it was a settling torch, that's what they were cutting the metal with. it's demolition of steel spheres. you're not carrying the tank up the ladder, it sits on the ground, you have the hose, you would not use a grinder to cut through quarter inch pipe steel. you'd be there all year. so just want to be sure everyone knows we're being truthful about what we're tacking about here. and we do know what we're doing. in regards to the hours of construction, there are also the building rules and regulations for the commercial property that we're operating within that is strictly prohibits any noisy work after 9 a.m. between 9 a.m. and 6 p.m. so, there is the police code, there is the building rules. we are on a tight rope between those doing our best to manage. in terms of the noise and what

you heard on the video, that's a rotary hammer. that's impact tool and absolutely necessary tool, unfortunately, it's the only way you can put anchors into concretement and that is how all of the plumbing is supported, the mechanical, the lighting. that's part of construction. we can't avoid that. we have done our best to stay -- unfortunately, that starts right at 7 a.m. and that's because of the 9 a.m. restriction for the building, so we have two hours every day to roto hammer, that's it. and then saturday all day long. and we've been out there saturdays as well. saturdays, we could certainly consider a later start on saturdays because we're not bound by the building, but then of course there is cost associated with working the overtime on saturday as well. so i just wanted to squash the

idea that we weren't truthful about the torch work. we've already addressed the water pipe issue. that was the not at all related to the construction activity. that was pointed out to the property management as soon as we opened the ceilings and saw there was existing damage on that. it had nothing to do with the work we do. in terms of the dates and somebody kept telling them it was going to end in november and december. we didn't start demolition until october, so they may be confusing some other work that happened before we got there. we were always, our original schedule showed us starting demolition in october, finishing substantial completion in july, with a -- goes going in there. that has only changed because of the permit suspensions.

so the information, i just want to clarify some of the things you're hearing are not necessarily accurate. the selection of the general contractor was -- it was very competitive. one of the reasons we were were selected was because we work very hard, there are a lot of contractors, they don't care about the rules, we're going to go at 7 a.m. and not make accommodations because we don't have to because the code doesn't require it. we truly went out of our way and have from the beginning, as soon as issues came up on site, we quickly addressed them. we eliminated any gray area, to the comment regarding can we work, we eliminated [bell ringing] that possibility by cutting off any access to the construction site after hours. so we really are trying to get

our work done. it's over 160,000 square feet of work we're trying to get done as quickly as possible and get out of there. >> thank you, your time. >> i have a question. >> my question is that how many occupied buildings, you said it was a tight bidding process, you have lots of experience, so describe lots as far as occupied? >> i overel-sisee all of the sa francisco interior projects, i have -- >> so a lot of experience. >> so my question is, given all that experience, is it common that you do this type of work for this length and time have no interaction with the tenants or occupants? >> every building is a little bit different. again, there is only a handful of the mixed use buildings -- >> let me be more specific,

since this is a tenant-occupied building, when you're working in an hoa, is the interaction and correspondence different than in this particular building? >> it is. each building is a little different. >> so please describe the drinks when working with an hoa and rental building? >> the different is what we're able to do through the process. we have a good neighbor policy in our handbook, it's our preference to work directly with the tenants that are in the building. but our contract requires that we follow the building rules and regulations. >> commissioner honda: how often do you have a contract that does not allow you to deal with the tenants? >> again, there is only a few buildings in the city -- >> commissioner honda: give me a number. >> 345 spear street, hills plaza, 2 harrison, tower, they

brought that -- >> commissioner honda: was there -- >> that was me -- >> commissioner honda: were there any problems? >> it was constant work. >> commissioner honda: last question i have, is your company or the people that did the work for the building were not responsible for the water leak, who repaired the water leak and did the electrical work? >> that was all coordinated through hudson property management. >> commissioner honda: so they had a separate team that did that? >> correct. >> i wanted to clarify something you said in the last rebuttal, that the commercial part of the building, which is hudson, has its own set of rules as to when noise can be generated and that is just something they have for their tenants? >> that is basically every class a high rise building in san francisco has building rules and regulations that we're bound by in terms of construction.

