>> good evening and welcome to the san francisco general hospital the presiding officer is commissioner honda and he's joined by commissioner sanchez. >> commissioner bobbie wilson and commissioner rick swig we expect our vice president commissioner fung to be here and trust fund is thomas owen for legal advice and at the controls is gary the boards legal assistants snimdz we're joined by representatives we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. and in the front row amanda

representing the public works bureau the street use and mapping and also be going by bernie representing the planning commission and scott sanchez planning department. and also i see in the front row advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk.

speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do after you've been worn in or

affirmed raise your hand okay 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. >> okay. thank you very much commissioner honda commissioners item number one please silence all electronic devices. please turn off all electronic devices not on tonight agenda any general public comment okay. seeing none we'll move to item two commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioners nothing okay. and item 3 the boards consideration of the minutes of the july 13, 2016, board meeting. >> we additions, deletions, or changes may i have another motion to move forward. >> so moved. >> thank you. any public comment on the minutes. >> okay. seeing none then a

motion from commissioner fung on that motion commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay. that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero and item 4 a jurisdiction request the suggested on delores street a letter from donna and bryant tan con requesters asking the board take jurisdiction under the building application which was issued on august 2015 by the department of building inspection and the appeal period ended up and the jurisdiction request was filed on july one, 2016 permit holder is john and application numbers and at bedroom and reconfiguration on

the fourth floor and modify the regressing on the second story from change to 4 to 6 and fourth from 3 to 5 bedrooms we'll start with the requesters who have 3 minutes jointly to present their case. >> hello my name is davidson on behalf of the family i norm will not have take place taken this case i felt there is a grave injustice if not given the opportunity to be heard so i want to point out that this is not your normal jurisdiction request norm you hear why someone didn't

timing foil a jurisdiction the request for a hearing they never received notice weren't required to receive the notice the notice devices go out an alteration permit for adding 8 more bedrooms to a 3 unit building that already had 10 bedrooms we're talking about a if a unit building with 18 bedrooms so this matter was also not heard under the environmental review we talked with the environmental review and issued a categorical comments it was marge a deciding is not to have an environmental review with an additional 8 bedrooms and now 15 bedrooms and not, however, or how many parking spaces they're paving

over their driveway in the rear yard so this is just an unusual situations this permit was approved in 2005 it was the records showed that extraordinary 6 times since then and renewed in february of 2015 this building you can see is not your traditional 3 unit building who are we kidding from the drawings a total dividing walls in the middle of a bedroom to provide one window this is egregious and the rest of my time donna of the holy family day will talk about this year. >> i'm did ed serving one and

54 infants and toddler and preschoolers 70 percent from homeless and protecting working-class and 60 percent of our families live in emergency shuttles or in an unhealthy environment they feel safe here and not surrounded by accident crazyness of this world we were not not modified of the group housing nor notified of a parking lot installed and boarders and changes the health and safety. >> excuse me - your time is up if you can finish our statement in less than 60 sakes a flimsy broken fence separates the broken automatic with the coup gas fumes and many about thirty some years old and many of the personalities wanted to come and speak you're going

public comment but some confusion whether or not their permitted to speak we would have packed the room this not anything after one and 15 years in this space we can accept and it pains me to be aware the gentleman is trying to do without proper environmental review and knowledge the tenants eviction tactics. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> >> i'm eric i represent george in that matter and i'll talk about two things first simply what the standard of review as you may know who the actions of city either personally or inadversarial caused the neighbors not to have notice this is zoned rh2 in the

indignity under the san francisco planning code notice to required from section 3 b in the change of use of building is significant that's a 75 percentage changes or the building was built out faster all that was done additional bedrooms were made more affordable units for people to come in and live the city can get behind, and, secondly, i'll address the issues with the turn around not a parking lot in the back as you can see face it as though you're looking at it. >> much better. >> as you can see this is a hammer hid turn around to allow cars egress to head to delores street not a parking lot or something that will pose any

sort of danger are hazard to the neighbor and additionally like to address the concern about cars inadvertently or adversarial driving introts neighborhood property a concern that is over womb a cinder block wall with a fence and it is not like people will be driving eir radically this is a garage this is where people live and pulling their cars in and out and going to work coming home this is not a place to be president cedillo and any danger that would be posed to any of the neighbors is no longer any of you driving home and parking in our own garage blow there a cinder block wall a notice was not required to add the additional bedrooms on the interior of the center

structure that was a 3 apartments building before those bedrooms it is a 3 apartment unit building still. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> anything in the departments mr. sanchez. >> thank you good afternoon scott sanchez planning department. i think we have a couple of cases before the board marina the twnldz are subsidized and one of the concerns whether or not that will be used use group housing that depending upon the zoning district any require conditional use and may not be required in this case the zoning district allows the neighborhood notice that is required from one to the other but you know we don't have limits under the planning code for the number of

bedrooms that's the issue that was before the board and ultimately in the use of the property and whether or not it is used in a manner this is consistent with the dwelling unit as extended in the planning code. >> so those matters are handled in terms of enforcement and the occupancy side when it is used possible to be used as dwelling unit by a family that have a need for the number of bedrooms or used in a manner this is consistent with group housing both are allowed but. >> neighborhood notice is needed in terms of a hammerheads turn around going back to 2009 for the project that didn't seem to be a new feature maybe somewhat usual to see that kind of a feature but given the parking laid out at at angle they need to that properly access the parking but we've

approved in 2009 one of the things i'll not looking at the plans thankful submitted and what looking at the aerial photos and the comments of the requester the property has a large children playing area and not shown on the plan that was submitted with the permit holder that show that the plan let's put it on the overhead and look at the site plan. >> there's exhibit a on the overhead. >> so they show adjacent in the set building that is actually, the play area for the adjacent property that will not impact our review but i was struck by that by looking at the plans and the aerial photos that were submitted i don't think

that would necessarily effect the project i'm available to answer any questions. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> the this is a through lot isn't it. >> it is i think that is - let's see. >> assessing. >> a long lot. >> yes. extremely long lot. >> it is not a through lot. >> do you recall the history of the permitting. >> i think the point shed at the rear that was demolished and there was a proposal to build a 3 unit building behind the existing building that was a permit submitted in 2004 that was approved and issued no work

was done and thought to extend it in of 2010 so that was underway to build out this project. >> commissioner. >> i guess i'm a little bit confused about you said 8 more bedrooms; right? >> uh-huh. >> but that's okay by the way, you it would be group housing which will be allowed or 0 could be i got a little bit lost. >> both uses are allowed in the planning code whether group housing or the 3 dwellings the issue with the making a determination is their calling this a between i mean their rechls that is a dwelling unit with more bedrooms and the limitations on that in terms of

the review at the staff level with a project like this we're generally constrained by what is shown on the plans the representation of use if it is ultimately used in a manner that is more consistent with group housing they need a permit to document the change of use that permit will still be allowed as of right the planning code allows that both uses are allowed with no limitations this is not a use question. >> one triggers notification one didn't. >> the change will trigger a notification. >> but the groupings they'll have to notify and right or changing from group housing. >> put in more bedrooms and - that maybe how some people choose to operate. >> maybe you can explain the

definitions what changes from residential 0 group housing. >> the definitions in the planning code they - it is based on a family so in in a between a space for one family to reside and do their cooking etc. a family is defined in the planning code generally up to 5 unrelated individuals or no limit to the number of individuals if there are more than 5 individuals conduct their severs of a family they do their own- they cook and share meals together and generally have a share in the operation of the house and then this goes back to case law from the early 80s you used to be a more district

definition of family and the courts struck down that definition you can be unrelated and be a family if you don't meet that test of a family group housing allows four more go flexibility because the rooms can be shared and rented individually the minimum stay - occupancy so for a between is thirty days reside there for group housing and short as 7 days there's more flexibility in how it operates asia i'm remembering the case you're referring to thank you >> we had a case that made many shechdz it was claimed by the owner that ultimately got the permit the family lived there a whole bunch of students

but that definitions swayed we were trapped by the definition and what tletter of the law humn resources here it could be said the same thing but my fear is here what is raised is that yeah, you can contrive that has a family between in the definition or quickly become group housing or very quickly community college this is my hotel business beside coming out it is airbnb and could be family housing because of our legislation is creating the city says if you're living there you can rent to someone as a family

but all of these are legal with notice according to our view. >> yeah. so both uses whether they're meeting all the requirements of dwelling unit or group housing both will be allowed in the zoning district. >> it's a conundrum. >> in the last case the board took an action because of the concerns they taken all the common living space and made that bedrooms so one of the boards requirements is some living space in this case they're showing some common living space. >> one question mr. sanchez to the turn around a required rear yard to that property. >> a required rear yard and driveway assess for parking it

allowed as permit obstruction of the rear yard they would not be allowed to park in that rear yard but they can use it for the maneuvering of the vehicle an awkward lay out for the parking but that was approved some time ago. >> how much of the required rear yard for the driveway. >> only a portion maybe half or so. >> that's half is a lot. >> it is half is a lot. >> something i think that reviewing under more than half by 2/3rd's. >> i think something like this in current review and design review will not, encouraged in the tugged and not reservoir parking at all

at the time and they escaped this by saying that is a driveway. >> you can provide a driveway under the planning code one 36 driveway again, this is not something we would under today's review under today find this supportive but this of the initially approved a decade ago. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. kern anything no so we'll take public comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak. okay first person step forward. >> madam director we have

quite a load so why not limit to 2 minutes. >> okay. the president is giving everyone two minutes because of the number of items on the calendar this evening and need to get through them. >> good afternoon. i'm phil reside on delores heights street and mere asking for your jurisdiction to the appeal the permit on delores i'm concerned 2, 3, 4 if in building is completed will concern a significant automotive exhaustive and pollution my family is aware interests a building under construction we understood a 3 unit condo and were alarmed to learn it was recently expand to 18 bedrooms and of the the parents of a daughter we're concerned before

the safety risk if i can show you the current access to the building itself because that arrived behind the buildings a narrow 7 nature foot driveway that is much narrower than what you expect this is the only assess to the automobiles and all of the residents who live in the 18 bedrooms we're concerned about the safety of the rest one car in that driveway completely blocks the access to 80 the building and as parents of a child we look at this and say how can we be sure our daughter is safe when working class around the neighborhood and riding her bicycle watching the cars coming and going at all sorts of hours we also i guess been disappointed that the

builder and the developer have not had an application with the foliage we had concerns about the design years ago and at the end of the day all we're asking to have a voice in the process we again with the incremental mechanism for the developer. >> okay. >> including our voice in the process. >> i have a question you've lived the whole time since construction. >> since 2013. >> and when we bought the apartment provided the original information to us i have the original designs. >> my question is answered thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> no. >> good afternoon members of the board my name is elizabeth i

have lived on delores which is the same building. >> i'm going to stop i know you're the person that filled the request i'm wanting to know your relationship to the requesters with the alleviated parties are not allowed to speak. >> are you in a financial relationship with any queries you're the person that came to file. >> i live next door and retired so in order to receive and bring the papers to the department to file the request mr. jeffrey and i were retired and jeffrey is the snatchy. >> i'm not related to anyone. >> commissioner president honda i've lived there. >> finish your time and .

>> i've lived through over thirty years the entire time of the executrix self-has taken over 11 years our or my major concern that fact if the narrow driveway is the only access to delores it is very narrow pedestrians and cars have to go down and 18 and 21 bedrooms the additional 8 bedrooms were from the living room space what is left no doubt rented out as an additional bedroom that's what he did with the other properties he rents out every room to a different tenant to another building down the road and those 21 tenants plus their visitors and partners are going date of birth going below-market-rate on

in narrow driveway as well as mit any dozen cars a 6 car garage part of plan and what's missing in the discussion about the backyard and the turn around in in addition the turn around the entire backyard is covered in cement. >> overhead please. our picture yes as you can see deservedly covered in cement and those dozen cars with blaefrt at the same time as the tenants and in addition the cars coming from the parking area can't see the cars entering delores and those entering can't see the cars coming from the parking space meeting in the memoranda when are the cars going to back up either on delores or back into the park which is border the by

the preschool. >> i have a question you would you lived through the whole time has construction gone on the whole time. >> it's been spuric and it's been. >> what's the longest pause 6 years. >> at least a year and the front building has been remodel. >> okay to be rent-controlled unit out to more people. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> what's in front of you did jurisdiction request what is noticed required not the merits buses notice required if the project sponsor was honest he would have said group housing as the zoning administrator said if he said the truth there would

have been noticed and not given notice by the way, the project sponsor they're taken the 72 hour and making it 7 bedrooms do you believe a 12 hundred sweet apartment with 7 rooms is not rented outs individually that's group housing i can go up 9 building and give you examples this the group housing do you believe someone when in their doing this if you don't there is a notice required and an opportunity to appeal it a year ago the other issue which a fatality flaw the permits are expired to legalize this building the 2004 permit didn't exist how do you foil a permit and i do this for a living not this one this is for free that is confuse but their permits are

let the building permit exterior the reason they can't get it finalized the original inspection is blank none of the items cleared they shouldn't be doing anything but if you want to be honest this is group housing they're doing it somewhere else and can't fix this later or tell them to fix it now. >> any other public comment seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i have a further question for the department building department inspector kern come to the podium please. good evening bernie southerner or kern building department. >> can you talk about the

permits extraordinarily in 2013. >> there's 1 permits on this property i'll say 14 are expired with that said that takes the renewal to operate that permit there's a extensive history so special inspections have something needs to be submitted prior to calling out for a final inspections they might be waiting on that they're going to for a revision then may be that will come into play some of the structural aspects are changing. >> can you explain it seems we've heard the word serial permitting this under that category and will they require difference permits. >> no a lot of revisions i

mean there are 1, 2, 3, 4. >> from sprinkles in the restriction of the floor plan to the erection of the building so it is not the cleanest way to community-based about a permit that's if you want to call it serial permitting. >> i don't know what mr. boskovich seemed empty how many inspections and why not - >> 15 special inspection but not to be most of those are outside agencies or the engineer of record. >> so ever revision can have inspections until they call for a final inspection it is not necessary to have those posted. >> okay. >> as long as a track record and there's documentation their

fine what they've done like i said there was a good inspection i don't know what the engineer of record has looked like but the inspectors have been out there. >> was there thai special inspectors by the city. >> they're all required by the city. >> okay. thank you. >> given the unusual situation of this lot configuration you know they build out the maximum they could based on the size of lot and i find this is a enough of

unusual situation besides the use or potential intended use but in terms of whether there's possibilities for additional units all kinds of things i think it needs further discussion i'm willing in support of jurisdiction request. >> i'm in agreement i think given the information before us i think that more eyes on this is probably a good idea and seems like way too long owe too many question marks in my mind i'll support a motion. >> move to grant the jurisdiction request that on the basis for further disclosure

should have been made. >> okay. we have a question from the vice president to grant the request that further disclosure commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero the new appeal period starts tomorrow calendar days okay. >> thank you move on to item 5 appeal 16 vince young versus the public works the property on lombard appealing the issuance on march 4 to inc. with a wireless box permit the construction of a personal wireless facilities for on for further consideration

today may 11 the board continued to allow the department to provide a brief on the puc with the poles located in the public right-of-way for lighting and for the appellant and permit holder to discuss possible the alternative locations i know that xhlz you're not here the last time so if you schizophrenia tell the public how you've reviewed the video that would be helpful. >> if you've reviewed the item since you were not here the allotment that would be helpful. >> i reviewed the video and documents. >> thank you very much okay. so i thought we'd start with the department commissioner honda if there is okay we've asked them to bring back the information to the board please.

