when you triple it you cross that line. it's much more damage in earthquake. >> i want to thank you, harvey, thanks pat for >> clerk: we expect vice president honda later this evening. at t we will also be joined by representatives from the city department that have cases before the board this evening.

scott sanchez, the deputy zoning administrator, also representing the planning department and planning commission, joseph duffy, senior building inspector, representing the building department. the board meeting guidelines are as follows: the board requests that you turnoff all phones or electronic devices so they will not disturb the proceedings. the proceedings are as follows. parties are given seven minutes to present their cases and any rebuttal. members of the public who are not parties have three minutes to speak and no rebuttal. if you have questions about requesting a rehearing, the

board rules, or hearing schedules, please e-mail the board of peals at boardofappeals@sf daught boardofappeals@sf.gov. if you intend to testify at any of tonight's proceedings and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, raise your hand and say i do after you've been sworn in or affirmed. so raise your hand around or a, do you answer to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing by the truth.

[inaudible] >> -- dial star-six-seven and then -- [inaudible] >> -- and then the participant code twice, 918612, pound, and then pound. please refer to the board of appeals website on how to provide public comment. listen for the public comment portion of your item to be dialed, and then, you can dial st star-one to be able to speak. and commissioners, if you'd like to speak, use the wave hand function on zoom so we can have some order. item number one is general public comment. this is an opportunity for anyone who'd like to speak on the matter within the board's

jurisdiction but is not on tonight's calendar. is there anyone here for general public comment? let's take a look at the phone line, make sure we're not leaving any callers out. if there's a caller on the phone line for general public comment, please press star-one now, and then, we will know if you want to speak? do we -- alec, do you see any callers? >> i see callers on the line, but there's no general public comment. >> i see a user on-line one. >> they might be listening on that. >> if you're listening and you want to speak in general public comment, press star-nine now. we're going to give a little

time because there's a little lag time, but i do not believe there's any public comment. item 2 is commissioners comment and questions. commissioners? >> commissioner tanner: the only thing i'd say is it's great to see everybody, even though it's virtually. if t the power is back on now, but if i disappear, it's because i lost power. >> okay. we do have a caller who wants to provide public comment. this is for comments on the commissioner comments and questions? >> i'm sorry. this is steven sutro. i'm on number one, but not

public comment. >> no problem. which item are you for? >> 22 street. >> okay. we're going to put you on mute. we'll talk to you later. >> julie? >> yeah. >> would you do me a favor and advise repeatedly the public that when they call in to make comment or otherwise testify that they turnoff their televisions or else we're going to have the same feedback mumbo jumbo that we had last week. >> i will. thank you for the reminder, commissioner swig. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> clerk: okay. we don't have any public comment, so we're moving to item 3. commissioners, before you are the minutes from the april 22, 2020 board meeting. >> commissioner swig: motion to adopt the minutes.

>> clerk: okay. we have a motion to adopt the minutes from commissioner swig. is there any public comment on that motion? public comment on adopting the minutes? alec, are you -- >> yeah, i haven't -- >> clerk: okay. on the motion to adopt those minutes -- [roll call] >> clerk: all right. so the minutes are adopted, 4-0. we were going to go onto item 4, but i understand that the parties for item 7-a and 7-b have reached an agreement, so we will hear from them first, and i believe mr. scott emblege

will speak for them. so you have six minutes to address the board. >> thank you very much. i won't be long because we have good news. this contentious matter has been resolved. if you recall, at your last meeting with us, you directed the project sponsor to meet with building and planning and try to address the outstanding issues. before, it was on appeal on permit appeals in that the appeals were unwarranted. i want to thank patrick and scott sanchez and stephanie for helping us through the planning issues. we got there. you have in your paperwork a new consolidated plan set that

addresses the issues, so in talking with mr. duffy and mr. sanchez, we've agreed that , i the board agrees, the board should vote to rescind the permits, and that will allow cancellation of the permits and eventual consolidation of the permits based on the stuff that is in your packet. i can provide details about the permits or the process we went through or answer any of your questions, but again, i'd like to thank mr. sanchez and mr. duffy for helping us get to this point. >> clerk: okay. now let's hear from the department of building inspection. mr. duffy, do you have anything to add?

mr. duffy? and i think we're just going to pause a moment, too, because i understand that pat buscovich is trying to join the meeting and he's having some technical difficulties. alec, would you mind giving the information again. >> for pat? >> clerk: yes. why don't we try to get pat buscovich on. >> okay. >> clerk: so we're going to have to wait a minute. my apologies. >> can you hear me now julie? >> clerk: yes. >> no problem. just checking. >> and miss rosenberg, i don't believe that mr. buscovich intends to address the issues, but he's calling in to answer any questions if there are questions for him. >> clerk: right. okay. thank you.

>> i just e-mailed him the link. >> clerk: okay. he should be entering.

okay. so is mr. buscovich on? >> i don't see him, unless he's on the phone. >> clerk: we just had someone enter. >> if he's entered on the phone, maybe he can raise his hand with the star. >> clerk: he did receive the link, he said, and he was going to get on. let me see. this is why we like to do practice runs in advance.

okay. here he is. okay. mr. buscovich, are you present? mr. buscovich, are you there? hello? hello? okay. let me give him a quick call again. okay, thank you. so now we know you're available in the event there are any questions. so now we're going to here from the department of building

inspection. mr. emblege already spoke, so mr. duffy, go ahead. >> joe duffy, d.b.i. here. yes, we've had a couple of meetings at the property and we've had a meeting at the planning department, just some back and forth. the newa architect that was brought on board, mr. sutro. and he generated a full and complete set of drawings that are going to be submitted -- [inaudible] >> -- so we're looking forward to getting a permit submitted. that will lead the way for the other permits to be cancelled, and i wouldn't be able to cancel them if they were, so we need to get them reinstated. i think that's within 30 days

of the hearing, so they'll submit a cancellation request for the permits, and we want to go ahead and cancel them. in regards to any work that was done on the cancelled permits, we're going to honor those inspections and carry them over for the new consolidated building permitted that will address all of the items, and i'm available to answer any questions. i think we're in a much better place than we were at the hearing in december. >> clerk: okay. great. mr. sanchez, do you have anything to add? >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. i'd like to echo mr. duffy's comments and thank the planning sponsor. since the last meeting, they've updated their team and have improved the quality of the plans and made access to the property to our staff. they have submitted the required variance application

and will be preparing the required section 311 neighborhood notification and hope to have that work completed over the next few months. that's all i have to say. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. is there any public comment on this item? if you called in on the phone, please turn down your t.v. or radio and press star-nine to speak. this will indicate that you wish to have public comment. okay. two people are in public comment. let's start with the number ending in 8177. >> hello. would you like to make public comment? >> yes. can you hear me now? >> clerk: so this is on the

22nd street appeals. is this what you'd like to make public comment on? >> yes. i'm calling to make a public comment. i'm in support of reinstating the permit into one permit. i'm glad that the item is being resolved, and i'd urge the board to approve that so that they project can be approved, and we'd move on. >> clerk: okay. thank you. would you like to state your name for the record, and no. >> this is audrey real with san francisco land use coalition. >> clerk: okay. thank you very much. >> there's another caller on 5886. would you like to speak in public comment? >> yes, i would. this is anastasia ionaapolous.

i support this. now that all the permits are consolidated into one permit, the project sponsors have complied, so i see no reason not to move forward and approve this. as far as the -- the -- what is it? the other matter, that mr. sanchez brought up for the variance, that variance is concerning something that was put in that makes the building more structurally sound, so i see no reason to delay the variance. thank you. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. is there any other public

comments? we can look down for the callers. please press star-nine. this means you want to speak. we'll see a raised hand. if you're here for public comment -- okay. i'm not seeing anyone else raise their hand. >> i think commissioner tanner had a question. >> clerk: okay. >> commissioner tanner: yeah. my question was for mr. sanchez and mr. duffy. in terms of the plans, they definitely were improved and for items that were done without a permit, i understand that the approval or the inspection is kind of carrying over, and they were carried over and signed off on.

