need to talk about this out loud >> thank you. any additional public comment on item number 3? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor avalos >> thank you. i'm really concerned about the status quo the city right we have goals that we want to be able to inaccurate but judges as long as there's business first is not going to work. the language that's been redacted from the report we have jason reed here so if we can't get the mayors administration we to get involved we'll show it on the overhead >> i'm sorry, i didn't know you

wanted me to know the slide but when you. >> that's what i wanted you to do. >> i'm sorry, i didn't guess that but your office that found the information will bring the slide over here. give me about thirty seconds >> i'm happy to make a comment to give you those thirty second. i really appreciated the presentation from the department of environment and the sfmta. the goals are incredibly important for us to reach we're progressive around the environment and on reducing our carbon footprint. the it is great to see the breakdown was around the transportation and fuel. the sliefrl on waste and i guess the other was on construction. and in this area it's good to

understand where our issue is occurring and i'm sorry energy was the other large factor. so it's important as a policymaker to understand what we're supposed be phone call our energy. it's great to see we're becoming important fuel-efficient we're not catching up to the increased usage where a r with whether on more trying driving. and encourage more people to walk and recycle. in the long-term i'm interested in a controversial pricing we

have to have people be thought of and also paying into a fee if their causing congestion and costs for the city that's exactly what is happening right now ambassador we're xrerp with the incredible growth we're excited about and the revenues for the city is increased congestion. many of you who have spent time in south of market it's feels suffocating to walk we must there folks not to use their cars at that time and getting them out of their cars or figuring out other ways for the usage. we look forward to working with the transportation authority to work out the issues. whether we like it or not the growth is happening in the parts

of the city we have to build the neighborhoods for our residents. and that is creating that heath i didn't neighborhood it is important. on the climate action strategy i appreciate supervisor avalos initiative i know this is something that 8 members of the board supported including the members of the land use committee we that to the have this move forward. i appreciate looking at this incredibly important look which i didn't have the time to pour through and now that mr. freed is back i'm happy to end my comments >> (laughter). well mind thank you. so overhead. >> this language is actually found by jeremy in any office.

>> it's kind of hard to see but what you have on page 17 of the report supervisor avalos there's an area that's white when you highlight it you get the boxed that's information over there that is. >> could you cut-and-paste that. >> yes. the original version on line had it and after this got reported the energy watch updated this slide out. one of the things >> that went down the memory hole. >> yes. it disappeared completely. >> could you read that. >> the clean sectors and it would be a charter to those so this is the 20, 25 and got cut

off but in 2050 and how you get there by sector 10, 45 percent by residential and if you would get up to one hundred percent i believe is what the chart had. but keep in mind in this chart wasn't there are their would have been written information about clean power sf but the board may want to see the version prior to the clean sf getting cut out. what's the only approach that's been present to the city and county of san francisco go look like there have been other things like the green finance but the g finance sf didn't optional be covers a small section. there was a mayors task force that was done led by the

department of environment looking at the hundred percent renewal and in that document it talked about clean power sf getting us to one hundred percent energy conservation >> it says the major programs moving to one hundred percent electricity is one of the major things to reduce the green house gases. we can reduce the green house gas emissions it disappeared >> that's where the black man plan the mayors energy task force in 2012 was not released until 2013 and they give you ways to do it and one of the biggest ways is clean power sf is the best way to do that i love the program but it's not going to get you to one hundred

percent so you have to figure out that but you're getting a lot important moping people into one hundred percent renewal. >> thank you i'd like to call up the president of the department of the environment commission mr. josh. just his comments on a document that his department on his comments or thoughts about the redictation that happened >> sure supervisors. i chair the commission on the environment where we had a briefing about the document we actually saw the document before we we saw you talking about it at the board of supervisors. one of the things i think we're hoping to do as the environment commission we're produced find work of the staff of the

department of the environment. this is a critical document and we're taken by the feedback and the testimony of advocates because environmentalism is really drinking i driven by advocates and believers. one of the things i was looking forward to we've longed tried to have a joint commission with the sf puc specifically around what is the program. what are our options clean power sf is obviously, the one that's been discussed we don't know of others i think i know the page number what i understand in the environmental discussions there's the language in there is more generally speaking clean power programs we want to do with the environmental commission the sf puc our joint

