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 truths.

those encroachments are common this is not irreparable by the board. the subsequential costs to the property owner will have to maintain the parking landscaping. a park was never approved for this site i've heard that many times. and it would be the property owner that will maintain it. regarding the streetcar parking it's less than a length of one car and - >> thank you. i have one question. the wall on one side of the driveway is a retaining wall >> yes. we have to maintain the max grade that the dpw asked. >> thank you. supervisor kim >> could you go through the

slides again, i missed the first one my apologies. >> soak so this the this floor plan do you have questions. >> i want to see it. >> that's it before and this is our proposal. to the left is the garage with the shaping coming over the wall it created a paperwork with at the bench and the steps >> thank you supervisor cowen. >> are you speaking on behalf of the prove or disprove are are 38 they here. >> yeah. their her and the projector sponsor would like to say a few words. >> we'll have. we'll hear from dr. for 5 minutes and after this we'll

proceeded to public comment >> good afternoon supervisor wiener and supervisor kim and supervisor cowen. i guess you know who i am already from mr. graham. i really have to dismiss it 60 thousand space we ran up a lot of expenses legally to protect our property because mr. grants submitted a survey which encroached our property by 15 inches. his building is only 23 feet 10 inches wide. i begin by he representing our group and i have my colleague here to answer questions. my wife and i have would go

there since 1975. we said we would set out of the from a and let the neighbors handle it and the requests was for 2 hundred thousand that fizzed out when we were asked to support of the driveway >> can you speak closer. we actually, my wife asked for 2 hundred thousand >> 2 hundred what. >> dollars to answer mr. brands question we were negotiating. we asked we would set out and be neutral and if the neighborhood felt it was great but we would set out >> i'm sorry, i don't follow. >> we were norwalk a $65,000

supplement to have the driveway. >> so you're the neighbor of the property and your reasonable doubtably the negotiations to have the driveway or not and you're saying you agreed to temple out of the decision and yes at the time for a price to be reimbursed. >> so your legal experiences were incurred you'll fighting this. >> no, we hired an attorney because the survey initially placed for the property which was not reported properly with the city nonetheless that survey encroached our property to tear

down a retaining wall that was built in 1931 and a so we had to hire an attorney and hire a survey error and now the wall still stands and the attorney as astute to pick up the problems and the violation of the general plan of the encroachment of giving the public land for purely private use. >> and this discrepancy did it go to trial. >> not consumer fairs did take it under advertisement advertisement they were going to punish the jae but he died so

they hired a third surveyor and their survey felt they were incable that was resolved when mr. woods elected not to go to court. >> so that brings us where we are today. >> that is but allowed the house to be done. i'm sorry, i got off i really have comments i'd like to rattle through >> go ahead. >> in 2006 your colleagues before rejected the plan. so supervisor sandavol and the other supervisor rejected that and supervisor nashville consisted hey >> i think i may have to excuse

myself. >> then in the last two but that carries the day. >> no way when they rejected it they resited the general plan and those violations were fully documented by planning department in may 2005 recommending a vote against the driveway. the 2000 land use committee referred to that report it's reproduced in its informational packet we distributed to our office i have other copies with me. the no subsequent case report has been done nor has the privatization for the sole personal use been inadequately addressed using historical

agreements only. the issue the general plan and the neighborhood opposition the twin peaks oppose have not changed. 2006 we had considerable assistance and we've had the same generous assistance from supervisor yee and his staff. there's one change we took our issue outside of the local district and found that open spaces throughout the city with special references to 1410. the council voted to support our position on the driveway. there's a copy of the resolution in the packet. we sought the opinion of coalition of the san francisco neighborhoods. after the discussion they overwhelmingly supported our use of the driveway.

i have two overheads i'd like to show. that's fine. the west twaepdz council is composed of representatives from the fees neighborhood organization shown in color. the coalition for san francisco neighborhoods stands there influence and they have delegates from 44 separate organizations and those are some of their organizations. the one that the members from twin peaks association and but we've been attending the coalition for several years.