good evening. i'm amanda from public works i want to start by saying that under article 25 public works can only deny a wireless permit for one of the 4 reasons the first reason being that little health department incorrectly the determined the public standard, and, secondly, the building department incorrectly determined the application applicable to the standard and the third reason the application didn't comply with the wireless permit for the fourth reason being the applicant intends to modify the facility after permit issuance and the modification wouldn't comply with the standards in the case of two wireless

appeals public works found the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. applied with the permits were fulfilled and no evidential way to modify the permits in a way not complying with article 25 as director cynthia goldstein to allow public works to have information for the use of the poles for wireless facilities the municipal transportation agency and the tmc and board of supervisors as a matter of policy tmc may license their telecommunication carriers on december 16, 2014, the board of supervisors approved resolution 463 dash 14 which is the master license between the puc and various carriers

on november 11, 2015, the board of supervisors approved the resolution which is the master life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness between mta and various carriers including internet so if a carriers master license agreement they may apply with a lease up for the moles e poles after is carrier there is an they object a license from public works and based on article 25 for all types of whether the poles are utilities or street lights or transit at the may 11th hearing discussion about the mta transit pole on lombard is effected just for the reference lombard at the northeast corner of lombard and columbia's and as state in may they were looking

at proposed alternative locates the first was the south west of lombard and columns and public works but the planning department determined that public works should deny the permit after seeing the nearby coit tower and telegraph hill then proposed to planning the pole at the northwest of lombard and columbia's, however, this proposal didn't satisfy the departments so did onramp application for 734 lombard that is under consideration and p, for the puc that the permit is in compliance with article 25 we ask the board to deny the appeal i'm available to answer any questions. >> sorry i do have a question i'm sorry the last time you were

here was hard what that classified whether the arts commission had any control over that i believed we talked back and forth and looking for language from the city attorney did you answer that last time. >> okay. so we did from the szabo were on vacation we get deputy city attorney lee's to draft a statement saying that the arts commission didn't have jurisdiction for wireless facility i have 10 copies in case you want to review them. >> yes. yes. >> mr. canter make sure the copies get to the parties as well. >> this is like fifth grade do i get a pencil now.

>> give us one second while we review this, please. >> okay. >> okay. >> that's fine. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> permit holders in the room anyone here from the company wishing to address the board. >> good evening, commissioners i'm matt here on behalf of the

permit applicant expedite systems thank you for your review and staff for your report as you heard staff has confirmed the situation with our prior proposals on some alternative poles singles the last meeting we met with the appellant and discussed all of the alternatives in the area we went onsite and reviewed those sites those alternatives we considered a design alternative at the present location to extend the pole from about a foot and a half we helped to get the canister out of window so much and we can still accommodate that final alternative should the granted as a condition of

approval unfortunately it is our belief the appellant goal to relocate to any even though location and we've shown that we've tried to do so with the prior applications and no other locations aside from the two, that meets our coverage objectives this appeal did not meet the city's definitions of obstructed view as so forth in the brief that richmond filed that you saw i believe and it cannot be denied for any of the reasons set forth by dpw i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> and thank you for reaching out to the permit holder.

>> absolutely thank you. >> okay we'll hear from the appellant now. >> 3 minutes. >> good evening commissioner honda and commissioners brian patterson for the appellant i first wanted to thank the board for giving us time at the last hearing to talk with the permit holder that was productive and much appreciate with investigation of alternative sites and installation methods and we think we found an alternative site it will work the permit holder filed formals i'll i'm going to turn it over to my associate and now back with a beautiful baby girl and information. >> for the appellant as ryan mentioned thank you for the

extra month and a half that was useful and had the time for planning and met with the permit applicant and both responsive and great headway and hopefully good news as a alternative sites one of the two sites in particular first met with the mr. larkin to discuss the two sites planning had payroll denied for this permit originally by accident one of the sites is 757 lombard set the record straight on the southwest corner of lombard and complums columbia's. >> it impacts the negatively impacts the views the area and planning gave the recommendation to dpw. >> overhead please. i'm sorry

mr. patterson put something on. >> thank you so we just don't see this impacts the aesthetic in a negative way and the historic landmarks four discussion of this smaller on the right side there is the one on the right it a support beam even if this beam a raised this facility can go on there and not as intrusive as the proposed of lombard street finally the board has the discretion in either accepting or denying this permit for the surrounding businesses and neighbors and property owners come to our attention in the last month the facilities on the ground floor on lombard has voiced skeshl concerns that

concern is growing about the proposal of that facility we have with us 90 snatches from concerned parents on the ground floor - where this facility and other studies about permissions and health concerns with parents but none with perspective children i believe in addition parents that will be speaking in opposition to the permit we request this site 757 lombard be considered and this permit conditions and relocated on lombard street and worthy noting were this permit to be denied the impact one block or roughly

one square feet as has the same cell phone service a handful of other facilities in the neighboring area and would be one block the same service you have now as you're walking through the street we feel the 757 lombard is the best spot and ask the board to approve the appeal with that condition thank you. >> our understanding this site was denied because of the aesthetic impacts but if the board looks the conditions here the condition is two poles right next to each other and the pole we're looking it shorter than the one next to it admit aesthetic impacts are minor if any and thank you a better photo of that

it is hard to imagine how adding a small cap at the top are small extension makes it any worse than it is the pole can be replaced if necessary and my colleague wants to say a few words. >> thank you for your time. >> i do not want to take up too much time and ask that you, please reconsider the possibility we can relocation this given the impact on our location thank you. >> are you finished. >> i think we all have questions. >> yes. >> i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> so sorry two questions are you suggesting we're located in front of someone else's

window. >> i believe - >> that's what you're suggesting relocation in front of someone else's window. >> i believe another window but the pole can be raised above the excited window. >> and the second question what are you suggesting to do with federal law. >> the federal law will not be impacted. >> you've talked about the rfp emission. >> the basis for the appeal the impact on the views from our clients. >> mentioned is it and he mentioned it operationally is that the real i mean, i'm trying to get real reason by counsel we're - >> two answers to that one is the ground floor tenants concerns that maybe grandstanded u ground if in radiation are impacting property value and the

video. >> the other impact we're concerned about outside of my clients bedroom window the loss of light and views there is the other argument the utilities consultant can address how this location didn't comply with federal law for the impact and most importantly most passion or prejudice the site we're proposing is the sites the permit holder wanted and it was regulated by planning you want the board to second-guess the plan. >> that's the role of the board respectfully. >> really with all due respect you disagree with the planning

interpretation they've not changed their mind; correct? >> i'll be happy to hear under planning. >> great we'll do that. >> any outreach to 757? >> did they know about this. >> that's a good question (laughter). >> taking a site identified as an alternative as we've gone through the long process and marrying down the process this is what we're left with and i think today inaugurated to the last option i think that my client we're more than happy to reach out to them. >> commissioners would you like mr. sanchez to come up. >> sure.

>> thank you scott sanchez planning department. also here with our new wireless planner and we've discussed that with the gentleman that reviewed the alternative location which. >> he's on vacation isn't he. >> he is working for the office of short-term rentals a less controversial job but for the alternative location that was rejected because first it is a pole there is the street light only there and requires the height of the pole to be rays in order to avoid the disturbing the street light that is there also, because of a wood pole requires that the external wiring as well as a shut off box so more cluster on the pole the pole has to be taller and less desirable and one of the concerns the corridor looking west from columbus up to the 2

more twisted road in the city that was one of the concerns as well. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay public comment on this item please come forward, sir and two minutes per speaker ma'am, i think the gentleman behind you speaks first if you could line up on the far side of the room and if you haven't filled out a speaker card give to the clerk that would be helpful. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners

my name is ruth i've lived in san francisco practically all my life and that is important to me is that without my cell phone i would be much more prone to injuries from falling and not be able to call emergency services because in san francisco none has tall buildings where i don't get a good signal so i'm speaking in favor of the granting this permit for the antennas the better for people

like me i think that the important thing there is no proof that the radiation from these antennas are harmful i urge you to approve this permit. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello my name is milo i'm an organizer and right now working on a voter registration and here to urge you to reject the appeal and approve the permit it is really important that there's

connectivity in the city especially the population is growing and the summer recession the main wedge to communicate to echo what the fellow before me said for safety i think most 9-1-1 calls made from cell phone devices and the other safety concerns from radiation before i came here i want to make sure i wasn't just honed in on the communication aspect i did research and the fcc and the national communication on radiation protection world health organization are generally in agreement that is there's almost no risk or no risk of by cell phone radiation

and not only nicole i understand another case coming up later today on another sites on sacramento unfortunately, i have another commitment innovating not here to testify but i want to say that those posts the antennas are important throughout the city an ass an organizer to communicate with other volunteers it is impossible to do without cell phone representation so, please reject this appeal and reject the appeal on 19 hundred sacramento. >> your quoting the reports when were those reports done. >> they're a collection of reports i read the exclusions of specifically in the ic and i rp website the international commission on non-i don

protection. >> when were they done. >> i believe from 2010 to 2014. >> so you have no idea. >> thank you, thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is rebecca i'm here to ask you reject this appeal and approve the cell phone permit and someone that visits the neighborhood and having go reliable cell phone is a public health issue and many people don't use landlines making cell phones the communication they rely on in the case of an emergency and not drop calls is

more cell phones are used more and more for public health department and people test their blood pressure level they denominator the amount of imagining saline noted one example of a public health department to go sure ore cell phones have reliable services to support people and placement on existing moles poles in right-of-way to place the antennas those poles are supporting of the polls like from pg&e this is the best option for the reliability of cell phone and not clustering the landscape of residents for changing the character of the neighborhood with new polls on public or private property i ask you reject the permit. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi

my name is china i run the north beach perpetual we moved to columns two weeks ago i'm in agreement people should communicate via theory cell phone people wouldn't like it in front of their window i'm arguing the the federal law needs to be changed but as someone that watches kids on a daily basis i don't want that box in front of my window and before we realized western a daycare facility 3 years in the works we got our approval and across the street a brand new children's library that opened up a few years ago and facilities a number of people in the north beach neighborhoods and that box is in the line of an aesthetic view i just wanted

to led you you know, i have a pull in the north beach they're all on board as far as not being content with the reviews of the impact only small people we're not saying they shouldn't are wireless boxes but sufficient locations that are going to not in front of children's areas and in this corner we have a caregiver center we have also a school and playground and a library to be considered so that's my speech thank you for your time. >> richard. >> thank you, commissioners i'm richard a resident of north beach i spend a lot of time in the new library and the playground and i

often have a cup of coffee and lunch there i do use lots of telephoning and the better representation is better to be content with my friends i ride the number one bus from chinatown to richmond so 15000 california street i hope that you will allow the antenna to be placed on those places so we get better communication thank you. >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> good evening hello, i'm here on behalf of the sf action at that stands for sf advocates

we're a grassroots group and asking you to reject this appeal because if i understand correctly the appellant is asking you to move this antenna from the place that is where it fits all the criteria where that checks all the boxes you guys are supposed to be checking to see that it checks sorry to see that works and moving it to a place where you guys have rejected it or the planning department has and the kind of circle of hell none wants it outside three quarters window it is a classic for a movie it is crazy we're a city there's going to be buildings and antennas, wires sometimes and you know if threw a fit with a pole outside their door it is as huge safety

hazard you're not seeing people saying they don't want light poles outside of their windows these antennas are necessary for the public health and public safety of all the residents i urge everyone is talking about the child disaster to look at our level from the ground those antennas are 10, 12 feet above and i have looked some of the, specific rfp levels they're well blow the blow the fcc recommended levels all the concerns of children i'd like to see the numbers from the actual exposure from the ground thank you. >> any other public comment. >> seeing none, commissioners,

the matter is submitted. >> there was so much count thoughts and positions perhaps we should continue this for 12 months to get to the bottom of th this. (laughter). >> you're not serious. >> i would say this though not necessarily yet in terms of specification on the case it is interesting that we go from the visible cluster of overhead lines and poles we underground to remove them so their efficient and on a commercial basis we lease them back it is interesting we'll never get rid of the cluster in

our lifetime. >> you know that is the thing will the rfp emissions i frankly think not enough longitudinal pseudonyms u study my point we actually find by federal law to take that seriously but i don't think that that we know one one way or another the statistics are not there. >> my recollection to look at this has to do with with poles i don't think anything else was changed and it is disingenuous this of the conditioned and not fully vested inch not heard anything to persuade me this

permit shouldn't be permitted. >> i concur those one of my fellow commissioners wire hear not in front of my window and child from one permit wise we gave extra time for a process i believe that process has taken place and at this time i'll not support an appeal. >> are you making another motion. >> no. >> no i'll move. >> i move to deny the appeal on the basis the permit was properly issued. >> thank you we have a motion to deny the appeal and uphold the building permit it was properly issued. >> commissioner fung commissioner president honda. >> commissioner wilson commissioner swig. >> that motion carries with a

vote 55 to zero moving on to item 6. >> public works bureau of street use and mapping on sacramento street for protesting the issuance to the ink of a wireless box construction of a personal wireless facility we will start with the appellant who will have 7 minutes to present his case. >> good evening sxhomd. >> i'm sorry. could you move the mike bingo.

