Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  July 22, 2019 5:00am-6:01am PDT

5:00 am
the owner directly adjacent to this project. i live there with my family, and long-term tenants. everyone has on my house and all of the neighbors i have spoken to are strongly opposed to further construction on the site. we have just endured for years of intense bulldozing, hammering, cement mixers, and hordes of workers invading our privacy and we have been through enough. we are happy with the structure, as it stands. it is ready to be occupied it. we are excited to have new neighbors. we just want to get on with our lives and back to a sense of normalcy, and community. the other thing i want to mention, this building has been vacant for many years which, you know, creates a breach. it is a magnet for all sorts of bad behavior when the sun goes down. we are dealing with graffiti, vandalism, people urinating,
5:01 am
people defecating. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> please don't punish the neighbors. >> any other public comment in support of the project sponsor? >> i don't know who i am in support or who i am not in supportive. i wrote my letter. i stand by my letter. the proper story for this project is the one i referred to in the letter which is the goose on her golden eggs. as everybody knows, i think they made a huge mistake -- i rage the issue of this project and others back in 2018, not because i filed any complaints, i never filed a complaint. it was issue of relative affordability. two blocks from this project,
5:02 am
this is what everybody's doing. i've been talking about for five years. that is what it was two units at 800 square feet, so over $7 million. everybody is caught up in it. in the stack reports -- they couldn't verify. >> thank you. your time is up. >> may have 30 seconds? >> you can have 30 seconds. >> the staff didn't verify when they went back to check when the bad work was done. they had the same problem in the beginning of a project when they do they review. they can always verify. that is what i wanted to say. thank you. >> any other public comment in support of the project sponsor? okay. >> no rebuttals. >> thank you. >> i guess, where do we begin?
5:03 am
i mean, where do we begin? some of the other ones that have come before us had a lot less meat on the bone. they were projects that had misrepresentations coming back for legalization's. this one takes the cake, it really does. the first question is, i have never met you, i would have hoped that mr. riordan could have come, he has this ability of rapport that i can understand how things happen, he just explains it to me a little bit better. let me go over the permits, okay? they are "all lives matter" one here. so, let's see here. there is a permit for a sprinkler system that was application 2015 and ends in
5:04 am
0900. here is one for a sprinkler monitoring system, i don't have an issue with that. then in in 015 ends in 364, it is voluntary upgrade for rigid frames, new sheer role and beams, cost $100,000. i looked down here and you're going to see a pattern here. i looked at this, i'm an analytical kind of guy. i deal with numbers and accounting. one of the patterns i started to to recognize is, make no representation as to any culpability here. i'm going to look on some of these ones that have misrepresentations and i see this gentleman. he is on a lot of these. i come down here on the inspections, this is a full seismic upgrade. i went through a full seismic upgrade cost more than a hundred thousand, $150,000.
5:05 am
in order for me to understand if the contractor was doing what he was supposed to do, our building was set up in an earthquake and the bill -- on the work was done to a quality building code lev level. we did a, b, c, around the perimeter. we cut a piece and we reborrowed it. every time we did the rebar we had to have an inspector come. the rebar is okay, the concrete is of the right kind. okay 24. they ported to, they came back and inspected, they said it looks good. this went on, and on, and on, and there was maybe 20 inspections. on this permit here, the inspections i see here, 2015 and again 364, inspections, there only two of them. april 19, 2017. a final inspection approved
5:06 am
october 11, 2017 by mr. curran. why wouldn't the same process that applied to my seismic upgrade apply here in terms of a, b, c, rebar, concrete, the 20 inspections that we had to call for? >> i can answer that. there is two previous permits for the foundation where the lion share of the concrete work was done. this one here, the only thing they got the okay to cover for where the frames. >> let's take a look at that. >> that is the documentation you have there. that is the welding and stuff like that that was looked at by a third party. the building department gave them was the okay to cover the frame. >> i'm looking at them in order that they appear on the intern internet. okay, yeah, you are talking
5:07 am
about -- >> then you got the one, two, converge convergent injustice storage. engine -- and the garage. there was concrete work done on most of those, i would say. >> is a look here, can you give me the numbers, mr. curran? >> yah, most of the concrete inspections were under 2014 -- >> cell, going back to my experience and my a, b, c, rebar, next. this when you just mentioned there were only three inspections, 2215, reinforced still, and the final inspection, october 11, 2017.