and most of those limit noise. some buildings have traders that start at 5 a.m. and we're not allowed to make any noise until after 7 p.m., because there is no residential and there is no restriction. so yes. >> commissioner lazarus: was there ever any discussion with them about, even on the short-term, being able to work around that? >> ongoing, in fact, initially, it was 7-8, one hour a day we were allowed to work. we were able to extend that from 7-9 to minimize the saturday work, so we wouldn't come in on saturday. or eliminated sundays. they mentioned seven days a week. we've not worked any sundays since the beginning of demolition. >> commissioner lazarus: so you are not working sundays? >> not working sundays.

>> so, who owns the building in which you're doing the work? >> hudson pacific owns that portion of the building. >> so in your -- then google is a lessee? >> right, they're a tenant. >> and their tenant improvements and google is responsible for their own tenant improvements? i'm assuming because the permit in your name or is it hudson pacific who is responsible for the tis? >> that is outside my wheelhouse, but google. >> commissioner swig: i was assuming. are you real estate attorney? >> i'm a land use lawyer. >> commissioner swig: so -- if

google has a problem, they turn to hudson pacific because they are the owner of the building. >> right. >> commissioner swig: that is owned in the condominium structure? >> the units aren't condo -- >> no, no, that condo is owned by? >> caramel partners and gray star is the property manager from what i understand. >> commissioner swig: so who acts as the agent for the tenants? agent for the legal description of agent is someone who is advocate and puts the interests of those who -- so who is the advocate for the tenants? >> residential or commercial? >> commissioner swig: who should have protected the tenants from any problem? gray star or car mel? >> the property manager or the

owner? i don't know. but -- >> does hudson pacific have, other than abiding by -- this is a tough question. other than maybe not popular with the tenants, does hudson pacific or google have any responsibility towards those tenants whatsoever because they really do not, other than to abide by the laws and statutes of the building department, in this case, because really in a separate ownership structure? >> correct, they do not. even though they're in one building, they have the commercial and residential, completely separate ownership and management. we're working with hudson pacific on the commercial work. we have no control, no responsibility toward the -- legal responsibility. >> so you have no agency relationship whatsoever with the

residential tenant. >> i don't believe so, there is no privity. >> obviously they're going to be upset, the ones making the noise, especially if you go outside the bounds of the rules. but the advocate for the tenants should be car mel and gray star? >> they're mad at gray star. they're very mad at gray star and gray star is not here, they're not the holder of the permit, it's us. if they have an issue with gray star, i get it. but we're being penalized. >> is gray star and car -- should gray star, car mel, they

in fact should be leading the charge here versus hudson pacific and google? >> that's my opinion. >> did you not reach out as the tenant and say, hey, we're taking a lot of flack from your people here, we're going in front of the board of appeals, you should have representation here to answer these questions. >> ask gray star? >> to be here in attendance. >> we have no communication with gray star at all, never have. it's all -- the arrangement between the commercial owner and the residential owners, they're the conduit of the communication. we don't usurp that and talk to gray star. we talk to hudson which is our

landlord. >> and hudson is separate than -- does gray star work for hudson? >> no, gray star and carmel have their own unit on top of the building. and hudson is the bottom part. >> so is it fair to say there are two missing elements in the room tonight? >> not necessarily. >> not in my opinion. >> should gray star or hudson be here to participate in this hearing? >> we did ask -- i was just told that we did ask carmel and hudson to be here. and neither one wanted to get involved in this. >> thank you. >> let's hear from the department. >> joe duffy, dbi.