>> good evening commissioner honda and commissioners, thank you very much i live on sacramento street on november 20th, 2015, i received a letter from the department of public works informing the intention of verizon wireless to construction a telephone communications antenna directly outside of my window naturally when you get this kind of information a matter of interest and concern so i actually took sometime to review the materials provided in the review i noticed that the department of health stated the condition two, that it was prohibited - it is prohibited to install such a facility one 68 feet of an opted

out building looking at my window was apparent the pole was closer 6 feet and in further reviewing the steering wheels by the department of public works was apparent that the planned package they priority with the elevations while showing an rendering the pole didn't show the joining opted out base in the building if exist they're almost on top of the pole i filed an appeal i'm sorry, i filed the protest at the first public hearing on december 28, 2015, and as a result of my obvious rhetoric alter built a second one was issued ♪ one comparing the support of

materials provided by the kensey so for both the first and second approvals that the operation capacity of the facility hand been juiced it went from one watts with a benign r e f are 23 to one and 22 waits with the rfp more than doubles 67 percent and also in reviewing the materials from the board or rather the department of public works we found the prohibited radius for the installation such facility had been reduces from 6 feet to 40 feet that reduction made the installation possible once again i filed feet that reduction made the installation possible once again i filed a protest on

the 14 of march and a finally approval was issued on april 19th 2016 hence this appeal in response to my criticisms and concerns the dpw provided an appeal i would like to address their answers to all of the issues i've raised in my answers to those first of all, significant to my comments the site plan i'll do a overhead it is so tight that i would encourage oh, the commissioners copies just to review during my comments if that's possible >> would you accept that you have those comments.

>> is this in your packet. >> advertised in your packet and also while those are conspicuous in the absence of dpw brief fortunately mckenzie was kind enough to include this in their brief so once again if i may offer those. >> if we have those in our belief you have limited time condition with our comments. >> do you see anything oh, okay. >> so you see the pole is much measured 24 measurements right on the side of pole the most muttered pole in the civilizations and to the

occupied parts of building that one is wrong if you see the fire escape into space that is connected to something that is connected to have those base and as you can see their awful hard to reduce okay. so the department of public works tells us devices render it inaccurate or render the plans deceive the fact it didn't say render the plans anything this is there and left the department of public works said while the bays are not there owe none knows where they are on the plan and have the support of the engineering reports well, if you seen the photos you'll see where they are and if

you are relying on the engineering reports theirs based on the plans if you don't have plans that show an opted out bay our measuring from no where to nothing not have any validity so i was going to offer an example of one of these inconsistent if you have your briefs i'll encourage if you look at this one step farther consider the matter of miss stressors 4 feet fire escape and it's attended bay window it is appearing in the engineering reports in the briefs but didn't exist. >> so that's probably the basis of my appeal just the

inaccura inadequacy of the. >> if i can make one more appeal. >> your time is up. >> you'll have time in rebuttal. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay bolt wolt. >> good evening paul outside counsel four verizon wireless and have representatives from the company with us hemet the entire protest is dealing with our concerns of rf emissions and

no where has the appellant statistics the site is not fully compliant with the fcc the sense it is complying with the standards it provides the department of public works to make the determinations they accident twice it complies with the department of health standards and for the permit to be issued on that standard i think that the issues about the plan the plan and his exhibit he provides in his appeal belief does show that the building is there the fire escape escape and bay windows are not there the second box it says the profile and elements not to scale the point of those plans to show the pole and not the building but in any case this hearing this protest as the gentleman described as a result of the filing for verizon to

re-evaluate the plans and the emissions report and found to be did an additional report and found a slight change in the we can't image but it is because of that - the department of health relooked at and any issued the department of health as a result, the public works felt it appropriate to reissue the tenant approval we're going to the process a second time to renotice that tenant approval for a second protest hearing and then go to a final determination bans that protest hearing and

the noticing of that final determination lead this this today all of that second round of progress in 2016 was based on measurement if the fire escape and measurement from the bay window and the updated and the fcc compliance so what verizon and departments did was to go back to the process and completely dot all the i's and cross the t's and make sure that we were preceding with any kind of error in the plans or with respect to the rfp emissions so we firmly believe that all of those requirements are made for approval for this facility as i mentioned bill hemet is here and can answer any of our questions regarding the hemet reports between december and the most - use for the approval and provided in the belief a report

from july confirms the conclusions from the december report i want to point out the conditions number 3 for the department of health is that there will be a superintendent remeasurement off the actual emissions from the facility to confirm that that compiles with the fcc standards and the calculations that hemet compares are bans the worse case scenario calculations and every time the actual measurements are far lower so the worse case scenarios you may have questions for mr. hemet we currently to the department of health to do the job twice and public works and the notice packages agreement that we took the comments we've received from the

protest seriously and the the process this facility fully colonel applies that the more eloquent it takes the pole and raise it 2 feet with an antenna on top of and as far as the technology the greatest and smallest and most efficient thank you i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have a question counsel a standard from the actual equipment to angle opted out window. >> there has been a determination but a 3 dimensional permits in front of the misrepresent where the emissions go and those are directly antennas not omni directly but that is

omni and the antenna because of the height and width focuses the antenna. >> but the question from the equipment whenever direction a didn't understand you know required minimum distance. >> no the distance - the public exposure lovely directly in front of the antennas and those antennas are passenger seat 80 degrees down the road and not omni directly is determined by the antenna comes up with an effective rad i cannot power a a certain distance to the antenna that power level falls below the fcc effective power on a micro that can be 23 to 25 feet for a smaller antenna you can hug the antenna and not within that

public exposure those approximately as mr. hemet indicated three to four feet and directly in the direction of point so that like a flashlight. >> so what you're saying no standard for required distance it was an living area and equipment is that what you're saying. >> that's correct. >> that's correct. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you for the question. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> amanda from public works so as mr. call the next item. >> stated a few grandsons for the permit he believes it is based on drawings that don't reflect the bay windows on sacramento street

so all the drawings in the braidz in the drawings this is rendered the permit inaccurate the ghirardelli square are not indicated to be looked in a vacuum rather than all the elements of the application so in this case, the bay windows prompt to the antenna so on the overhead showing the existing and showing proposed at the pole i pointed to additionally public works order 184504 in conjunction with the policy section g of this order sorry the first section of the

order kind of gives the requirement for submitting the applications let's see - >> 3 g and says the drawings shall have street names and names of cross streets and poles to use the existing facility from the pole the facility from the pole and proposed signs to be placed on the equipment or pole i have also plans and they have all the requirements here's - the first page of the plan showing the cross streets and here's the more in detailed map and then that page has the existing elements what is on the

pole and here's the proposed pole so we firmly believe that the plans were in compliant with the requirement and the second concern is mr. call the next item. >> has an, an approval the first a public health department condition insure there are not opted out areas and the second tenants of approval change the standard off from 6 to 4 feet so i wanted to clarify why there are two tentative changes happening the first port was based on the general calculations for 19 of the projects it is included 6 feet between the antenna and the base of the building and the report public health department

reviewed and approved tentatively approved the application and got the first notice with the protests for the public hearings and 2, 3, 4 preparation for this hearing they updated their commercial report to look at the protest concerns so the supplemental report december 23, 2015, is said that the closest element was the fire escape 4 feet from the antenna so based on this approach public health department modified that standard up from 6 to 4 feet and public works said reached the tentative approval we noticed the conditions and although public health department updated their approval this of the in compliance with the public health department standard and as i previously stated public works cannot deny an application

in the public health department determines the applications meet the public health department standard and in this case dpw found the application meets the article 25 standard so we believe we processed this permit in compliance with article 25 and urge the boa to uphold the permit i'm here for questions. >> one of the reviewing bodies within our permit changes something how does that effect your permits is there a revision to your permits or is it the same permit then. >> it would be the same permit as far as i understand there's a notification process article 25 so we firmly believe that we fully update the changes that's what we did in this case. >> i heard you say that this

happens that's fine so the initial ly filed permit is to that one. >> yes. >> thank you for the interesting reading on the case about city poles the question on that is matt and mtc has 10 thousand poles across the city how much u how many have about this spoken for . >> for in the brief larry juicy edmond initialed 200 and 3430 or puc poles is where we have applications that are pending 40

something i read that has they were in recent times. >> out of total of 10 thousand something you are you saying 200 had permits issued for wireless carriers. >> yes. the board of supervisors filings were recent and start on the puc poles in will 2015. >> interesting the consensus both at the board of supervisors. >> same question ms. higgins i asked the permit holder is there a standard inform opted out space and we typically rely on public health department. >> anyone from public health department go to represent that. >> i invited them their not here. >> we'll need them to make a decision. >> i am confused

and i would like someone from public health and not be able to make a decision for that reason i don't understand math very will i guess so in the exhibit b b-2 it operationally is from public health department 56 and says that the antennas will be one watts and it will be located 7 feet away okay. >> that's one hundred blocks and then we added 22 watts which would indicate for power and now suddenly it is okay to be 4 feet away and then i look at another documents a which is your labeled wireless box permit not a date on it and it reads not

going to read the whole thing the personal wireless facility not greater than 5 d b.a. 3 feet from the residential building it gets closer and closer i don't understand it seems to be - the math didn't work make it 6 whoops not good enough make it 3 it didn't go fit and so many ambiguities from public health department i don't think i can make a decision without public health department being here it is just - >> i can speak to the 45 d b.a. the feet is in regards to noise for the public health department compliance standards

also it is basically that the rfp emissions would be in compliance with fcc standards but also that noise any time of the day will be not more than 45 decimals measured from 3 feet if the the building that's the d b.a. but not speaking for public health department questions. >> the over riding the consists from public health department from the watts and increased to the building is decreased so i think tuffly didn't fit i need an explanation. >> ms. higgins i have a question the article 25 that we hear so much about over and over again how much control does public health department in that in regards to that. >> i think all the roll is to

make sure that it complieldz with it is a yes or no i believe that's what their role is. >> so public health still has a say i see raul trying to get up here and speak. >> raul public works sorry about that no requirements from the public health department as a condition of approval from the active space to the full and they actually take a look at the specific sites from the pole and based on that make a condition how far the facility from that portion of building nicole it was 4 feet i believe they miss calculated it and stated when they reassessed it they reduced to four feet and determine the 4

feet will make the requirements and i'm sorry. >> i kind of get that but the question initially is there a required minimum distance from the equipment to habitable spaceless and the concern at least i have and several of fellow commissioners that went from 7 to 6 feet to 4 feet as is look at the picture assuming a box of concrete is 2 feet from the bay it looks like 3 feet and the equipment protrudes any further outside it is less than that are you saying the health department didn't matter how close it will be 3 feet or is there a defiant distance. >> that's correct no definitive distance

in terms of the jurisdiction article 25 so public utilities commission in the public works it states that, however, a delegate from the health department to make decisions and public works to delegate it. >> thank you for clearing that up i'll still need someone from pukts. >> public comment anyone wish to comment no public comment move to the appellants rebuttal. >> once again the issue here is i think inadequacy of plan if this plan is submitted for any other project and any other department and rejected flat out you can't have a plan that

relates to the occupied parts of typically of joining the facility without showing those parts you can't have engineering reports with any validity if they're not measured to someplace that exists the same package went through all 3 approvals including the final approval shows up quoted in the 3 engineering reports i can address each one, if you're interested the two department of health letters i've include in my belief and both the brief from the mckenzie and the brief from dpw and the same errors are repeated they result in the fact of not

knowing where anything is on the site related to the facility we can't possibly know if someone has told them and anyone provided an accurate plan it is impossible if you purport to measure the rfp e to a facility that didn't exist you're moving from fisherman's wharf foifz * is in the plan okay. not there above the line this is the reality in reviewing all the materials provided to the commissioners and commissioner honda consider this very careful read them all

i suggest especially reading the mckenzie brief add to your summer brief and compared to wasn't you know and what you read thank you. >> thank you. >> sir. >> yes. >> i thought i read in your belief that you went to two public hearings. >> public hearings. >> at the department; is that correct? >> yes. >> when they made the change based on i guess either your initials comments and protest or something came up. >> wait. >> sir. >> i'm sorry. >> they had a second meeting where the department of health revised their separation you went to the second meeting did you not.