5:08 am
shouldn't there be more inspections there? >> it depends on how many sequences? if they have multiple sequences ready at one time. i mean, they could have done that in two cores if they did their sequencing right. >> isn't the scope of the job so big that they would do that? $100,000, probably really $200,000. if we look at these pictures, like the buildings, there is nothing left. i mean -- >> s, in fact, when i met with the geotech soil was such that they could do multiple sections and not have any danger. we are out there to ascertain if they are doing it per code, per the approved plans. not going to be damaging any of the adjoining properties and there's no life safety issues. >> you mentioned the geotech report, i don't see one. do you have one? >> i do not have that one. that would have been submitted
5:09 am
with the plants when they got their permit, i would think. >> for mr. horn? >> that is not something planning would look at. >> i mean, i would love to see those, honestly. let me just keep going i'm still flummoxed at the lack of rebar and concrete inspections. this is a big tran16 happening based on my little job. then we go to the crawlspace, this is another big one, $50,000 in value. and then i see there were three inspections, they were by you again for three things. then the convert to storage space you have to remember these permits when they came into at least planning, there was no
5:10 am
excavation happening. but excavation is happening on these. there was no sequel review. one of the questions i have for the planning, why did these come over to planning? because they said there was no excavation? how does that get -- how does this happen? >> there are specific triggers for when a permit is going to review a certain amount of excavation, that is one of the triggers. that does require review of a certain amount. if that is not being represented on the plans, then the employe employees, that's only trigger, they are not representing that accurately, there's no reason for that person at the counter to add planning to the routing. if it was shown, and they come in and they say they're going to dig out about 300 cubic yards of earth to put in a new garage, that's absolutely going to get routed. >> okay.
5:11 am
here is 12015 -- 908. half a million dollars, windows, doors, hydraulic elevator, all of the stuff. the only inspections that i see, there are three of them, may have 2016, may 18, a, may 12 by mr. chester chu, reinspection required because it was wrong. >> the contractor rescheduled. >> okay. 10-11, there was a final inspection that happened. that's almost a year and something difference. is that comment? >> yes. i mean, if you were doing a new house, you might only have one foundation inspection and one framing inspection. typically you get all of your framing done all the way to the roof and then your subs come in,
5:12 am
they cut their holes, they do their drilling, they knock out blocks. whatever they have to do to install those different traits. after that is all done, the building department would come in and do one framing inspection. ascertaining that nothing has been compromised with the installation of these other subs. >> okay. mr. horn, could you tell us about the drawings that were submitted, please? >> and permits in particular? >> the ones we talked about this morning. >> yes, as were included in my presentation, which included all of the permits that had been
5:13 am
routed to the planning department for review. they'll be over the in by an enforcement planner. >> in terms of these building permits that i read, crawlspace, excavation, was that were turned in? >> those features are, in some cases, represented correctly on the plans. some were not presented to the planning department. in regards to the ones the planning did review, and sign off on, that first one in 2014 to excavate, i'm sorry to convert the existing garage is the main one where the project started to be presented as this five-story building with a full basement and a crawlspace. again, as we determined that is not how the project ever existed. it was sitting on top of a
5:14 am
hillside with a partial crawlspace potentially. >> okay. >> unfortunately, what you see on the existing conditions of the plans that are before you, all of the existing conditions of the plans of these previous permits looked much more like what the plans you currently have before you on the proposed project. every time i saw a section, it was four stories, 10-foot internal heights. the way the project was presented, there was not going to be any volume expansion. one of the main reasons planning never saw it. >> are saying that the volume that was shown that was more or less the proposed volume versus what was actually there? >> correct.
