>> good afternoon, i am the chief building inspector with the department of building inspections brown bag lunch. we do this every third thursday of every month. this building behind me is one of san francisco's great landmarks, a designated landmark? >> it is on the national register list of historic buildings. >> with me i have a few guests, an old friend of mine and a partner who is a planner with the port of san francisco. welcome. thank you for coming along. and jane connors, who is the building manager. she will lead us on a walk through the building as we move along and talk about that as well. this is a fund and a unique place in san francisco, big, open space. a couple of times a week this is filled with a marketplace. >> 100 farmers. they are here on saturday. the farmers market is out front, and also on tuesday's we have about 60 farmers out front. >> and that is on the plaza? >> on saturday it is back here, and on tuesday it is in the front. >> i guess i am interested in what happens. we have a plaza where the ferry boats used to come. what happened? >> the whole backside o

there was not maintenance of the security of the building. the please advise me to continue to keep them informed because it wanted a safe neighborhood. the main thing is to remember that we have evidence that the permits are not here. there are structures that are clearly built. i took the photographs. the building is 25 years old. they are not 45 years old. i have shown you these pictures. these are within recent memory. the fact that the building department has not done anything about legalizing them is very disturbing. i will be back here until i get resolution on these documents, on these permits that have not been issued. i am surprised that the building continues to evade any kind of review. the comments from the kitchen remodel on the actual report simply says case closed. nobody even came out. i can see that there is some help i need to give the building department so they can enforce the rules, and to at least have the notices of violation addressed. i believe that is part of the building code, and i would like to make sure that just

i would like to see it come back off the edge of the building, the edge of the back building, by 5 feet. it would bring -- the product itself is quite excessive, when you compare it to especially the vertical addition to projects in the neighborhood. vertical additions -- these are pictures that have all been taken within the block or two of the proposed project. generally, what you see is a 300 to 400 square foot view room, capturing the view of the bay and not taking up a lot of the fourth floor space. my own building has a 300 sq. ft. room on the fourth floor. i think it is very much an overbuilt proposal compared to what you see around the neighborhood as far as an addition on a fourth floor. diesel just some examples. this is a building on the corner. the depth does not continue all the way to the very edges of the building. so thank you for considering my request. it is, i think, a small request, and it has to do with my long-term privacy. and i intend to be in this building for a very long time. i think the privacy of a few extra feet there would create a more oblique lines so th

the department owns the building. we do not have the capacity to renovate the building. we are working with a nonprofit partner and giving them stewardship of the building, rely on them to do the heavy lifting. >> is this being coordinated with capital staff, in terms of the capital market will have to be done on the building, to make it in habitable? >> it depends on where the -- funding comes from. if it is city funding, we would bring in our capital team to oversee the project. if it is private funding, we can use an outside team. that is to be determined. >> what is your time line on determining whether the funding is in place, involvement of our capital staff? obviously, right now, as it stands, the department owns the property, so it is a department asset. what is the timeline for determining -- how are you going to proceed -- whether it is privately-funded renovation, what is the role of the department to the property, if the renovation is conducted by outside groups, what kind of oversight should we have? >> when i was executive director, my point person was an h

the building up the street built every -- that broke every building will in the book got another exception. what is your plan for the city and county of san francisco and for our neighborhood? are we going to make exceptions to every single building that goes up? are we going to start sticking to the code? i am not saying one way or another how i go on this. i am just pulling out the questions on this. is that interesting? president olague: we are actively looking up the plans over here. if it appears we're looking down -- >> if it is 4 feet here, 8 feet here, 10 feet here, do we have a code? what should we follow? breaking these codes and making these exceptions at times causes drs. if you follow the code, it is more likely you will not have them. >> commissioners, ipod -- commissioner sugaya: commissioners, i am going to ask to recused myself. in has bearing to the property i own. -- commissioner fong:. >> on the motion? commissioner fong is reduced -- recused. president olague: project sponsor -- i am sorry. are there additional speakers in support of the d r request your -- of the dr r

