stairs at the rare and endangered for the portion and behind the existing lightwell they would pull the roof and separate on the appellants prompt raise those windows the property lines windows between sloping of the roof and do window they'll perspective the light and air maybe put it on the overhead. >> they'll mention they'll be closing the other windows sealing these. >> not part of this permit a separate permit required to seal off the windows that is a conditional use permit their stating for the record they've resolved closing the property lines windows. >> there are two items that effect this property one of the

reinforcement of the stairs and one the roof specific information in order to deal with the enforcement. >> can i have the overhead, please? so the area in question will be first, the removal of the spiral stairs at the rear of the property and between this a lightwell on the appellants property and the rear building wall it is currently a flat roof the building is raised a little bit over 4 feet and the idea this portion here will be sloped with the existing flat roof will be removed and sloped down those details have not been worked out that will be in coordination with the extent of the slope in coordination with the separate

permit that relocations the property lines window to raise it up and kind of the idea to line them up between the sloping of the roof and it will preserve light to that. >> mr. sanchez i think what we are looking for something we can note in our records this evening if we are able to give you time we'll have the drawings submitted we'll hold this over and hear the next case and go from there. >> we can accomplish that. >> okay. >> thank you for your confidence and time. >> so why not go ahead and hear the next case. >> that's great we'll continue - okay. we have not decided it yet if you want to take public comment. >> we're having a temporary break we'll have public comment

when it comes back; right? >> okay. >> thank you. >> okay. >> so we're going to hold-off on deciding item 6 and call item 7 lincoln versus the department of building inspection and it is protesting the issuance to ray chan for the vertical and horizon one one bedroom and start with the appellant and. >> good evening and welcome. >> unfortunately, the same law firm i've hired reuben, junius & rose their appearance before this board will not have any effect on any decision this evening please proceed and welcome. >> i'd like to enter into pictures and i'm sorry. >> photos.

>> it hboard has to agree and them on the overhead. >> i'm christine thank you for your time and congratulations on your re-election. >> we have filed for appeal for the project on granite for 2 reasons first, the significant concerns over the use of the property that is purchased in 2001 they applied to convert the units in february 2003 and denied by the city and reapplied and later approved in 2005 and applied for a single-family but were denied the cal hallow guidelines allows for rh2 current property at 32 feet but the city regulations for rh2 allow for 40 feet maximum in

height while their taking advantage of the zoning for additional housing they've owned it 16 years and uses it as a single-family home and it is a modest renovation over to 24 hundred square feet the proposal increasing the interior space the second reason of not adhering to the san francisco city regulations those owners had a previous property on third street in pacific heights and evicted their tenants under the condition they'll occupy it but didn't renovated the building with a penthouse and made a profit they then brought the owners to the state of california and settled for damages it is not on the

sustained property first street they came in front of the board of appeals after the issues related to that property and adjustments were made number 3 for the good neighbor adjustment i'd like to make corrections their attorney has outlined first, as noted in a letter which we shared in the cal hallowing association in 82015 and other queries and the concerned neighbors as well as the association the 3 setbacks they've noted actually creates privacy concerns this is not a benefit to us nor to the dr parties the penthouse noted ♪ letter this was a significant area of concern for other neighborhoods and the association and eliminated there was discussion they agreed to eliminate it in discussions with

the architect in addition another setback they noticed is not done per their request this is the systemic areas our notice to the plans is the 311 in 2015 they have errors plans within the 311 were miss labeled and misinformation again april 1915 and in addition to this they made reference to the 311 in comparison to a property on invention issue street in 2015 we nor the other significantly impacted owners on greenwich issue didn't receive notice of those plans in addition to when the other dr requesters had filed the dr and

paid money unfortunately they're not included in the e-mail from mary woods in 2015 and informing the owners as well as us and the association of dr hearing that would be held in december and the other two dr parties didn't get a notification apart from the general notifications the neighbors are required to see in addition, we hosted dozens of meeting with the cal hallow association with the other dr requesters and the planning department and the architect and his representatives and spent housing in proposals unfortunately, the owners didn't offer compromises with the cal hallow the only conformation following dr was erecting story poles e poles we have concerns with the disregards of laws and

regulations we're we reject those owners will not over any accommodates and we ask you to take the recommendations from the canceling hallow noted on the letter from broke samson and place restrictions with the elimination of the upper roof deck to address the privacy concerns and setback the wall by 12 feet that adds square footage to their property >> thank you. >> thank you. >> in addition he wanted to show some of the photos of neighboring properties that are multiple units including the multiple mailboxes to

demonstrate those are adjacent properties on the same block and just photos of their property and how there is single mailboxs with no separate addresses so - >> single address 567 greenwich street this is their property >> can you use the mike please. sorry about that here's another one as well as photos this is photos of their property single address and single mailbox. >> separate entrances no

separate entrance. >> that's all. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> mr. silverman. >> good evening and welcome. >> counsel. >> good evening commissioner honda and commissioners david silverman on behalf of the permit holder. >> ray chan obtained the permit to alternate their home on greenwich for an upper story that will be setback 12 and a half feet from the permanent house as you heard the sponsor provided 3 foot side setbacks the increase in the height in addition will be 8 feet the

building steps remained unchanged the proposed addition is in context to the 09 homes on the block and permited by the planning code no variances involved the planning commission held the dr hearing a year ago on december 10, 2015, the same people the appellants were there they presented the same arguments as they presented tonight the planning commission approved the project 7 to zero. >> unanimous approval the adjacent contiguous homes to the east including the appellants four homes which i'll show you in a moment all have substantially the same or larger height they all have

larger massing than the proposed project they have propels to property line houses this is unusual in san francisco no rear yard whatever as opposed to to any client that as a rear yard the adjacent home to the west that is similar no size to any clients house has received building permits almost dental to the one want to and that is under construction therefore in a contiguous row of 7 homes the site stand out as one story shorter than the rest rae having a code compliant rear yard the appellants here tonight are located in the east of the project and will continue to block light and air to any clients house regardless whether