commission meeting is set for a month and a half ago we tried to do this no february because time didn't benefit us obviously. but i think the testimony today is very critical in terms of doing nothing is not an option it gets us not closer to one hundred percent everything discussed by board of supervisors and the department and sure enough it will inform the part of the conversation and our intent is for the puc environmental commission meeting to be all about one hundred percent renewal energy >> i know there was a vote and you brought a resolution forward opposing i believe it was opposing clean power sf can you talk about that. >> so we have a resolution at

the commission they support the program but we have a lot of things we think will make important the best program and the most calculated to talk about opt outs. at the environmental commission shortly about the sf puc made their decision there were concern things we thought would bring for success in terms of the community engagement >> who say we? >> the colleagues at the commission and i. >> did the resolution pass. >> no. we countered a statement we felt 9 program didn't meet ail the goal so i think that's where we're still at >> i was concerned when it was happening at the time it was not a clear step. you know, i think at the time

there was a lot of discussions going into the morning when the puc was countering or considering the impacts of the jobs and i think that led to a lot of reasons to look at the program and the support from advocates. i think for us we want to see programs that are successful we need the green pour purposing programs. i think for certainly for my colleagues and myself we're open we need to get a clear direction from the puc and get a clear direction from the board clearly we want to carry forward this is the first time we've met together in six or seven years. >> thank you. i think that when it comes to you mentioned considering an opt out program that's where the

state law determines how people stay enrolled in the program so i think you knew that going in and bringing it up didn't make sense to me >> i want to minimize the goals of minute missing opting out is purpose in saying that. >> i don't have any other folks coming down. folks thank you for hearing the climate action and thank you. the vice president of environment for your work. the plans and framework is a solid one it's also based on previous it rationed before us again, i do believe that the city is at odds with itself we

have goals to achieve but when it comes to implementing the goals the leadership is missing and that leadership is, you know, missing in a lot of ways the city needs to have changed dramatic to make the city work to the 21st century >> thank you supervisor avalos. i was stated to the record that green power sf should go back to the report. so colleagues if there are in other questions or comments supervisor avalos can we file that and can we continue to the call of the chair >> so is there a motion to continue item 3 to the call of the chair. >> i'll make to motion. >> and we'll take that without

objection. colleagues, we did madam clerk - i think with respect to item number 2 i understand from the city attorney that given the amendment proposed supervisor kim it has to be drafted and continued two weeks instead of 1 week we need to resend the vote >> resend? >> jib i suggested to her from our problematic it will be better to resend the vote on the duplicate item and continued and . >> does the clerk need to formally call the item again. we have forwarded the unamended

version to the full board of supervisors that will remain but with respect to the duplicate item we amended could i have a motion to resend this vote to continue? without objection could i have a motion to resend the amended amendment for 2 weeks without objection. madam clerk, call our final item four >> the resolution granting permission to occupy a portion of a public right-of-way at the daniel street. >> this is a major encroachment that was introduced by the public works. >> good afternoon nick with the mapping division. this project has quite a

history. it started off original with a major encroachment permit back in 2005. back then it went through the approvals and necessary hearings that was heard at the land use on 2006 and was ultimately disapproved at the economy meeting marry in the interim the project sponsors came back to us with a modified encroachment similar it also involved the driveway. in may of 2013. this was processed again larl to the mat run encroach, however, the design of this driveway was consideri consideringly also ceded and asphalt and more landscaping.