>> yes. >> thank you. >> thank you we can take rebuttal from the permit holder. >> good evening sxold and members of the board my name is bill a registered engineer nets state of california and authorized the reports discussed if i may i'd like to try to clarify a few numbers for you the 6 feet if you go back to the original report from march it comes from the statement to extend no more than 6 feet and directions of orientation not ordered towards the building but up and down the street this was the only dimension 6 feet in front of the antenna not the building the department of health said a radius of 6 feet but not not a radius you're

exactly right no standard distance for space between the antenna and opted out space apartment all over the city and many apartments by guidelines they extended from 6 feet of any opted out space when when we realized relied on the 7 foot distance in the drawings to the face of the building that approached the bay windows extend further those windows are 6 feet from the antenna not in the directions of orientation but this proposal revision on the extent of the fire escape and the bay windows still complies with the distance if it is indeed on the permit the word revised from 6 to 4 feet if the direction of antenna

in fact, the beam is not fully formed and so we refined the calculations from a calculations to a near calculations i'll be happy to go through that but the point we've taken measurement at the hundreds of the sites built in the last 6 months and about the antennas to measure the distance and at no time more than 3 feet and the calculations are conservative in terms of experience with the safety standards i put my stamp and dpefr the measurement of conditions of approval i guarantee that will meet the fcc requirement for what it is worth i'm happy to give you the numbers. >> sir when you did our first calculation with the 6 feet a

certain numbers in terms of the percentage with respect to the federal standard when you did it for 4 feet it increased accident percentage to 66 percent. >> 66 percent is at the fire escape>> correct. >> so wouldn't than if one wanted to know the distanced at which point you'll stea exceed standards. >> in the direction of the antenna that is for workers that go up to work on the pole that maximize distance is 4 feet by measurement more like 3 feet. >> 3 feet. >> yes. >> okay auto my question understanding that your permits are going to be contested and eventually appealed why are your drawings not more complete

especially with the handbagable space. >> i'm an outside consultant we come in for the noise at 3 feet so i don't design the sites that is a question for - >> did you want to answer that question. >> briefly i think the department has explained the plans are to show the pole and they're requirements regarding the building the building is shown. >> that's not the question the question do you know your permits are highly contested and knowing they'll be appealed why not more detailed for the public to have an understanding. >> honestly the we provide accident photo simulations and month public i've been to one hundred preflts and the public didn't focus on the plans but i

pointed out it says building profile and elements not shown to scale right on the plan for the law man it is really the photo simulations i understand what you're saying and being able to those protest hearing i wish the plans were as clear as they could be. >> i this is a recommendation i've been through one thousand. >> in this particular case you've heard verizon went out. >> no more arguing the case this is a - >> so the r f report not based on report but on plans. >> thank you. >> any more questions for mr. hemet. >> any rebuttal from the department amanda higgins i'd like to say

that an e-mail exchange between the health department and the person approved this site and in it he says that the sites does moot the fcc standards frequency emission all over the place his findings the maximum radio frequency emission is at the fire escape on sacramento street and that fire escape 66 percent of fcc that's the only thing i have thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> would like to me the last statement made by the department the maximum at the fire escape and the window bays protrude in the fire escape i want to did you get to come present before me at least that's my feeling.

>> that's okay. but i think from the photos and the simulations it appears that the windows are further are farther away if you want to further questions or details from public health department i would support that. >> uh-huh. >> so uphold the appeal. >> you want to continue. >> sorry continue sorry. >> continue to hear further from the department of health. >> do you want identify more specifically what you want the department of health. >> regarding the radius and the importance of radius and the numbers they've given 7, of a better existence of what why those numbers are there.

>> commissioner what is missing a clarity ever standards so i would add to commissioner honda's commissioner honda request a definition of standard what is the standards of measurement? what are relooking for when making installations to dpw. >> what date if you want to see if they can come back. >> where do we have space. >> next week. >> next week. >> if they can make it here. >> they're not here to answer that lets is. >> we don't know any date you want to propose next week. >> yeah. >> okay. >> do you want to check with the parties to see if that dates

is a conflict. >> mr. call the next item. >> to continue to the 27th of july for public utilities commission clarify their statements and i'm assuming no additional briefly. >> so on that motion commissioner fung commissioner lazarus commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that motion carries 5 to zero and that item is continued to next week. >> take a break. >> yeah. a 5 minute break recess we'll take a 5 minute. >> the council said i might have misspoke i sai okay welco

wednesday, july 20, 2016, meeting the self-board of appeals we're on item 7 excuse me - and the family trust versus the department of building inspection with the planning department approval on green street protesting the issuance of 2015 of an alteration from merge from a non-shared lightwell on one east side and horizon addition sitting room and a market-rate suit application this is on for further consideration today on october 14, 2015, the board voted with commissioner wilson to continue this matter to the

call of the chair to allow the planning department to analyze the permit requirements i understand that schools reviewed the video for this item we're all already to go forward and start. >> prior to reuben, junius & rose representation as an entity before the board will not have an effect on my decision. >> okay. so you have 7 minutes please begin. >> good evening commissioner honda and members of the board i'm renee an emergency retained by nancy to perfect their home the proposed sexual on the permit pose a danger of damage for the home by the way, of the description that cynthia read not include the expansion of a

basement which is the basis of really the appeals we're not requesting that the permit be denied we have no issues with the building department we're asking the board impose a condition on the permit - the

fact we're here educating this issue that the respondent has no intention of following the approved plans the scope of the project is the enlargement of a home from 4 thousand 80 square feet to 8 house plus square feet and includes a new basement and the basement expansion is about 8 hundred plus square feet the proposed basement has a pool that will be assessed by a elevator that services 5 floors the scope of the sexual is acquit significant it is about 5

hundred plus cubic yards about 50 times larger the sexual that was done previously that resulted in a half-inch of sentiment with a larger sexual you can expect on large settlement than before in 1885 over one and thirty are years ago a french person by the name of benjamin developed an sexual how the soil carries the loads they found a load on soil didn't go straight down in a column it is sports from the left hand and underneath the soil supports if it the right side as a permit

now if you have a lot line construction as here the soil to the left is on the neighbors property and you can make an evacuation we lose this support now comes the san francisco above grade section that incorporates the code 832 ever seen introductory statement each owner is entitled to a sub adjacent the land gets from the adjacent land in terms of if the foundation for appellants land are entitled by law to support from the soil on the respondents land when an evacuation is made on respondents land the foundation

from the appellants land losses support in loss of support is referred to undermining underpinning a simply taking the load straight down from whatever your weight is to a stronger portion of the soil. >> everybody agrees that a half-inch of settlement happened at the home and measurement were done by marta surveyor was retained by the respondent and we have a 45 foot long walk with a half-inch displacement that wall is in addition the hispanic that causes the damage

and in addition to the damage that happens i'm sorry the settlement of the left side of the house the west side if you now go to the east side the other side of the house there was no settlement there we had a surveyor looked at and measured the east side and there is negotiable movement less than an inch now if one side moves and the other side didn't move and . >> have a foundation that connects that that foundation will crack that's exactly what happened if you looked at those two photographs you'll see the cracks in the foundations and respondent has provided

photographs i looked at them carefully and they don't include these cracks i find the respondents belief statement preposterous trust i'll ask the members of the board a hypothetical question if i am the neighbor and i go to you and say i'll make an evacuation. >> your time is up. >> finish that thought. >> okay. a i'll make an evacuation and your home will settle half an inch your home will have cracked foundations and cracked walls when you say sure go ahead are that no you're going to say i want to protect my home that's what

california section 832 requires. >> thank you. >> okay. thank you we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening members of the board i'm tom reuben, junius & rose i'm above the permit holder simon michael mr. michael is here this evening as the highly qualified and experienced team over one years of bind experience assembled for the project our teem will demonstrate two points first, the appellant raise the concerns with the pierce and foundation work completed over 3 years ago

politically the highest methods the evidence of the appellants foundation has been monitored over the 3 years and the largest movement is one half inch and undisputed that is substandard and settling for years second as the site protection for the property we've proposed a modification that pulls the evacuation from the shared property line at least 4 feet one last note that in requesting the board deny the appeal we say the board pursuant to special conditions that adds conditions to the proposed sited modification and the wrauflz the dwelling unit measure with that, our structural engineer thank you. >> good evening my name is

david i'm the structural engineer for the project for michael's residence based on the soils report we have a foundation for the residence that is consisted of peer and gratifying foundation utilized the peers that extended through the soil to the competent material and bear on the competent material the appellant raised a argument that the note required under pines this is a standard note i put on all the property line foundation it requests that we are contacted if evacuation below the neighbors foundation is required to do construct our foundation that note is provided to the our team come pricing of ourself for the shoring engineers can assess

that situation and evaluate and provide a solution that didn't undermine the neighbors foundation it simply states undermining maybe need and we tacked the foundation and didn't undermine the neighbors foundation and therefore under pine was not necessary and shoring engineer benjamin based on the geotechnical engineers. >> i'm sorry you'll have to speak a little bit closer to the mike thank you. >> so i will let greg speak to the soil issues related to the foundati foundation. >> good evening. i'm craig with rock ridge technical so the 5 peers that were installed loan is property line serve two

perfumes one shoring for a future evacuation not been made and the other purpose to provide critical support for the michael's recipes they extended into good soil and the soil conditions at the residence is poor 21 feet approximately of loss sand fill and with these poor soil conditions in my opinion the safety installation of the piers for the foundation and the workers was a hand duck peer one foot as you community-based down this method is used all the time and used successfully throughout san francisco i was involved in the design process with benjamin and it is provide of approved by dbi i want to note that the california civil code quoted it

requires the foundation be protected so an important definition we were out watching those as they went down make sure no under my wife and i it underneath the foundation and something that happened in the field adjustment were made in one case permission for grating it was before the construction a photo survey at the inside the neighboring house there were cracks inside of the house the consultants for the neighbors told told us 5 inches of settlement the house has been settling for decades and then monitored points on the building on the neighboring building and their monitored every month while the excavations with made and

continued to be monitored in fact, a monitor this march and during the evacuation up to half-inch at two points the remain points and a total of way less than a quarter of an inch inform movement in the last 2 1/2 years on the piers i know an half an inch didn't kind of dpoons we know when you dig next toga foundation an half of an inch is expected this is a successful evacuation and my name is frank in 2014 i was objected but is michael's work in phase one foundation installation as consulted with greg shields on the investment of a shoring system for the evacuation plan in phase two the

subject of this. >> 30 seconds. >> on the basis ever my knowledge i concluded that the selection a of a proper lag extending was the the appropriate system this some consistent with the standard of the industry provides adequacy vertical support and helps the improvements. >> second phase it was to protect for the second phase we developed the system called the graduate call and i loudly the appellants additional so finish that though thought. >> it does one rigid is lyft's the lateral movement and acts as a cut off this system was used has been used recent in the moma we went deeper than the ditch

with the hotels and got zero change in ground water and had zero movement of tadjacent prop awhile ray in a is saying the removal of the soil it is replied by a wall in this case a rigid wall or the lagging of the wall thank you for your time if you have any questions you may have. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. so the issues raised in the appeal have changed somewhat from those at the appeal hearing the issues at the appeal hearing with the ceqa the environmental impact for the project and also the demolition under wifr and

the dwelling unit property we completed a super review that reviewed the project in its entire outlet for the concerns raised last time there were multiply permits and overall impact to the historic resource we reviewed all the work that is proposed and found to to be something we could grant or calling your attention and that environmental determination was made last month it requires with the planning code 317 and lastly the issue at the time of the previous hearing in october a new requirement requiring the conditional use authorization for the merge of units they're proposing from 3 to 2 units if in the project before you as the permit holder noted they have a plan exhibit g in the brief not

to remove the dwelling unit and the advice the board to grant the appeal but condo on the revised project no longer a merge that is compliant with all the planning code requirements so that is the issues we have i'm available to answer any questions but it sounds like most of issues relate to the building code and evacuation structural issue. >> planning granted the dwelling unit merge. >> it was administratively eligible for proposed and approved, however, at the time that the appeal was heard in october there was recent legislative within the interim controls that required conditional use authorization for the merge so we did initial and appropriately approval the merge because u because of new lieu it requires the conditional use authorization but in

response to the new law not to retain the third unit. >> my question mr. sanchez what percentage thought that did the department come up with. >> i don't have the calculation but not included a demonstration. >> was it close. >> it was not as close as other projects we've seen and certainly retaining more the fabric of the communication. >> mr. kern. >> bernie building inspection plus a site permit not gone through design review for structural lemons as of yet i will implore bodies to work this out in the best interest of both parties to have a sound

building. >> any questions. >> no addendum only a site permit you can't build on this plan not on a site permit you know, i look at the previous work on this site no less than 40 inspections so i'd like say if there are 40 building department inspections i think that bans that the track record looks pretty good in connection notices. >> none i've found. >> so we heard from the appellant that they were okay with the permit. >> with two conditions and that is that the work that was previously permitted was done as permitted. >> correct. >> so it was seem a simple

solution as that. >> yeah. >> can you interpret for this layperson those concern those two items wouldn't be completed. >> i don't know i mean, if the engineers of the department of building inspection approve said design that has to be a.d. inherited to tie in the froeld by our inspectors and unusual u usually an engineer of record 3 different people look at that. >> so if we were to move forward and i'm advocating this position on this speculating one option or another if we move forward and agree with the appellant the permit should move forward with those two