the only one that has a sad fact is the -- building. the pattern of the whole block is attached >> he is the adjacent property attached to the building? >> you mean the other side? >> we keep that exterior wall because we have the project. >> is this attached to the house to the next? >> there is a setback. >> right >> where are you in the construction process? >> now we just get started, the contractors have the inspection of the foundation. >> have you thought about flashing that for your adjacent neighbors? >> the property owner was upset that he needed to stop. >> my question is to provide some kind of flashing between the two properties. >> i believe for the building code we don't build over the property line because now we get this back to the adjacent buildings. that belongs to the neighbors. i am not sure that the building will allow us to put a cover over the top. that i really don't know for sure. >> just a few background issues. >> there's no requirement for a side yard set back. the application was submitted in february of 20

to the preservation of that existing building, the main building, is quite different than what architects would do. and i don't know their background, perhaps they are architects but compared to most architects, it is different. in the following way. architects have a tendency to develop designs that are -- the term that occurred to me as i was thinking about this case and visiting their site was similar to what was stated by one of the earlier speakers. it is quite fanciful. you could see that in the interiors of their existing build and the design of what they proposed for the carriage house. the question then for us is whether the development of historically reflective themes comes from a cookbook for those of us who were trained as architects or whether it allows some level of creativity in the eyes of the beholder and the eyes of the creator. it is clear in my mind from the site that the zellmans have their own image and they have applied their own levels of creativity to how they preserve their existing building and it is quite clear that it is how they have applied it to the carria

the department of building inspection has one inspector. the mayor's office of disability has some inspectors. our next step is working together to figure out how we utilize these resources to possibly minimize our small businesses from having to pay the private sector for these services. an additional thing, though this will take some funding and planning -- lawrence cornfield -- kornfield did a great video in 2007 explaining the difference between the ada and the california building codes. now that we have casp it would be great to do a new video, and promote that as an online tool for businesses to watch. i do have one last thing i would like to add for moving forward. that is that with the sb-1608, the california commission on disability access was formed. i think for the department of building inspection, spall business commission, and mayor's office of disability, working for wood to star providing reports and feedback -- working forward to start providing reports and feedback for that commission. with that, i will turn it over to neil

try to connect the building back to the embarcadero and create a true front door for the building. so at the same time, we recognize that the building needs to have -- has multiple sites. while it has a front portion of the building that faces directly out towards the green, the gta area and the arrival sequence is very much also part of the experience. as you can see, there is a notion that the public plaza would extend back through along the face of the building in the area, which is during cruise days used as a drop-off area, but in situations where the building is not being used as a cruise terminal, it has the potential of also being used for other kinds of functions. also serves to connect the front portion of the site back to the water's edge in the upper portion of the screen. we also have considered the outlying building and its role in the overall composition of the face along the embarcadero. previously, we have talked about this area and the zone around the building. we called it the beltway plaza area. we think there is an opportunity to create a sense of activity, a li

it is less than totally attractive, the building. that might sometimes be the nature of public housing. i cannot contemplate having neighbors decide what should go on on another property they do not occupy. just in general, and also because there would be many complications to do such an arrangement. i think one very favorable outcome of tonight's hearing and this movement to have these trees removed would be if ms. bright and mr. hastings were to try to arrange a meeting and say there are people in the neighborhood who are very concerned about the appearance of the building, about the safety issues. how can we as members get involved in and do things that are beneficial to the residents of that particular building, the building itself, and the general appearance of the street? beyond that, i do not know what else could be done. i am not in favor of overturning the department are granting the appeal. commissioner peterson: i would concur with those sentiments. it sounded to me it like a resounding, "we would raise money to do the main

the rear structure and buildings. -- i walked through the main building from the street. vice president garcia: i climbed the steps across the street on divisadero so i could have a vantage point. director goldstein: thank you. >> good evening, president goh, commissioners. i am the applicant. we bring you a beautiful project. you are our last hope. i beg you, please, do not leave us with a design choice by the city that we will not be comfortable looking at for the rest of the days. -- the rest of our days. now, i would like to introduce our attorney. >> thank you, and to my right is an associate attorney in my office. when the voters several years ago created a new historic preservation commission with a real veto powers on projects, many predicted that this would result in a number of appeals to your board. well, it has not happened, and the fact that this is the first such appeal is historic, and it also means that the historic preservation commission and its staff have done a good job of balancing the needs a preservation and the needs of property owners and should b