there was some reference to the section 2909 for fixed noise sources. that is more to do with the entertainment commission, health department for ventilation and music and stuff like that. it doesn't relate to construction equipment. it's a totally different section. the other thing we generally do with complaints at dbi, there is phases of the project where it will be noisy. there are phases where it will be. trying to get a time line here of when they're going to be jackhammering and when it's starting or stopping, or how long it's going to go on for. at dbi we get a rash of complaints all at once and then it stops. we don't get anymore. it gets settled, they have the meetings or the work gets done. if you're finishing what the sheet rock is on, it's not going to be noisy. i don't know where this project

is, but i think it's maybe a little bit critical to it. i do sympathize always with the residents, being kept awake, putting up with the noise is not easy. i don't want to come across as someone who doesn't care, but the code does allow construction and that is what we're stuck with. >> but it's not with this board it's stuck with. >> the question, there was a water leak that caused no service for five days. that would require special permit. can you take a peek -- >>, i'm sorry, no, i don't have access to that. >> your magic ipad. >> i don't have reference. quite frankly, i made a remark on a permit that was not under appeal, i made a misstatement,

and i've been paying for it ever since. i'm not going to speak if you don't mind. >> mr. duffy, have you run into a situation where a rental building is next another build where construction has been occurring and the renters and the tenants in the rental building have complained about noise? >> yes. >> in those situations, who carries the torch for the building of renters? are the renters left on their own? or is it the property manager-owner who acts as their agent or their advocate to complain? just out of interest. >> i've been at some meetings between ten -- sorry, residents and contractors and building management. everybody just gets together and tries to figure out a way

forward. i've seen residents on the building management together. >> so there is no standard? >> not really. >> ok, thanks. >> i have a question for mr. bower from bcci. so mr. duffy raised a question, how much longer of this level of noise is going to continue, where are you in the project? >> well, david can probably give us a better update where we are overall, he's the senior superintendent. >> i'm david alexander, the senior superintendent on site. it's kind of a difficult question because we've had -- the permits are spread throughout the floors. so some of those have been suspended, so that work, even though we're in the loudest part of it, had to stop. we took the permits we were allowed to work on and continued through those. 4th floor and the 2nd floor, still open permits, we've gotten

past most of the loud stuff. there is really no quiet way to attach to concrete it's a concrete structure. that's the world we're living in. with those two hours a day, we maximize that time. we have to make that noise, so right at 7 and right at 9, those are our windows. but our goal, as much as it is for them, probably just as bad, we want to be finished an be out of there. >> do you have a rough estimate of when? if you got the permits back soon? >> if you had the permits back tomorrow and all the permits were granted, including the stair permit, i would say the bulk of the noisy stuff would be done somewhere around the end of july. right now, we're -- it's may, june, july. something like that. so i would say most of the large scale noise would be down to the

end of july. that would be my guess without paperwork. >> commissioner lazarus: and you'll confirm you're not working on sundays. >> absolutely. we never have. in the demo period we were trying to get ahead, but as soon as we found out what was going on, we're not allowed to work holidays by union standards and we pushed back the start times on saturday to 8. >> commissioner lazarus: thank you. >> ok. matter submitted. >> i have comments. i'm not sure either side wants a solution to this. we're only looking at the permit. when i hear the construction lease side of it, it doesn't matter to me what the structure

is. they're the ones making the noise. and what they're saying they're going to continue based upon what everybody else has done in the city and that is allow them to work those hours and use it as necessary. and that's it. they haven't offered anything much beyond that. then on the other side, at first, you know, they were talking about all the issues, but then i hear them mention administrative remedies and a 60-day continuance with, so i don't know what to believe. as inspector duffy knows, i have a soft spot regarding noise.

i don't know why when i asked the question, what is the protocol when you have a residential above you? he didn't answer the question. i don't know why there was no effort to be creative in dealing with the tenancy meeting. if you talk about their complaints about the schedule, well, their delay is costing more than any type of resolution potentially might have taken. so i'm not happy with either side because nobody talked to the issue. nobody dealt with the potential solution. and if they want us to do it, i'd be happy to do that. however, i would continue, continuance. i would consider a continuance,

but only for one week. >> that's what i was thinking, too. >> may 25th is the next meeting. >> april 25th. they can have one week. if they can't resolve anything or they can tell us what they have resolved, that's fine, otherwise we'll deal with this, ok? >> i concur. >> i was thinking the same thing. >> you know, there is cause and effect here. and you know, i'll just say it, i call bullshit, there is no way you're going to do amount of work without. there is no good neighborness there, there needs to be some commonsense. i don't think i can live with it for five hours, seven hours, personally and to stay you're not aware of it, and we can't

contact you, it's no -- so i'm aligned with the continuance, again as my president has said, everyone has different objectives here. this is the last body before you go to those different objectives here, but i would strongly recommend that you work kindly with each other, otherwise this body will make a decision that probably neither one of you will like. >> i would concur with the continuance and advise the tenants that this work is probably going to get done. and the faster it gets done, you're going to be put out of your misery. it's just the building is under construction, folks. and by the way, total sympathy for what you're going through and i echo the thoughts of my president. but the building is going to get done. and there will be noise.