5:15 am
>> there was incremental expansion on top of that. each time it was reviewed, nothing would love to have a difference, to have dbi and staff, to see a huge deltoid that would require excavation, they say for the preservation was broken up into two different views, two different preservation planners signing off because the work was shifted on multiple permits. >> would you say this looks like serial permitting? >> yes. >> i'm sorry. you're questioning is so good, i want to ask. so you're saying the inspector, seems to be the same inspector going out there multiple times, it's you. okay, so mr. curran, you went out there and he saw this going on, at multiple locations, but
5:16 am
you did not see enough of a variance from the permit. even though you went multiple times, and over time it went bigger than it was supposed to. i don't know whether they took out 2 feet, or 5 feet. that is the problem. when 95% of the people you deal with are honest in putting what they are supposed put on the plan, it's easy. there is 2%, or 3% of the people that are incompetent i don't know what they are doing. then you have to hold their hand. then you get another couple of percent toward trying to do an end run around having to do with planning. this is how they do it. if you know what you are doing, and you know how to present it you can do that. unfortunately we are building
5:17 am
inspectors. i look at building code stuff. i look at the structural integrity of the building. i want to make sure that anything that anyone in dbi is looking at is not falling down in the event of an earthquake. the structural components of the building are of utmost importance to us. when you have somebody that is trying to misrepresent things, we are not detectives. especially at a project like this that has gone on for over three years. what was true at the beginning, you know, i think in those three years i probably did close to 4,000 inspections. if you ask me what i did on those inspections, early on, i would not be able to tell you. if someone is going out of their way to misrepresent, it is a hard thing to follow. >> mr. curran, i look at the complaints come on trying to understand what happened.
5:18 am
there was a complaint that came into dbi on 7-12-18, by someone named walsh. >> he is the district inspector out there now. unfortunately, that is the busiest district in san francisco. regularly there is a senior or other inspectors, foz will not district, trying to keep up. if we could, we would do 40 inspections per day and that one district. >> the reason why am getting to this is, the complaint caught our -- called our attention to the fact excavated 822 cubic yards without sql review, with large dormers without section 311, potential demo without demo calculations and converted to flat units into single-family residence without unit size calculations, much submit submit bpa to correct. that was july 12, 2018, but on
5:19 am
make seven, 2018, have so many things going on. it is complaint 2018-77291. ten months went by, it looked like nothing was done. you are involved in this, i guess the question is, you know, why -- it seems like a big complaint, 820 yards is like 18 semi trailers, full of dirt. >> are asking there was no action? >> yeah, because there was a complaint here. >> maybe i can jump in for just a second and provide a context. in terms of timing, you have the language that was part of the dbi complaint. if you noticed it sounds like a planning complaint. >> basically there was that complaint, it was filed with planning in february, last year.
5:20 am
basically said there is a violation that includes -- you need to file a permit to correct all of that, which is the permit that we have here. i believe that complaint was basically someone filing the same complaint from family -- planning. the reason there has been nothing since then is because they have been working on this permit to get a permit to correct everything that was called out in the notice of violation if that makes sense. >> one of the clarification. so much going on in this district, you are helping out. >> that's pretty regular, because i oversee seven districts districts in san francisco. on top of the other senior duties like union count verifications, fires and things like that, we have to jump in and do this. unfortunately, there was one
5:21 am
inspector, in the district that left. he basically left because he cannot handle the load. the new guy that came in there chester, was very new, given what had been happening with the complaints here, i cannot just drop them in the middle of it. >> i end up doing the inspections. >> one other question i do have. thank you very much for providing the special inspections is that common, or ethical, or legal that the project sponsor who is the general contractor controls the special inspection engineer and owns a special inspection firm? i started looking up the stuff. the bottom of their website it says mercury engineering.
5:22 am
and then i looked at mercury engineering, is the same address, same suite number and everything is this the same outfit? >> i don't know if that is or not. that's not something i get into. that's way above my pay grade. >> he is the structural engineer. his stamp is on the letters i believe. >> project sponsor, thank you very much. >> it's like whitewater. [laughter] project sponsor? why did you submit things that were not true? we have heard from planning, we had this -- we basically said were tired of legalizing all this, pardon me, bull ship foz that is going on. why did you do this? we take full responsibility for
5:23 am
what happened. we were working with subcontractors, things were being done, we take full responsibility for it. to be honest it was a runaround to avoid at this.if i could go back in a time machine and spent several months that it would take to do it properly, obviously it would. we screwed up. we screwed up bad. we got caught. we've suffered consequences because of it. we have paid some fines. we are willing to further pay more fines and make a contribution, do something for housing. i want to make sure that the punishment that we are sufferi suffering, and the message on the precedent that is being set is people seeing this is not worth it, don't do it. this is not worth the time, and stress in my life and my company going down. >> the word that you said was