the industry is referred to a public right-of-way whether or not the board of appeals referred to quote preserving the maximum amount of open space. the gentleman said the driveway was rejected and the encroachment from the stairway a was granted and that's how the building - may i continue >> if you finish up our counter point. >> well, it's just that circumstances have not changed since 2006. and we feel the (of your precludes should be allowed. i want to put fire safest on the table we don't feel that the property is not strrndz it's

more than thirty feet high and didn't meet the code and should have exceptions along the line >> i'll stop. >> colleagues if there are no comes we'll proceeded to comes on item 4 i'll call the cards i apologize in evaporates for any miss pronunciations (calling names) and you can testify in my order. so public comment will be two minutes.

>> hi, optimum wolf i'm a resident on mountain spring and for 10 years we've incurred harassment by one developer. >> what's a speck house. >> he's built a house to build and sell. >> it's a speculation house. >> right that's all about selling the house for more money not about what the community or neighbors wants this has gone on for especially 10 years. the developers selfish opportunity. two previous superstitions have been clear in hair objection yet

here we're to fight an unreasonable request there's only one outcome allow the stairway it was proposed and originally approved when the house was built and there's a whole set of homes that don't have driveways across the street. we ask you, please settle that once and for all. it will stir up a hornet's nest we're forced to establish a broad coalition of this irresponsible use of public land. you'll do a great public service by ending this matter today >> supervisor cowen a. >> thank you. could you tell me no, no could

you tell me what's unreasonable and the understanding of the neighbors the reason f this property was built in the first place there was not go back a driveway but a walkway. none of the neighbors like the idea of driveway being built on public property it didn't match what's happening directly across the street we have a lot of homes that have no problem assessing there's problem without driveways and it's on the same right-of-way. this is has been out of the keeping with the neighborhood and clearly the intent of the developer was not honest. but they got this project approved by saying they'll go do

a stair away >> you live there. >> a couple of houses down. >> does our home have is a driveway. >> yes. but it's squeezed between two other homes those are two different properties this is someone who wants to footprint to psychiatries a access into. >> thank you very much. next speaker. >> does any timer have evidence those are copies to the phone numbers hearing in 2006 and then the other disk has clips i sent you clips via youtube and there's a couple of others to save our time one in particular

the supervisors at the land use committee called for more to your memory of this kind privatization conservation and the accounting from nick at the dwp and those are copies in which he admits he failed to have the accounting by the board of supervisors and processes several of those every year why he didn't do it and you want to each. >> yeah. one for each of you. >> all right. is the overhead here. i'm richard i live across the street. i have no conflict of interest.

there is little open space left in the city this is tourist beyond the trail and privately supported public garden and public stairways etc. why is this new plan worse than the plan that went before the board of supervisors in 2006. number one in '06 the driveway of incited of 18 hundred and 67 square feet and then $3 per square feet and the annual rental would be $5,600. so the supervisor called it peanut shelves. this new plan with a much reduced down to 999.5 square feet at the new rate of 3 hundred and 3 dollars a square

feet brings in only $3,044 plus per year. you don't why is that? that he they only count the concrete of the driveway that's being private intended when, in fact, this entire plot this is the frontage 72 feet going back 61 feet that is 4 thousand 3 hundred and 43 square feet of total land that will be privatized they'll only be paying for 900 and nine hundred 9 secret. a tenth of anarch here is privatized well, you, consider two tethsz but let's say only this whole scare here will be privatized cut off that means

effectively their paying $0.80 a square feet per year for this property. so you can see this new plan is worse and the second issue i want to say this is a major encroachment only because neither of the two and i butt neighbors neither of them will sell out or take money effectively making them private individuals the sellers of public land to a private developer the law needs to be changed >> okay. thank you. before the next speaker i have 3 more cards. next speaker. you don't have to go many the same order as called. thank you >> hi, supervisors thank you, supervisors for the mind.