highly technical ones for the building commission. the gio technical aspects of it are appealable to the building commission, who does not have some of the same, i believe, perhaps apply to this body, who was targeted in some of the charter revisions. the -- and i can think of instances where a certain type of conditional use, perhaps, has zero correlation or nexus to a particular permit. i'm not sure what that nexus may be in this particular mansion? . we have no idea of the full range of language that was used in the reviews. we have the planning department's determination on the c.u. we have no idea what the permits do other than the general descriptions of them and i can see where one could make an argument, as an example, that if one was merging multiple units into one that, no doubt, is part of the conditional use application. however, i'm not sure that all elements of the permit are so clear cut as being related to the c.u. >> i would agree -- go ahead, please. >> i just wanted to say that's what i'm struggling with. irked put o

workers plan to lay the cable through the buildings through the number one and three buildings to connect it to the number two reactor. this way they plan to send electric power to all six reactors. restoration work at the damaged plant faces a number of problems. the biggest issue is how to shield workers from radiation. radiation of ten millisieverts per hour near the number one reactor has been determined. this tokyo electric power company official says the operation must be carried out based on levels of radiation observed in place. workers involved are required to put on protective gear. the maximum tolerable amount of radiation each worker is to be exposed to is set at 100 millisieverts. it is hard work carried out in the dark in a race against time. the restoration of power does not resolve the whole problem. most of the motors and switch boards at the plant have been submerged by the tsunami and they cannot be used. thorough examination must be carried out to determine whether there is a leakage of electricity and if the switch boards are usable. if they are working, they must be

that cools the building down. hen i first artwork in here, i was fascinated with all the arches, the repetitive arches. the original architect used it as a symbol of the talks in rome, a symbol of how important the water and the waterways are to us city. -- to the city. it looks like an aqueduct structure. >> what are the uses of this floor and above? >> we have about 10 it office spaces, private businesses, law firm, financial management, lobbying firms. there are all local businesses. -- they are all local businesses, very supportive of the marketplace. >> i know that some part of this building, the water goes underneath, the bay water is under there? >> yes. >> is it under the whole building? >> there is a sea wall, probably right under where you are standing. a lot of it is on the pilings. >> i have seen a guy on a little boat that goes under there and make repairs. >> and also, the coast guard comes, anytime there are logs floating in the water, we have to call the coast guard. acting get hung up underneath th

to start building that is currently forever 21. they were allowed to fill in some of the door openings. in that case, this is a commercial building and retail building. those openings don't define what that building was as much as this one. in order for the project, i disagree with see historic preservation consultants. some openings me to be retained all the way to the sidewalk. -- need to be open to the sidewalk. the character needs to be retained. i think if d.r. is taken at some point, i would like that to be a condition. >> this is a hard one for all of us, obviously. for me, the reason it is difficult this because i respect -- this will sound off, i think but this is the reality. we have four russian hill association to oppose the project and will work closely with a lot of these organizations and we are sensitive to what the neighbors input because they lived there and they understand the conditions in ways that sometimes many of us don't. it is hard for me to dismiss frequently what the neighbors have to say. i am not entirely opposed to this project. i think a pr

and air to the adjacent building at 48 peralta street. provide a set back on a side property line of the d.r. requestor's property of approximately 19 feet, and hence the sidewalk lighting for better security, and at a landscaping at the front and rear of the property. the project is within the building envelope and complies with the building height, and provides the required rear yard. the project open space is consistent with the residential design guidelines, which would expose the upper stories. the project is generally comply with the mass and scale properties, which contains a mixed pattern of development. all of four units are family housing by providing three- bedroom units and want to be a bedroom unit. the department feels that concerns have been adequately addressed and there are no extraordinary circumstances. therefore, it is the recommendation that the planning commission not take discretionary review and approve the project as proposed. thank you. president olague: thank you. d.r. requestor? and we have two. >>. afternoon, c