so it's incumbent upon you all, to work with them as you expect them to work with you to mitigate the noise and get the job -- while getting the job done, because the pain will continue. there is no doubt about that. i can't control it. we can't control it, even when we make a decision how to control it. so just keep that in mind while you're talking back and forth that the pain is going to continue, sorry, until it gets healed and getting healed means getting finished. i go for the continuance with. >> i'm going to move to continue this to april 25th. and rather than make them wait, madame director -- >> put it at the beginning and the purpose of the continuance? >> they'll be allowed three minutes each and they can tell us the results of any potential

remedy. >> on that motion, president fung has made a motion to continue the matter until april 25th. on that motion, commissioner lazarus? aye. honda aye. aye. >> that motion passes and we'll see you next week. we are i adjourned. thank you.

- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world-class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - our 28,000 city and county employees play an important role in making san francisco what it is today. - we provide residents and visitors with a wide array of services, such as improving city streets and parks, keeping communities safe, and driving buses and cable cars. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas,

energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco. >> self-planning works to preserve and enhance the city what kind hispanic the environment in a variety of ways overhead plans to fwied other departments to open space and land use an urban design and a variety of other matters related to the physical urban environment planning projects include implementing code change or designing plaza or parks projects can be broad as proipd

on overhead neighborhood planning effort typically include public involvement depending on the subject a new lot or effect or be active in the final process lots of people are troubled by they're moving loss of they're of what we preserve to be they're moving mid block or rear yard open space. >> one way to be involved attend a meeting to go it gives us and the neighbors to learn and participate dribble in future improvements meetings often take the form of open houses or focus groups or other stinks that allows you or your neighbors to provide feedback and ask questions the best way to insure you'll be alerted the community meetings sign up for the notification on

the website by signing up using you'll receive the notifications of existing request the specific neighborhood or project type if you're language is a disability accomodation please call us 72 hours before the event over the events staff will receive the input and publish the results on the website the notifications bans feedback from the public for example, the feedback you provide may change how a street corridors looks at or the web policy the get started in planning for our neighborhood or learner more mr. the upcoming visit the plans and programs package of our we are talking about with our feedback and participation that is important to us not everyone takes this so be proud of taking ann

>> clerk: please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and when speaking before the

commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. [ roll call. ] >> clerk: we do expect commissioners melgar and richards shortly. commissioners, first on your agenda is consideration of items proposed for continuance. item number one. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: item 2. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: item three. [agenda item read]. >> clerk: further, commissioners, under your regular calendar, we just received a request from a project sponsor for item 14.

[agenda item read]. >> clerk: for a continuance to may 17. i have no other items proposed for continuance, and i have no speaker cards. >> president hillis: so it's just on the alvarado item? >> clerk: yes. >> president hillis: dbi has that calendar, also? >> clerk: that's correct. they just added that item, the demolition aspect, to their may 2nd or 3rd calendar. >> president hillis: all right. so i just want to make sure -- hold on. hold on. i will take public comment. i just wanted to make sure our proposed day will give us enough time to conclude what dbi will considerate their hearing. >> clerk: we can give it more time if you want to give it more time. >> president hillis: all right. we'll take public comment. now is the time to make public comment on the items be propose