this is built or not when reviewed in complex the addition results in a building that will remain quite a bit smaller than the building to the east and nearly dental to the neighbor to the west the appellants themselves have a vertical addition with a deck yet to the board deny the property owner a smaller upper story in sum the appellant are failed to demonstrate in any reason to overturn the planning commission 7 to one decision in favor the permit holder it is the case that the appellants may lose some partial views from their deck, however, views are not protected by the planning code we submitted within our

brief 7 letters of support from the neighbors that received an will additional letter we have now 8 letters of support i wish to show you two photos - now you can go back. >> more. >> okay. >> that's good. >> thank you gary. >> project sponsors house this is the appellants house as you can see the appellants house. >> can you speak into the mike. >> i'm sorry. >> this is the project sponsors house right here this is the appellants house you can see the appellants house is lot

line to lot line and the project sponsors house is here this the adjacent to the west they're constructing as we speak a vertical addition with a deck virtually dental to what is before you. >> this is the neighbors top floor under construction this the appellants house which exceeds the height limit by 7 feet with no rear yard the next house to the east has no rear

yard exceeds the height limit two smaller houses here had look much the same after the work is completed. >> i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> and the projector architect is here if you have any questions about the plans or the elevations thank you. >> counselor. >> yeah. >> are you aware was the project that is built is that dr'd as well are you aware if it project was dr'd. >> it was not dr'd. >> not dr'd and . >> and cal hallow didn't file any letters. >> any addendums or change to the plans since the planning commission. >> yeah. the deck was made smaller maybe the architect can

talk about that. >> please step forward well introduce yourself. >> architects with wushgs c you project architect as part of plans we reduced the size of the deck from the rear we cut off a 45 degree angle eliminating parts of deck what we showed at the planning commission. >> that's i'm done maybe - >> questions. >> well, one the things i noticed the drawings you showed you are dated in 2015. >> uh-huh. >> you're saying that there are drawings subsequent to that. >> actually, i brought - >> so the drawings that have changed if i can show them.

>> overhead. >> we included the existing diagrams this is not included in the planning commission drawings previously otherwise the interior floor plates are the same. >> and the main change on the upper floor we basically cut off the section to allow for the decrease good great of a travel distance for the stair. >> okay. >> thank you. >> thank goodness an architect. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you. good evening scott sanchez planning department. the subject property even located within rh2 two dwelling

units are allowed legally as a two family between that was a prior permit that reduced the permits from 3 to 2 their reducing the size of the unit but legally maintaining as two dwelling units we under 317 a protection measure for the protection of dwelling units nothing that requires someone to represent that unit to the general public comment but it is maintained as a two family dwelling unit it was first submitted in i believe 2014 and underwent the neighborhood notification in february and march of 2015 during that time 3

discretionary review requests one by the immediate adjacent single-family dwelling and two drs filed by the two unit building one building further east and the photos that have large windows that were fairly well developed on the lot and had windows originating over the the subject property for a view it was during the did drs were filed consistency in the the drawings of 2030 and no additional discretionary review filed that was heard by the planning commission in december of 2015 the planning commission unanimously voted to approve the project as proposed and the appellant has raised the issues

of the notice and conduct of that hearing i don't have any evidence to support that i mean, i was not able to connect with the planner before the hearing we are a noticeed public hearings the planning commission felt that of the parties didn't have the ability to properly address them they could have continued that and don't have anything on the record that was a concern they voted not to take discretionary review the most of issues wanted to raise a code compliant project assume looking at the adjacent property to the west no discretionary review on that that was issued sometime in 2014 so long since passed available to answer me questions that the board any have and i

got one. >> okay. >> one the famous o pair the question how do you get a property that didn't have a rear yard. >> well, it would have been conducted before the current prado i didn't see any plans that allowed the construction but i'll note this block faced on greenwich the lots are short but the property is 82 feet deep the property that fronts on filbert is a deeper lot. >> the question any variances or exceptions to this condition. >> not seeking any variances are exceptions. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> so it seems one of the issues of the appellant that a two unit building is used as a single-family home is that a problem. >> well certainly we would like to see all the dwelling units utilized but nothing we be, require something to rent on the open market no internal connections between them they - but nothing to require someone to renter a unit it does happen some people can afford it will keep both units and maybe have>> next speaker. >> in-laws in one unit or an - we ask this is preserved this is maintained a a two family

dwelling. >> if they sell the building it needs to be addressed a can be utilized as such. >> i interpret that as no harm, no foul i rather not have that that way no harm, no foul. >> anything on this inspector duffy okay any public comment on this item? okay. seeing none we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> good evening and welcome. >> loins owner and i wish i had more time to dispute the attorney for the chan's to keep it short in the appellant package the sponsors removed the waltz and using that as a one unit building

and again, you guys are the experts in the planning code the planning code section clearly states no application should be issued by any city department unless a construction or other activities that is permanent also so these guys combined the unites; right? which david who was their contractors said that wants done without permit and e-mails from mary woods and the attorney present today those walls were removed by put back up post the fact; right? they submitted the plans to the planning commission were factually incorrect number one and number two our house was built in 1908 the owners bought the house with no alterations to

the height of the house; right? their conveniently talking about other multiple unit buildings on block with no obviously tings to do so you know, i think that the question was asked the proof the other applicants were not notified they were and the other e-mails from mary woods went out of her way to consult the architect and the attorney interesting not contemporary to those they're put together as there is a material impact not outside of the living conditions we live in san francisco; right? those are interior issues with light and privacy not take into consideration by the are project sponsor we you know we you know we think that you know the other

multi unit we never received the notifications and the applicant didn't receive the noticed plenty of records we can submit to the commissioners again, we as outlined our support that the board of appeals take action to the size and scope with the recommendations with the cal hallow association. >> you done, sir. >> if i have more time i have a lot more to say. >> i have a question. >> sure. >> if you're disputing the size and scope the project sponsor why didn't you file a notice. >> we've not received a notice. >> i'm sorry if you want to come up to the podium. >> i have an e-mail if you like

it confirming that from mr. lindsey. >> also another dr requester. >> i'm talking about the next door houses. >> oh, i have that available if you want to see it. >> that's fine thank you very much. >> that's it. >> okay rebuttal from the permit holders. >> thank you commissioner honda the appellants raised the same issues regarding notice of the planning commission hearing which i believe there were 3 dr applicants present and the planning commission found no merit. >> i'm sorry you can't speak. >> the dr hearings has been over for a year i'm not sure why