5:24 am
put the house back the way it was. we have a precedent here. i cannot imagine going to sleep at night saying we give you a pass and all of those other people, i know 214 states is still sitting there, i mean, these people are saying the same thing. it was this and it was that, i'm sorry, they came before us, but we were consistent in our decision. i'm just struggling and i will wait to hear from my fellow commissioners. >> to put it in perspective, i don't see the equivalence between 214 state street, and our project. we did have permits. >> they were fraudulently obtained. you submitted drawings that were not accurate. you were representing the project as it was supposed to be, but @ -- -- not as it was. >> i'm going to follow the same train that commissioner richards
5:25 am
was on, i want to ask some really straightforward simple questions, having a hard time understanding how the stuff happens. correct me if i am wrong, anybody? there was no excavation supposed to happen on this project, is that correct? i heard there was no excavation, therefore no need for sequin analysis. >> the way they presented it wasn't that excavation was such that it would not trigger that. that is why they broke it up into separate permits. there were three separate permits that showed excavation. >> didn't show nine semi trucks of excavation? >> it didn't show that, that's how they got. >> why was and it stopped then. >> because it was not caught. >> one of the challenges i think mr. warner alluded to earlier, when someone presents plans to the dbi planning and they show an existing state -- that is the
5:26 am
existing state being represented. to change with the existing state was. the plans show an existing state and a proposed state. after the permit is issued, someone goes out there and they see the new state, they new excavated state. you never saw what the previously existing state was. it's not always easy to determine the previously existing state was different than what they showed on their plans. because it's not like when permits are proposed that we need to have the site into a full site inspection and make sure there's existing plans. so sometimes that can be a challenge. this is what mr. curran was eluding to. if it can be done in a subtle way, purposely and try to get work done through different permits, either through misrepresentation, or serial permitting or the two together, you can piece together a larger project done what may have
5:27 am
otherwise been able to be approved, or at least approved in that manner. that is not to say that is good, or acceptable. in terms of what can actually happen and the challenge from the staff of the department's to be able to determine the difference between what was actually existing and what was actually done. relevant to what has been represented on the plants. >> i'm having an incredibly hard time making sense of this. i am an, have built two-story buildings, 60 story buildings, i worked for a contractor, i've had my inspections. none of this ever happens. none of this a gray area, he said, none of this ever happens. there is a code. that is the bare minimum. you have to build things to the minimum of the code. you cannot exceed that. >> they did build a two code. it is built to code.
5:28 am
what they had permits for was misrepresented. the building code was adhered to. >> not the planning code. >> correct. >> why wasn't that brought here immediately? >> that's what i'm saying. none of this ever happens on any job site i've ever been on. >> can i finish talking, please? >> sure, go ahead. >> you do your work, you have your inspection you pass or fail. there is none of this, we will let you install it incorrectly. that never happens. >> i don't believe that is what happened. it wasn't installed incorrectly, it was installed in such a manner that you can see the scope. >> yes. >> that's what i'm talking about. >> as far as building code it was correct. >> i'll retract my statement about the building code but when the and it's allowed to
5:29 am
continue, i have a problem with that. >> i agree. >> thank you, mr. curran. >> this is the reason of why this particular case should be heard by a joint commission and should be decided by a joint commission. the planning department is being asked to kind of soften the load of what went wrong. while i appreciate what you do, it would be too easy to let something that is far more severe, in a major way betray the system, including the trust that most departments need when somebody comes to you over the counter or wherever to say this is what i want, this is what i'm basing my application on and basically outright lies. that is where the problem lies. if i look at this particular case at a design build firm, we should basically know both ends of the spectrum of what is being asked here, i find it even
5:30 am
harder to just basically say to it as they are and just approve it. the basic breach of trust, by a professional firm, in those fields and the design as well as the construction field. there is no excuse for any of this. we all know that everything starts with the drawings. you go into the field because you are obligated to submit detailed measured drawings, as a starting point for almost anything you do. that is where it fails. i am unable to have a firm including a website where they speak of themselves as a premier build breaking the public trust in a manner, that i am supposed to lightheartedly resolve with adr, which the matter in front
5:31 am
of us is far far deeper. they all have the right position, but we all get screwed all at once. that is why i basically cannot support this. i just can't. including the measures that you have devised to create dr to approve something that is basically not approvable is a serious, deep, breach of trust. >> okay. i also will not be approving this project. i would like to create a path forward here. i think that, i'm sorry mr. krahn, i feel like we are beating you up and it's not you. i think we have a bad system. i do not accept that we cannot get our way around this. i think we are seeing more and more of these, you know, cases.