proposed f ed for continuance. >> okay. do i have to agree with the continuance? >> okay. >> president hillis: we're not deciding on the project, we were deciding whether to continue it or not. >> i was hoping you would hear it so that it wouldn't be continued. that's all. >> president hillis: now's your time to state that rational for it, but not on the project, just on the continuance. all right go grab your papers. we'll take the next -- >> all right. i would like it to be continued. >> president hillis: which item, ma'am. >> all of them, really. all of them, really. >> president hillis: are you here for a specific item, though? >> what? >> president hillis: are you here for a specific item? >> no. is this the meeting that was posted about the million dollar budget for the homeless? is this the meeting? >> clerk: no. i think you've got the wrong

hearing room. >> they told me the wrong meeting. so where's that meeting at? >> clerk: no idea, ma'am. >> it's on the second floor. >> clerk: i don't know, ma'am. >> on the second floor, to your right or to your left? >> not exactly sure. >> not exactly sure? >> president hillis: okay. any further public comment on the items be proposed for a continuance? the other -- the other mic, the other mic. >> i'm sorry for the confusion. i disagree to the continuance. >> president hillis: thank you very much. >> okay. thanks. >> president hillis: thank you. any additional public comment? commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: move to continue items one, two, three as noted and item 14 to the data's suggested may 24, 2018. >> second. >> commissioner richards: so item 14 was may 24th? >> president hillis: yes, and dbi was scheduled to hold their

hearing, i think may 3rd, so that gives us enough time. >> clerk: if there's nothing further commissioners, there's a motion and a second to continue items as proposed to may 24. on that motion -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes 5-1, with commissioner richards voting against. commissioners, that will place us under your consent calendar for item four. all matters listed here under are considered a consent calendar are considered to be routine by the planning commission and may be acted upon by a single roll call vote of the commission. there will be no further discussion unless a commissioner or matter of the public requests the item be

removed from the consent calendar. [agenda item read]. >> president hillis: thanks, jonas. any public comment on 155 brannan street? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> commissioner richards: motion to approve item four. >> second. >> clerk: very good, commissioners. on that motion, to approve consent calendar item number four -- [ roll call. ] >> clerk: so moved, commissioners. that motion passes unanimously, 7-0, and places us on item five under commission matters, commission comments and questions. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: i was glad to read in the paper that marin street may be available for the flower mart that is, i think, a great move given the push back and the explanations that we have heard. i think it will help us much more strongly to really move forward on other matters.

>> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i was in sacramento this week on wednesday -- i forget when they heard sb 827, and i wanted to go see how sausage was made, and boy, did i see how sausage was made. here, we had a bill that would have impacted so many people, so many cities, and we sit here every week over what i would consider much, much less important issues -- you know, the five-foot set back on a deck. we take three minutes of public comment generally unless there's a march on the commission which we'll take, too. so we have this bill in the transportation and housing committee. there were 13 members, and the room was packed. we were in the largest room

available, and only two witnesses were allowed to testify for two minutes each on each side. and the rest of we peons in the city of los angeles and the city of san francisco got five seconds. you could say your name, you could say what organization you were from, and whether you oppose it or you support it. so that was a real eye opener for me, that there's virtually no public input, no public testimony at the state on such big bills. so i did get a copy of the staff report for the bill. it's a real eye opener. i think everybody should take a look at it. when you look at it in the end, practically every city in the state opposed the bill, and a lot of them were there including san francisco to say so, but it's a real eye opener. which reminded me, all this legislating that's going on, i saw this article and actually held onto it, and it actually helps me understand the kind of

meat that goes into the sausage that goes into the sausage mil called the senate. legislature exempts themselves from most laws that applies to ourselves up here. so we have public disclosure laws around our e-mail, our calendar, everything. legislature doesn't. we have meetings, we can't hold a majority here, four commissioners can't talk about an item that's going to be heard because it violates the brown act. legislature doesn't have that. so i think the legislature should actually start following the rules that they pass to maybe everybody else follow. it was a real eye opener, and i really think senator wiener, who is a good legislator should take some of his -- the legislature's own advice and follow their own rules. san francisco magazine, april 2018, a really good read. it it it's got, be big tech be at the

same samed -- tamed? and it's a really good article. it's got what i would say a few little mistakes, but there's a really interesting quote by mr. ken rich. he says, "however, there is another alternative to upzoning, one that would ease pressure on the city to upzone very widely. there are 60,000 units in the city's development pipeline of which only 12,000 are under construction." and when we have the housing inventory report today, i h'd like to talk about that. can rich, the director of the city's of office and workforce development says expediting the construction of these already approved unit and also available space that doesn't require rezoning would be more efficient than a massive upzoning effort. he says, i quote "i'd rather focus on getting the parking lot on the west side which has a 40 foot height limit up to