they're raising this stage in addition the appellant is only one of the 3 dr applicants that filed an appeal presuming from the other dr applicants have an issue of the notice they'll file an appeal as far as the, there was a 3 unit, 2 unit merger 10 or 12 years ago and so currently the building is two units they have straight doorways and kitchens and separate bedrooms so forth i've been at two different inspections because the appellants called have called the well the to inspect and i've been at the folks house twice

and both times the planners found to the units were fully in compliance with the planning code as the zoning administrator confirmed i believe that's it thank you. >> thank you counselor. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you just to note that the the subject property was the subject of complaints with both building department and planning department those cases were closed the plans that are before you do have code compliant conditions they were to at some point in the future remove the walls and have connections between the unit that is in fact, a merger and the fact their code compliant. >> mr. sanchez any planning

notice of violations given to the property. >> i don't know how far the enforcement went but i mean at least the staff investigated and found the violations were stated. >> okay. thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i haven't heard anything to persuade me for this permit. >> i'm not in agreement with that. >> me, too for the audience this is a notable hearing what happened they planning commission or the planning commission didn't happen at the mraths we don't take into consideration the facts are what is supplied in the current briefs i'm in concurrence with my colleagues. >> move to deny the appeal on

the basis the permit was properly issued. >> thank you a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeal and on the basis it was properly issued commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero are we ready to go back to item number 6. >> if they're ready we're ready this year this is appeal number of i think before we hear further from the parties we should take public comment. >> yes. >> okay public comment on item number 6. >> sir, do you have public comment. >> this is your chance thank you for waiting. >> thank you. >> >> good evening and welcome. >> i apologize for the wait.

>> my name is a bernard i have two names i'm an actor i live there for 26 years moved in 26 years ago the backroom which is i'll show you quickly here this is the beauty of this neighborhood it is quiet, clean and that it is used to have trees there were to giant trees i live on the top floor of the 3 unit 3 floor building the tree next door in the building next to me a at all tree higher than the took up floor and two giant trees in the yard they purchased and it filtered the noise and flirlthd a lot of the soot and the dust in the city and made

that a quiet area if you - so mainly what i'm concerned is the loss of privacy the loss of light, the amount of noise that might be generated by putting in by moving the unit four feet closer to the property lines of the apartment building i rent. >> which is speaks to privacy but you have here if i can show you this is their unit this is the corner building this is the building i live in that the building next door. >> you can see right now effects the corner building that is 6 unit maybe 3 unit that are directly adjacent and the building as you can see here and here 3 floors that are 6 units

and 6 unit if in building next door and 6 unit next door to that so if we look at it right now this is at least on any side of the property they want to come closer owe and i can look out the window and see space they'll go up i'll have a window looking into any window we've lost the trees it immediately got needser and those changes they'll make will effect 15 unit at least just on my side irrational damage to the neighborhood i moved out of my this is last friday night they make assurances that will be quieter from the time those

people moved in. >> may i and this is 1229, january 21st saturday morning. >> (people talking). >> you can hear - >> this happened frequently. >> and few look at the layout family. >> go ahead and please finish our comments. >> thank you, thank you very much this is a drum essentially wood on all four side sound will be magnified if anyone is talking on the ground level they're talking about outside my third floor window if they put windows there are a deck on the back for

a roof deck they'll have - >> sir. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> any other public comment on this item. >> okay. we'll invite the parties back to speak to the board about their proposal. >> thank you, tom on behalf of the project sponsor and i just like to show you the modifications to the plans on the drawings if i could. >> maybe zoom out a little bit gary oh, the other way perfect

that's fine. >> yeah. >> so what this is showing is the rear stair being taken out which we proposed it in our papers and the additional change we're agreeing to say a roof at that portion of the building and the detail is above shows that their window their property line window at that point will be rabsz as far as they can go 0 above and then we'll be pitching the roof adjacent to that window it falls below the bottom of that window. >> may ask if these plans are clear enough for the zoning administrator know what kind of dimensions will be needed a yes

scott sanchez planning department. there is still a little bit of a x factor in terms of the window needs to go up but we are a good relationship and the plans suffice to allows us to develop the special permit. >> so director i imagine have those dated today's date would be that advisable. >> norm we'll want that but certainly do that if the board wants to adapt a motion to reflect those changes those are not the plans used for the specialized permit. >> those will need to be drafted and meet the building code requirements but this is sufficient to document the agreement is. >> okay. >> thank you for working that out gentlemen. >> are those - will you date

those are today's date. >> i don't think there is any other public commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the changes to the plans as submitted today on today's date. >> and a basis. >> on the basis the parties agreed to the changes that are in their must actual interest. >> so the grant the appeal and on the provisions and the plans submitted their submitted have they been submitted? with today's dates on the basis it reflect the agreement of the

parties commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay. thank you that motion don't carry e to zero and item number 8. >> can we can take a two minute break-ins thank you. >> welcome back we're resuming the tuesday, january 24, 2017, of the san francisco board of appeals and calling item 8 connie chan and lincoln chan the property on 18 avenue protesting the issuance of outside loaned to erect a 3

story building. >> we'll hear from the appellant now. >> >> my name is michael phelps the attorney for the appellants and no relation to the swimer i'm not with reuben, junius & rose so. >> there are 3 issues which we discussed in our brief and if to the board has no objection i'll talk about them in reverse order with the ethnic and setback and bulk of the building we would like to just speed limit that issue based on the brief we submitted and obviously i'll answer any questions the board may have the second issue was that we asked that the board either deny the site permit and grant the appeal or else condition the site permit on the requirements that the permit holder give two business days

prior notices of excavation not a problem the permit holder in the brief on page 3 again recites the request to mandate the permit holder have to business days before excavation the response that is a perfectly reasonable request and the permit holder would be happy to have agreed to this had she been asked there is limited time involved in this we're asking that rather than relying on the permit holder to voluntarily give us the two days notice we ask it be conditioned on that the third issue i'm the focus on tonight is the issue of the inadequacy of the provisions in the engineering plans the shoring plans to safeguard my

