could give him a minute. >> commissioner: i can have a discussion with the mr. -- or the project sponsor. if i remember correctly, the building department limitations on construction is fairly generous. if i recall correctly, it can be seven days a week, and i think it is 7-10 or something like that >> testifier: 7-8 >> commissioner 7-8. probably it would not accept that for this incident here? i would

look at probably a six day monday to saturday limitation and 7-7 limitation. >> testifier: the problem is we are not building during school hours and leave those of the squatters he mentions we would be able to build it all then. were trying to do our construction near the school when -- >> commissioner in the agreement your stipulation on those times is only when you have certain types of construction. it is not throughout your entire construction period. >> testifier: correct >> commissioner: you would take that in addition to as a maximum. >> testifier: the school is in session and a thumbs-up not sure that doing construction in

the evening how does that help >> commissioner: you are limiting that to certain types of activities that imagine -- demolition, nabit may be -- it is not real specific but it does not say your entire construction period is outside of school hours. >> testifier: right. the noisy demolition [inaudible] yes. >> commissioner either question i have a question, just to confirm, what is the end of building code related to construction hours and days direct >> testifier: -- it is in the please go to. section 2907, 29 noted in 7 am-8 pm. seven days a week. san francisco. so, it is pretty liberal but but recently we do issue permits as

well for certain types of work that sometimes we can do the work within 13 hours a day huge amount [inaudible] or something that the street needed to be kept open during the day and they need to use the street, they can work at night. we do -- [inaudible] work with the other agencies, dpw and nds, but mainly it is the neighbors that, the developers or the representatives need to reach out to the neighborhood. >> commissioner: you can allow that at night, chemical 24 hours ? >> testifier: very very rarely, if they had to do something that was going to take 24 hours, like a continuous poor, or something, normally it is not that long. very rarely >> commissioner: that is a

special situation when they do a continuous poor direct >> testifier: yes it has to be proven they could not do the work between 7 am and 7 pm hours >> commissioner i think the question was in a packager member from public it is amended that over the recent memorial day weekend by construction obtained a 24-hour work permit and considerably on considerably dave are building a one-day 24 hour notice. of the construction. >> testifier: that was not a noise permit issued by dwi. i signed them. so i did notice of the project working late as well that you are allowed to work directors will work. you can work 20 hours actually if you are not making noise but the noises the construction noise is folding. 5 db over ambient which is not very much. someone was doing maintenance and i raise building for example, not making noise, it is not considered construction work per se.

>> commissioner something megatrends the terminal >> testifier: they issue their own premise that is actually unique where were not involved in the project and that is causing quite a -- we do get quite this sense about that one, but i knows permits are issued. we like you to be personally, and other people at dvi would like it in the agreements for construction. mission bay, and some agreements and for all development down there. i think are some weakens the not allowed to work before 9 am, but that was all built into the pre-approvals prior to, which is where i think without a muddier. >> commissioner: thank you. is the permit holder item in the answer for me in regards to the letter from the public. >> testifier: i can perhaps adjust that. was a bridge went across the street and the removal of the bridge required

coordination with caltrans with mta, and with the city. the only time it could be done was over a holiday weekend jacket took three days. it is very rare that you have these bridges. >> commissioner am i to buy essay like the bridge is gone >> testifier: the bridges contract that was the reason for the special permit for 24 hours because i was the only reason they could get a. >> commissioner that was the only instance direct >> testifier: i was the only incident. one of the reasons we be looking working some weakens our goal is to prevent issues with the school. for example, when were putting up walls next to the building, we will be doing.in off-hours and nonschool hours goal. we will definitely -- we have no choice. will definitely be working weekends. >> commissioner: i understand that. one of the arguments

that are not the only occupants . they are not the only arguments direct >> testifier: the other occupants are the university of art university across the street. and we own the other two buildings that surround and all of our tenants note have been notified formally in writing the construction. >> clerk: on any other questions the matter is committed. submitted.. >> commissioner with tackle the larger issue first and then we will deal with whether there is any other issues. the biggest question that has been raised here in the appeal is the question of the extent of

site coverage and therefore also the volume of the envelope and building and its proximity to the property line. i would agree that the developer should go to their alternative plan and relocate the resident to public facing street to a ground floor and take that out of the coverage e equation. i believe the original intent in planning codes related to that kind of discretion on it is not necessarily to the level of 10 or 11%. as a differential. part of the is bothered by the

fact that he 12 story tower is taken to the real property line so close. however the mitigation and the agreement, sweeney also. in terms of providing some relief and some ability to accommodate the current or any development that would have been on the service box. weight adjacent to the property. i do not have a lot of sympathy for property line windows. i think those are the responsibility of the building owner in this case also the tenant it is something that they should have recognized,

the developer probably recognize it into the discussion with the property owner because he is going to build, whether it is even a podium or recess tower, he is can be building a podium adjacent, whether it is for ike being used or whether it is for parking. so i am a little bit torn by that, but i am kind of swayed by the mitigation that occurred in the agreement. the other issue was, i understand the need to have some efficiency in the construction process, but i also understand the need for people who are in the area to have some peace at least one day a week, which is wireless suggesting that. the third issue is the zoning

administrator's determination on that exemption. if we safety for units on the ground for [inaudible] and i will take the position that the district zoning district did not abuse or make an error in his interpretation. >> commissioner: i agree. i do believe that at least the owner of the property where the school is located at full knowledge that there was a building going up. query share that with the school, which he should have, improper disclosure is one thing. the other is their poverty line windows and that the developer of the new project is allowing windows to open up into the property. that is a huge consideration. also, i commend the fact the project sponsor has put the below market rate

units on-site. i have known children. they go to school i like a lot of late myself. it is very difficult to find school locations here in san francisco. but, i would agree with my fellow commissioner, the same terms that this is probably aired improperly issued and that the zoning administrator did not error. planning commissioner. >> commissioner: if were going to condition finding in fact week they did it because of the wrong calculation so i think it has to be expressed.. i am prepared to do that. i am not interested in the conversation about the working hours because i think there is only so many cons