conditions those two conditions will happen anyway and our condition would only be a redundancy on what the building department will do anyway. >> correct. >> it is going to go through the involuntarily design review no one said this is what we are going to do until our engineers look at it and have a geotech report there is nothing written down. >> so it's your opinion with that statement made by little appellant that they will go ahead with the permit with those conditions and you're saying ios conditions will have to be met anyway what are we fighting about. >> exactly. >> thank you. >> well, one nuance what. >> addendums are not appealable i believe part of issue. >> the addendum is special

conditions. >> the addendum are not appealable but but the addendum has to be approved. >> by the department. >> that's the announce. >> i believe the conditions that is being requested is under pine and the permit holder is not agreeable to that. >> thank you i appreciate that clarification from both sides. >> okay public comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak. under public comment for this item none okay we'll hear the one then that we have. >> go ahead. >> hello, my name is silvia johnson. and this is only been said not clear perhaps the issue that i had already - you know as it

goes down to me the property that my process and my family had had meant that didn't happen only thing that happened is a far neglect far distance of you know this disadvantage and any south point and that is not explained in anymore what i had put two clear too plain too you know round out about way that they would say it was not clear for them too much for them to even endure that's why our

policies because ever policy on ever quorum saying in the report that he can't handle that and not putting up was that this is plain and ask you here just live because this is what jesus christ had told me mentally and file number abuse and raped and every main source under the sun tried to kill me sometimes i'm telling you i have had experience of all those because of this matter when i recorded on the radio i had a few things you think that mentally and disturbed and not clear

anything life styling where you're at that is not in what really brought the system is why body is not created in this situations or any policy should be put situation and met or that saying that oh, yeah i'll take my body and put in a certain pill this will work i mean gosh because anyone's newer and can explain and was put in - you know there is everything is explained when - >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> thank you. >> any other public comment. >> okay. seeing none rebuttal

starting with the appellant. >> appellant said the piers adequate that's a key issue. >> these piers with not equality adequate because the designer was given the wrong information he assumed 4 feet of eminent now with the new elevator only two feet and as a result, the piers are longer and have if thai fail they will be

an obstacle they mentioned the standard happy to standard if i do something with my own home i have a contractor and something happens half-inch is not standard if i make an evacuation on any neighbor's house one half inch the building department talked about the structural issues and the permitting one of the problems with this project is that they have different permits and they had one permit for the piers and at this point the piers were temporary temporary piers are not designed for earthquakes now except permitting and they have to be designed for earthquakes so chances the

failures are large in addition you have this issue of changes just mentioned two feet versus 2 and 4 feet that adds to the previous one they say they're going to move or pull back the wall 4 feet based on what they've shown i don't see that can be done. >> in order to do on situation you need lagging it is sports on the piers and the piers are 5 feet away or 4 feet away from the new piers they can't had had sexual and nothing shown they're planning on doing this out of four or five piers they talked about the jet driving a report

by frank shields in october of 2012 building in which he said grouting that will lead waters between them and all the reports saying the combroet didn't work why would it work the next time. >> your time is up. >> thank you. >> okay rebuttal from the permit holders now. >> members of the board my name is frank first, the jet ghetrout their piles not a lag l

you mix the soil with the grout you create a column of cement and soil that wall is continuous we know the jet combroet will extend a foot making it 23 feet leaves it 2 feet from the perimeter so unfortunately, the gentleman has an misunderstand not grouting but a column and second he speaks a barbara garcia capacity those are end barbara garcia piers installed the bearing is a compression only 2 feet of confinements for the load and third their incable of the lateral load that's incorrect they develop the

passive against the sides of the evacuation and lastly a jet grout wall creates a cut off if they have to do dewatering on the inside the water on the outside is not lowered because it can't get down full enough on the other side we prevented a drop outside of the evacuation the wall is rigid it provides a lateral resistance there by those weak soil it it exist and putting in a concrete wall so unfortunately, there is a misunderstanding and i think as the chief inspector indicated those are not planning issues those are design issues the goal the obviously is to protect the adjacent property and it you design a system that protects the adjacent property and allows you to make the

situation you don't have to under pine we do that all the time i have high-rises in downtown san francisco we do this. >> thank you. >> i just want to clarify that we would ask that the appeal be granted technically pursuant to the permit we don't want the additional conditions they're not necessary and could lead to confusion as community college mentioned as undertook pine a continuous of an ongoing strategy to delay this progress we ask you end this part of the progress by granting the appeal for the special conditions permit. >> i have a few questions maybe your person that was speaking can answer those so we continued this case earlier and

you vvkt were supposed to talk or not talk and i'm not a soil engineer nor a evacuation expert we're even talking about under pine is there a reason where the permit holder didn't want to increase pine. >> first of all, the foundation was selected comprehend of the individual piers not a continuous wall 2 and a half to 4 feet by 2 1/2 so they could be skwaktd and lagged so the lateral support is removed and replaced by the form of a square and transmits the load. >> you may have to explain that easier for me. >> the goal to not allow the soil underneath the foundation to move that is done by limiting

the width of the evacuation in this case four feet and limiting the depth in this case 12 inches so every foot they put a lagging board and put it on the side lagging all around and maybe another foot and does the imp same thing it does this is important it keeps the transfer of load of the existing foundation that is 27 foundation it leaves it where it is this foundation is sitting on poor soil you don't want to take one side of a building and under pine it down into something firm when on the other side it is still loss then during the earthquake serious problems in fact, even

the geotech for geo70 pointed out to their clients in the reports so it is. >> i think you've answered my question. >> okay. >> and then can you address the comment made by the appellant court in regards to the temporary footing are foundation was there a temporary foundation or footing. >> no those peers act as the permanent two things won their designed to limit the evacuation and would protect the adjacent and two they were sized to carry the vertical load find new structure. >> not temporary. >> and one last point if i may you keep talking about the half-inch. >> i'm sorry thank you, thank you very much. >> okay. >> okay. that's. >> that's it for the permit

holder now from the department mr. sanchez anything further commissioners unless questions commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> mr. kern this only a site permit sometimes the department allows the submission of a foundation urged with the site permit not usually you have to take the whole scope of the project take into consideration when you're designing a foundation something that large as this i'll say unlikely. >> the sites permit is already been approved by the department so under gotten the review. >> it the four conceptual. >> i understand what it covers

i'm exploring whether we, hold the approval the site permit in abeyance for the departments review of the first addendum for the foundation. >> that make sense because until you know what they come up with as far as the design criteria it gets approved by dbi we don't know. >> you have the technical and structural. >> yes. >> i want to do this argument is not going to community-based over quick quickly so if we have a departmental review then that is you know people can comment on. >> uh-huh. >> of the primarily with the foundation work as i see it in that particular case if that's they're first agenda anyway. >> that's correct.

>> if we did that perhaps void limitations. >> until you move forward with the structural designs you can't do anything. >> is that a possibility. >> i believe it is that is. >> thank you thanks. >> where will i think a couple of things for my fellow board members to implement the under pine nonetheless you reach the statutory limits on the timeframe requires the approval of the adjacent neighbor there's probably a number of things oncobetween the various extensive argument i would be concerned about the

underground work that's the issue if we could have a level of transparency than that applies to the foundation portion of the work but holding then that the site permit is not issued until some of that analysis has about this done and the department feels comfortable with the direction they're taking and perhaps putting some of this to rest. >> i would go with that i mean we'll have this before the board. >> we're in deliberation at this point i think both parties are well recommended whether or not they get along these our not we don't have control over this is more

than likely ended up in a different room but i believe that commissioner fung's are solid and make sense to me i would go along with that. >> what's the clarification that's to look like as a practical matter. >> so. >> there will be a dbi take into account. >> what normally happens or let me glow a regular sequence. >> sure. >> they file for a site permit and get it most of the time people will be could go some work on the yaumd while you're in the approval process so that you can begin for larger and more complex projects i'll you'll have multiply addendum

representing the work and usually it is foundation and super structure together so they would normally process if a site approval and then filed addendum in this case they'll deal with the department yeah. >> the department will only accept two addendum and have to approve the addendum process in which our submitting the addendum as a form of approval at the beginning so they choose to do 3 addendum or 5 addendum that will be approved by the department in this insulins i'm sympathetic to the problems with underground

construction because there's a lot of expertise here, however, the underground didn't go as planned you you know and admittedly throughout the briefs you know there was extensive site visits by the departments on top of any potential problems as well as the city will be was involved i was thinking in terms of this particular instance that since they have to do angle addendum of progress anyway, their probably in terms of ever what they've done in terms of the structural work the structural design for the addendum i'm suggesting that the final approval the site permit come with the departments specific and detailed analysis of the foundation addendum package.

>> okay. >> you can file addendum on the permits and the dbi will in the typically accept the addendum while it is under appeal the board will be requesting that. >> i heard the department is this could work. >> so - >> hold on. >> sorry first of all, come to the platform please. >> keep is short. >> a question my understanding your conditioning the approval based on proper submittal of plans and . >> no. >> review by dbi and unite not what i'm mentioning i'm saying

i'm holding the appeal and on the site permit pending dbis review the foundation addendum package. >> okay. thank you now thank you thank you. >> you know all right. >> if you have a point of clarification i would recommend the president allow it just a point of clarification and the other side if they want to do that that's also. >> thank you. i appreciate the opportunity to aid this is a unexpected term and this is the third appeal hearing that we've had but i think now the 7th attorney you're planning consultant that the appellant has hired

at each turn we get a new round of issues raised you know we've gone from challenges to the variance to. >> thank you use your time willows. >> i will get to my point which is this i believe would be our preference 0 eliminate the scope of evacuation from this permit. >> and walk away with an approved site permit with a special condition to remove the scope of evacuation to eliminate the between merge and to move on with this project without any further ado to our request to the board this evening would be to approve the permit subject to those special conditions we have a situation where our clients

have been for 3 years, 4 years excuse me - unable to complete construction and move into their house because there's been a series ever subsequential appeals are that raised spate and distinct issues we're redundant to get into a situation another six months delay and have conversation the issues raised been the same given the prior courses of dealings >> do you are saying you're going to take the evacuation and put it into a separate permit? >> we'll deal with that later not the most important thing we want to be able to finish the budget bulk of our house and leave it for another day. >> i'm sorry can you speak

into the mike and identify yourself. >> we'll be happy to remove the evacuation if the choice is not 67 months when we start this my older son had 6 years left in the house now two years we want to get back into our house if it means no evacuation nothing evacuation if i will ask you approve but with the added condition in evacuation or approve it and say that the evacuation addendum can't be approved i mean i don't know how to say that just forget the evacuation. >> you want to ask the other party. >> yeah. we should allow them. >> could the appellants

representation come to the platform. >> on behalf of the family. >> you've heard the proposal boy the permit holder. >> and can you raise the mike i'm sorry you're really at all. >> is that better. >> much better. >> you have any comments. >> i do. >> on that and have two first is that i don't know what that means to remove the sexual or what remains so the first comment the second comment the request is simply we're not saying the permit should be denied but here asking the permit that the permit be permitted to go forward but with a condition that the work that was required by previous permits be please let us that's all we're asking to so we're not trying to delay

or so it denied but approved with the requirement that the work required by previous permits the underpinning work be obligation of condition of my approval all we're asking. >> it call goes back that that. >> those permits are not before us. >> the permit that permit has already been approved and inspected and it's been final hadn't it. >> please wait to speak. >> that work was completed as required >> finaled. >> yes. >> so it is a mute point. >> a mute point. >> i mean, i don't know why we can't move forward with the structural design criteria and i'm into something here it's not

that late but i understand for some reason they think they'll get the delayed with the process i don't see that that way. >> fine. >> if i may i don't see where the problem lies in letting this process move forward because it has to go through our structural design you know criteria anyway it will be looked at the will not be approved unless it meets today's geotechnical requirements so i don't understand why we keep on going back and forth. >> i don't either. >> the question do we need to retain the site permit or leave to dbi to do their job. >> this is no you know nothing to to be said against dbi they'll do their job i am

thinking this attempts to put closer to this situation that's all how do we know that will not come back with the same situation. >> the department has the final say. >> sure. >> we do that on a regular basis. >> and approve tonight as conditions with the permit holder. >> but we've maintained the finger on that because we've had this non-trust between parties that's what the board of appeals is doing we've had adequate time and continued that case and no progress. >> the two continuances for entirely unrelated conditions for the non-compromising. >> they had the time. >> it was my sense that there was not going to be a lot of

collaboration and resolution and thought this may brings closer. >> any other questions. >> thank you. >> question. >> commissioner. >> what is before us. >> the site permit. >> just the site permit. >> correct. >> the permit holder is saying he didn't accept my compromise but allow that we review which would have occurred anyway but he was willingly then to say i'm not going to do any of the work in the basement area and the foundation and the evacuation work to move on to meet his

alteration work on the levels. >> that's not what we're saying not to stop the work on the basement but keep a finger on the file. >> yeah. >> either way someone make a motion and . >> i'm in agreement they cannot do any work until they- i'm not sure. >> i'm going to make a motion to grants the appeal condition the permit on the condition of removing the piece b about unit merge that's the motion. >> not articulated well but do you get any drift. >> i don't know commissioner if you want to consider the request to adopt the revised

plans that i believe are were designed to address a different approach to the foundation work that was described under exhibit g part of their - >> request i'm not the suggesting but brought to your attention is revised plans to move the extent of their basement sexual work 4 feet from the property line all they asked for that has a vision. >> i guess if they asked for it sure i'll make that request. >> okay. i'll put it in as an additional request based on the work pulled back 4 feet. >> do you want to articulate

that basis for your motion. >> on the basis that the permit was otherwise appropriate issued for the site permit. >> i probably will vote against that. >> okay. so the motion is from sdmdz to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that the dwelling unit merge is removed and on the adoption of revised plans i'll say submitted by the permit holder as added g to the briefs and that's on the basis that the site permit was appropriate issued. >> on that motion commissioner fung no. >> commissioner honda. >> no. >> commissioner wilson.