clients property we submitted the 9 pages the engineers drawing to have shoring provided so no provision for dprout and no provision for under pine now i'm sure that everybody well knows the reason with they put sand in honor glasses it runs that is exactly what will happen it is chemical grouting and basically hardened sand not does not run this is coming closer but like the board to impose something specific page 3 of their brief it has always been the permit holders intention to

incorporate forms of foundation shoring and structural systems deemed sufficient by the engineers app abdominal building code and dbi and work with them throughout the process and note that just while the permit holder is willing to have it reviewed and incorporate valid changes the ultimate responsibility is that dbi again what we are asking for rather than the permit holder voluntarily compliance will not to have any obligation to do with we are asking this board as part of its protection of the property owners keep have that mandatory mandatory - briefly have i a couple of photographs the main ones in green just to set the stage this my clients

property and the the subject property are on the same block. >> sorry to interrupt you can you speak to it as you're looking at it thank you gary. >> got it. >> i was focusing on the ones and again there are several lots that used to be the parking lot of the alexander theatre and my client has from problem the problem my client has with the vacant lot adjacent to my clients property the green grass on the picture that is to the current but a stanley area for the other two areas as you can see the property my clients property and the permit holders property starts at the street and slopes up from there and is you know has a substantial slope to it we would like to have the position of those requirements

not only the two days notice but thought requirements that they put the provisions our structural engineer has spoken to the architect i'm going to turn it over to him to recount those discussions. >> he's not here i'm careful what i quote i talked with him and my colleague will confirm i convinced my clients in their best interest to grout to do their shoring they're under pining but this needs to be grouted and any confusion to mr. duffy that have other projects that everyone is on the same

page i believe the architect will confirm that everybody is on board with the grouting; is that correct anyway that's i that's my concern if everyone is grouting it i have no doubt the project will be good. >> everybody is pretty much on the same page they want to they'll do it out of goodness of their heart we want enforcement as it seems this is a reasonable request thank you. >> thank you counselor. >> we'll hear from the permit holders now. >> >> good evening and welcome. >> good evening commissioner president honda address board members i've been practicing in so for for 2 two years and this is the first time that i'm in

front of of the board of appeals our team the owners who is here tonight the architect and kevin o'connell the structural engineer we have been open and transparent on the first preapplication meeting december 2015 all the way down to today with the appellants the chan's about the plans for the building through meeting and e-mails every opportunity to communicate on an architectureal design and the structural design for the project i'm sorry and my client is disappointed this is not enough and to file this appeal so addresses the 3 things in the appeal the first one to provide stronger protection for the properties is, of course, in everybody best interest to do this correctly i'm the architect for the alexandra project one parcel away only one construction project by the way, one big

construction project if that project we shoring and we went down 25 feet we were only proposing to go down and our engineer you know very willing to work out whatever is necessary to make this a safe building for our proximately and not effect the chaunz property next door the bottom line the site permit doesn't need the structural drawing and therefore this intention didn't apply for the permit again you know we are willing to work out this and we've had xhfgdz this week with mr. boskovich but didn't apply to the permit so no conditions to be attached with the addendum

of the structural permit. >> which are not appealable. >> that i did not know. >> okay anyway, the second one about the two days notice the two business day notice we're willing to do that you know a matter of all the time and memorandum of understanding like i said jessica myself and mary woods the planner and the engineer have all been available we have lots of e-mails and correspondence back and forth expressing our willingness to work with that and the third contention about the size and building inspection and height this is strange when the appeals were filed by the chan's for the safety of the building make sense when we got the brief an additional concern about light and air and height and all those things it feels like

something angle attorney will throw in to juice this thing up like there's a a problem those were vetted and from the first moment the chan's received the notice of precirculation meeting sent out in 2015 connie chan attended that meeting the chan's were innovative of the section 311 posting from june 2015 to july 21st, 2016, and had every opportunity to file a discretionary review on that the section 311 was on the fence next to their driveway it is likely they saw that everyday and through e-mail the chan's were provided drawings of the project and so over a year for almost a year there of the not one iota of the concerns of the

architectural design and at the last minute that pop up this was vetoed by the planning department the design is fully compliant with the code, there are concerns with that being significantly larger but only - this complaint really have not bearing on the issuance of the site permit it seems like no illustration how the issuance of the error to the process of either the planning department or dbi as note with the many e-mails challenge and the owner jessica has been more than willing to work with the appellants in summary the appeal we believe the appeal has no merit and urge

you to uphold the issuance the permit i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> the appellants made a statement the courage that something about you folks agreeing on the grouting. >> i mean, we're in discussions right now we have submitted any structural drawing. >> your comment is complying very general complying to our engineers needs and the planning department's needs i did not hear anything specific. >> we're willfully willing to do that again, we started i think mr. boskovich was hired last saturday and called me i happened to be in the office but only yesterday i believe - no only yesterday that mr. boskovich talked with our engineer it was in the early stages of what the appropriate thing to do and my is willing to

do whatever. >> so let's see what the building department has to say about it. >> have you looked at the investigative work thought how you the - a. >> is could require underpinning 4 feet at one point that requires under piping if they're willing to do that, of course, workout an agreement underneath the appellants home and there has to be permit and some kind of an agreement we've done other houses in the sunset and the richmond that have's e has sand. >> the next question since i'm on that lot any daughter goes to that i saw water introduce the entry of the alexandra what are

you guys going to do with a building. >> with the alexandra this shouldn't count towards my time. >> we submitted to the planning department to look at creating a swim and education center in that building and if so in process we submit. >> that's not part of case but thank you, mr. romania. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> who wants to looks like mr. duffy wants to go first that's great. >> batter up. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi mr. sanchez let me go first for a change. >> (laughter). >> planning building explosion there. >> no, no that's okay. >> all good for a building permit erected a 3 story family building only a site permit the

addendum needs to come in and one of our robert is the assigned the dbi engineer and everything he heard as far is pretty good regarding the conversation regarding protecting the adjacent be buildings foundation that is, of course, in the san francisco building code anyway under section chapter three 307 and the under f line e pining needs to be done on any adjacent property that is effected and should go down to the bottom of the foundation for the new property and it is pretty standard procedure discussed between the adjacent property owners and the person doing the work on the new building and it will be under separate permits as you've heard for the actual property it works well and essential and needs to be done the neighborhoods get