for the other things, what is the status of those? if you could illuminate what that process looks like that goes against the building and planning codes that were installed? >> scott sanchez, planning department. thank you, commissioner. i can speak to the planning issues there. so to the extent to the work that was done without permit, they'll be able to legalize that. to the extent it wasn't, they'll need to make applications to ensure that everything is done prior to compliance. >> commissioner tanner, joe duffy, d.b.i. i believe when we deal with those types of situations, there definitely needs to be

follow up inspections, so those things will need to be inspected, whatever those plans are from the planning department. there's some work with siding, etc., so there's going to be an inspection that's going to need to be taken care of. there's probably going to be some plumbing work that's going to need to be taken care of, but there will be building inspection follow up, yes. >> commissioner tanner: and then procedurally, the work permits will be cancelled and then reissued. is there anything that remains on the property that would either keep them from filing permits or cancelling and refiling? what's going to happen on the other side to make sure this process continues? >> that's a good question.

as part of the agreement we reached, there's five points there. part of it would be abate and address d.b.i. planning and notice of violation. d.b.i., after planning department approval of the variance. d.b.i. reviews, san francisco fire department, land check, and payment of fees. >> commissioner tanner: i don't know if the property is still for sale or it sold or whatnot, but i would hate for somebody to purchase the property and be aware of the issues and n.o.v., and that's something that somebody could pull the records to if they wanted to know the status of property. >> yes. they can check it on the d.b.i. website. there's a lot of places that

it's visible. normally -- [inaudible] >> -- you know, it's probably months away from being an issued permit, but i would say the current owners are going to do the work. there's still work to be completed, and i'm sure they're going to take it on and see this through. i didn't get a chance, like mr. sanchez, i'd like to thank everyone from the planning department that worked on this.

the new permit is taking over, and that's going to be on the master permit. there's about 100 sheets in it, so it's pretty detailed in what architecturally, structurally, fire safety stuff, and all planning department requirements, as well. >> commissioner swig: i'm sorry, julie. i can't find the raise my hand button. mr. duffy, you quoted verbatim itemizing item number 4 of a -- of a memo from me, acknowledging that a settlement had been reached, you read verbatim number 4.

is it -- [inaudible] >> commissioner swig: although you say you reached a deal, you only read one of the five items verbatim, so can somebody do that just record, and then, when we make a motion, we can reference that list? >> clerk: commissioner swig, upon consultation with our city attorney, it's not advisable to retain jurisdiction over permits that have not yet been applied for or issued, so because the list, which we will

publish on our website, does that. so president lazarus, do you wish to speak on that? >> president lazarus: my point is i just want to know, when we make a motion, what we're using as a reference and grounds that we're making our motion. >> president lazarus: i believe it's the current format and whether or not we're going to revoke the revocation. >> commissioner swig: okay. thanks for the clarification. that's what i was looking for -- that, along with the raise my hand button on my zoom, i'm looking for. >> clerk: so one possible motion would be to overturn the appeals request and reinstate the motion so they can apply to reinstate the permit in 30

days. >> president lazarus: is there a motion? >> commissioner swig: sure. [inaudible] >> president lazarus: commissioner swig, did you want to make that? >> commissioner swig: i'll make that motion as julie suggested it. >> clerk: okay. so we have a motion from commissioner swig to grant the appeal, overturn the revocation request and reinstate the permit so they can be cancelled within 30 days on the basis that this represents the agreement of the parties. on that motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: okay. that motion passes.

>> commissioner swig, the raise your hand button is at the bottom left. >> clerk: thank you for those statements. parties, you can leave now. and i believe that commissioner honda would like to enter, so just give me a moment. give him a call. one moment. okay. yes. okay. welcome, commissioner honda -- vice president honda, excuse me.

let's make sure your audio works. okay. wonderful. thank you and welcome to the meeting. we are now moving onto item number 4, and as a reminder, from president lazarus, pursuant to article 5, section 10 of the board rules, the commissioners will, in reviewing a jurisdiction request, determine whether or not the city intentionally or inadvertently caused the requester to be late in filing the appeal. this does not extend to the validity of its determination. we are on item 4. this is jurisdiction request 20-2, subject property at 4892 mission street. letter from gawfco enterprises,

d.b.a. mission fuel and food, requesting, asking that the board take jurisdiction over the denial of a retail tobacco sales permit which was issued on march 18, 2020. the appeal period ended on april 2, 2020, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on april 6, 2020. the determination holder is gawfco enterprises, d.b.a., mission fuel and food. description of decision. no new permit shall be issued if the am plant will be located within 500 feet of an existing establishment. the subject property is located within 500 feet of three other establishments that have a valid sfdph tobacco sales permit, and the applicant does

not qualify for any exceptions under the health code. and i understand we have a disclosure from commissioner honda? >> vice president honda: yes. i'd like to disclose that i am a party in a matter that hired reuben, junius, and rose, but it will not affect my decision. >> we believe the circumstances around our client missing the appeals deadline by four days warrant granting this jurisdiction request. our client, mr. amadi, was struggling with a major illness when he received a permit denial via e-mail. he suffers from m.s., which can be debilitating at times. the e-mail itself did not make any mention of the right to

appeal the decision or of a 15-day appeal deadline. someone who's ill should not be faulted for failing to immediately review the attachment to discover an appeal opportunity. also, the department of public health issued the permit denial notice during a period of unprecedented transition, where city departments were adjusting on the fly, including board of appeals. despite these circumstances, we still managed to submit a jurisdiction request through mr. kay on monday, april 5, just four days after the appeal period ended. we believe these extraordinary circumstances warrant leniency. and finally, i'd like to point out a mistake that was made by d.p.h. when the gas station and mini mart were being sold that directly bears on the substance of our appeal. the department of public health told the seller that the buyer, our client, mr. amadi, could

not get a tobacco permit. this is just not true. tobacco permits can be transferred from one owner to another if the location has a retail food establishment. this location has a food mart and in fact the planning department specifically approved the market as a market and specialty grocery store in march of this year. and also, our client should not be punished because the seller failed to submit some paperwork, particularly after d.p.h. told the seller in writing that the permit couldn't be transferred. so to summarize, our client received an e-mail at the beginning of the city's shelter in place rollout, denying his application. the e-mail made no reference to appeal rights nor a 15-day deadline. despite being ill, he managed to have an appeal four days after that deadline passed. thanks for the heads up.

no harm will come if you allow us to present our case at a full hearing, and in fact, it will allow us to cleanup an honest ma honest made by d.p.h. staff. i have the documentation if you have any questions, and with that, i'm available for any questions. >> clerk: thank you, mr. loper. we will now hear from the department of public health. >> can you hear me? >> clerk: yes, i can. >> okay. great. thank you for setting this up and moving this forward. i'd like to say that we did receive the application from the appellant, and we issued the denial on march 18, and it was confirmed to be received.