5:32 am
i do believe that we the technology to make this a little bit better. we've invested in the system. we can figure out a way that the serial permits refer to the permit shows pictures, shows things that are key volumes, are things that we can refer to. so this doesn't happen. so that a project that has multiple permits can be built upon one another and inspection. where there is some level of accountability between db i planning. i think we can do that. it will take some work. but it is a problem that we have seen repeatedly. i don't think we need to do a joint commission hearing about it, because we have already talked about this issue ad nauseam.
5:33 am
now, as to the idea of paying into the affordable housing fu fund. i don't think that is actually doable. are the city attorney still with us? i am wondering about the legality of something like that, or the enforceability of something like that. i also just knowing what i know about the affordable housing business, a few hundred thousand dollars is not nearly enough for a replacement unit for a bmr, just so you know. is that something that could be enforceable through dr process? >> i got a copy of the letter this morning and was thinking about if there was a path forward on that.
5:34 am
i don't see authorization for the planning commission to add it as a condition of approval. but, this has happened before where individuals made gifts to the city, either through the board of supervisors the process of acceptance and allocating the gift for affordable housing. it is possible they have the ability to accept gifts. i will need to research that further. one other possible route that i have not yet had a chance to research would be almost treating this as a settlement of an unmitigated claim. >> would there be a remedy for the dr? >> i don't see the planning committee has of authority in this scenario.
5:35 am
there may be other ways that the city could use that money for affordable housing. >> the building originally had two units and an illegal unit? >> correct. >> went to the policy change in terms of approving the removal of illegal units at the counter? >> that was 2015. >> how many months after this was approved? >> i would have to look at the exact month. >> probably 6-8 months. >> is because of the legislati legislation? yeah, if this is happening tod today, if we were approving the permit you would have to come to the commission before he could remove illegal unit -- an illegal unit?
5:36 am
>> correct. as part of what we are doing, what we would be doing in theo theory? >> i mean, if today the project was proposing to take a two unit building with one unauthorized dwelling units and remove the unauthorized dwelling units and have two legal units that would be in front of you as a conditional use authorization specifically for the removal of that unpermitted unit have legally with the permit. >> right now the staff recommendation has some changes, but you're essentially asking us to have two units there. therefore we will be taking out that illegal unit?
5:37 am
>> from a number's perspective, is the same. the differences, at that time, the unit was physically there, that has all been physically changed. now it's just proposed to be two. >> i am, you know, i'm having a hard time separating the fact that in 2014 it was okay to provide an over-the-counter to take out an illegal unit, but you know, that permit was, you know, fraudulent. there was a bunch of staff that went along with that permit, subsequent permit that allowed for taking out that illegal un unit. if this project came before us, i don't know that we would allow for taking out a an illegal un unit. i'm having a hard time, you
5:38 am
know, thinking about the timing of it, and the sort of, you know, whether or not this is an okay permit. you should have done it then or we would have done it now. >> want to clarify, of all of their permits, that was the most true showing existing conditions and showing what work they were doing. in terms of the legality standing as an issue permit. we do see this building as a two unit building proposed to be albeit with a relocated lower unit.
5:39 am
>> to the best of your knowledge, were any laws broken civil or criminal? >> i'm not sure i understand your question. there were incorrect, there was incorrect information about existing -- >> where i'm going with this is, i don't mean to interrupt, i apologize. we had cases the city attorney brought against others that this happened with. i would strongly suggest that the city attorney also look at other actors including the soffits, as well, to be on that list. the second question is, the second, is -- if we take settlement money, i feel like i
5:40 am
am part of the pay to play problem in the city. the city has a pay to play problem. we keep trying to tighten up laws, and it seems like the people that are getting screwed are the ones that are abiding by the laws. the people that can pay to play they do whatever the. [bleep] they want. i'm telling you that. i would be okay with putting this billing back with three units, at the same configuration as they were. keep all of the fabulous finishes. if it was a full flats, a full flats and an illegal on the bottom just like alvarado, i would be okay with that. anything short of that, part of the plate -- play to pay. i moved to take dr, have the building restored to the original flat configuration, including the 30 unit which is allowed to in this are h3. on 22nd. -- >> i second.