>> i have a point of clarification so commissioner your - >> your motion to grant the appeal with the conditions set forth by the permit holder. >> yes. >> so basically approving the permit by the way, the terminology we have to grant the

appeal and condition the permit. >> without the board maintaining the jurisdiction. >> correct moving to grant the permit and take that away from our jurisdiction. >> i'm a yes. >> commissioner swig and no. >> that motion fails with a vote of 2 to 3. >> any on the motion for the site permit is upheld. >> any other motion. >> i'll make a motion. >> the to grant the appeal with the special condition removing the application for between merge and to remove the work for the evacuation and baseme

basement. >> agency the permit holder is willing to do. >> i believe in lui of. >> in lui. >> my motion to continue this all right. and. >> vice president do you want to state a basis for your motion. >> on the basis that the foundation work required more vetting and therefore i was not prepared to accept the site permit by itself. >> okay. >> okay so then a motion from the vice

president to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that the dwelling ume that's 0 on the basis the foundation work required nor vetting. >> commissioner lazarus. >> no commissioner honda i think the permit holder should have taken the original one but i. >> commissioner wilson no and commissioner swig. >> okay. that motion also failed with a vote of 3 to 24 nuts and bolts votes needed to grant the appeal baring my further condition. >> i will move to continue this case to a point where the

permit holders addendum for foundation work is submit and reviewed and either approved are disapproved by gi. >> bernie again, the permit is suspended to can we review the addendum on a suspended permit until we moved with the issuance of the permit you can't submit that addendum. >> that's my question a while ago. >> someone has to be a smarty pants. >> you misunderstood i thought when i asked you you indicated there was a purely possibility

for the review. >> i misunderstood our question. >> so you're saying that the permit is superintendant as of now because of appeal. >> the suspension is lifted. >> can't submit that. >> that's a policy decision by dbi i don't know of anymore in the code that's written. >> any suggestion. >> i say move forward it will not community-based away you can't do anything without a structural design that will be approved by dbi they have hash it out with the design professional who. >> plenty of smart men behind me i don't see how you can't find a solution structurally i

mean it is done everyday in the city somewhere. >> we should, or go back to commissioner lazaruss motion. >> you can make any commissioner can make a motion. >> i'll make the motion i made originally okay so we have is another motion from commissioner lazarus to grant the appeal and issue the permit on the condition that the dwelling unit merger be removed from the scope of work on the adoption of revised plan as exhibit g to the permit holders ms. recent brief on the basis that the site permit was appropriately issued community college commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson

commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 4 to one. >> thank you commissioners. >> so we'll move on to the next item item 8 mark and victor versus the zoning administrator on granite street protesting the granting to todd of the question for a release of suspension for the department of building inspection release the building application because the planning department has concluded the project complies with the planning code. >> and this is on for hearing we'll start with the appellant thank you for your patience this evening. >> thank you commissioner honda and commissioners thanks

for hearing my appeal my wife victor and our 3 kids live at the gregarious we underwent. >> i'm sorry to interrupt you this is a reuben, junius & rose reuben, julius & rose on a reuben, junius & rose representation as an entity before the board will not have an effect on my decision. >> thank you, very much. i apologize for interrupting we went an extensive remodel and accident on greenwich for 3 years and worked with the neighbors and the planning inform develop our plans one of the key points matching the 2764 greenwich lightwell we did and carried the four floors approximately 3 and a half by 5 and a half feet dope deep on both sides if i can get the

overhead i'll show you. >> my property and next door we completed our project and this 2764 under construction for year and a half after a long fought battle with the neighbors and variance they built this structure this was the final plan over post banners the lightwell was no take so their matching on both sides the building up for sale $8.4 million and the sign went down and a few months went by we heard noises next door that note

shower one day the noise was allowed i looked at accident lightwell i noticed their interior walls of lightwell were diminished i ran next door do you have a permit what's going on they were going to tie in fill with an elevator and never contacted by anyone no notice obviously a huge investment in our property address kitchen and kids bedrooms that have windows that open up into the lightwell a prospect of a elevator and the sound of the machinery of the escalator elevator was distressing to us this is a drawing that i substantially received to receive what was actually opinioned on over-the-counter permit

a lightwell permit as you can see it is pretty much o laid the lightwell on their side so, of course, i called the department of building inspection and is planning department they suspended the permit a few weeks went but they lifted accident suspension i appealed so the planning i looked at the planning bullet it says that zoning administrator regarding lightwells for lightwell reductions at any level that match the adjacent lightwell and the dimension for such permits maybe approved over-the-counter as i understand off by the adjacent owner opts out had we had the opportunity it work this out it would have been a

different story i had no choice but to appeal this and subsequent to the neighbors variance when they built the original building is variance decision came with a letter to the owners where sanchez said in exhibit g any further physical expansion even in the buildable should be reviewed by the va to determine in the expansion is compatible with the neighborhood character and scale in the zoning administrator determines there will be a significant or extroverted impact i like to think any lightwell is extraordinary the zoning administrator shall require

notice to the adjacent and/or effected property owners or a new variance application so you get and justified so the owners got the letter dribble frfrom s not notified at all so the attorneys and their rebuttal say i waited two along to notify them i had why'd i didn't know they were building a elevator and didn't purchasing delay notifying the neighbors that i was not happy shannon i

foubt i did something, and, secondly, the attorneys say d c i acted in good faith and o laid the lightwell i have a hard time building that on the variance construction and the letter from scott i'll ask that you deny those permits and thanks very much. >> sir. >> what rooms face into our lightwell. >> in your building. >> stairwell you all the way up two bathrooms and a kitchen a downstairs neighbors from us that couldn't be here a traeflz retired and travels a lot so there are two kitchens and two bathrooms one of the kids

bathroom we used for ventilation. >> a a stair. >> i have a couple of questions so the remaining lightwell on the adjacent property how large ever that lightwell is still existing. >> from what i understand i tried to blow this up and scale it is it 2 feet deep and . >> i am not i'm looking at the drawings. >> two feet deep and two shafts in the center that creates nice stripped shadowing it is customary in construction. >> how large are they 4 inch or 6 or 7 water pipes. >> i cannot tell 2 feet deep by 3 and a half feet wide a 19 plus lightwell is 7 square feet

do th do. >> are are they able to be on their side and work. >> i see a lot of debris. >> has the project sponsor truit tried to reach out. >> with an an exhibit e sorry i don't have tabs sent me an e-mail and offered led lights which didn't seem like much of a compromise. >> ongoing. >> i'd like to see a push back. >> i appreciate the large font on the one did brief. >> what do you mean led. >> it was suggesting a loophole led latin-american to go up and down to give us

artificial light with the loss of just a minute lightwell. >> okay we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> >> good evening, members tom from reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the permit holder todd the gentleman is here will speak as well facts in this case are sermon not disputed while we recognize the appellants concerns a great deal of fairness and quality that concerns the gentleman and the legal principles applicable vested rights andes to that reflect that fairness and quality they provide when a public agencies has issued a permit and the developer relied on to permit the agency cannot rescind that pursuant to those principles that the suspension

was released and the gentleman is not a large commercial developer having to undo the elevator will be disastrous fainl and done nothing wrong and worked to try to resolve those issues as well as with the appellant the gentleman and his team submitted a building permit that application was reviewed dbi and was approved no notice was required he didn't on the prior variance he if this about the variance conditions he than in good faith investment over 200 thousand constructing the elevator and reasonable lines on the permit the cost to undo the elevator will be enormous and cost one and $50,000 the gentleman will lose the $200,000 involved and

additional losses imposed by the packages of time and we estimate that the losses could reach $750,000 on the other hand, to the lightwell we submit are relative minor not an exact matching lightwell and wouldn't be in the residential design guidelines the appellant is concerned about the loss of light but the gentleman has agreed to using some measures as light measures the led lighting to enhance the appellants access to light we're only talking about 10 inches here of the actual depth is 2 feet 2 inches under the residential design guidelines and planning would have recommended 3 feet with that, i'm going to turn it over to the gentleman i'm available to answer any questions thank you for your

time and consideration. >> commissioners, thank you for taking the time to review this matter this evening air or i'm tom the permit holder accompanied with me michael the project manager on this project. >> i want to thank tom of reuben, junius & rose as i think you know his belief and presentation has outlined before me as has clearly allowed i laid out the facts i won't repeat but emphasis a few points we've worked in good faith on this project to the building and planning department process and have relied entirely on the representation based on the representations we have incurred numerous costs and greater opportunity costs as a

result of not bringing the project to market in a timing manner we have committed all right. to finish the materials and colors that minimize to the greatest extent possible any loss of light caused by is 10 inch between the guidelines and was approved by planning while we understand the neighbors concerns we ask that body to uphold the decision of the planning department because at the end of the day, we followed the rules we did what you were asked to do and as a result suffered more than $200,000 in cost and months of delays as the gentleman mentioned outlined the project at the point and put that the way it was would be a burden the shaft complete and the project is 80 percent complete so when the gentleman assessed didn't know the project was

going on the project was going on for months and the shaft was completed we will continue to work with the neighbors and hope to have your support today so we can move forward with the project michael and i are here to answer any questions the commissioners may have on that project thank you. >> are sorry are you finished. >> yes. >> i have a question was the property lifted before the elevator. >> yes. >> how long. >> approximately of months. >> the decision to install an elevator was you think that the property evidences a pretty large property. >> two days for the listing the enormous issues where the home is the staircase eliminated the elderly and handicapped

people from even considering to due buying the home. >> the other question on the community outreach and meetings prior to krushg this how many do you folks. >> to get the permit years of supervisor farrell and everything and the. >> and the community. >> yes. >> i am given that you know even though they were issued a permit over-the-counter don't you think was there outreach prior to the installation of the elevator. >> no there wasn't. >> okay. all right. thank you, thank you. >> okay. thank you hear from mr. sanchez. >> good evening board members scott sanchez planning department. simply put the subject permit

was issued in error it was reviewed ordering by the planning department staff last september to patiently or mostly in fill the lightwell by providing an elevator at that time, staff should have noted an adjacent lightwell as such the notification requirement as per the bulletin we need to plan off from the adjacent property owner and opt out and additionally, the residential design guidelines call if a neighbor is supportive your residential design guidelines call on the discretion to have a setback of 3 feet it was issued last september and come mental illness and some builder inspector in early january we received a complaint an that january 2nd and received this this requires a noifrgs we

suspended the permit on january 25th we noted the dine guidelines to the extent of starting a staff discretionary review to they choose no to apply issues with the permit holder they raised about the invested right arguing of the cost of construction they've incurred and stated in the brief as in the brief $10,000 worth of work the building application is 75 thousand (laughter) and any event clear from the photos and through our inspection that there had been substantial work in looking at the totality of the facts i determined that is appropriate to release the suspension of the permit that will be appeal able

to this board to make a final decision about that's where we are and unfortunately, our staff made an error this shouldn't have been approved over-the-counter not without changes made and meets the planning code it did not look at setbacks or required open areas not didn't exceed the height limit and a notification issue and a design implicitly issue that staff has missed i'm available to answer any questions. >> who wants to start. >> you said the totality of the circumstances and this testimony they acted in good faith is that right. >> i mean certainly the plans that staff approved in my

opinion clearly show the lightwell on the adjacent property and staff should have is caught that had the plans misrepresented left to the staff determination we wouldn't be in the same position but they filed for the permit in good faith and seemed to what we can tell represented the scope and it was the staff error that led to this - >> i have one. >> i think we've got it they acted in good faith. >> there's a history of the project a dr and an appeal i mean based on the record it appears those are resolved and withdrawn certainly a history of development here maybe not flu

aware they moved in but no planning code to do the outreach to the neighbor your filling in your lightwell that's the courtesy but not a requirement to do so. >> okay - >> so i haven't in any short period here ever horde of the writing of a letter that you wrote here which is if anything touched on the building basically it has a should something - be hyper aware and indicates i've come to know and love our presentations and laughter. >> and explanations that must have been a serious when this building was originally approved

i'm guessing from this testimony tonight overseeing current developers are not the vendors that went through the process of resident defining this building so can you provide some history on this and why was it such a sensitive project that led you to write a letter as strong as it is. >> i'll say ever project is a sensitive project and the standard condition of approval in all letters there was nothing unique to the circumstances that led to that condition we'll have it in all decision letters the reason for that you know whether someone it politically for a vaurnls they're making claims why it cannot be done and buildable portion of lot this

gives us flexibility in terms of having a higher level of review when future projects come in thai come in our building resources with the setback this you know justification for development in the required rear yard and if they come back in a future permit and saying we'll roach the facade and see about the property line this is not the intent not complies points variance we have a standard condition to deal with that in all honesty, staff should have brought this to my attention this is something you'll accept and in terms of 6 you know in phil patiently the lightwell - this wouldn't have made a

different dennis herrera inference and in our departments opinion the appropriate setback should be 3 feet. >> and correct the mistake the redefining of the building earlier as it lead to our letter was not done by the current owner. >> that's my understanding based on the initiatives representatives representations bu /* /- recommendations but on a different entity. >> especially, if they were weren't and things the developers not occupant of the building and in professional due diligence buying real estate for the purpose of enhancing it for the purpose of selling that would our letter come up in due diligence. >> absolutely it is a special restriction that

is attached to the deed of property they should have known the conditions of approval so, now i mean there is no excuse that condition was not available for the property owners. >> so the issue a buyer budget committee aware if you're coming to the planning department and asking for a further change to the building that is already had a letter and at a variance and further add a letter if you do anything to the building do prediction and over-the-counter permit i think this is fair so say they didn't seek the building permit but our staff approved it. >> i thought the n s r for the

variance had to be part of permit. >> that's a requirement as well so is it so the requirement that the building permit that inrevokes that variance have both the variance decision letter and the recorded n s r that would have been the permit if they worked on is this permit wouldn't have been a requirement to have the variance decisions letter this was separate from the scope prior to the variance. >> >> absolutely correct a requirement for the permit you get to build what you ask so for. >> i guess what you're saying the previous variance has nothing to do with with the lightwell. >> correct. >> to clarify you put that notice in there you said the standard language about coming back would that have qualified and something.

