public use, this is a permitted use within the district and just requires the neighborhood notification and if it is not a community recycling center and if it does not meet those requirements then i will ask the appellant to state what use this will be and how it will be allowed in the zoning district and if it does not meet these requirements and if it is not listed as a use that is permitted in the zoning district it will not be allowed and perhaps the appellant will want to do more research into the planning laws regarding the use but it does not appear to be at least, we believe it as represented to be a recycling center, and that would be allowed and they want to argue that it is not a recycling center, which i guess that it would not be allowed if they don't meet those requirements. and so that is a little bit confusing in the first time that i heard it today and i know that they stated that staff had made, you know, statements that this use will be allowed without the neighborhood notification and is seems to flip back and forth and first they say stop told

them that they need the notice and a prepared notice and they did submit it as part of the brief and notification and the materials that were presented last year and they went back to the planning department after that, a few days after that in december, and the staff told them that they did not. there is no documentation of any of this and there is no evidence that they spoke to four staff members and what the actual determinations were, or more importantly what they presented to the staff at that time. and we don't know exactly, what they presented as the use to the staff at that time and this was a building permit that was approved without any plans, and so there are no plans associated with this building permit application and so i don't know how they were representing this to the staff and but, led them to those conclusion and in any event we have to enforce the laws as they are written and these are the laws that were on the books, while a recycling center is a use and it does require a notification and we are not arguing that the recycling centers are not good but they do require a neighborhood notice in this case, and the

zoning district, and the sali, the sally zoning district which is developed as part of the western soma and again it is permitted but the neighborhood notice is required and that is what the suspension was to allow the neighborhood notice to occur and given the information presented by the appellant tonight and i have concern that the use is allowed in the zoning district. and so we will want to get the new information that we want to review that further but certainly, this suspension is to allow the time to all of this to happen and the proper review to happen and regrettablely they did approve this over the counter in error and we don't know all of the information that is not documented by the appellant and it does not appear that the permit was validpy issued under the planning code. i am available for any questions. >> mr. sanchez, the permit holder stated that they do have a another facility in san francisco, are you aware that have? >> i have not, in regards to your question, and how that was obtained i have not done any

research on that to insure the proper permits were attained for that and it is depending on the location that could have been a conditional use or permitted use or in a zoning district that does not require notification, like in the zoning districts pdr and they are permitted uses and the residential uses are not allowed and there are uses nearby. and it would have the impact and the neighborhood notice is required in this case. thank you very much. >> thanks. >> we could take the public comment, could i see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak under this item. >> if you could line up on the side of the room that will be helpful to move this proceeding forward. the first person can stand to the podium. okay, the president has

indicated that each speaker will have two minutes and i assume that is because of the size of the crowd and the hour. if you have not filled out a speaker card, do that, because it helps us in the preparation of minutes. >> hello, my name is jim manex and i was mentioned, and i am here because this location is an extraordinary dangerous intersection in san francisco and i don't wish to go into that and i want to mention that there is no possibility for a green or a yellow zone on this property, the 25-foot house and frontage, i am sorry, thanks for being here and i am asking that you deny this appeal. and there is no possibility of green or yellow zone here, and there is a fire hydrant red zone and a driveway on the harrison street frontage and

the 100 foot frontage on 10th street is nothing but a throw away zone, but i would like to address the permit issues. in the package he submitted, from the radio services. error information may require, re... (inaudible) or lead to suspension or ref vocation of the permit, and like i said i was a contractor for 30 years in this city and i have taken out hundreds of permits if you look at the permit, and the first misstatement is the first two words on there. no construction. and the first thing that they did on the site was started construction without a permit. >> you have 30 seconds. >> the fact that the second page of the appeal which i am