5:41 am
>> did you want to say somethi something? >> this is a complicated project. this is not a typical proposal before you. one of the things to keep in mind, is that we have had this series of permits that have been issued. some of those permit were valid and the work was done, and completed. some of those permits rip -- misrepresented as opposed to this being the only proposal. i just want to bring that to your attention because i'm not sure if that, in anyway complicates the ability. if this permit does not move forward, as such, then there are other permits that continue to rely on some degree. because of that level of complication, if this was the
5:42 am
path that you really wanted to take, and they want to put it back in the 2014 position that it was in. i did double check, it was september of 2014 when they removed the unauthorized units in march of 2016 is when the legislation took effect. about 18 months. i would propose the continuance it to sort that out, make sure that's done as well as possible. straight up proposed demo to rebuild situation. i just want to put that out there for consideration. >> i want to clarify what you are suggesting. to allow staff in the project sponsor to figure out how the existing permit sequence we can
5:43 am
follow the directive of the commission to have three units put back in the property, which is what i heard the motion to have. >> just to clarify. i want an opportunity for staff, the sponsor in the city attorney to be able to review the complicated permit history and what under your review, with this permit in front of you. it's different than when someone is sitting before you on the proposal is to demolish and rebuild, that is very straightforward. this is a situation where we have serial permitting. those permits have been issued and done. many of them had misrepresentations. the permit in front of you now is not for the whole project. it is just to cover those scopes of work that were beyond,
5:44 am
basically the work they did beyond the scope of the prior permit. it creates a complication. i just want to make sure that if that is the path you want to go down, going back to the three units original, it's essentially adopted in the most appropriate way in terms of how it is worded. >> i just want to have more ti time. >> thank you. ms. stacy, if we were to go ahead and vote on this motion and approve it, that is on the floor right now, the dr, and approve a project here that would be three units, if the staff in the city attorney working with the project sponsor can still do what mr. teague described? >> kate stacy, city attorney's office. i think what we would have to do
5:45 am
is talk to the zoning administrator about how and wh what, how this project moves forward with the three units. i think one may be a midway solution is for the commission to take the motion of intent and then give us staff and our office a couple of weeks to figure out what is the best path forward. in the context of dr and discretionary review authority of the commission is a broad authority. i do not know the nuances of all of the permits and permit applications that are still pending. maybe with the commission could do is take this motion of inte intent, then we return in a few weeks with more information about the best path forward. >> commissioner richard, you are the maker of the motion, would
5:46 am
you be open to that? >> the question i have for mr. teague, you looking at this permit that is going to cover all of the bad things that happened to make everything okay again, that is what is before us. you're going to trace this permit back to all the contaminated permits where there were lies. were going to excavate and were going to do this. you're going to take that in its entirety and saint basically you can do the three units you want. are you saying something to that effect? that the good permits were okay to let go? they weren't fraudulently obtained? >> what i am saying is -- this is a less complicated scenario. so you had a one-story building and two years ago they got a permit to add a second story. last year they got a permit to add the third story. they year they came in i got a permit to do the fourth story and got dr and the commission said we did not like any of those stories.
5:47 am
then you would have the right to say, were not -- we are going to die this permit, were going to convey the conditions on the permit. what complicates this more is that we have this year, but some portions of those permits that got us to the fourth floor were not obtained appropriately. some of them were. it's a complicated web. so, that is why wanted to make sure that we are as careful, in the approach, as we can be and we give you the best guidance as possible to move forward in that path. i want to make sure we have our ducks in a row before going down that road. >> i appreciate your sage advice. i move to make an intent to take the dr and approve the project with three units as they were configured in 2013. >> i second. >> very good, commissioners.
5:48 am
there is a motion of intent to take dr, restored to the two flat configuration with ridden, not and aid to the third unit similar to what was their in 2013. on that motion, commissioner johnson? [roll call] i apologize we should also pick a date to continue. >> i defer to the zoning and a traitor in the city attorney. -- zoning administrator and the city attorney. >> make it the 29th of august, instead of the 22nd? >> that's entirely up to you. >> the 29th. >> is not a motion? >> yes.
5:49 am
>> on the motion to continue to august 29, commissioner johnson? [roll call] that motion passes unanimously 5-0. >> move on a variance and continuing to august 29. >> that puts us on item number 16, mta, tran11. this is a mandatory discretionary review. -- item number mta.