two japan self defense forces helicopters have sprayed water on the reactor building at the fukushima daiichi power plant. tokyo police guard will use a water cannon truck to spray water from the outside to cool the storage fuel. each helicopter is capability of carrying 7.5 tons of sea water. the operation was held at around 9:48, 9:52, 9:54 a.m. and also 10:00 a.m. on thursday morning. due to radiation levels, though, the operation should be conducted from a minimum altitude and limited to 40 minutes per helicopter per day. on wednesday, a white plume was seen rising from a reactor building at the fukushima daiichi power plant. tokyo electric power company says water in a storage pool intended to cool spent fuel apparently evaporated from the vapor has the cooling system has not been working since the quake. there is urgent need for cooling to stop the fuel from emitting hydrogen for possible explosion or meltdown. at 9:48 a.m., 9:52 a.m., 9:54 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. japan time on thursday, two japan self defense force helicopters have prayed water on the crippled number three reactor

they are not adding any extra height to the building. this is just from a different angle, showing the second penthouse. the proposed and existing condition are almost the same. this concludes my presentation. president olague: thank you. is there any public comment on this item? step to the microphone, please. >> good afternoon. my name is eric barnes. i have worked at the property there for 12 years. i worked for eight radiology website. i have kept abreast of the research anin emf radiation. i am aware the 1996 telecommunications act does not allow that to be considered. i mention these health reasons "-- solely as background information to support the fact that i think it is the wrong site and the wrong place. these antennas will be less than 50 feet from my head. that makes it a very intense personal issue. i have 26 petitions here, signed by the people who work in my building, who absolutely do not want this facility. my boss has promised that we can move, but we still have a two- year lease. nobody wants to be there with the cell p

the difference is they get if 1998 building code versus the current building code for the project. president goh: so the c.u. is expired. when did it expire? >> technically three years after the issuance, so in 2006. we had extended to it allow additional time. commissioner fung: 1998. president goh: right, till 2006. i'm leaning toward vice president garcia's view on this one. commissioner fung: we have no choice. president goh: did you make a motion? >> shall i call the roll then? commissioner fung: president goh, the project sponsor is raising her hand. president goh: i called the zoning administrator up so why don't you come up for one minute. >> some of the managers are saying that we already expired on the conditional use but that's not true. they give us the approval and we already file everything. it is in progress. so everything is in progress and i talked to the planning department. i talked to the building -- they say that it doesn't have a building permit. but i find out showing to them and then they find out the record. they're saying that they forgot to reissue a new

they built the platform. it building and underneath this platform and across the bay. >> this was developed as part of the bart transportation strategy? >> correct, and the park construction at that time. >> it is not on this plaza, separated a little bit, let's colligate e -- let's call it gate e. >> it is adjacent. it them every now and then i talk to people who are out of town and people say where is the giant ball park. i say that it is next to pier 40. they make the assumption that it is next to pier 39, but we know that is not true. the numbering is bob and even. it -- the numbering is odd and even. then north of the ferry building we have pier one. >> 1, 3, and 5 have been redeveloped into a combination of office space and restaurants. they are in the process of leasing those out and it is also listed on the national register of historic places being a sailor, you are familiar with the public wants that sits behind us. >> usually, i sailed out of south harbor pier 40. there are very few places along the whole bay

the finalizing for des derio street. this is a building permit for chase bank to open at the subject location. this is the site that the planning commission had heard conditionally formula retail battery plus store. the chase bank, the planning department administrator has determined banks are not subject to the formula retail controls and this is how the formula retail controls have been applied consistently since they were invoked in 2004 and they have the uses for the bank however condition for formula retail aspect of a bank. it's always been related to the financial services itself. so the board did hear this appeal last night. they ultimately continued that we during the course of the retail process, we found a small issue with one of the a.t.m.'s and that had triggered a notification requirement so we're working with the project sponsor to try to get that issue resolved and the board will have a final hearing on that next week to decide whether or not they will take action to resolve that issue for us. but what i really wanted to me