40 feet built, rather than fight an extended battle of extending it to 60 feet." big tech is driving the job growth which is creating the inequality that we're seeing, and it also needs to be part of the solution. i also read today that it was in bloomberg, cities that have the most income inequality, san francisco was number two in the nation. and then, some cities that actually weren't even on the chart, like san jose and some others moved way up the list. san diego went from like number 99 to number six, so a lot of this is happening in the state. a couple of other things. i understand sb 828 is going to be heard at committee. from what i heard, there's some amendments in it that's slipping in some rezoning upzoning. i'd really like staff to take a look at that and let us know

what's in the bill so that it might not be a son of 827 in disguise, another trojan horse. another one, in today's chronic will, there's a point-counter point assembly man david chiu versus another person about the establishment of redevelopment. i wasn't on this commission when redevelopment existed. it went away in 2011, and it's ab 15 -- no, ab 3037. what does that mean for us, redevelopment? does this mean eminent domain, taking people's homes from them to build affordable housing? honestly don't know. and then lastly, this week, we had another article in the bay area section of the chronic will about hunters point. i'm going to be taking a tour there on monday. there's a perception out in the public there that nothing's

getting built because of the toxic soil issue. when you look it, there are things getting built in some zones, and there's already 150 homes built. i'd really like to understand when i go out there monday, what the toxicity of the soil's doing in terms of the timelines and the delay of this housing because i know it's a significant number in that 60,000 that ken rich mentioned that i keep mentioning. any ways, a lot going on. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: just a comment on the shipyard. construction is moving extremely fast. the project looks fantastic, and you'll be very surprised about its fine quality. it is really a fine project. >> clerk: if there's nothing further, commissioners, we can move onto department matters, item six, director's announcements. >> very quick, commissioners, on the state bills, we're happy to give you an update on the ones that have not been

delayed. 828 is coming up soon, as well, so we'll -- staff has been looking at that. on ab 3037, it does create something like redevelopment in its previous form with the idea that you'd build in some of the protections that needed to happen that were part of the reason that redevelopment was eliminated to begin with five years ago or seven years ago now. but at any rate, we will keep you informed on that. i think it's less details at this point. it's somewhat conceptual, but it's something we will keep monitoring and at the appropriate time have a hearing. and because 827 was not supported by the committee, we've cancelled next week's hearing, as well, so just for the public to know that, sb 827 that was to be heard next week is no longer on the calendar.

thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: item seven, review of past events at the board of supervisors, board of appeals, and the historic preservation commissioners. >> good afternoon, commissioners, aaron star manager of land use affairs. commissioners, you heard this item on march 29, 2018 and voted to recommend approval with modifications. your modifications included one, replace the one year abandonment period with 18 month abandonment period, and the new exception to abandonment provisions can be used by the hemlock tavern, and three, the footnote for bar uses is identify to the lower polk use tables. supervisor peskin made a motion to amend the ordinance to add recommendations two and three from the commission but did not extend the abandonment period

from 18 months from one year. only one person spoke who was in support of the ordinance. after closing public comment, the committee voted to forward the recommendation to the full board with a positive recommendation, at the full board this week, we just had one item of note. it was the peal for 590 leland avenue. this project proposes to demolish an existing church, subdivide the lot into five lots and construct five single-family homes, one on each lot. commissioners, you heard this item on january 18th of this year at the discretionary review hearing and voted to take d.r. and approve the project. the appellant appealed the categorical peal because it did not identify the sensitive species on the lot. safety issues due to interference with site lines from nearby parks, loss of ada