i'm charles shoe. i'm a neighbor longer than clare ton avenue down from the property in question. we don't have any personal horse in this game we can't even see the property from the house. this is about a matter of principle. i want to address the allegations by mr. brand that somehow the neighbors are acting out loyalty. this is not about personal loyalty. this is about principle. derrick of our involvement in this we have seen multiple proposals from mr. brand for proposals they claimed they were bringing u bringing forgot to

the city and want the neighbors to agree. every during the process while we were being shown drawings they were driving to the city was completely different so if there's my acquisition of acting in by a faith it goes the other way. maybe in acting in bad faith it's not material in our deliberations but i think to the extent it is i would suggest that the bad faith has not been on the side of the neighborhoods but the people making the proposal. the final thing this encroachment will have a material fact of the property values along the street it's not been considered either >> thank you very much. next

speaker. >> good afternoon supervision i'm living over clare ton my wife and alive on clare ton we've seen changes most people are hardworking middle-class they safe their money to live comfortablely in retirement. the rental property was a way to have this property there are people who tmg of a law that's meant for fixed income. we are deprived from mac a good market rate. we're fighting a wealthy real

estate speculator who is well connected he can make several hundreds thousands of dollars at our expense. in my opinion open space areas are part of our legacy. and also makes the city a special place to live. as a prove or disprove taxpayer and lifelong resident of san francisco i find this proposal absolutely inexpensive and reyou puzzle active. if this is permitted to go ahead someone needs to write an article arrest i'm kelly long on clare ton i've been here all day. let's go green san francisco let's pave over the green area.

i'm against this it's ignorant i'll spent here all day listening to cars and seven hundred and 50 foot you know square apartments all this stuff. you're going to take our city property and give it to one person so they can put it in their wallet. i'm against it is a problem >> thank you. next speaker, please >> hi, thank you for listening. i'm linda i live on clayton the north west corner so i've looked at this property everyday for many years. i'm mainly concerned about two things the blatant reach of

permits by mr. woods the original permit specified a stairway this was never built. and i don't believe he ever intended to build it and second the giving away of public property in this case to an individual builder to put a driveway from clare ton to his house for public purposes is against the san francisco master plan and unacceptable to all of us who have signed petitions and spinal to you again and again. i've lived her in 1965 since and i've seen this district built up in more empty open spaces. there is on my side with a

staircase access and this is part of has been built up into a land side for all to enjoy i see people stopping to take pictures. this is a fine precedent for what's doing done on the other side of the street i'm opposing this for one access for one house. no matter how the driveway is configured when there's a driveway leading to a house this is perceived as private and not available to others. so i explore you not to allow that >> thank you. next speaker, please >> good afternoon. i'm laurie live on the northed of stan

adjourn street been a staircase by which 5 highway access clare ton avenue i go up those stairs everyday it's a great place to live and hard to find but a small place people come by with their dogs and kids so i would the to put in my words in favor of staircases. thank you >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon, supervisors i'm terry live live on stan i don't think directly across the street from this project. directly across the street are 5 feet with stan i don't think addresses and noun of our homes have driveways or garages or any place to park we're of net

competing in this very area for tight what's already tight parking. this project efficiently eliminates all the public parking from the east and west borders of this open space from between the tom's house and which is on the west side of the property. in addition the building of this driveway would aestheticly compete this area to concrete and there's no purpose of it being serving by the encroachment of this permit so we encourage you to not pass that >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> i'm tim white on clare ton

avenue have been important 15 years. formerly the editor and publisher of the examiner and chronicle. so i have appeared here a few times. however, transmittal i can't tell this immediate situation the underlying principle i feel the insult to the city is against what's right and proper. the birthing insult to our time is that the current settlement mr. woods has been unable to take the yes answer and it's project to access it's speculation home by the lovely situation you proved in 2006