this is our standard process of notifying a permit denial. the rules state that when a decision is made, and the denial or decision is issued, that's when the 15 days starts, so we don't believe that we were intentionally trying to have the appellant miss the deadline at all, so those attachments are in our briefing, showing that the e-mail was sent and confirmed to be sent. we're under the policy that we -- the e-mail and its attachments are required to be reviewed by the applicant. in regards to the exception

that the appellant is stating around having a retail food establishment permit is not the exception. in their brief, they're clearly stating that they're a gas station, and gas stations don't follow the exemption. so the people, the facilities and locations that get the exemption are the retail grocery stores and markets which are not -- is not defined nor sewned at this location, so even if we moved forward with it, the planning department -- and i have spoken with them -- have stated that it's zoned a gas station. and with the retail permit for food, which is not grocery food and defined as a grocery

market, it's just an accessory use of that property. so we feel that the notice for denial was given, you know, directly to the appellant in the normal form we do and in a timely manner. and we wouldn't be able to -- because the appellant recently purchased and is located within 500 feet of a tobacco sales location and does not qualify for the exemption, the department had no choice but to deny the permit in the first place, so we hope that you would consider that. >> clerk: thank you. >> mm-hmm. >> clerk: okay. is there anyone here for public

comment on this matter? okay. we have a question from commissioner tanner. >> commissioner tanner: my question -- sorry. one question is to the d.p.h. representative. thank you for being here. can you just talk a little bit about if you're aware of the communication prior to the sending of the e-mail to the applicant? have there been discussions with the applicant or the owner kind of thing, that here's the rules and this didn't apply? >> absolutely, and i actually have alvin dang, he's on the call with us, or the zoom line, and he could actually -- if you're okay with him answering that because he has the direct testimony of the processes he took prior to the denial? >> commissioner tanner: yeah, and maybe he can just talk a little bit -- it doesn't have to be long -- about the written

correspondence you provided to the applicant. >> okay. alvin, are you able to respond? >> commissioner tanner: hello. >> yeah. i had communication with representatives from gawsco, inc., via e-mail, and i told them they were unlikely to get a permit through the process. >> commissioner tanner: and i know that the department was transitioning in march to working remotely. during that 15-day window that the appeal would need to be filed, were you accepting e-mail requests? >> yes. >> clerk: okay. at this point, i saw mr. loper

had his hand raised, but at this point, the parties can't comment unless the commissioners have questions of them. okay. do we have any -- okay. commissioner swig has a question. okay. commissioner swig, are you with us? >> commissioner tanner: he's on mute. >> commissioner swig: yeah, i got it now. mr. loper, how many gas stations does your client own in the city of san francisco? >> thank you, commissioner. i don't know the exact number in san francisco, but i know that he owns around 40 gas stations. >> commissioner swig: maybe your client can advise you. does he own more than one? does he own more than two? i don't need an exact. is this his first venture in san francisco because i read in

the brief that he's -- that he owns a lot of gas stations, and he's very sophisticated and experienced businessman. as you probably know, since you work for a real estate-driven firm that people who own real estate and a lot of it, are very sophisticated and do due diligence and are used to it. it surprises me that this item wasn't buttoned up in due diligence or he wasn't aware that this was a key item, and that's why i'm asking, does he know the rules in san francisco by virtue of the fact that he owns more gas stations? >> mm-hmm. i don't have any other information about whether he owns any gas stations or mini marts in san francisco. i know that steven kay is on the line, and i can see, steven, that you're on mute. >> mr. kay, can you answer that

question for us? >> yes, i would be pleased to, commissioner. gawsco owns three other gas stations in san francisco, but the irony of those is that when he acquired those a long time ago, there was no permit that he had to apply for at the time of those purchase of the stations. it was subsequent to that, years after he acquired the stations, that you obtained a permit to sell tobacco. so it was not part and parcel of any purchase, nor was it a condition of any purchase, but he got a permit. but he does own three other gas stations in san francisco that have the food mart ancillary to the gas station in which they sell, obviously, sundries and

tobacco. >> commissioner swig: thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we have a question from president lazarus, and then afterwards, vice president honda. so president lazarus? >> president lazarus: as a question for mr. loper, i thought you heard you say that the notice of denial had no reference to the appeal process. the document that i'm looking at in our packet, it's very clear, at the bottom, that the process is there. >> yes. maybe i wasn't clear. the e-mail that was sent to my client didn't reference an appeal or an appeal period, but you're right, president lazarus. the denial itself describes an peal. it's near the bottom of the second page, but you're right, the notice does mention the appeal. >> president lazarus: thank you. >> clerk: thank you. we will now hear from vice president honda. >> vice president honda: let me get my video going. there it goes.

i actually have a question for the planning department. are they going to have time after? >> clerk: well, we could give them time. usually, they don't -- >> vice president honda: i have a question -- i have a question for planning then. and the question would be -- is mr. sanchez on? the question would be does that food mart is just that, an accessory or would that be considered a food permit? >> thank you, vice president honda. scott sanchez, planning department. the thing is we're not party to these appeals, so we don't typically get materials. but i heard our name mentioned earlier, and i looked up some of the materials, i saw a recent permit for mission fuel

and food, which would be about 400 square feet, including bathroom areas. it's very small compared to the overall use. when we approved it, we continued it was special use as compared to primary use, so that was a comment in our approval language, noting it as accessory to the primary gas station. >> vice president honda: so it would not fall under that specialty where he'd be able to get the tobacco permit. >> those exceptions are from the department of public health, so i would defer to them in terms of exactly how it is, how they implement those exceptions, but this is not a primary use grocery store or specialty grocery. this is a use that i'd defer to

the department of public health. >> vice president honda: okay. so that same question to the department of public health. >> yeah, so that is exactly right, that because it's an accessory used, and it sort of makes the retail food store market-grocery store definition, in that department, we wouldn't be able to have that be the exception. this has been standard practice. [inaudible] >> sorry. can you say that again? there was shuffling of papers. >> vice president honda: has there been cases before where that has been the policy of the department? >> there has been cases of that before, so we have had board of appeals cases of gas stations,

so it's been a standard that we do not allow the exception to fall under a gas station, and that was upheld before, and that was before the board. >> vice president honda: thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. we have a question from commissioner tanner, and then president lazarus. >> commissioner tanner: i'm just wondering, during the time of transition, would the phone be answered or a question be answered on how to file an appeal during that time? if the applicant had called that number during that 15-day period? >> they would have left a message, hopefully, and we would have called them back. we posted information on our website that they could leave a message and we would call them back, my e-mail, as well as the board of appeals'.

we check them regularly and we did not receive a call or an e-mail. >> commissioner tanner: thank you. >> clerk: okay. president lazarus? >> president lazarus: yes. i just want to reiterate what you said at the beginning, which is we are reviewing the permit request. we are not focused on the merits of the case. >> clerk: okay. thank you, president lazarus. okay. we will now hear a question from commissioner santacana. >> commissioner santacana: commissioner lazarus got my question. >> clerk: okay. we will now take public comment. if you want to give public comment, please turn your t.v. or radio down, and press

star-nine. >> i don't see anybody on the line. >> clerk: okay. one more time, press star nine if you called in and would like to provide public comment on this item. okay. i do not believe we have public comment, so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> commissioner tanner: commissioners, i'd like to move to deny the jurisdiction request on the basis that the city did not inadvertently or intentionally cause the complainant to be late in filing their appeal. >> president lazarus: any discussion on the motion? okay. we're ready to vote. >> clerk: we have a motion from commissioner tanner to deny the request on the basis that the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the requester to be late on filing the appeal.

on that motion -- [roll call] . >> clerk: okay. so that motion carries, 5-0, and the request is denied. thank you. >> thank you. >> clerk: okay. we are now moving onto item number 5. this is a jurisdiction request number 20-1, subject property at 1117 sanchez street, letter from debbie jue and randolph toy, requesters, asking that the board take jurisdiction oversight permit number 20188198826, which was issued on april 19, 2019. the appeal period ended on may 6, 2019, and the jurisdiction request was filed at the board office on february 28, 2020. the permit owner is tom

kavanaugh, and the permit description is one story vertical addition to existing single gamily home and remodel of existing living space. okay. the requester is on the line. >> okay. my name is debbie jue, and my husband is randy toy, a disabled vetteran are health issues. we have lived at 1115 sanchez for 25 years. on november 20, 2017, we met with a representative named javier soloranzo, the owner of one design, and a

representative of 1117 sanchez. i followed up with an e-mail to him for response to address our concerns. there was no response to this e-mail. we did receive only one notification from the san francisco planning department dated january 18, 2018 for the 1117 sanchez building permit application. we sent a letter to nancy tran, planner at the san francisco planning department -- [inaudible] >> -- to protest and voice our concerns. we did not receive a response to our sent letter and e-mail, thus, we were not aware that we need to file a discretionary review request with the san francisco planning department for a hearing. there was no notification for the zoning variance hearing from the san francisco planning department, thus, we were not aware of the date, time, and

location of the hearing. we were not given the opportunity to attend or voice our concern or provide a rebuttal. 1117 sanchez is a small lot with no rear yard, no fire escape, which is very concerning to us. will this project solve the crisis of affordable housing here in san francisco? fast forward to march 16, 2020, the construction work with the noise, dust start, especially the odor from the portapotty in front of our property has negative affects on our health. the sun light ordinance is not applicable to our residential property, the results could have been shared with us to address our concerns of the vertical addition --