>> staff should have noticed this restriction and should have made that issue. >> mission that someone is doing to a property subsequent to the variance decision that work should come to you. >> yes. >> okay. >> because i wasn't sure this constituted a major criteria as what that meant. >> and no, i mean as the condition is purposing broad and sometimes it is clear has nothing to do with with the variance minor work but it still is e it is a tool for us. >> finally my turn someone that has been there 6 months or 16 years. >> the staff member was with the department for several years i mean senior members of staff

that worked on the counter working this for decades. >> my concern not speculate with the developer knew or didn't know they were given a okay. from our department that's a concern in my mind. >> certainly errors should not be made in information counters to have our staff they're aware of the planning requirement and mistakes should not be made it is regretfully. >> at the end of the day it is hard to undo it is done already it is a tough situation that is a really tough situation that like i said should have they

known or not known staff approved that we know the city didn't take responsibility for permits issued in error not the building or planning or anything else. >> sometimes they'll file for replication you know we conduct those cases also. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. >> okay public comment if there is any public comment at this time. >> please step up to the mike please. >> hello, my name is silvia johnson. has this gone on for since 2001 and i think we should do it now. >> thank you. >> in dep. >> next speaker, please. >> come to the mike.

>> good evening board commissioner honda thank you for taking your time with us today on that i'm george i'm the next door neighbor on the other side of the property on granite own a 3 unit apartment building that's been a long day the bottom line the developers need to move projects and sell them and owners need to live next door and were in a lot and light and air and privacy matters this started in 2010 before the gentleman took over the development and from the get do a issue of light and air and privacy with the partnerships and not negotiating with the neighborhood and not trying to compromise they got to a subject point that supervisor farrell had to step in and actually

wrote a letter in support saying there was a negative impact with the plans with light and air and privacy and grant the payrolls refused to meet with the neighbors this was originally before the gentleman was involved we have had to file a 311 and as a result of that the zoning variance developed and we agreed and backed it but the key part of zoning variance was that there would be no change in the photo copy of that property we work hard to get is that way and no imaging e impinge on the lightwells or extend into the property we were in support that have that so the issue is now in our neighborhood we have an obliteration of the lightwell should have stayed that way and

signed in on the variance is it so o laid if it continues in the neighborhood what lightwells are we going to have for light and air and privacy what precedent might that be for ongoing o levitation - the dimensions that was issued in september of 2012 we work hard to get thank you for your time and consideration. >> question. >> yes, sir. >> in that agreement that you, you guys signed to elect them to go forward did they say they'll not go forward or go beyond the footprint. >> they were all signed on the final plan part of. >> the specific language not

go beyond the footprint or. >> my understanding from the gentleman's letter not going beyond that plan and that was part of zoning determination that's why i have my full faith my understanding was that that footprint was not going to change and no o levitation of the lightwells. >> thank you. >> any other public comment. >> okay seen we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> come on up. >> the price is right. >> i was thinking about what mr. sanchez about the 3 feet and gladly negotiate 3 feet i'll take the 10 inches not through away their elevators they've ordered i know they'll have to

modify the shaft i'm concerned about the mechanical noise i'd like a sound-proof wall with my kids like that a window up at knitted for the ventilation and the roar the ventilation i'm willing to negotiate to compromise i don't want to see them loss a lot of money but my investment in the home what is going on with the light reduced krauchl all the way up the middle of my house. >> so besides remove we often have to play the medium person such been here all night besides the removing is there any other concessions you'll be willing to make i'm asking the question. >> yeah. additional to the soundproofing.

>> i guess 3 feet another 10 inches and pipes free-floating in the shaft free pipes they get tucked to the sides that it seems to me like i read the plans correctly that sliding that elevator is not going to make the work a total loss. >> and led with the timer not concerned. >> not really wanted to go the led route the 3 feet of space is okay. >> we'll hear from the appellate court. >> ms. johnson you've had our public comment. >> tom on behalf of the permit holder this is a tough situation i understand the concerns of the appellants there rarely is a harm to my client is significant if we could have moved it 10

inches we would be happy not feasible under those circumstances i'll suggest we're looking for a reasonable compromise i'll suggest and the use of light materials and pink color perhaps the led lighting the parapet didn't like it woke up be willing to provide sound implication will you encroaches in the lightwell depth so that will have to be decided i submit you know in the end in considering the harms to either side and the 10 inches really at issue here that the permit should be upheld and the appeal denied and open to enhancing the appellants lighted thank you. >> how feasible to move the

pipes. >> yes. and remove the pipes. >> is this elevators ordered a is that installed >> you know given the size of shaft this is probably you know a residential type of elevator. >> almost like a large dump water usually those are custom-made. >> what pipes are in the breezeway or pipeline. >> michael gonzales park ranger the piecemeal in question are boiler pipe that is the heat the entire house with heating and relocated within the shaft

wall or around outside view if that's the concern of their lightwell. >> are they 2 or 4 or 8 inch. >> two, 4 inch. >> i am not because the elevator is in my concern there was not prosecute process and to be honest culpability i'm personally thinking of - that's it thank you. >> you can relocation the pipes that means the shaft is not completed. >> it is the shaft is where it has to be and completed the wood is framed. >> the framing. >> the framing is completed we have the opportunity to move the pipes within the framing if noted a side vent and have to follow the building code to make sure we can extend overseeing pipes above the roof line that

is required it cabaret routed a explain the 200 thousand loss versus the permit. >> the original permit was for the elevator and once we started opening up the walls and realized how much work needed to be done a significant change in the boiler had to be relocated the system waters heart relocated if you as you can imagine the tubes undergo the entire inch the property came to where this elevator shaft is now we have to relocation a lot of that. >> so you're telling me the permit costs needs to be recalculated. >> did it cost you sufficing thousands you said you have to

do more work than originally dawn yes. >> that's a yes. okay thank you. >> okay. thank you mr. sanchez anything further commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> should i or you. >> i'm wording is the privilegees to that apply when it is issued in error. >> it was relied upon that's the condition. >> we heard it 10 million times. >> it was actually, the first time in the first 3 nature years i've heard it presented like

that. >> i happen to think that is correct in this instance and question to continue it to let them workout the statistics or heard it enough. >> continuing i hate this and my fellow commissioners will kick me under the chair. >> (laughter.) >> but i believe that even though the permit was issued in error there is definitely a loss for the adjoining property owners and gives them time to figure that out that a little bit and come back to us. >> i mean so. >> if they agreed to most of that. >> the next door neighborhood wants to move forward to 3 feet the elevator can't move.

>> right. >> i'm suggesting they talk to the neighbor that's what i'm suggesting. >> (laughter). >> my deep concern here is the point i raised which is when i basketball reality for commercial purposes and do to due diligence you look at the trail of title and you look at the trail avenue what happened in the building and you become clear on what you can and can't do the veteran in advance of going to the building department and filing for the permit with any level of sophistication should have known through the

simply due diligence process that there was a significant issue that there was a maybe not the details of the contention but a contentious. >> i don't want to interrupt i agree 100 percent going forward with what you think. >> i'm what is upsetting me here i'm hearing the developer the permit holder draw the line in the sand and saying no, i'm not going to give you the 10 inches well, that's a problem for me that's a real problem for me because i heard the appellant say i'm flexible i only want my 3 feet i'm okay not the original position but want 3 feet a very

go reasonable request so auto but many won't fly on this board. >> might be two sure the elevator is not installed and i'm not acquit sensitive of the legal consequences those done in error not everybody has to bite the bullet. >> so the issue here is this whether we allow it or whether we make some minor modifications and i will consider moving it 10 inches and minor modification the fact it is framed understood to move the framing 10 inches is not a big deal you look at the plans that looks like on the in

broadside of elevator shaft there is plenty of room there so you know. >> didn't you say overseeing kinds of elevators are custom-made. >> we're talking about the cab side not the typical elevators their framed out of wood with a light weight metal and most of them are handled by the cable. >> the question if you look at the shaft did it need that you know in terms of seekers glorified dumb waiters so

admittedly the department they're not perfect nobody is perfect we understand so it happened and what are we're going to do with that i'm of the opinion that i would like to see this move at least 10 inches. >> you mind in i bring the project sponsor. >> let me raise someone else something else - itself third floor of the permit holders building has a third deck other options they want to choose this happens kwoibtd in san francisco you know you offer skylights you know adjacent you offer a window even though this is a weighed window at the property

line but you know. >> that's why. >> this was discussed the question is what will thai previous kind of thing at this point. >> i was leon and this is a good solution it gives them time to do compromising and how valuable to keep the 10 inches talk with our neighbor that's what i think that's where i'm learning towards. >> we needed to flush out the perimeter a little bit you know to give them direction and . >> i mean the board can ask it be removed completely or 10 inches given that information the permit holder would behove them to sit down with the neighbor and the neighbor be open wanted to concession as well but when it comes back we make the decision and so the question really is do we have support on the board to carry

that motion. >> to my point before i heard from a neighbor what i didn't hear from the neighborhood but the appellant i want it back the way it was and according others terms and conditions if the first place i heard a attitude that is i just want to go to 3 feet i think that faced with the possibility of put it back to the way it was we could have them orient inches there are should be discussions. >> or skylights or property windows. >> just to be clear this agreement was not with the current person but someone before. >> no, no, no. >> but the. >> as far as the due diligence materials. >> no, no i think there is

process here with the planning department absolutely but none should bear the entire thing. >> give me the option to wiggle. >> i move to continue the item to allow the parties to reach a. >> with regard. >> to. >> you should listen to her motion. >> move to continue the female to allow the parties to discuss alternatives to the current configuration that would possibly meet the needs of both parties and bring those proposed change back to change to the permit. >> basis. >> no, because no basis to continue an item.

>> no but we need a date. >> so can both parties come to the front regarding the date. >> could i ask a question we'll be willing to provide the 10 inches in the appellant is open to it we would ash associate the costs of adding the 10 inches for the lightwell in exchange for being able to have the permit upheld tonight. >> can the appellant come forward are you willing to take the 10 inches the pipes will be there not in the shaft right mr. tony. >> no pipes and 10 inches. >> that sounds like great i'd like to see whatever sound-proof is going to be in the wall so i

can. >> - not get greedy. >> their electrical elevators and cable driven a great selling point they're so slow. >> this should be some expectation in terms of soundproofing i would ask the department to work with them on that. >> but in spirit i agree. >> okay. i'll withdraw my motion. >> commissioners that is an error of abuse of discretion standard. >> the lifting of request for suspension if you're going to make a motion to do what is discussed find there was error or abuse of discretion on the part of zoning administrator and his decision to release this. >> go for it ann.

>> i will move to uphold the appeal on the basis that the zoning administrator erred in authorizing the release of the suspension and condition the issuance of the permit on the permit holder granting the 10 inch reconstruction providing some sort of soundproofing and . >> pipe to say removed. >> pipes to be removed. >> does that sounds like right. >> two things one is a basis i mean the basis for the error. >> on maybe (laughter). >> and jay want to offer that. >> for the residential design guidelines. >> thank you. >> just to - >> the other issues that i have is to make our decision i

need a level of specific outlet the 10 inches i get and the inches and the soundproofing that would be helpful to understand more i think that commissioner fung you made a mention. >> i want the department to weigh in i'll do it i will. >> go ahead. >> make sure that the sound rating of that that elevator wall to be at 4 feet of d b.a. >> no more than. >> yes. >> well the condo wall the stakeholders required it to be 54. >> good basis. >> so i'll try to restate this i believe i know from commissioner lazarus and i believe to grant the appeal on the basis that the zoning

administrator erred in the release of the suspension because the permit is out of the compliance with the residential design guidelines and allow the lifting of the suspension on the condition that the 10 inches be restored to the lightwell and the pipes removed from the lightwell and that soundproofing be added to the sounds like rate is no more than 54 d b.a. yeah i guess okay. >> on that motion commissioner fung commissioner honda. >> commissioner wilson commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero. >> last item number 9 appeal number john clark verses the department on delgado with to

the the family of open alteration permit remove and this i appreciate all the people remain this late. >> thank you very much for your patience this evening. >> i wanted to be the headlineer i'm john clark a tenant obtain delgado i'll try to summarize this the permit that was issued i think covers this area in the recessed opening only 15 square feet but quite a bit of work that was done prior to that that has not been inspected that caused concern i consulted where someone in this type of thing and an acquaintance was the one that made the complaint i was not in town i came back and went

to the building department they said they couldn't inspector inspect the permit didn't cover anything in the complaint i really after lfrps to the last case i'm really wanted to preserve any right to mash there was not an error this work was completed and then the only thing inspected the 15 square feet at the grontd front of building this is a soft story the length of the one of the low we're going walls open and a significant amount of dry rot from water from storms the dirt is up against the building for i've been there thirty years so as long as i've been there so

water is coming through there and rotted or accused damage in the process of trying to repair this my concern was the way it was raped didn't meet code and no permit i was trying to get an inspector but not able to do that once the permit was issued they said no reason to come out on the outside it is hard to see a retaining wall up against the building on the neighbors property line but my understanding is you can't build a concrete retaining wall i don't know into if there was rebar i saw the concrete but you can't pour that up begins the wall and have a bunch of studs that are cut off and replaced with small pieces of