nervous but i can reassure them it does work and done it plenty of times. >> i'm available to answer any questions. >> one last question and underpinning is not required is it. >> not in every distanced no, but in this case it is and in my experience if you have an existing building as far as you know commissioner vice president fung it has sand and sometimes a foundation on the existing building the neighbors building that didn't have rebar you get a new function on site pretty much a strengthened foundation i should say not required all the time you're right and the grouting is another option the dollar pining they both achieve similar results underpinning is a foundation put underneath the

building of grout loan the property it works both options work well. >> inspector duffy can you tell me i've heard we have a lot of new rules and regulations regarding excavation and foundation due to the new thinking millennium does that effect that. >> nothing added to the building code not there before not involved in that building at all i'm not sure they maybe changing the code but nothing i'm aware of that came across any deck. >> by the way, the notification in the building code is a 10 day and the notification shall be delivered nolessly 10 dazed prior to the excavation i heard that will you 10 days per the building code. >> thank you.

>> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. the on the project architect did a thorough presentation this is added at the end the bulk with the planning code issues the project is code compliant and meets the residential design guidelines and the section 311 no discretionary review that's all i have to say thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> >> good evening and welcome. >> i've not come before you, you want my name and i'm maria i live on 18 avenue and i

represent a lot of the neighbors of this project we're concerned there is 10 bedrooms and only two parking spaces and we are already have a lot of parking on that street there is a church and ymca and also stores on the corner and this project around the building theatre and 42 units one point is higher than that and lower and not sufficient parking for all the cars that will come into the neighborhood so see a building that will be higher than the other houses on the block the old rule used to be thirty feet now up to 40 the drawings of this one are higher and other neighborhoods we don't want to see another 10 foot clearance that impacts privacy of a lot of people and also pushed up the height of the

building and also in front of that building is a huge sink hold it used to have to be filed regularly with a lot more vehicles up and down the street and our concern is the impact thought so many people perhaps coming into is a building that will have 10 bedrooms and only two parking spots plus the height of the building and the impact on the neighborhood like i said thirty foot and now going up and up and it is sand thank you. >> any other public comment. >> okay seen we'll have rebuttal michael phelps we're worried about the lack of trusted on the part of permit holder my client for many months asked for copies of the plans

that were being submitted only after the appeal was filed did we get anything what we got payroll was not approved we only saw the approved plans when we were submitted for the hearing there is funny business going on i don't want to rely on the promises of the permit holder i would ask that the board put some teeth into that and take what appears to be an agreement and make that enforceable by specifying a company that was pointed out the site permit is basically the only appealable aspect the addendum one is not appealable this is our only shot to get the conditions imposed he respect mr. duffy but he's got a lot of projects going on i will submit we want to make sure to my client to make sure those

things get enforced okay. >> anyway so we will ask again, the conditions either be encompassed by the board or alternatively that matter be continued to give the parties enough time to work out an agreement in writing in which case we ask the appeal will be withdrawn. >> just to clarify to dig this material you have to grout it not a trick deal you can't dig in soil once you change the vertical elevation by shoring and if you go really at all put in under pine so it is in everyone's best interest to work with the project sponsor on developing a shoring plan and i think work working with the

project sponsor in the building department the inspector duffy will be great and inquires a geotech to eliminate the trust and work with the building department particularly joe duffy. >> you said your client doesn't get the plans under the 311 artists the plans required. >> what was given to us was not what was submitted to this board in its brief what was submitted was stamped 2015 the representative represented to us the plans she'd given us in early december after the plans were you issued were the most recent plans and there were no approved plans those statements are both false. >> let's clear up that item right now no approved plans

until the addendum goes through appeal. >> i'm sorry, i meant file standing plans the files - >> we got that. >> no, no that's fine but this is our only shot - >> thank you counselor. >> mr. for man. >> i want to clear that up i'm shocked about trust issues if you look at every e-mails they submitted and they submitted there were conversations about this we never got responses from mrs. chan so i'm surprised they're the ones saying we're the one side that are not to be trusted i think the site commissioner president honda you asked about the 311 they received overseeing drawings they absolutely received overseeing drawings they were sent out by the department address their address was on

that so i find that again to be a strange statement in terms of plans we'll november submitted in any addendum mr. phelps makes it turn down u sound we're trying to conceal something as long as we had the draurlgz they were drafts not something we had already submitted and asked to have their engineer review it we asked them over you know like of weeks in about numerous e-mails do you have any other questions does your engineer have questions we never got a response we've been directing i incredibly transparent and agree with mr. boskovich you know we need to sit down and say you know this is what we're going to do and those are the plans and you know again dbi has to review those plans we can't do

something that will not be approved by dbi on a very regular basis tens of thousands of building in the sand and for instance, the building next door to the alexandra that was done with shoring no underpinning of the neighboring property and faces 9 properties and there was no grouting of the soil next door it was done with shoring so there are enormous ways to do it i'm not saying one way or another but we had every intention and of course in everybody's best interest no one wants to look at this down the road i'll ask you not to suspend the permit that was done legally and i think mr. phelps thinks otherwise but i think we've demonstrated completely we'll do the best we can to make sure

that there is no damage to the neighbor's house. >> mr. pearlman from the 311 notifications have they've been any changes from there. >> design changes no. >> thank you. >> anything further from the department. >> no. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> before we enter perhaps detailed discussions i'd like to clarify a couple of technical points one is the appellants brief miss matched the comments related to lift in terms of how you handle the phil of the site afterwards to what they were talking about in the excavation secondly, is our efforts should

be geared towards the review of the overall project there is going to be some technical element that we'll interest have to depend on the department we have no idea of the structural aptitude in an analysis of what was there i'll leave that up to our structural engineers at the building department to handle it kind of detail and thirdly, is that we've been getting a lot of these xaktdz and perhaps at the city will have to change their procedures in how they deal with those as an example i would think that the city would be - would want to make that a requirement that anybody who is excavating a certain amount has

to provide a monitoring system in terms of elevation secondly, that the - there is a level of conservatism among the designers whenever you see their reports i always put a well never mind i won't say that they'll be the most conservative and their emissions in terms of highest i'm - if they'll write you a letter in response to something it will list the most conservative approach possible not that it is not necessary in this particular instance i agree