[inaudible] >> -- natural sun light and fresh air are essential to improve our quality of life. from the photos, you can see that the vertical addition to 1117 son chez will block the normal sun light -- sanchez will block the normal sun light into our kitchen, affecting our daily living activities. we also have a video to share. >> clerk: does she have time? >> no. >> clerk: okay. her time is up. we will hear from mr. kavanaugh, or a project sponsor? >> my name is amir neal, and i'm the architect for the project. can you hear me? >> clerk: yes. >> okay. so just in response to the appellant's concerns, we'd like

to request that the board uphold the decision and reject their appeal for the following reasons. [inaudible] >> -- i had directed my client to reach out to them and to -- to -- to hear their concerns. there's nothing they can do in terms of the scope of work that my clients wished to pursue that would meet their requirements, so the matters of their opposition doesn't really have any basis in terms of the fact that their building is to the south of us, and their souths cast shadows on our -- their buildings cast shadow on our buildings. if our building casts shadows on their building, that's mute because our property is to the

north of their building. our property does not directly abut their property. their light well faces the property adjacent to us, so the appellant's window in question, by ordinance, it's not required to have a window or room for ventilation. and i think just to go back on the -- [inaudible] >> -- and the structure that we're proposing is a modest structure by building code standards. the issue that we have is it's supposed to stand tall. it's a very small lot, so we wanted to improve the housing quality that this little small lot can offer, and we just request that the commission uphold the permit and reject the appellant's appeal.

>> clerk: thank you. it looks like we have a question from commissioner -- vice president honda. >> vice president honda: yeah, good evening. i have two questions. first question is how -- what's the communication between you and the appellant? >> so i had mr. sellers conduct the meeting on my behalf, and that was the meeting held at starbucks, and mr. solorzano reported back to me about the neighbors' opposition. i had not directly communicated with the appellant. i had directed mr. kavanaugh to communicate with her on that front, so i did not have any direct communication with the appellants. >> vice president honda: so since you didn't have any communication, are you aware of any communication between your -- your point period? are you the project sponsor --

i mean, are you the project manager of this? >> i'm not the project sponsor -- >> vice president honda: i mean manager. are you managing -- >> yes, i'm managing the project, and i was relating everything back to my client, the project sponsor. he was relaying the information back to the sponsor. >> vice president honda: my question is because you were the manager, and you had something that was the point person for communications, what was the communications between that person and the appellant? >> the communication that i had directed him to do was to gather information from any people that appeared at the meeting and get their concerns on paper so we could look at those concerns and see how we could address those concerns. i directed him not to talk about any technical aspects of the project because he's not in

a position to talk about the technical aspects. he was there to gather information of who was going to voice their concerns or opposition. >> and what concerns were they, and how did you address those? >> the concerns were that their lives were being impacted, their quality of life as a result was being impacted, so we did not respond to them. i did not respond to them. we could not change the plan that w that would substantially change anything -- >> vice president honda: the one thing i was saying was you guys did not basically respond to their questions. >> i forwarded that information onto my client and i'd asked him to respond, and i don't know if he responded. >> vice president honda: and he did not respond? >> i'm not aware. i don't believe he did.

>> vice president honda: and the second is, do you have any variances for your project? >> we have variance on the rear yard. it's a 17-foot-by-25 lot. i don't have a list of the variances in front of me. >> vice president honda: how about the exceptions? are there any exceptions? >> i don't believe so, no. >> vice president honda: okay. thank you. >> clerk: okay. thank you. we will now hear from the planning department. mr. sanchez? >> hello. scott sanchez, planning department. [please stand by]

. >> -- and required neighborhood notification. the section 311 controlled notice in this case was sent to owners and occupants, and i think as the requester demonstrated, they received -- they provided a copy of the notice that they received -- [please stand by]

tan rachel tanner eudardo . . . . with the guidelines and with that i will be available for any questions. thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. we will hear from the department of building inspections. mr. duffy? >> and the property review was issue and i did notice that we had some inspection activity at the contact and the reinforcing that and as a matter of fact, we have an inspection scheduled today so we have some work that is obviously started. and i did hear some about the

quality of life under instruction and that can be to contact d.b.i. and we can speak to the district building inspector, myself, and find a consent online to look into the quality of life issues with the site and what we would typically do anyway. i didn't see anything here or any mistakes in the issuance of the permit. i'm available for questions. questions. awe thank you, mr. duffy. okay. is there any public comment on this item? if you are a caller, please turn down the tv and internet access and press star 9 if you would like to provide public comment on this item. give a little extra time. star 9 if you would like to provide public comment.

okay. i am not seeing any callers. so commissioners, this matter is submitted. >> a commissioners? >> an i would like to move to deny based on the fact that the city did not inadvertently or intentionally cause the request to be delayed in filing the request for appeal. >> any further discussion or comment? >> okay. we have a motion from commissioner tanner to deny the request on the basis that the city did not intentionally or inadvertently cause the requesters to be late in filing the appeal. on that motion, commissioner eudardo santacana. >> aye. >> president lazarus? >> an aye. >> a vice president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner swig. >> aye. so that motion carries 5-0 and the request is denied.

thank you. okay. so we are now moving on to item 6a and 6b. appeal number 20-023 and 20-024. phillip lalonde, ramsey walker and stephanie tuttle versus the planning department approval and this is 2467 pacific avenue and appealing issuance to m3 pacific properties llc of an alteration permit, renovation of four-story over basement multi-family residential building. the use remains unchanged a tz two unit residential building. modifications include renovation of all floors, new garage at basement, level and elevator to first floor, new dormer, addition of three bathrooms, new roof deck at fourth level. this is permit 209/10/16/4578, and we will hear from mr. lalonde first.

mr. lalonde, you have seven minutes. we can't hear you, so i will unmute you and then alec, put him on spotlight. one moment, mr. lalonde. >> okay. welcome. you have seven minutes. >> okay. president lazarus and members of the board, my name is phil lalonde and i am the appellant in support of the permit for 2019/10/16/4578 for structural addition to 2467 pacific avenue. my wife shirley and i are owners of the landmark house 45 in the city and county of san francisco. the oldest heights in pacific highs for a 25 acre dairy farm. our home is 170 years old and having pre- civil war at least for in california. the my wife and i are the

caretakers of this house and take our role very seriously to preserve and protect this historic gem. i have several concerns. the main impact is that the shoring for the garage at 2467 pacific will have on our landmark house, particularly the dirt foundation. an independent review performed by the company found that the project sponsor's sole engineer would require a shoring system as supported the existing residence at 2475 pacific avenue. there was no temporary shoring specified in the plans which made the house vulnerable to sediment damage especially considering the brick foundation. the home structure dated april 29, 2020 addressed to john gadager states the owners of 2467 pacific will supply to provide soil permeation with temporary shoring of the 2475

pacific foundation and structure. at this time i have not received any confirmation that will provide for the paying of the peer review by john gadager. for the record, the neighbors paid for the own peer review and would appreciate reimbursement from the project sponsor as h agreed to do so. the statement in the project brief, they agreed to accept the accompanying financial and time murderens to protect and preserve 2475 pacific avenue. i have not received the project sponsor's grouting plan for permit application. who is the grouting contractor? where will the perm yachted grouting be injected? how many holes to be filled and how will this house spaced apart at what distance? the project sponsor is to apply