accessible open space, shadows on the adjacent park, and six incomplete analysis of the best use of the site. supervisor cohen had several questions for staff by covered pretty much every item brought up by the appellant. staff jointly answers each reques -- answered each question raised by appellant, and the motion passed unanimously, and that's all i have for you today. >> president hillis: thank you. >> good afternoon, commissioners. cory teague from planning department staff. board of appeals did meet and consider one item of interest to this commission as has been well publicized, there has been much public debate regarding events in charlottesville,

virginia. the san francisco arts commission voted unanimously on march 5th of this year to remove the sculpture. on february 21st of this year, the historic preservation commission had a public hearing with full attendance from all commissioners and found that the proposal was appropriate for and consistent with the purpose of article ten and that it met the standards of both article ten and the secretary of interior's standards for rehabilitation, and so the hpc unanimously approved the certificate of appropriateness with the following conditions. first, that upon completion of the project, any documentation that is completed as part of the removal and storage of the early days sculpture should be forwarded to the planning department to be added to the administrative record to the place, and second that a plaque should be installed at the site of the early days sculpture to

explain its removal. the matter was appealed to the board of appeals, after presentations from all parties, the board of appeals conducted a short deliberation and asked no questions of planning department staff. they then voted unanimously to grant the appeal on the grounds that the historic preservation commission acted incorrectly because it was inconsistent with their typical review of such cases, and that the project did not satisfy standard number two of the secretary of the interior's standards for rehabilitation. because the arts commission was a party to the appeal, they do have a right to file a rehearing request within ten days. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: the historic -- >> president hillis: we've got one question. commissioner melgar.

>> vice president melgar: i just have procedural questions about the item you last described. can you tell us what happens now and what the role of the planning department would be? >> well, at this point, the historic preservation commission issued the certificate of appropriateness which was required to make this alteration within the landmark district. since the appeal was upheld at this point, that decision is reversed. within ten days of an appeal decision, a party to the appeal can request -- make a rehearing request for the board of appeals. essentially, they need to make a case that there was some information that was not available provided at that hearing that could have impacted the out come or that there would be manifest injustice if this out come stands. if they request that rehearing, at that time, they will only be determining should there be a new hearing, not determining, you know, the merits of the case itself. so if they are successful in

the rehearing request, which is a fairly high bar, then there would be basically a brand-new hearing on the original appeal. our department, we staff the board of appeals for any decision that are made by the department or the planning commission or the hpc, so we would continue in that role. >> vice president melgar: so if there were -- if the -- -- if the rehearing is not granted because it's a pretty high bar, then what happens? >> well, i think they'd have to assess it from a preservation perspective. if they determine that the certificate of appropriateness was not appropriate as issued then they'll have to explore if there are ways to modify that request in a way that would be appropriate or if there are other options available to them. >> vice president melgar: but the -- the two parties or the two different sides of the parties in the appeal, can they push it further or this is it for that process in terms of the appeals?

>> yeah. for this appeal, for this c of a, the arts commission as a party to the abeale, because they were applicant to the c of a, they can request a hearing. if that is denied, the appeal will stand, and the c of a that was granted will basically be nullified. >> vice president melgar: okay. thank you. >> president hillis: commissioner moore? >> commissioner moore: in the course of listening to it, i lost my question, mr. teague. can you just tell me, is this thing going to stay or go? >> i'm sorry. could you repeat the last part. >> commissioner moore: i'm sorry, could you please tell us if the sculpture is going to stay or go? >> the c of a was required to remove it, so without some alternate direction from the historic preservation commission that would allow it to be removed, my thought is it

would have to stay. >> commissioner moore: does this ruling hold for all cities in other counties san francisco the country? is this in particular tied to ceqa and the his toric preservation rules for the state of california? >> i do know for the removal of this sculpture, it did require the arts commission to act. they have charter and historic responsibilities to move that must be followed. they took that step at their hearing in march, and they unanimously voted to remove it. because this statue is part of the pioneer monument which is within the larger civic center landmark district, there is a certain amount of historic preservation review that is required beyond even just ceqa