grouting is a good idea but neither here and there i'll leave that up to the department so if i look at that approach as any feelings on the technical side the other half of the presentation on the more of the planning side contextually and volume and parking those kinds of things i don't see this project expand beyond the way i have to take this. >> i'd like add you don't know i don't think something tashgd to it either and. >> i completely concur anyone want to make a motion. >> you know it helps them to establish a working relationship yobd conditioning that they provide notice within two days

of construction. >> does give 10 days. >> contemporary to the status it is 10 days your reducing to two. >> i think what - and we're giving them what they're asking for . >> if i'm understanding this correctly we want notice to be prepared for the work where 10 days is open could you someone from the appellant side step forward as the department indicated 10 days is standard is there a specific reason you're requesting two days. >> this was an additional have someone scheduled to be out there. >> prior to the two days additional to the 10 days. >> i'm sorry, i should have.

>> that's okay. >> i don't think that is a big deal i'm not sure i will get involved into this structural engineering i depend on the experts for the structural engineering. >> was there a motion there. >> actually two days didn't make sense. >> they'll have a monitor. >> i thought telephone days. >> no two days before. >> another notice. >> basically a 10 days notifications already two days prior to the work consensus they want someone to monitor or

whatever. >> i don't think i have an issue i will grant the appeal with the condition the approval on the basis that the appellant receive further notice to days before construction starts. >> the excavation or construction. >> the excavation. >> and to approve the project on the basis that - >> identify had a case at the planning commission where commissioner said something like that and all of the other things were thrown button basket i want to make sure there is clarity the only thing that the appeal is uphold on is the to day. >> our conditions are the only

things that get into there. >> thank you very much. >> so the motion from the vice president is to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition the permit holder provide to the appellant notice to days before excavation begins on the basis the permit is code compliant commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson can you read that again. >> to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition that the permit holder provide the appellate with notice two days prior to the notice of excavation on the basis the - it is code compliant and the building code didn't get superseded by the boarders rule will require a 10 day notice.

>> sounds like ambiguous if the department is willing to have a friendly amendment addition to - >> the statutory notice. >> that's something. >> okay. so i'll recall the position then the rule so to grant the appeal and uphold the permit on the condition the permit holder provide the appellant with notice two days before excavation starts in addition to the statutory notice on the basis the permit is code compliant from the vice president commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig. >> okay that motion passes with a vote of 5 to zero

commissioner president honda there's no further business. >> .

>> (clapping.) >> in 2013 san francisco legislators newsom agreed to allow the reciprocate of our soft story buildings those building house one and 20 thousand resident a program of that collect requires extensive outreach and this continuation of that process

who is here and bill graham the perfect venue so in 2014 we have the first earthquake retrofit a huge success we're repeating this model what we've done it put together venues that are time professionals and contractor are financing institutions a other services that help people comply with the retrofit and as you can see the thousands of members of the public their assessing over one hundred vendors to comply with the ordinance or make improvements on their property i came to get specification information and puck h picking up information if you don't know what twaur doing i take it overwhelming. >> we're pleased a critical mass of people are keying into knowing their relents and understanding what had are the next steps to take and they're

figuring out who to talk to not only the contractor by the mustards and the architect and the structural engineers and getting the full picture of what options are necessary and being pro-acti pro-active. >> so i'm very pleased to see the soft story buildings 99.9 percent complies the highest of the program of this scale of the history a citywide effort high blood pressure in every stretch of san francisco to understand real risks associated with earthquake and those are universally agreed on. >> at some point you need to gather information i'll be talking to another engineer to come out and take a look at it and basically get a second opinion i'm for second and third opinions it is inspiring to see all the

property owners that want to do the right thing and for proactively figuring out what the solutions to get them that. >> what is amazing to me here we are over two years of first retrofit fair and at the time we are rh2 out to contractors to help us and reaching it out to design professionals that soft story buildings is in any and people understanding how to comply now it is different an industry that springs up as a result of the - their professed and gotten the costs down with lower financing options and these are defined and now the gene progression and have the buildings are buildings and the compliance we understand the 2020 one and 20 thousand san francisco's 15 messenger of our population will live in a retrofit building those people

buildings or lives in buildings with 5 or more residential building is soft story and wood frame and built before 1978 that house that one and 20 thousand san franciscans. >> san francisco is being the leader in getting in done and as you may know los angeles passed their retrofit law two months ago at the sort of taken san francisco's lead on the one and tenth anniversary as the residents san francisco this is a road map to the city and going to give us us plan are these to keep folks here on a disaster and steps to build a resident waterfront by 2020. >> this involves more than one and 80 individuals and over 60

nonprofits and other companies this is a huge plan and what are the challenges we realize that people are concerned about climatic change, sea level rise and not only the affiliated hazards but things hike you're our amp infrastructure and consumed by social and other things we see this in society everyday and how we try to mitigate those are ultimately a direct result how resident we are after earthquake other issue out of the strategy of the concept after a major earthquake of keeping 95 percent of population here in san francisco that's the single best thing to help a equitable recovery to keep people here keep people back to work and kids in school and a residents of normal after a disaster.

>> alliance energy in our partner undertook comprehensive bid process we interviewed a half-dozen of folks who wanted to have a part of our soft story buildings are ordinance so alliance energy project programming is a clean assess energy a special financing that is done using the taxed authority of local multiples and one of the interesting features the loan is tied to the property not the vital if an individual didn't have good credit but it is another option for people not able to comply to find another avenue the assessment is actually places on the property and the builds for in that come literally a line item on the tax bill that's how you pay off the segment and tax. >> 20 or thirty years is all

paid up front there are advantages your property tax well it is important to give people on option and many private banks that provide loans over a are shorter term we wanted to create a longer pay back term. >> i think the next step for property owners after at the create themselves to take the plunge and quit the working downey done and have works of work done right of the right rest of the property owners can understand this process across the city. >> we need to do it. >> it is safety you know that's the bottom line safety. >> earthquake safety a everybody's responsibility that is providing the resources that people need to get done if you want to know more of the resources as a san franciscan