for a grouting permit and receive approved permit for couting from the building department. the appellant should have the right to approve the grouting plan. project sponsors to pay the permits and fees and the project sponsor is to perform a pre-construction survey at his expense to do pho photo documentation to establish a baseline of measurements against damages such as cracking. the permit holder agreed to pay for all damage repairing to our property that are related to the movement of our foundation and a such repairs would be performed by reputable contractor and by the appellant after written notice to the developer with the need for repairs. project sponsor and crowd director an agree to insure 2475 pacific avenue house to insure

the house isn't insured for any damaging. the 2467 pacific plans were pushed through planning and d.b.i. as no exterior construction or deconstruction would occur. how does this occur with the plan showing the demolition of the west side stair wau and brick wall? i understand the 2467 existing structure has historical merit. the preservation planning approved this demolition of an historical building. i have a question in regarding the retaining wall between 2475 and 2467 pacific. is that retaining wall on the property line? is it the drainage walk on my side of the property line? all construction materials must be placed inside of the 2467 pacific property line. as stated before, 2475 pacific avenue was built in 1850. it came around the horn on a clipper ship at the time of the

gold rush as the city became more modern and sophisticated in italian facade was added in 1883. capta captain neal, reconstructed a ship in the backyard which still hands today. my wife and i have been the stewards of the unique house for the past 28 years. please help us preserve this property for future generations. it would be a travesty to allow it to be destroyed by this proposed project. i want to be cooperative to net revenue the 2467 pacific project along. i have demonstrated this cooperation by inviting the project sponsors general contractor and structural engineer into my house on different dates in january, 2020, to look at the foundation. the project sponsor, on the other hand, chose not to meet with the adjacent neighbors during the planning process. therefore, no 311 notice nor public posting until d.b.i. notified through u.s. mail it permit had been issued on

february 25. our independent engineer required a reasonable amount of time to do the peer study to asure no foundation problems would arise. we have received 21 letters of support requesting the board to deny issuance of the permit as issued. i also respectfully request you deny issuance of the permit as submitted. thank you. >> thank you, mr. lalonde. okay. we will now hear from the other appellants, mr. walker and ms. tuttle. you have seven minutes. >> can you hear me? >> i just want -- before you speak, i see someone has raised their hand in our call queue and we are not yet on public comment. when we get to public comment, we will call you. thank you. please proceed. >> can you hear me okay? >> yes, thank you. >> i am ramsey walker and my

wife and i own 2467 pacific on the other side of phil's house. and really i am not going to need the seven minutes. we're just taking a practical approach here which is there are three historic houses. our house was bullet in 1960. i believe 2467 was bullet in 1911, and as phil said, his house was built in 1850. and our house abuts directly abutts 2467 and the proposal is for a 13 foot excavation there. so we really just want to make sure we're all taking the time to review the plans thoroughly and to minimize the possibility of any structural damage to our house or to phil's house in this construction. and even with the best laid plans and the structural

engineers, we all know -- you guys know more than i do -- that thing cans happen. it can slip. it can -- we have seen in it this city, i think, a lot with some famous cases. so we want to be super careful and we do feel like things have been kind of rushed without a lot of notification to us. and so we are supportive of the remodel. we like to see it go forward, but we want the utmost protection on our side and frankly, on phil's side as well. we are working on a letter of agreement with the developer. i have confidence, not 100% confidence, but a fair amount of confidence that given another week or so that that letter of agreement will be agreed to between us. and it covers things like making

sure that the proper support and grouting and the detail around that is used, that the proper preconstruction and during construction documentation and monitoring and measuring is done and shared with us. and that there's adequate insurance that includes us. and if there is damage, that it's covered by them. and i think that is it. that's all i have to say, but happy to take questions and grateful for all of your time to review this matter. >> okay. thank you. so we will now hear from the permit holder. i believe his -- his agent is here. let me unmute you. perfect. you actually have 14 minutes

since you are responding to two appeals. you get double time. >> thanks. i shouldn't need the time, but i appreciate it. president lazarus and commissions, i am the architect for the project at 2467 pacific. on october 2019 a permit was fuelled for the renovation including interior renovation of all floors and the subgrade to the garage with no work outside on below. on february 25, 2020 following a full plan check review being deemed compliant, the permit was issued by d.b.i. on march 10 the appeals before you were filed. the primary concern expressed in the appeal is the impact of the proposed excavation and shoring work on a t existing adjacent homes. this is a concern the project sponsor shares and has taken seriously from the start and is incorporated best practices to address. the proposed shoring approach is

permitted to meet most restrictive code standards and also taking into account specifics of shoring sequencing, special inspections and observation monitoring of neighboring structures requested by the d.b.i. plan check and recommended by our team as well. when approached by the neighbors in early march to review the proposed shoring approach, the project sponsor took an additional step to bring in a peer reviewer for the structural and shoring approach. they were selected because they were the structural engineer for the appellant's own renovation work and as such, they are qualified to perform that review to ensure things were being taken care of on behalf of the neighbor. they recommended small modification that the project sponsor agreed to adopt. the modifications are ready for submission once the appeal is lifted. neighbors requested their own peer review and also performed at the project sponsor's

expense. we have not seen an invoice for this, but it's been very clearly expressed from the start that these were going to be at our expense. john gadager's reports requested clarification on one detail and the consideration of the use of soil grouting as part of the excavation soil process. the project sponsor prepared test kits, brought in a structural shoring and geotechnical engineers to review the soil conditions and the report of the exploratory excavation was completed by home structures and was included in our brief. in summary, the soil conditions were seen to be suitable for nongrouted approach out of an abundance of caution and the project sponsor agreed to utilize soil permeation grouting accepting the accompanying financial and time burdens. the agreement that provides the soil permeation grout along both properties should fully answer

the concerns expressed by the appellants. the basis of the permit appeal in and of itself is without merit. all processes of plan check and review were followed to the most strictest standards. the project sponsor has gone above and beyond to respond to concerns and address them fuelly and has been communicative, participated and offered up services and finance to take care of concerns including two peer reviews, exploratory excavation, adoption of recommendations of the awe plant's peer review engineer. -- of the appellant's peer review engineer. he remains committed to addressing neighbors concerns and construction to maintain good faith relationships for the duration of the project. as has been evident in all communications between the project sponsor and the two neighbors, and i would like to add that there were notes in mr. lalonde's commentary and no proposal for shoring of 2475

pacific. that is not true. the shoring exists on our property. the idea of who was paying for the grouting was always greer. it was always going to be the project sponsor. the grouting plan he requested several days ago -- [inaudible] and additionally, we would be paying for the permeation grout and the discussion had photo documentation and mon the organize of the adjacent structures is -- and monitoring of the adjacent structures is something we have agreed to so there is no conflict over the course of construction. so given the information above, we feel like we have real lu addressed all -- we have really addressed all of the concerns that are a part of the appeal and respectfully ask you deny the appeal to commence in a timely manner. i would be happy to answer any questions that come up. >> thank you. we will now hear from the planning department.