and the building is due for demolition. it was reviewed at the last meeting here. we object to this hot number of bases. -- for a number oon a number of. has this building been tested for lead and asbestos before demolition? it can enter our homes and in danger our health. this is a similar scenario, on a smaller scale, but the free- floating toxic debris and dust to be trapped in the vicinity. we also object on the basis of public new sense. -- nuisance. it will be deleterious to our quality of life. it will occur immediately outside of our bedroom windows. the windows are quite old and even when shot. -- old even when shut. we object on the basis of interference with the use of our privacy. the proposed construction project interferes with the use of our property. it will be unfair to the quality of life. construction workers will be there all day long. it is intended to block the direct sunlight on the west side of our building. it will impact the atmosphere making our homes less livable. we also object to the loss of street parking. i don't know if they have rec

the department owns the building. we do not have the capacity to renovate the building. we are working with

and attractive as the ferry building was for the ferry building waterfront area. culturally, in terms of jobs creation, we have been working on 27 now for three years. we have a very exciting concept with the association of independent art schools. basically, the organization had 41 independent art schools in their group. they are based in brooklyn, new york. they have a lot of exciting people. we have been talking to them about building a campus here, which would be either for a semester or year where students could come out and mix with students of all of the 41 colleges and create a digital art center. alongside that, but what we call trade schools america, which is to cater to the kids who do not want to go to college but want to learn crafts, link it in with the unions, a lot of excitement, so you have the high-tech world, and kids from other areas of the city and kids who can benefit by learning crabs. and trades. the infrastructure we would do, a huge infrastructure and transportation. a lot of work and understanding the scope of it. we would open the easter

majority of the building mass. you can see at the podium level, which is the third level, the first housing level, we have carved the building back and created a landscape podium for the use of the senior community and topped it on the back of the building, such that it is protected from both the wind and the discrete sounds and also, it allows the building itself, the tower, as you can see, to step away from both the boy hotel, over there on your right here, and then this element here, which is the free, to allow the existing windows and residents to maintain their light and air exposure. and the site is part of an historic neighborhood, and we have worked diligently over the past few years to design this building so that it fits in compatible with the existing texture and the feel of the tender 1, and we have worked with planning to refine the design a number of times to make that occur, and some of the major issues and elements are the three-part arrangement of the 10-story structure to a more traditional buildin

i called the planning department and building department. a week or 10 days later, this permit was discovered. this matter has been heard before the population of city of san francisco in the san francisco chronicle in 2003. the resolution was that there would be no further changes to the project to what had been decided as far as the section 106 review. now that i am back on this completely, i looked at this new permit number. if you look at the drawing, it is not clear that this entryway, if you look at the front page -- >> let me stop you there. i understand that point. the suspension that do appealed and the drawings of the plan permits do not match up. in other words, you have requested an appeal on the release of the suspensions on the permit ends with 4484. the drawing that you provided as part of your brief -- that is permit 9554. >> what those plans are is when the suspension was lifted in january, you will see that there is a long explanation, at that time, they told me that while they had overseen and some revisions would be done t

there is a good 35 yards in front of the building. it would be an opportunity for the city to support the sidewalk garden project, which we are actively promoting. it would help the environment. it would help run off and do a great job to help alleviate the streetscape environment with that tall building. thank you. >> ms. swanson, do you have any rebuttal? >> again, i am the housing manager. i originally did take a walk to look at some trees on the other side of the street. we talked about it with my director and the executive director of the housing authority. i am not an expert on trees. i did not know if the trees were dead. i was told there were dead. that was the first time they had been cut since i have been there. i understand that the same person who cut the trees cut them every year and they come back. after we found out the trees were not dead or diseased, the housing authority decided to keep the trees because the tenants who live there enjoy the trees. vice commissioner garcia: thank you. >> ms. short? >> carlos short, dep