please visit the >> good morning, everybody. and welcome to the inaugural meeting of the sfovrz so for monday, january 9, 2017, m call the roll. >> thank you madam president supervisor president london breed supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor sandra fewer supervisor jane kim

aaron peskin hillary and supervisor presented supervisor jeff present supervisor katie tang and supervisor norman yee madam president all members are present you thank you, ladies and gentlemen, please join us in the pledge of allegiance and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. >> madam clerk any communications. >> yes. 3 to report we're in receipt of a communication from the honorable mayor ed lee phil

district 8 by appointing jeff and welcome supervisor. >> (clapping.) >> next a xrungs from the direction of department of elections for the election of members of the board of supervisors who received a majority of votes cast at the election held on november 8, 2016, and declared elected to that office district one suzy loftus, district 3 aaron peskin and 5 supervisor president london breed and district 11 congratulations to the members. >> (clapping.) >> and finally the controllers has communicated to the board

his renewing er filing the official shutter bond for newly appointed and appoint members of the board madam president that concludes any communications. >> i tomato acknowledge we're joined by forming willie brown, jr. >> (clapping.) >> we - we also have in the audience my former colleagues supervisor mar district one and - >> (clapping.) >> and supervisor campos district 9. >> (clapping.) >> i also like to acknowledge and if you could hold our applause we're joined by city

attorney dennis herrera and our treasurer jose cisneros and our assessor carmen chu and the district attorney district attorney george gascon and sheriff hennessey thank you all for being here. >> (clapping.) >> and i also know that we were joined by the former supervisor and former state senator mark leno who is highland in the crowd. >> (clapping.) >> and we will finally also joined by the mayor the sfgov's mayor ed lee thank you, mr. mayor for being here. >> (clapping.) >> and so, now get to the business people we're so honored to be joined here today by my friend who is now the presiding

judge of the supreme court of california so for the county of san francisco ladies and gentlemen, to miranda the oath of office to the returning board of supervisors please please help me welcome to judge terry jackson. >> (clapping.) >> and so with that i'm going to call each member of the board to come forward to have the oath of office administrative code starting with district one newly length supervisor supervisor sandra fewer. >> (clapping.) >> yeah. >> and please come forward returning for probably i think a fourth time supervisor peskin from district 3.

>> (clapping.) >> and our great excuse me - our great senior supervisor supervisor norman yee come forward from district 7. >> (clapping.) >> and the newest 0 colleague on the board of supervisors is supervisor from district 8 jeff. >> (clapping.) >> our newest colleague on the board of supervisors from district 9 supervisor hillary conan. >> (clapping.) >> and final not finally i'm the

finally but supervisor from district 11. >> (clapping.) >> yeah. >> (clapping.) >> and finally the supervisor from district 5 supervisor president london breed. >> (clapping.) >> am i in the front or here. >> so with that, we are now going to take the oath of office thank you for having me that is

a tremendous honor as the supreme court judge you can appreciate having that opportunity as my first act as the presiding judge for san francisco i'd like to you repeat after me raise your hand i have to find it please state your name for the record >> and the constitution of the state of california. >> (repeated.) >> against all enemies. >> (repeated.) >> and that i will bear true faith and allegiance.

faith and allegiance. united states. >> (repeated.) >> and to the constitution of the state of california. >> (repeated.) >> that i take this oath freely. >> (repeated.) >> without any mental reservation. >> (repeated.) >> (repeated.) >> or purpose of evasion. >> (repeated.) >> that i will well and faithfully discharge the duties. >> (repeated.) >> and during such time as i hold office commissioner of the san francisco county transportation authority and the member of the san francisco board of supervisors (repeated) the city and county of san francisco

congratulations. >> (clapping.) >> congratulations. >> thank you. >> all right. now we're done that the swearing in madam clerk

the order of business the general purpose of seniority as we shuttle off the offices in city hall parking spaces seats in the legislative chamber and the appoint to the outside boards and commission is dernld by senior higher seniority amongst the reelected members formally order with supervisor farrell the history seniority with possession one supervisor cowen 2, 3, 4 position two and supervisor kim in position 3 and supervisor norman yee in four and supervisor president london breed 5 and supervisor tang in the 6 passion and 7 supervisor peskin we'll institute the authority for 8, 9 temple and 11 from this brass drum are the names of the appointed and newly

elected members supervisor sandra fewer and jeff to proceed with the dejs the first name if 9 is position 8 like winning the lottery for the board. >> to get the key. >> 4i8y ronan position 8 jeff position 9. >> (clapping.) >> supervisor sandra fewer in position 10. >> and in position 11. >> (clapping.) >> thank you madam president.

>> all right. it means better offices and better parking spaces but that's important to us (laughter) i don't know about the public but we care all right. with that madam clerk go to the next item. >> precede with nominations for the president of the board of supervisors. >> colleagues the process we will use to elect the president of the board the clerk will describe the principles and then i'll declare nominations open with the nominations on the table we will then hear public comment on the nominations after public comment, the clerk will describe the pretends for the vote of 2345078gz we will take the vote as board president and any questions seeing none, madam clerk precede. >> the method of 23450789sz include the following principles

once the president declares the nomination are open members will be called a needed didn't have to state the nominees and vacate the chamber they can withdraw their names without a second the second for a nominations is welcome but not required members any nominate one person per round only one seat to fill and once closed the additional nominees can't be open and public comment is retaken on the specific neemgz thank you madam president. >> with that, i declare the neemgz with open for the president of the board i'll call on supervisors as i see them on the roster with malia cohen. >> thank you

good morning madam clerk rise ladies and gentlemen, good morning. welcome to city hall it is with great honor i rise to nominate and put forward a wonderful woman london nicole breed to be considered for re-election to the office of president for the board of supervisors now many recall my remarks two years ago we talked about the brace and say i didn'tness london displayed early in her career willie brown, jr. thank you for still obama and being here with us (laughter) but laughter and recognize the significant importance last night last year, we celebrated one one hundred years of

existence ♪ body and in one hundred years you've seen a full transformation of history not only are we're going to nominate and elect london breed to be board president but acknowledge we are a majority of women on the board of supervisors for the first time >> (clapping.) >> - for the first time in the history of this city and county one hundred years later ladies we have 4r509 work to do can't think of a be stronger woman a more dedicated san franciscan to lead this city along with mayor ed lee and the other elected officials being point president of the board of supervisors