mr. sanchez? >> thank you. this has been proper lu reviewed from the planning department from the information that i have. the information was submitted in october of 2019 and issued in february of 2020 and it wasn't done overnight. it was something that did have review, the planning review is relatively straightforward and proven to be approved and by preservation staff. i know her work to be meticulous and she is the planner who is handling the 22nd street case you heard earlier this evening. most of the issues raised in the appeal brief related to structural issues. there were newer issues that i heard this evening and a concern related to planning, but to address those properly reviewed by preservation specialists and i think their approval is quite

meticulous in the notes exactly what they are approving. not every project in san francisco requires notice and i think the board understands that the scope of work that is listed in here and dormers and exempt from the notification. and there is nothing else that was raised, specifically raised and that will lead me to believe the permit was now properly reviewed and issued. i am available for questions. thank you. >> thank you. we do have a question from vice president honda. vice president honda? >> actually, i had a question for the representative for the project sponsor. the question was, one of the appellants had mentioned regarding the retaining wall, had a survey been done. i am assuming there would be, but i will ask the question anyway. >> there has been a survey done and any work and the replacement

of the retaining wall will happen within the constraints of the property line. >> i would consider with the scope. thank you for clarifying. >> we will now hear from the department of building inspections. mr. duffy? >> commissioner sean duffy, d.b.i. and it looks like it went through the proper stations to be properly issueed. on this one, we have zero lot lines and rightly so in a way we see this a lot and to have the right to be nervous and of the construction. i will say that this is kind of like it is a pity more of the projects weren't done like this with a lot of stuff they were talking about beforehand is valid and warranted and looks

like it's been addressed last night. i read the brief and impressed with the engineers reports and the quotes as well. there will be oversight and monitoring which will be part of this as well. and the contractor on the permit. my experience with them has been very good. i expect they'll do a good job on this one. i know they should have a good look and if the neighbors had concerns that they are addressed immediately. and i think that's what looks like it is tricky work and the

architect and explained that pretty well. i am available for any questions if anyone has any. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> we are moving on to public comment. i do see there is one caller with their hand raised. so raise their hands -- >> as a reminder if you would like to speak during public comment, press star 9 and we see hands raised. i see hands going up, which is great. also please turn down the tv and the volume of the internet. there is a delay and it interferes with your testimony as well. so we will hear from the first caller. and the first one is 6015.

>> and you took their hand down. 6015. >> this is craig scott. i am an officer and have been involved in the specific heights residential association for approximately 30 years. i live behind the properties and i believe that the additional work should be done to thoroughly test what would be done and the experience of two decades ago when the house next door to me did the same sort of project to excavate from the garage and engineers were involved. and the foundation was allowed to move and the four-story house had the interior cracks on all four story. we were in litigation for over to get the satisfaction to pay for the repairs.

there should be underpinning that shouldn't be described going down this deep in this sort of neighborhood. it was a painful experience and the board of appeals should be requiring and not just grabbing for this sort of project. i have lived this same experience two decades ago and the building of department and it was bungled and very disgusting. the caller with 2568. >> and speaking on public comment. >> a yes. i am at 2525 steiner, one house away from 2475. i think what's really important to focus on is this is a

170-year-old farmhouse in san francisco. how many homes do we have in san francisco that are of this nature? this house belongs in a museum. if there isn't a structure in san francisco that doesn't require underpinning next to a construction site, i don't know what is. i also want to remind everybody of the words that mr. duffy got through using. the neighbors are nervous, rightly so. this is tricky work. those are not my words. those are mr. duffy's words. i think it's incumbent on us, the community, and as a society to make sure that these architectural gems are safe from future generations.

i watch every saturday the tourists go by showing all the historic homes in our neighborhood. and they always to talk about that and the dairy farm that used to be around there, 25 acres. i think if there is anything and nothing that is more reasonable than should be done under the structural construction of the developer. >> thank you very much. the next caller and let me unmute them. and are you prepared to speak in public comment? >> that's me. >> the appeal for the proposed construction and 13 foot

excavation does not in any way impact the integrity of the historical landmark home so as the resident and pacific heights and the historic structures ander research the heritage. with the best recommended techniques to preserve the foundation and the integrity need to be followed. given the recent saga of the millennium towers i think that was mentioned earlier, it is quite event that we need the best practices to be followed. we can't afford any risk to a valuable and important structure and thank you, sir.

and please press star 9 to speak in public comment. actually, okay, do we have anymore public comment? let's give it a few moments. okay. i see a phone number ending in 1455. would you like to speak in public comment? hello? the hand is not raised. the phone number ending in 1455. hello. >> they might not want to speak. we are on public comment for item 6a and 6b, subject property 2467 pacific avenue. are there any other people who would like to provide public comment? if you are on the phone, you can press star 9.

okay. i think we are finished with the public comment portion. thank you. we will move on to rebuttal. mr. lalonde, you have three minutes. let's spotlight mr. lalonde. thank you. i'm sorry. we can't hear you. one moment. >> he is unmuted now. he can speak. go ahead, phil. >> please go ahead. >> okay. i just want to refer to john yadeger's report, the structural engineer who did the peer review report pertaining to the shoring and excavation at 2467. it is our recommendation that protective measures identified in the soil report be implemented to reduce the risk. i would like to say any risk of

such settlement, rather than the 2% and the foundation is suitable for this soil type and can reduce the settlement and should be considered and i understand the other side is for that, but it is their opinion and even with the best lagging that the fill under 2475 is vulnerable to consolidation settlement at the 2467 pacific avenue. i would hope the appeal board would like at this house being an unusual exception and should be given the highest and best shoring, grouting, underpinning possibility available. we want this house to be around for generations.

i also want to ask the architect who gave his talk said i did not receive a grouting plan. i did not receive a grouting plan. i did happen to see an email today. what i received was a shoring plan. there was nothing in that reporting grouting so i think he is mistaken. and i was going to ask the planner about this and the historical review was done and is approved. i don't want to be an obstacle in this movement to have their house remodelled. what i want to do is be a partner in it and the absolute beth method to shore the house up and prevent any risk that is of settlement with the

foundation. thank you. >> 30 seconds. >> okay. do i have more time? >> 30 seconds. >> 20 seconds. >> and i want to know who the grouting contractor is, where will the permeated grouting be injected, how many holes to be filled, so on and so forth. there has been no plan that's been presented. okay. and i would hope that the project sponsor would share the grouting plan when he gets it because i think he has to have it approved by d.b.i. >> that's time. >> thank you. >> hear from mr. walker and you have three minutes, mr. walker. >> can we spotlight mr. walker please?

welcome back. >> i would just suggest that a request a little bit more time be taken to make sure that the plans are really the structural and foundational plans and as thorough as they possibly can be. a lot of faith in the group that is working on this and we have found some issues along the way and the downside on this is very, very high for phil's house and our house. and in another week or two of review of work which also allows us another week or two to get agreement with the owner on all the issues, i think just makes

good business sense. that would be my request. we will hear from the permit holder. >> i would like to address the comment once again. this has been set to be incorporated into the shoring drawing that was done for his reference. it was with the reference and clearly and the scope and the extent of the permeation zones. from the grout subcontractor will be, but there are only two or three highly qualified ones

and we have committed to hiring those and the best and the ones to use and we don't stand in any opposition to what the neighbors are saying. we are in full support we want to support their structures fully. we want to do anything possible to make sure our project is not detrimental and the utmost care and multiple schurl hours involved. and to have the best practices are used. and be diligent and the test extracation kits and to insure the approach we are taking will work suitably to achieve the goals we want to achieve. with the surveys to ensure there

is not movement to take all the most conservative steps in the process with the permitting process around to continue on the agreements and no intention of suddenly stopping our agreements. and that is not a basis for the pement to be appealed and we ask how to be denied to move forward with the diligence to date will continue. we understand the wait and the seriousness of the projects. it is not the first project in the neighborhood. it is not the first project of this scale. we are quite experienced at this across the width and breadth of the team. we understand what is at take and the import of keeping our

neighbors as valued partners in this. it is our intention to do so throughout this process and to continue that, but that is not the basis for the permit to be appealed and we ask that you deny the appeal and move forward and we will continue our dialogue with the neighbors and our intention to fully monitor and protect their structures to the greatest of our ability throughout the construction process. thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. i have had a little feedback and will slow it down between speakers to give any of the commissioners an opportunity to possibly ask a question. so we are still on the rebuttal portion and up next is the planning department. mr. sanchez. >> thank you. without having anything to add and i don't think there have been any planning issues related to the project that have been raised and we are available for question. thank you. >> thank you. >> slowing it down. before mr. -- are there any

questions? so we will now hear from mr. duffy and the department of building inspections. >> sean duffy, d.b.i. again, more concerned of what might be the type of support that the neighboring buildings is going to get. i have seen both processes used and the geoguard works well and underpinning works well. so it is up to the engineers. if it is one set over the property line into the grouting occurs on the neighboring properties, the building permits would be obtained on their property and basically that would be the appellant and to support the foundation under the building and engineering design and with the underpinning which

is done under special inspection and works very well. they do need to decide before that happens what process we are going to use. and the architect wouldn't hold up the building project but obviously they couldn't start the project until they desite what process they are going to use. and both of those work well. more of an engineering design and decision. the property owners are getting this will be supported and should have things like they will have an import into that so we are available for any questions. >> we have questions from commissioner swig and honda. we will hear from commissioner swig first. >> mr. duffy, when was the last time that you had a discussion and we always have discussion on this issue.