would do from what i'm understand if the water over the years and the way the studs have been kind of repair the rot on the bottom is repaired it would cause that wall to come through and cause the we'll to slide that's my main concerns. >> if you replace a piece of wood at the bottom in a stud your supposed to add another stud all the way down i'm not sxernd in construction but my understanding when talking with two people and those partial

sisters and then crossbeams that have been removed i'm not sure what happens with that and non-pressure treated would do that was placed in these there so i documented the issues i saw in there i was concerned about but what i mainly wanted to do put a condition that the hole inspected to cover all the work not just the 15 square feet because my concern this will be covered up prior to an inspection of the permitted 15 square feet versus i mean hundreds of square feet of work and a large retaining wall 5 by 40 feet long longing that was poured against the building last point the correct way to cut the studs stepsisters level of the garden next door and raise the foundation that's the correct way to do that i mainly want to

have a safe building. >> and by putting some kind of conditions on the permit i don't see how rejecting the permit will help but expanding it or making it condition that have an engineer report and on this one or two bearing low walls. >> i look forward to the public comment section. >> did you discuss those with those issues are the landlord. >> i wrote a letter asking for repairs to be made to code didn't i did not receive a response to this appeal. >> but richard is here. >> thank you. okay we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> yes my name is richard the

owner on deglad the appellant john clark has been a resident in the building for many years i'm concerned about his safety and the safety of people if in the building if we can continue with we'll expand the continues so he'll have no concerns about his safety and the foundation in the future and we worked with his property and put in the concrete barrier and maybe has concerns so we're more than willing to use our

experts once the work progresses and see what we can you know provide assurance to the people that live on our properties not compromise that financially or things like that we're willing to work with john a long time tenant in the building also so i have my contractor who is can address some the technical concerns better than i can so okay. thank you. >> i have questions i'll wait until after the department addresses it and talk with you on rebuttal thank you. >> yes. go ahead. >> hi, i'm the contractor that did the work all over the place yeah. a wall there with the neighbor i'm repairing replacing it blocking the wall on the wall they're talking about i replaced it no structural bearing no electrical 0 no plump i'm

replacing the dry rot from the weather the department no any kind of electrical or plumbing to so i'm replacing the rotted wood and i used rid wood and in the end - any other questions. >> i have questions on rebuttal i'll wait for the department thank you. >> mr. kern. >> bernie department of building inspection and actually, i had occasion to visit this property. >> mr. kern. >> taken a few of my own pictures a few flaws we get leeway in dry rot repair but some of the sisterably the substandard i would be

confidence with the builder inspector arrived he'll see the extent of work is greater than described on the permit and ask him to increase the evaluation with that said i'm glad that he removed the rotted stuff there will be another layer of plywood to hold stuff together additionally he also probably pointed out instead of the washers but redwood instead of pressure treated this happens the only problem they've gone would above and beyond the permit in dry rot it is common once you open up it grows on i didn't have occasion to see the concrete wall on the neighbors property anything over

4 feet high will require a permit only restorations the water trapped between both property that wall and the framed wall so i have the district inspector look at that nor closely when he gets out there no inspectors and not appearing their trying to cover up or hide things led them continue with their work and perform the inspections as needed. >> you might mention to the commissioners what the term 68. >> you're allowed to remove a certain amount of dry rot 25 percent the material nicole they cut the bottoms off and put a piece under i'd like to see the two by 6 sistered alongside to be greater than in length you're

creating a hinge at the bottom not good but corrections asking asking asked but other than no problem. >> didn't look really baud i saw it in thirty years not rotted up is it 36 or 48 inches. >> 48 from the bottom the footing. >> okay. thank you. >> okay thank you anything mr. sanchez. >> no any public comment on this item? >> hello, my name is silvia johnson. and the error you know carrier aircraft carrier and the measurement where this

inspection there's no i mean how come what is that you know, i know myself any building we have you know what you call you know such you know criteria that has in you know more you know creative and the issue is and the subject is that i have seen a lot of it was done that is things that you don't

like and any business in any part and that is why this history is so long and the part of the construction, you know, has not been clear. >> and i've been looking on this areas today and i think i know exactly who i'm going to do to get a professional officer that's - i know that i found out a number to make sure this will be done in parts by

removed and also to put in moral beauty to as i don't see any built with any kind of you know art or any kind of like real - and you know where they get on the people that do tourists around there and from our city you know we're you know put this in - >> thank you. any others. okay. seeing none have the rebuttal starting with the appellant

>> i'll try to say that better i'm concerned for the building department because this wall was opened maybe in 2014 but in january of 2015 this wall was completely open and no permit and so i think that i had a good reason to not exactly rely on the fact that after two people exclaimed in person and no inspection and then the first inspection is yesterday so that's you know, i felt the need to basically preserve any rights and concern is that those have to be fully sister front door the top to the bottom i can't recall a retaining wall there before i don't care as long as that is save that's the main thing want to make sure i mean what i've been told that an

engineer should have looked at the so a engineering report and also to have the sistering studs from the bottom to the top thank you. >> so just a point did you understand that anything under 4 feet didn't require a permit or inspection. 6 feet. ay i think that is 5 to >> okay. >> also against the wall i was told that is it is a good idea. >> thank you. >> okay rebuttal from the permit holder anything further to add. >> yes. i had the repair work but requiring no where sisterably that's why i applied for the permit in the beginning that was a repair job 0 so i'm

reinforcing the walls thank you. >> probable 7, 8, 9 to get our inspection sooner than later. >> dbi was not out there for inspections that is my viewing for the - i mean the permit was taken out april 28th in inspections. >> no my suggestion to get the inspection. >> by all means. >> we did an inspection yesterday, i didn't i went for this purpose of this evening. >> thank you inspector okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> batter up. >> in the departments hundreds they'll review that the scope will change accident inspectors see this kind of work and understand the realties of dry

rot how to deal with that i think they'll provide whatever recommendations they will have on top of what the contractor. >> motioned commissioner percentage move to deny the permit and appeal and to grants the permit on the basis that was properly issued. >> thank you on that motion to deny the appeal and you would it on the basis it was properly issued. >> commissioner lazarus commissioner honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig thank you commissioner honda there's no further business before the

(clapping.) the airport it where i know to mind visions of traffic romance and excitement and gourmet can you limousine we're at san francisco inspirational airport to discover the award-winning concession that conspiracies us around the world. sfo serves are more 40 million travelers a year and a lot of the them are hungry there's many restaurant and nearly all are restaurant and cafe that's right even the airport is a diane designation. so tell me a little bit the food program at sfo and what makes this so special >> well, we have a we have food

and beverage program at sfo we trivia important the sustainable organic produce and our objective to be a nonterminal and bring in the best food of san francisco for our passengers. >> i like this it's is (inaudible) i thank my parents for bringing me here. >> this the definitely better than the la airport one thousand times better than. >> i have a double knees burger with bacon. >> i realize i'm on a diet but i'm hoping this will be good. >> it total is san francisco experience because there's so many people and nationalities in this town to come to the airport

especially everyone what have what they wanted. >> are repioneering or is this a model. >> we're definitely pioneers and in airport commemoration at least nationally if not intvrl we have many folks asking our our process and how we select our great operators. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ the food option in san francisco airport are phenomenal that's if it a lot of the airports >> yeah. >> you don't have the choice. >> some airports are all about

food this is not many and this particular airport are amazing especially at the tirnl indicating and corey is my favorite i come one or two hours before my flight this is the life. >> we definitely try to use as many local grirnts as we can we use the goat cheese and we also use local vendors we use greenly produce they summarize the local soured products and the last one had 97 percent open that. >> wow. >> have you taken up anything unique or odd here. >> i've picked up a few things

in napa valley i love checking chocolates there's a lot of types of chocolate and caramel corn. >> now this is a given right there. >> i'm curious about the customer externals and how people are richmond to this collection of cities you've put together not only of san francisco food in san francisco but food across the bay area. >> this type of market with the local savors the high-end products is great. >> i know people can't believe they're in an airport i really joy people picking up things for their friends and family and wait i don't have to be shopping now we want people take the opportunity at our location.

>> how long has this been operating in san francisco and the late 18 hours it is one of the best places to get it coffee. >> we have intrrnl consumers that know of this original outlet here and come here for the coffee. >> so let's talk sandwiches. >> uh-huh. >> can you tell me how you came about naming our sandwiches from the katrero hills or 27 years i thought okay neighborhood and how do you keep it fresh you can

answer that mia anyway you want. >> our broadened is we're going not irving preserves or packaged goods we take the time to incubate our jogger art if scratch people appreciate our work here. >> so you feel like out of captured the airport atmosphere. >> this is its own the city the airline crews and the bag handlers and the frequent travels travelers and we've established relationships it feels good. >> when i get lunch or come to eat the food i feel like i'm not city.

i was kind of under the assumption you want to be done with our gifts you are down one time not true >> we have a lot of regulars we didn't think we'd find that here at the airport. >> people come in at least one a week for that the food and service and the atmosphere. >> the food is great in san francisco it's a coffee and i took an e calorie home every couple of weeks. >> i'm impressed i might come here on my own without a trip, you know, we have kids we could get a babysitter and have diner at the airport. >> this is a little bit of things for everybody there's plenty of restaurant to grab

something and go otherwise in you want to sit you can enjoy the experience of local food. >> tell me about the future food. >> we're hoping to bring newer concepts out in san francisco and what our passengers want. >> i look forward to see what your cooking up (laughter) ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> today we've shown you the only restaurant in san francisco from the comfortableing old stand but you don't have to be hungry sfo has changed what it is like to eat another an

airport check out our oblige at tumbler dating.com one of the was asked to do is water system improvement program and one thing i looked at is about the 4.8 billion dollars wurthd of work and a lot of the work was regional. we looked at how can we make sure that we provide opportunities for san franciscan's and people in the region and so we looked at ways we can expand our local san francisco lb program. so, we

thought about it and worked with general manager at the time to form an advizry committee to talk about how to include local businesses in the region. >> i was on the first committee back about 10 years ago and the job changed over time. in the beginning, we just wanted people to know about it. we wanted to attract contractors to come into the system which is a bidding system and bid on some of these projects. our second job was to help the sfpuc to try to make themselves more user frndly. >> i like that they go out of their way, have contractors trying to teach and outreach to small businesses and lots of creative ways. help the community as well. there is so much infrastructure going on

and repair, new construction that i think is helping to get construction back on its feet. >> my faiv rlt part of the committee has been that we have played a opportunity for many small businesses. [inaudible] women owned business to come in and [inaudible] sfpuc. it is a great opportunity because some are so small they have been able to grow their companies and move up and bid other projects with the sfpuc. >> everyone i was talking about with any contractor [inaudible] and super markets and things like that and i realize the transition was on the sfpuc. he got that first job and knows

about the paperwork qu schedule and still works on this type of job, but he works with general contractors that also did other things. pretty soon it is like he did that one and that one. it completely changed his business. >> my name is nancy [inaudible] the office manager and bid coordinator for [inaudible] construction. worked on 10 plus puc, lbe contracts. today we are doing site maintenance on the [inaudible] chr site and currently the gentlemen behind me are working on every moving and basic specs of plants. in order to be success you need to work hard, bid low and keep a look at the sfpuc website for future bidding opportunity. >> this is a successful program

because it provides opportunities to regional communities that might not have opportunities to work for large scale projects. the sfpuc is a fortunate agency we have a lot of capital program that span over 7 counties who also to see how some businesses like [inaudible] and bio mass started as small micro businesses grow and expand and stay in the program and work on several projects before they graduate from the program. that is what warms my heart. >> my name is college willkerson, the principle for bio mass. bio mass has been in business since 2006. 3 partners. small businesses fill a niche but apply and

being a part of the program helped us be more visible and show the city and county of san francisco we can also perform services. >> this program had tremendous impact to the region. in fact, the time we rolled the program out was during the recession. this has h a major positive impact and certified over 150 firms in the rejen and collectively awarded $50 million in contracts, and because of the lbe certification it open many opportunities to work with sfpuc. and, i significantly helped the business. it is one of the major contributors to our success. >> good afternoon

commissioners and directors welcome to the joint meeting between the sfmta eight board of directors and the planning commission. item 2, roll call >> for the planning commission mission or antonini speed present johns and, present. then what, present. wu, present. richards, present. fong, here. hillis is expected to be absent >> for the sfmta brinkman present borden, present. grant hi nikki is absent then shoots to trim present trend ramos, present. wu rocky, present. borden present. mr. chairman mr. pres. you have a quorum item 3 announcement of coalitions against sound

producing devices during the meeting. >>[reading code]. please be advise cell phones cause microphone interference. there's likely request they are in the off position. item 4, communications. commissioners, directors i know of none at this time. moving onto your regular special calendar. item 5, presentation and discussion regarding connect sf transportation vision plan. >> good morning. i can see all of you, but >>[laughing] ed reiskin down here. members of the board, members of the commission, mr. chairman and mr. pres., i'm really grateful for the opportunity to come together today and in this

unique increase my, joint format to talk about an effort that we been undertaking that i think is critical importance as we are facing the demands that the city is. a wild back, director rahaim and director of county transportation authority as wells karen rich and gillette from the mayor's office got together and decided we needed to collaborate on him much longer-term approach to transportation planning in the city. i think there's been a lot of great transportation planning that has happened in the past few years and decades, whether from the land use planning, the area plans, various kinds of transportation plans and project plans that we done. but, i think we all agreed particularly given the dynamic change that's happening in our city that wed