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 and subsequentially not able to take no. you game in 2013 when i rejected his permit. it's kind of like it's been decided repeatedly and wisely we don't give up private land for public use. and yet mr. wood persists and the answer once again is no. it's 12 hours of your time and this board of supervisors not to mention the time of those neighbors has been wasted with the repeated unable to hear no.

please put an end to this once and for are all >> thank you very much. >> next speaker, please. >> i live on mountain spring we've been in our home for 52 years. now your property backyard butts into the subject property in other words, the subject i subject property dovetails into our backyard. we absolutely oppose this project. now common sense says that access to this property has to be given and it is closer to

clare done and it is basically, it's closer to clare done and would be accessible to clare done and also the slope of that area is very not as steep as from mountain spring. so consequentially by giving access to this you'll help to protect that property in the event of a fire or emergency. so the questionable area you'll give a staircase and are you charging rent so you've got a double edge sword me and my wife approve of this resolution >> thank you. next speaker, please.

>> good afternoon. i'm todd david. i'm here to speak a little bit about was it would be like to be a family living at this location. and the difficulty of getting 3 small children in and out of the house and gov. into a i have a 12-year-old and 9-year-old you put the kids in the car and load up the baseball bats and going out 45 steps to make that happen it would make it difficult for a family to live in this residence. so i don't know the history of the neighborhood and all the disagreements but i certainly am

a strong opponent of keeping folks in san francisco i think this would make a perfect house for a family. thank you for your time >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good afternoon supervisors. thank you for your time. i'm going to start by stating the obvious it's now been over 8 years since a major encroachment permit application was first heard and rejected by the proekdz and we're here implicit because the developer didn't like the stairs access from

mountain spring access he requested was permitted for and agreed to with the neighbors. so the builder did what he wanted built the house and go forward the permit of access and enforced the agreement with the neighbors and a walk he added never applied for. what did you do the legally permitted stair access and the would think garage with now glass demeanors is exercise slash account room we ask why are we here. and where is the driveway? and why is the driveway been asked for?. there's no garage.

that that request he's wasting our precious time and ours. so we respectfully ask that the we are to this major encroachment be no. it up for your time. i want to add one note. to the issue of negotiation for money. mr. wood came to our house and requested a meeting. and we employed and asked what would it take for you to say yes to it project and laughed and said $200,000 my asked him to leave that was the jest of that and if mr. woods wants to

say to the contrary we'll see him in court >> thank you very much. supervisor jane kim and supervisor wiener. i work with dpw and dwp and unit across the board and all those departments are particular when they rectify anything that comes before them they don't take things like this lighting. mime encroachment was issued but dpw didn't approve them whenever they feel like it i am not involved but listening to this i ask you to allow the major encroachment to go