5:50 am
>> good evening, and fellow commissioners, ashley lindsay planning department staff. i am just a letters of support received earlier this week, copies are available for the public as well. the item before you is a mandatory discretionary view for work to be performed on one la avanzada street for resolution 11399 adopted by the planning commission. a mandatory discretionary review is for all building permit applications. its transmission equipment building or any other part of the site. there are three building permits for this project that are here before you today under this mandatory application. the project proposes to broadcast frequencies as mandated by the fcc consisting of adding seven new antennas, removing and replacing for
5:51 am
existing antennas and removing for existing antennas. it also proposes to remove cladding and reevaluate structural adequacy of the tower for structural strengthening as necessary for san francisco building code. all construction proposed with a car the site property and subsequent operations with implementation of the projects would be unchanged from those at present. the improvements were not result in no significant impacts related to aesthetics, including effect on visual characters, scenic vistas, scenic resources and light glare. this was adopted on february 16, 2,006 for all antenna related permits. to ensure sufficient installation, inspection, fcc omission compliance and neighborhood communication. as of this past tuesday, the department has received letters in support of the project that were just handed out.
5:52 am
no phone calls in support protests were received. we have also received additional conditions from the sponsor that the department supports with minor modifications and these have be -- have been e-mailed to you for the commission and i will read them into the record. the project sponsor shall complete its current evaluation of the structural adequacy of the tower in accordance with san francisco code for existing buildings subject to the completion of necessary environmental review and planning entitlements. condition 2, within four years of discretionary review approval the project sponsor shall complete a structural upgrade of visual tower in accordance with section 403.9 with the criteria to meet the seismic standards 7-16, 2019 version subject to the completion of necessary environmental review and planning entitlements.
5:53 am
within three months of discretionary review approval, project sponsor shall modify and record amended and restated standard antenna conditions, revising those certain standard antenna conditions recorded as document 2,011 -- j136146-100 on february 16, tran11. the neighborhood associations for the exposure measurements as described therein shall be on a mutually agreeable weekday date during normal business hours were two weeks notice. if no response to offer dates are received. the project sponsor may set a date on two weeks notice. the last condition, the
5:54 am
200-point study which is required to occur within two weeks of activation of the last repacking antenna constructed pursuant to the above referenced application shall be be overseen by third-party qualified professional engineers mutually agreed upon by the city of san francisco. department of public health. the project sponsor and the neighborhood association for the 200-point study. the cost of such observation by the third-party engineer, as well as an evaluation of the project sponsor's methodology for such a 200-point study shall be paid for by the project sponsor. of the recommends that the commission take dr and approve these permits as proposed. this concludes staff presentation. i am available for questions. the project sponsor is present and also available for questions. thank you. >> we will hear from the project sponsor.
5:55 am
>> good evening. i am kristin peters, the owner and operator of citro tower. fifty antennas are currently used to support television broadcast in san francisco. about one in five tv watchers receive their signals via tv antenna over the air for free. the permits before you today will allow the continuance of those broadcasts. to address the wireless devices, congress authorized the fcc to convert a portion of the radio frequency spectrum from tv broadcasting to wireless uses. after a complex auction, 30% of the broadcast spectrum was relinquished to the fcc for reassignment to wireless companies. this means that tv broadcast signals must be repacked into the remaining spectrum with many
5:56 am
stations moving to new frequencies.
5:57 am
>> i thought i had five minutes. >> three. >> all right. as the project sponsor? >> yeah. >> okay. >> you can finish. >> okay. the addendum that was prepared in 2019 to the 20 -- to the
5:58 am
2,008 and viral -- of our mental impact report showed no significant environmental impact what we want to note is that in the course of environmental review, there was the consideration of the tower facility is a historic district that was very concerning to us. we don't anticipate this to be an issue for this repacking permit, because of the fact that they found no significant impact to a cultural resource, but we do and pick dissipate it to be a concern at a later time in a different form. >> thank you. your time is up. >> thank you very much. we will now take public comment on this item. two minutes. any public comment on this item? okay. with that, public comment is closed. commissioner richards? >> i have a question. when you are repacking equipment , if you wouldn't mind answering my question. you are also removing equipment,
5:59 am
correct? >> yes, we are moving some antennas. >> we are obviously not hearing this for the first time. you have been here over the years in the neighborhood and have actively participated. i always felt very comfortable about your ability to accommodate concerns of theirs and i am in full support of what you are doing. >> thank you. >> that is the motion. >> second. >> very good, commissioners. there is a motion to take the d.r. and approached -- approve the project as proposed. on that motion... [roll call] so moved. that motion passes unanimously 5 -0. >> thank you. the meeting is adjourned.
6:00 am