not a lawyer, but i do understand english pretty well and i majored in english. the conditions and stipulations clearly state no new construction. and the first thing that they did was construction without a permit. and continued to do so. and everything, that is sat across from inspector duffy while he spoke to the... and... and he actually called him up and asked them what they were doing and inspector duffy literally told him that you have to take out a permit, we have no problems if they are going to go a permit route. >> thank you, your time is up. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners, christopher hall. and i have lived on the same block as the proposed project for nine years and i am here tonight, to ask the board of appeals to up hold the zoning and administration suspension letter. there has been no notification for neighbors regarding this project and the local residents

noticed the work on this in april and a check showed a one dollar no construction permit were issued and yet the employees were doing the work beyond the scope of the permit and that led to violation notices from dbi and the hearing is schedule for next week. i walk by the site several times a day with my dogs and i know from living in the neighborhood how dangerous that intersection is. i have a diagram here showing, there is traffic coming from harrison and turning on to tenth, and two lanes of traffic, turning left, and planning department own website on the pedestrian safety talks about a 25 percent chance of somebody getting injured or 25 percent of all of the pedestrian injuries in the city, occur when the cars are turning left and the facilities will be in front of the two lanes turning left headed towards the freeway. and this is really an issue that needs to go back, to the planning department to look at the safety issues, it is really too unsafe for anything. and i would also like to point out just briefly that a google search of the gentleman's

business out on bay shore, shows the string of safety violation and there is osha violations and a lawsuit for one of their own clients getting struck by a vehicle out there. and i think that the pattern of ignoring the safety rules is indemic to this operation. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is james and i live in the scary, and i know how dangerous that intersection is. earlier this year, sfmta, whose top priority is safe guarding the lives of people as they walk, bicycle and take transit and drive through the city, take forces with the vote of all supervisors to adopt vision zero, vision zer was also joined by the forces of sfpd and the health department and the planning department. vision zero main objective is

saving human lives. the consequences of individuals with mistakes should not be death or serious injury, the system should be designed to anticipate and reduce the consequences of human error, we have an opportunity to facilitate this. by not allowing this particular proposed business at this particular dangerous intersection. it makes no sense to allow such a dangerous corner, which is actually been determined to be one of the most dangerous in somsxa, that particular corner is the most dangerous at that intersection. and the entire pathway, that they have suggested for all of their customer to come down which is 10th street, the police have actually cited as being super dangerous. they have said that that particular corridor is the second highest of the red light runners in the entire soma district. i have been told by city officials including my

supervisor, that the san francisco police department is currently overwhelmed, in the southern station, and i urge you not to allow a permit for this particular business at this particular location, and i urge you to have notification of all of the neighbors, and bring in the people that are very important, which is the department of public health and the sfmta and the san francisco police, who all have it about the public safety and should be involved in the discussion of this, thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, my name is julie, and i am a residents of western soma and so, and allowing us all to speak and i know that there is a big line and apologies i have written all of this done and i just got off a 9 hour flight and i am afraid that i will lose my thoughts and so. i am in agreement with the last speaker and i take offense

primarily and initially at the process and the permit process of a lack of. i am a resident to remodel a building to be a three bedroom home and i have been in the process with the city for two years and i have gone step by step through a permit process following every rule of multiple and necessary out reach points to the community and kept them informed and open to feedback, and i have even it rated the process five times based on my local neighborhood's concerns and i have done this for one family to come and go on a daily basis and it seems fair that a commercial business with the opportunity to effect the community potentially in a negative way with a large volume of customers come and going daily to have to go through a community notification bound by the city rules as a simple home owner might do. and this is not a white collar community with the intention of walling in something precious, and i would say that it is one of the most diverse communities

in san francisco and the reason that i chose to race my 10-year-old in the middle of it. a concern for safety. and the intersection proposed is one of the most dangerous intersections in the city. and someone here can site the actual number of cars that go through that intersection on a daily basis and i know that i live three buildings off of 10th street that it is a four lane, one-way highway that turns into two and a half lane on-ramp on to 101 south and the proposed intersection cannot handle a recycling center as proposed even if it is pedestrian oriented which i then beg to argue that if it is pedestrian oriented we are going to have overflow, off of the sidewalk into the streets. thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please? >> my name is gale, and i am also a resident of the neighborhood, i live about a block from the corner of this proposed center. and i just want to make a couple of comments and i here