we were concerned that there would be changes to the building. we understand the appellant's concerns. we try to address those issues in order to protect the building. we suspended the permit and review the permits. what was proposed under the permits was acceptable. we did note that there were issues with the exterior of the building. that is what commissioner fung noted that was earlier this year. it was to address some issues on this building. it was in addition to one of the permits that was suspended by this action. the permit that we will see as fixing one of these problems cannot be issued until the suspension will be released on the permits here. the appeals of the suspension prevents the permit from being issued. it removes the existing steel gate at the front or replaces the windows with the same kind of places the exterior door with the same kind of paint on the outside of the skill building and you can have some consistency on the outside of the building. we appreciate the concern about the replacement permit. it has not yet been issue

i made no concerns about the foundations of the building. i made no claims about errors in drainage. we are here about the empowerment to review given to this project. we are not here to decide whether or not these structures will cause an environmental impact. we are here to let you know that the review given by the department to determine what level of review the environmental impact that this project may cause was not properly assessed from the department. it is in a sensitive environmental area. the project is clearly mitigated. the network case is directly on point. they are using the exact same terminology that was rejected by the court bench. they are using another technique that was rejected by the court. these medications will come down the line. let's send it over to the building department and they will resolve it. i am going to let the engineer take the remainder of my time so that he can walk you through his report. >> i only have limited time. the california code of regulations requires the lead agency to have in tampa -- indepe

we do not dispute the significance of the building. that is because it is listed on the apartments and in 1976 survey. this has rated only the top 10% of the buildings that were considered significant. i will show you the document for that. this is a landmark board. they've found for this particular side. according to the san francisco heritage. and architecturally significant building is the favorite category under the order. in an attempt to draw attention, the present evidence across the street and the other locations that are not adjacent. none of this equipment is located next to an architecturally-significant building which is why the city committed those other devices to be installed. the city regulations that were in place were not followed by the planning department and as a result, this facility is installed adjacent to an architecturally debt significant building and should not be permitted. for this reason, the permit should be revoked. -- the facility is adjacent to an architecturally significant building. there is a sign,

he presented a project that was a new building. the new building was moved 9 feet further back into the locked, same height, same structure. we're talking about documentation for whether an analysis was done. mr. williams might be right. but the documentation did not occur until after the planning commission hearing. but that is not a question to go that is a document. documentation can be done up to the time of the permanent. it has not had a fully-issued building permits. what is important is, did the staff of department analyzed before it's too up to present a new building. did they look at resources on this lot in nearby ones? yes. the fact that they did not read- stamp a piece of paper before that meeting is irrelevant. it is also irrelevant legally according to the city attorney. now, there is no dispute here even from the appellant that nothing on this lot is an historic resource. only secondarily was it allows with the nearby buildings were accepted? -- were affected? the main argument is based on a book written by a socialite

also the building director. the engineering studies that showed the this installation is safe, and there are none in the public record, so some concerns. director goldstein: next speaker, please. >> good evening, a commissioners. doug. first of all, at both occasions, but these have been operational and continue to be operational, so let's bear that in mind. -- at both occasions, these have been operational. i think you should go the same way in this case, based simply on the compliance issue. the architectural survey already just rated the top 10% and buildings in the city, so a two- rating is much higher than it would appear on the scale. the bottom line is this should not be installed next to a architecturally significant building, and the planning department, we are hearing it. that was in the back of their minds when they were reviewing this, because there is no evidence in their report that they took into consideration that building and made their conditions accordingly, so i really think you should also de

in 2004, stabilization of the building was completed. elements included a new roof, only the second in the building's history, repair of the seismic reinforcement. under district 11 supervisors, the car barn has received $350,000 from the city to support the rehabilitation, and in 2008, received $200,000 from the recreation and parks department. the supervisor and recognize the need that may barn has said mta in this district, across the street from one of the busiest transportation hubs in the city. district 11 is a diverse area of the dominant late asian and hispanic persons. the district is primarily non english speaking with the city's largest congolese speaking community. it is the lowest per and come. 71% of residents have earned less than a college degree and is the only district in san francisco where the majority of residents are foreign born. most importantly, it is home to the greatest you ages 10 to 19 but has the lowest percentage of youth services in the city. a study looking at what residents desired ranked teenager and aft