they reduced the alleyway limited the stared in lieu of a public rest area. within the same unimproved area. this is heard at the dpw public hearing ♪ october of 2006. and i'm sorry. sorry about that the hearing was in december and recommended for approval by the director of

public works the dpw order 182071. that was as a result of mta ruling that the proposal was appropriate use of the public right-of-way the curb was reduced inform 10 feet in width. the hearing again was on december ethnic 2013 and the property owners were within 3 hundred footwear invited the project with provide access to a private property for fire protection and emergency services to this property. there were numerous objections at our hearing including just the opposing property owners use of the public right-of-way. the use of the owners public

land without compensation from the city and the removal of parking space and this major encroachment was tabled by the board stating the home was approved that will not have a driveway bay we have no record when the building was built it was stipulated without a driveway >> do we know when the planning department made the statement. >> no, this was one of the public comments. oh, public comments >> at our dpw meeting stating a minor encroachment we issued after the first junior encroachment was tabled the

project applicants came for a stairway encroachment down from mountain spring we had a hearing in august of 2007 and give them an encroachment permit for that. stating the neighbors and one of the other issues on public that was brought up in pickup testimony the neighbors want the portion landscaped and the architects landscape is not inviting to the public so dpw's recommendation is to approve this major encroachment permit for the modified driveway and requested that the applicant continue to work with the

neighborhood on any landscaping futures as much is possible. i'll be here to answer questions >> thank you, colleagues any questions for dpw? >> i have thank you. so this is obviously a contingent neighborhood issue and there's not other notes in the file that offers any kind of a tool to help us on reaching a decision. how long have you been working on this >> i was the plan checker on the original 2005 application. >> in 2005 you thought it was okay to add a driveway. >> that's correct. >> yet there was an agreement not to accept a driveway. >> no, it was tabled p at land use committee it went through a

major encroachment that we're doing today and it was tabled. basically you know the concurrent design at the time was decided approved >> and there's been changes in the design. >> yes. >> we're looking at today were originally different. >> it's - the own knowledge project was with a hammerhead turn-on. >> with the hammerhead taller than what's that. >> that's a t basically where you know they reached the end of the driveway it was a backing in space they'll be able to turn around ambassador basically that turn around area resulted in the loss of additional landscaping. in this current design the

project architect will be able to speak more on a includes a car sell at the top >> great. >> thank you. okay we're now going to hear from the project sponsor and also from one of the opponents representing the naibdz neighbors that are opposing i'll allot 5 minutes to both sides and proceeded to public comment after that. so we'll start with the project sponsor if you could put 5 minutes on the clock and it will be dr. one of the neighbors that will have 5 minutes. >> do you - can you tell me how use it. >> the clerk will help you with

that. is that working? okay. are we good to go?

okay. >> okay. all right. thank you for your patience. i'm mark i'm the architect for the project in taking into consideration today, this has a long rift h history i was hired to design this and the next door neighbors enlisted their neighbors to keep it from being built it was approved by every agency that reviewed it. it was reviewed by the planning department and especially held by a 5 to 2 rotate.

the original design include a driveway from parking two cars. the construction began in 2010 and finished in 20132012. today, we're asking for the major permit to be approved. before beginning work in 2003 we were told that encroachments across the streets were routine approved by the dpw in the past. we were shown similar encroachments the 22nd street s encroachment is similar to ours. this is a photocopy of the 22nd street project and here's another one. in under oath they were reviewed separately from the general plan conformity and after making

provisions including narrowly the driveway the committee reviewed our design and recommended approval. it restraining order would have been through the intrvrdz, however, only two committee members reviewed it and it died in committee. prior to building the construction my client - we made a number of changes. one written agreement was excused and the neighbors would be compensated. once the house was completed the lack of vigil - vehicular.

we began outreach to the neighbors and in 2013 we held 3 meetings to worked out on agreement. shortly after abandoning the dry well, there were two changes they wanted to driveway to the reduce and they said more landscaping. by narrowing and simplifying the turn around table we were able to reduce this by almost half. this is the original proposal. and at the bottom of the strewn screen is the hammerhead. this is an as enter meet design.

this is we've reduced the side of the walls and create a pocket. this is the way the area looked before we starred construction. and this is the proposed this is the way it would look if our proposal was accepted this is the steps of the driveways. i admit there's organized opposition to our project but it didn't make it wrong. the majority of the folks are served by the construction next to there's this year this type of loyalty is admireable but i'll touch on a few of the mississippi