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 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