so with regard to failure of lack of proper shoring but when is the last time you had one on a 150-year-old building? >> i don't think i have done one at 150 and i have seen 100-year-old buildings, though. >> you would an i degree this isn't -- with all due respect to typical neighborhoods with 40 or 50 years ago and this is a special situation, correct? >> there is a lot of historical elements to the neighboring building obviously, but the foundation on a 40 or 50-year-old building probably wouldn't go down any deeper than a 150-year-old building and the neighbor's foundations are not going to be that deep. and wouldn't be that deep until recently to see really deep. awe [inaudible] as i use the word tricky, it is

doable. there is ways and a lot of stuff that monitoring it and will be a geotech site on the engineering site so the issues of the underpinning in consideration that there is a building which you and your great experience have never worked on a project next door so should we take greater care in mandating and given the unusual nature and historical nature of the building and maybe further than

another typical and the work that is on the appeal is the department that we are talking about with the underpinning on that and geotech. it doesn't seem like with the architect and how they decided 100% on geoguard or going to underpin. i wouldn't be qualified to give you an opinion of which one would be better because i simply don't have that qualification. and maybe someone has an opinion that it should be the underpinning because it is 150-year-old building, but i wouldn't be able to give you

that answer. >> should we let this one go? i am not an engineer and don't have the expertise much like you are claiming. and we could in protecting a san francisco landmark and a treasure that is irreplaceable and we could deny the appeal and with conditions that there be suitable grouting, underpinning, or other care, or because we leave it to the project to go on as it seems to be bothering. to hear from the project sponsor's representative that yeah, we have told them we are going to do this. we've told them we're going to do that and we can deny the appeal and then relose control

of this without mandating and giving security to the neighbors that, in fact, this proper underpinning, grouting, or whatever is going to be done. how can we protect the neighbor in this case? >> that is a good question. excavation cannot begin because you have to do with the protection on the neighboring property and their engineer because it is on their project and did the peer review and as i said earlier, i am impressed with the amount of work that's been done before construction here. a lot of times we see problems with the projects once they

start. and it has to be done right and it is up to the professionals to do that. but the sections that are covered very, very well actually. if anybody went out there and dug a hole, they are not going to get too far in the process. >> commissioner: so if we left tonight and denied the appeal with the assumption that existing codes will take care of the primary concern of the neighbors, which is that there will be adequate shoring or other protection, we should be okay with that? >> based on the materials i saw in the brief, yes. i would like to hear from the architect on if they have decided to go 100% with geoguard or underpinning. i wasn't clear on that one myself and i am sure he has that

done, but maybe could be asked about it. >> commissioner: with your permission, i would like to ask him to take some of your time to address that if possible. >> yes, i would be happy to. yes, our decision was to use the georail that is occurring on our property. the way it is formalized is through a revised permit which we are unable to submit until the appeal is lifted. the drawing has been shared with the neighbors and demonstrating the revised shoring approach per their request and showing the grout permeation zones. we are ready to commit to it the second this appeal is lifted and we can commit these revised drawings that will have the full contents of this approach on it. underpinning is significantly more complex when it comes to the neighbor's property because unlike a zero lot line condition where underpinning is happening where you are digging adjacent to the foundation pouring

underneat it, in the case of the 150-year-old house t foundations are feet away from the property line. and the destructive nature of getting to that property line and what would happen on their side of the property would be more damaging that we can take by grouting and insuring there is no movement on our property and being very careful with stage shoring as mr. duffy described to do a staggered support system to ensure continuous support of the soil and absolutely minimize movement. we will have geotechnical review constantly throughout the project. they have to monitor and write reports as the excavation is being done and finding and having the houses monitored for movement with reports provided to the neighbors as well. >> commissioner: thank you. i will yield to my fellow commissioner now. >> we have a question from president lazarus. >> thank you. i think mine may have been answered but i want to clarify. mr. duffy, i think you said if there was to be underpinning or

other work on the neighboring foundation, that is a separate permit because that involves their property? >> yeah, that is a good question. i think that is one point that changed a little bit was that if the -- and i didn't see drawings. if you are on a zero lot line and excavating right on property line, you can do grout or underpinning but it will be under the neighbor's property. and it was mentioned that the excavation is actually coming from the property line and that would change things a lut l bit. that would mean grouting would be on their own property and only excavating well inside their property line. it is not a zero lot lun. and that is the condition i wasn't clear on. it makes it a little bit easier for them. that is what i thaerd architect speak to -- that is what i heard the architect speak to anyway. >> to be clear, we are on our

property line. the historic home to us is several feet off of the property line. just to make that point of clarification. >> president: and mr. duffy, again, just to be certain, we would not necessarily be specifying what should happen because you say it needs to happen based on code anyway, is that right? >> oh yes. definitely. 32.701 and you can put that in the -- in the decision that everything must comply with 3307.1, the san francisco building code and that will cover excavation notification to the neighbors and as priors excavation and we have a lot of good documents in there, but the building code does cover that. >> in other words, if we went to that as upholding the appeal and conditioning the permit on it being compliant with those sections. is that what you are suggesting? >> it will have to anyway, but if i want to reinforce it, that

is fine. >> thank you. we will hear from vice president honda. >> commissioner: actually, my question was asked in regard to the second permit. thank you. >> i saw commissioner tanner's hand raised before. do you want to address with a question? commissioner tanner? we may have lost her. let me check in with her. and mr. walker, at this point we are not taking comment from the appellants. let me check in with commissioner tanner. it looks like she dropped off. just a moment. >> possible she lost power as she indicated. >> i think it came back on, but --

she may have called on the phone line. >> okay. she may have called in on the phone line. i don't know. you can make an announcement. >> if you called in, commissioner tanner, please

press star 9 and raise your hand if she called in. she did not answer her phone, so i am wondering if she lost power. president lazarus, did you just want to proceed? would you like to give it a few minutes to see if she can get connected? we do have four commissioners. >> why don't we give it just one minute to guf her a chance. >> okay. why don't we take a break for three minutes. >> i don't know if we totally need to do that. >> commissioner tanner is back on the line. >> by phone or -- >> we see her. >> she is on the hearing. >> wonderful.

welcome back, commissioner tanner. >> thank you. my internet went out this time. >> okay. i understand your hand was raised at one point. do you have a question? >> my hand was raised and apologies if that got answered in the time when i was not on the phone or on the zoom. i was trying to understand and perhaps this is the project sponsor, it seems like there was a desire by one of the appellants for grouting and there has been talk in the letters of support for shoring, underpinning, whose property will be on and with the approach to walk through the agreement and which property owners you are reaching an agreement for

and the on the property and the property of the appellant. >> happy to address it. to be clear, in any plan we're doing and shoring is being used. and the shoring is on our property entirely. additionally what we have explored is the need for geogrout as part of the shoring process on our property which we have also agreed to do and have documented in the revised set of shoring drawings that were prepare and are ready for submission when the appeal is lifted. and we are not proposing the underpinning and the geogrout being used and that is the heart of it. i hope i have addressed that

question. in term of agreements with neighbors, the agreements with neighbors have been really about best practices like this and is all included in these documents already around will continue to be included and if everything is part of the permit submittal process and we are happy to continue our discussions with the neighbors and our fundamental approach remains the same. >> commissioner: if the

appellants can address that and not clear what you are asking for. it seems like to me the project sponsor is going to submit the plans that you have requested that include the degree owe grouting so it is that you need more time to review the documents? is it that you don't have the documents you need? what is it that you would like to have happen through this appeals process? >> why don't we hear from mr. lalonde first. mr. duffy does have his hand up as well. >> okay. >> is mr. lalonde available? >> mr. lalonde? >> let's see. maybe he got kicked off, too, or something. there he is. can he be taken off mute? maybe that is the issue. >> mr. lalonde, can you speak?