she's hard working and smart she's committed and sassy she looks good while she's banking that gavel she cares for everyone whether your an immigrant or english as a second language even when you disagree you have a solid ear in wanting soon to say president london breed so with that great pleasure i humbling ask you to join me in electing london breed as our board president. >> thank you. >> (clapping.) >> thank you supervisor cowen supervisor peskin thank you, colleagues and members of the public he rides noting that it

has been exactly 10 years one decade since there was a unanimous vote for the president of the body of a time to bury. >> divisions this is that time i also so while not necessary i would like to second supervisor cowen's nomination of the london breed as our president of the board of supervisors and then let me say but there are policy differences ♪ body i believe that supervisor president london breed is uniquely qualified to bridge those and bring us together she's independent and performed well, i second the nomination >> (clapping.) >> thank you supervisor peskin

and are there any other nominations? seeing none, nominations are closed so we'll now opening it up for public comment are there any members of the public that would like to provide public comment at this time for the neemgz of the president as well as general public comment well, mr. yip >> andrew yip the applications of police officers for the scientific chronicles and sifted culture we have a volume of which it is hard to promote the people with good considerations to the holy way and virtues for the political leader with deceptions of a destiny for the animal health for the constitution one must - this determined heart and spirit for

the merry i didn't for the establishment of virtues for the divine protection for the holy people with the perfection over mercy and love and not by - so we can change the world from back to joyful will prosperity by the true principles a commitment to all eastbound accomplishments will have one strong leadership that means we have a social career with great benefits for the persons for families and for society god bless no need to clap for public comment especially, when you

don't understand and many mr. yip is a regular i get it any other members of the public who want to provide public comment that's where were the sassy comes in seeing none, public comment is closed. madam clerk please describe the process for voting. >> members will precede with the elections for the president of the board the roll call will be taken in alphabetic order i'll repeat the nominee please name our preferences. >> madam president okay thank you madam clerk all right. >> okay. on the vote for president can you please on the nominations of the supervisor president london breed for president can you please call the roll. >> commissioner breed.

>> i. >> madam president you'll is a breed when our name is called. >> breed for breed supervisor cowen supervisor farrell supervisor sandra fewer supervisor kim supervisor peskin restraining order none supervisor there are 11 vote for supervisor president london breed. >> okay. i guess i'm the next

president. >> (clapping.) >> madam president i'll call on supervisor farrell. >> to present the president's plaque to you. >> thank you, madam clerk and colleagues first of all, welcome everybody and congratulations supervisor president london breed once again and i want to say it is an honor working with you the last few years as supervisor president london breed in the chambers and supervisor peskin we have our differences but a lot to work on together as an aide i have the great honor with the senior member to present supervisor president breed a plaque four services so for the last year's and can't tell you how much i landmark to working with you for the next year congratulations.

>> (clapping.) >> thank you very much and out of respect for the time and the families and the focuses that are here i'll save my comments to the end of the meeting so we can continue to move forward and can give others an opportunity to provide remarks with that madam clerk let's move to our next tome oh - let me say thank you (laughter). >> and i will say thank you for details in my speech at the end of the meeting madam clerk move to the next item. >> yes. madam president in you have a list of any other members of the public you want to recognize for vips that might have entered late. >> i don't have any glasses madam clerk i'm not sure i can

see any other members can you help me out if i've missed one. >> not that i seen a we'll get those names and be able to recognize those if we missed anyone. >> 7, 8, 9 for remarks from the mayor mr. mayor mayor edwin lee is joined us thank you for being here mr. mayor and welcome to the chamber you have the floor. >> thank you. good morning everyone and happy new year and congratulations to supervisor president london breed i look forward to working you with as we've done the last two years and also want to congratulate all the new let elected members and the returning members of the board of supervisors as well as their families for being here today you've been entrusted with the people of your district with an incredible roeblthd and gift that is to serve them and our great city san francisco

also want to acknowledge the historic made up of the board of supervisors the first openly hiv member of the board jeff is going to be so important right now for you and i'm so proud i've been able to choose you for you, you to succeed in supervisor scott wiener place thank you for serving. >> (clapping.) >> and also as supervisor cowen has noted a majority of female members of the board of supervisors for the very first time in the city's history from observation i believe might be true for all the legislative aides a majority of females thank you for your work as well. >> (clapping.) >> that is in my opinion a test want to the values of our city that our san francisco state made a light for so many people

this moment in time is unlike any other we've faced in san francisco now more than ever need to be united and protect the values and the values that our city has been built on because when we work to get we have 329 success together to make sure that homelessness in san francisco is rare it is brief, and hopefully for as many people as possible only a one time curtains we've done so by creating a department on homelessness opening up be navigation centers and providing compassionate hi quality services and building more affordable housing we're creating a bring out future for our children by investing in

education and our children's fund we're giving our seniors and people with disabilities the respect they deserve by paying our dignity fund and continue to work towards the collective goal of thirty thousand units by 2020 and have made progress on all levels supportive of housing and public housing and inclusionary housing and market-rate housing and we will get to the family workforce housing as well we're creating a 21st century police department with a chief that moves us down the paths of reforms thanks to the work and in partnership with the community we can accomplish great things when we put san francisco first and what's best for the residents first, i look forward

to work together with each members of the board for all the issued that you care deeply about and continuing the process we've made congratulations and let's get to work thank you. >> (clapping.) >> thank you, again mr. mayor for being here and with that, i'd like to acknowledge a few additional people that we have today with us one of our elected representatives for the community college board of trustees tom is here with us today. >> (clapping.) >> and i also want to acknowledge a number of our department heads if you can stand and hold our applause to the end the department of public health mr. garcia and the department of human services and the director of rec and park

phil ginsburg our zoning administrator naomi kelly and our fire chief chief joanne hayes-white and our chief chaplin and thank you our puc harlan kelly and our city kroerl ben rosenfield and want to send a special recognized to our deputy city attorney john gibner and finally the legendary man that needs no introduction who worked on the board of supervisors as a budget and legislative analyst since it's inception the line of questioning legendary harvey rose. >> (clapping.) >> i did this in the electives thank