to ask you to up hold the suspension and deny the appeal. and one of the things that the attorney for the center has argued he has tried to blame the planning department for their alleged mistake and granting the original over the counter permit. but, i think that i would argue that i went through the materials that the information that was given to the planning department was incomplete and mislead and that the mistake is not that of the department, but of the applicants. and i give you a couple of examples one is that the permit clearly does say no construction and construction was done almost immediately. but also there are two questions on the application for the priority general plan findings. and one having to do with the way in which the intention to conserve the existing character of the housing in the neighborhood, and the answer to that question, from the center is that the center would be consistent with the existing neighborhood, the one thing

that they mentioned was the car wash across the street. and that is the only thing that they mentioned and they failed to mention, first of all that that car wash is probably going to be converted to residential uses very shortly, but also, that there are many dwelling units right on the same corner and there is a large complex, by the site and housing to either side and the second thing that they did not address is the traffic and said that there would not be any commuters to and from their site, the traffic is a major concern and so i would argue that the mistakes, any mistakes that were made came from the misinformation that were given to the planners to get that over the counter permit in the first place, thank you very much. >> next speaker, please? >> and if you are willing, speaker card would be helpful. >> thanks. >> go ahead. >> and just put in face up. >> face up. >> oh, i see.

>> good evening, commissioners. i would ask you to reject this appeal. i my name is james and i am at the corner of tenth and bryant, and i see accidents weekly from my office and today, there was one a few hours ago. the same corner, ten and this bryant, one block away from this proposed business. it is a very dangerous corner. and i actually watch and i do a lot of computer work and i am an appraiser and i am a show man of fine arts and antiques. and so i watch the severity of the accidents, and if i need to i call 911. and so it is very dangerous

place. and you know, that is the main thorough way to get to san francisco or oakland and the rush hours and the people are inpatient. and it is crazy, i mean that this picture that there we go. it inviting more pedestrians, that are clients of this business, is not a safe issue. there is no room on that corner, there is a hydrant and there is a sign, and there is no room for people to actually cross the street. basically i don't want to take any more of your time, but there is also no possible parking. there is no legal parking anywhere on that corner. and double parking is insane in this kind of traffic. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please?

>> president and commissioners. i am a property owner kitty corner to this proposed site. 30 unit condos, and lofts and one million plus, and this is definitely not a construction area filled with heavy industry. costco is across the street from this building. or from this lot. this notion that costco is recycling is going to there and i don't understand that. he was correct when he said that our recycling will be there but it will be out of all of our trash cans. very, very dangerous intersection, it has been reiterated. but the bottom line that i don't think that the permit and the whole permit process was not followed, and i just wish that you would deny it. >> thank you. >> do you care to state your name for the record? >> next speaker, please? >> go ahead. >> adrian similar. >> thank you.

>> okay. >> hello, i am martha cooper and i live across the street from the proposed lot next to the car wash and i just want to reiterate a little about how dangerous this corner is and that is our main concern if i am talking which i frequently do, from say the costco corner to where the recycling place is, i don't want to cross there because there are people turning left to go to the freeway and lurning test and crossing the street to go to coast co-, and turning right and crossing left to go db to the freeway and turning right and going to costco. and so, the whole thing is quite a chaotic traffic situation. and obviously, there is no place to park and so if the people bring their recycling in a car, or station wagon, they

can't park there anywhere. and so, if you bring them in a cart, or bring them in bags, you have a lot of people lined up, and they are just simply is not room there, on the sidewalks to have cars or people with various things lined up and i think that it is a dangerous traffic situation and we don't feel like it is a good spot for the business that is all. thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> my mame is kay and i have lived in this community off and on for 30 years. >> every since the earthquake ninth and tenth street which i live in between have become freeway entrafnts and exits and it is very hard to get off of our street already, because people do want to get out of town. and they also use the street to