review. it is categorically exempt in terms of ceqa review, but because of the requirements of article ten, it does require the c of a from the historic preservation commission to alter that monument within the last mark district. >> commissioner moore: thank you for explaining that. i think the public who does not understand the subtleties to see it as a moral push back to what's being asked for. however, i other rules come into play and that becomes a very complicated discussion, and i wish somebody would sometimes given the public input of what it takes to remove it. it's not just saying that we acknowledge that something was wrong in the past, it takes something else to make it happen. >> president hillis: commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: maybe a question for the city attorney. if an individual had a decision made by the board of appeals, and they didn't agree with it, is there a judicial remedy they could seek beyond the board of

appeals, like file a court case? >> no. >> commissioner richards: okay. and can the city sue itself? >> yes. >> commissioner richards: well, can the arts -- is there another avenue besides it stays? >> commission, kate stacey from the city attorney's office. it has been done before. it is very infrequently that one arm of the city sues another arm of the city. there may be members of the public that may be interested in suing which may take a petition of a writ of mandate which is a pretty typical doing to sue the city. >> commissioner richards: can an individual have standing? somebody really feels strongly about this in the public, could they, because they weren't a party to any of this, actually step in and then do a -- file a court case? >> commissioner, kate stacey in the city attorney's office.

typically, there's a requirement to exhaust your administrative remedies, which means the individual who needs to sue needs to have appeared before the governmental body and expressed the argument. there are certainly other legal vehicles where that may not be a requirement. i can't give you an exhaustive answer, but typically, when an individual or organization sues the city through this administrative writ of mandate process, there is a requirement that they have made their argument to the city before taking the city to court. this is a somewhat unusual situation because it's two different departments with different kinds of authority or three different departments with different kinds of authority over the same permit. >> commissioner richards: thank you. >> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: thank you very much for explaining the process to us. i've got to say that i feel really strongly about this, and i don't see a subtlety in this in terms of the public.

i think it's wrong and i think as a city we should not be second guessing the removal of a work of art that clearly is problematic and racist and depicts a very problematic relationship to our native population. so i do -- i personally plan on contacting my fellow commissioners on appeals, but i do think that this is something that should be explained to the public and our role in planning should be explained to the public, as well. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. >> clerk: so just prior to the board of appeals action, the historic preservation commission did meet and did act on several other items that may be of interest to the planning commission. they approved a major permit to alter to modify 120 stockton street for the macy's men's store. that will be coming before you next week, you'll see that project, but essentially changing the skin and opening up the building.

in addition, they initiated landmark designation for the arthur h. coleman medical center on third street that provided health care to african american citizens and residents of the bayview district. they additionally adopted recommendations for approval for individual landmark designations for the new pullman hotel, the pile driver's bridge and structural iron workers local 77 union hall as well as hotel utah. finally what may be of interest to the planning commission is they did adopt a recommendation for approval of a landmark district designation for the clyde and crooks warehouse district. if there are no further questions or comments, commissioners, we can move onto general public comment. at this time, members of the public may address the commission on items of interest to the public that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the commission except agenda

items with respect to agenda items, your opportunity to address the commission will be afforded when the item is reached in the meeting. each member of the public may odds the commission for up to three minutes. i did have a number of speaker cards. >> president hillis: thank you, jonas. you can lineup on the screen side of the room. >> hi. good afternoon. also in the chronicle this morning was the article about bold san francisco proposal to curtail warming with trees, and i think i've mentioned this before, but i -- can i have the overhead, please. that was a yard that was no more. that yard was flat lotted, and what i call w. hotelification

was done, and the inside was brought to the outside. so when you get to the residential design guidelines, i think this is something you need to look at because this is happening in a lot of projects where they're just taking the yard and getting rid of all the nature and putting in the fake grass, which i guess is good for drought, but this was a really nice yard, and i think that, you know, if you're going to save trees in the city, maybe we need to think about saving trees on private land. the other thing i want to say is i want to thank you again for last week, the special meeting you had with the b.i.c. i want to thank especially commissioner richards, because he pushed for that, and we had that meeting in december of 2015 where we found that -- we looked at five projects, and we were told by the staff that 40%, 40% should have been tantamount to demolition. not that they were extreme or possibly tantamount to demolitionu