>> thank you. what i am looking for is absolute best practice. >> we were looking for was the combination of underpinning and possibly and for sure grouting. and what we were looking for for best practice and i have had another geotech come out. and what he is suggesting is if we do the geogrouting, the best place to do it is actually on my property. i have a pathway between the two buildings that is open and clear and what that would do is assure me it would be a straight down injection of grout. >> just to be clear what you want and what you believe is best practice from an engineer that you have talked to is to do

geogrouting on your property. >> great. thank you so much. and mr. walker, is that similar to your request? or do you have a different plan that you are trying to achieve? >> the foundation is the main concern. i believe that the grouting is the right approach. i think there are some questions about whether or not that grouting needs to be under our property, which mr. duffy and others have mentioned. at the moment it is not under our property. we think that is okay. but we don't want to be rushed into that and maybe we'll have an opportunity later to review it again. that is number one. number two, we want to make sure that the measurements along the way are actually shared with us and i believe that that will happen. and i am not sure it is required by the city but it would be required by the letter of agreement we come to. that is number two.

number three, we want to be a named insured and so if everything goes right, then it is not a problem. but if something goes wrong and there is damage, we want to be covered by their insurance. and we essentially want them to say they will cover the cost of any damage. i think one thing i missed which i know they are planning on doing anyway is to ensure there is complete photo documentation before and after inside and outside, and that is shared with us in advance. i know it's requireded. i don't think the sharing is actually required is the way i read some of the rules, but maybe it is. that is it. >> and mr. walker, in your communication with the project sponsor, do you feel that you are almost at a written agreement of some kind? >> i believe we are almost at a written agreement. i could be wrong, but i believe we will be, yeah. >> okay. >> and that is coming but just hasn't happened before this

hearing. >> correct. to draft it and sent it to him. and he said we're not in disagreement on the business issues. there is some legal issues and i just think we should -- i will stop there. >> great. thank you. that is very helpful. >> and mr. duffy, maybe i can ask you a question and say what information you have. and we have disagroement -- disagreement among the understood pinning and shoring and what is the best method to protect the property. it seems like to some degree and the department reviewed it and said the method proposed is okay, but there is mention there will be another permit submitted with another method which can't be submitted until this is taken

care of. can you speak to that with the other permit that will be submited? >> yes, thanks, commissioner tanner. it sound like they are getting ready to submit a revision permit which is another building permit to address the geoguard. that is pretty typical in this situation. and it may not be under the appealed permit but i heard him talk about getting ready to submit another permit. so that is going to address that. and another will need to be done and couldn't start any work without that permit being submitted. the question i had was how often the monitoring was going to be done on the neighboring properties, and i know t i's going to be done, but i wanted to make sure that it was going to be done on a regular basis and properly. obviously that has a big burden on it because monitoring of these neighboring properties is going to tell you whether this is any damage as they go along.

and whatever period the architect or the engineers decide, i am sure that will be done properly. it is not part of the building code, but it should be part of their understanding that they will monitor it. if we see movement or any -- it's done all the time anyway. it's best practices. it's done in san francisco a lot on all types of buildings and new high-rises, residential properties like this, but it does work really well and with shows issues as we go along. and speak to this previously when i was disconnected for a minute, and talk about how this is we were under the impression that some of the work was of the shoring. and the subject property and you kind of referenced them and california code does not require there to be some type of shoring on that property.

does that still apply. do we need to see permits in regard to any shoring? or is that not necessarily the case? >> and whenever they did speak about that and it turns out that i was speaking about a zero lot line condition. if you were going to be excavating right up to the property line, but it turns out that this excavation is actually in from the property line and no need for the underpinning. and i was thinking about a condition where you to would be going vertical down on the property line. currently the excavation is in from the property line so that is what -- >> i'm not sure that is true. we are zero lot line on our side. >> if they have a question -- >> i think everyone is muted at this point. >> my apologies. we just can't have people calling out, mr. walker.

i apologize i had to put you on mute. if they have a question, they will ask you. and for the monitoring that is requested here after the fact, what is the interval of the monitoring that you are planning to provide and in the reporting that you would have able to provide the neighbors for the monitoring? >> it is typically weekly and has to do with the acceleration of the speed of the excavation and during active work it is weekly and if something significant is happening, it might not happen more regularly. and yes, that data would be provided to the neighbors. there would be no reason to keep that private including the photo documentation of thor into yors of the house. that is in all our best interest and start out.

that conclusion. >> a commissioner, we do have a couple more questions. >> i figure if the item has been submitted, i will have a comment. >> okay. let me -- commissioner swig, do you have a question? >> same with me. i am ready to go. >> then this matter has been submitted. >> so can i -- >> sure, why tonight you go ahead, vice president honda, and we will hear from commissioner swig. >> and commissioners, what is before us is the permits were issued properly by the departments. i believe that in this case they have been and that the due diligence has gone above and beyond. and in fact, that this has gone and had additional processes. the permitee has agreed to every

condition that the appellants have had. >> commissioner swig? >> commissioner: i don't disagree, but i find that this is a very, very special case. and mr. walker, and given the age of mr. lalonde's house, the unique nature of the house that i think we have to go the extra yard. i see we can go in two directions. one, we can kick the can down

the road and wait for them to come up with a settlement agreement. you would rather not. or use mr. duffy's suggestion with the item with the reaffirmation that this process will to the codes and the laws that mr. duffy suggested. >> are we clear? >> i guess so. >> and mr. duffy, can you state what you suggested that we might do with this and while moving it forward? and are also paying special reference to the two codes.

>> 33.107 of tsan francisco buig code and that is in that section and we're, commissioners, if you go to the san francisco building code and 33.07.1 and they have this section 832 which talks about excavation and protection of neighborhoods adjoining properties. >> i guess my recommendation would be to deny the appeal, approve the permit with the condition that those two codes be -- >> you would have to uphold the appeal. >> uphold the appeal, issue the permit with a condition that those two items are mandated or adhered to or whatever. >> okay. looks like president lazarus would like to weigh in. >> an i want to say i am fine with that. i have no interest in a

continuation because whatever agreement they come up has no bearing on this permit whatsoever. >> like i said, not my interest either. >> vice president honda? >> i would go along with that. i would go along with that as well. >> okay. commissioner tanner? >> yes, i am in support of that. it did make me have another question for mr. duffy. mr. walker mentioned a zero lot line which seems like the codes might especially needed to be reviewed in terms of if there is a permit on the adjacent property. is that something if we do what is proposed that can still happen? that d.b.i. can insure that if there is a zero lot line that might be impacted that that is taken care of before the construction begins? >> yes, and i am sure mr. walker, i heard him in there, but they are not going to start this project without dealing with that. i don't think they're going to do it and based on the information that i see in the

brief, i think it will be addressed. and they don't have the finish line to the agreement and the revision permit and i am confident they will deal with it appropriately. >> great. i support the draft motion, but the proposal that commissioner swig made. >> okay. is that our motion? >> that would be the motion. aef with motion from commissioner swig to grant the appeals and issue the permit on the condition be revised to require compliance with san francisco building code section 3307.01 and compliance with section 832 of the california civil code. on that motion, commissioner eudardo santacana. >> aye. >> president lazarus. >> aye. >> vice president honda. >> aye. >> commissioner tanner. >> aye. >> so that motion carries 5-0.

thank you. and that concludes the hearing. >> we are adjourned. >> thank you. >> thank you very much. great job. tough times. >> stay safe. >> good afternoon, and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the san francisco board o