cut across and drive fast and you are trying to pull out into the traffic and even when the light changes people don't let you out and it is very congestived and we deal with a lot already and i feel like we are already kind of exhausted with how much stuff, you know, is happening, in our little tiny area of the city, and it is just, you know, without the freeway, any more, we are the freeway. and tenth street and 9th street. and i am on sheriton a half a block away from this proposed area and i have seen many accidents in this area, that is just not a good thing. >> i am not anti-homeless, and that is what was brought up many times in the character assassinations. i do a lot of things, donation and stuff like that, it is not about that. it is about the safety in that area, and the congestion that we have to live with, thank you. >> is there any other public

comment? >> okay, seeing none, then we will have rebuttal from the appellant. >> thank you. obviously i will not have time to address all of the points that were raised but i will try to hit the highlights. i will start with the planning department's logic in arguing that this suspension should be issued because the statement was if it is not an 890.80 a recycling center then what it is is if? it has to be that well it is not that you have to read the statute and what is says and that i think you would agree that does not apply here because we don't have closed containers or a building. and it is a much smaller operation, that is why you don't need the public notification and you only need the public notification if what is proposed qualifies under section 312, and you read that and that directs you to what types of mixed use, need to get public notification. so, the logic does not make

sense there, that section was the only section stated by the planning department as the basis for the needing to be and a new use permit. and it does not apply. you heard time and time again that someone said, mr. maddox said an extraordinarily dangerous intersection. and one of the opposition beliefs they said that it is one of the most dangerous, well that was, and this was their report to took a year to produce. and solicited the input of more than 4,000 people. and so, the question is their job was to determine what is the most dangerous intersections and corridors in the city?

>> what is interesting is this intersection is not on that map. what they are going to spend 50 million dollars over the next five days to help to achieve this zero vision, it is not here. and so all of the alarmist statements that this is the most dangerous, or a dangerous and every literally, every intersection in their mind based on this, could be a dangerous intersection. and this is a light industrial zoned area, and this is a perfectly suitable use for that lot, and the permit was issued correctly, and i did not blame the planning department for making the mistake and they did not make the mistake until they changed the zoning requirements. and don't forget about the lost jobs and eleven people are going to lose their jobs as a result of this. but the pedestrian concern about pedestrians, and shopping carts and that, clogging up the

sidewalks as you saw in the photo, it is a large open lot they are going to be able to wait in the lot they don't need to wait on the sidewalks the sidewalks are going to be clear. we would hope that you would deny this suspension, and allow this recycling project that is badly needed by the city to go forward. any additional questions? >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez, planning department. and so the appellant has continued to argue that the use of something that is simply is not even classified in the planning code, well under the requirements for the zoning district in section 846 it lists a table of about 100 different types of uses, and so, again, if it is not or if it does not fall under the public use category it will have to fit in one of these other category and if it does not fit, it is not allowed

within the zoning district. and so, i think that the appellant needs to consider that further, and i think that even the appellant's own, admission here to the board, that this use is not something that is listed within the use controls for this zoning district and it is not something that is defined, and it calls into question, whether it is a permit and would respectfully request that you up hold the suspension of this permit and they need to file a new building permit and it has been filed that there are issues with the permit and it says no construction and they have done the construction and allowed the time for that to be resolved and a lot of time to review the use and we can have plans and they can articulate which use category that they believe that this falls within and if it is something that is in fact allowed, and it was coming into this hearing and it was our belief that it was a recycling center that would meet that definition in the planning code. and they are arguing that it is not and they have not provided the alternative use category that it may fall within and so with that, i think that there is a sufficient grounds to up

hold the suspension to require a new permit for us to properly review and if we find that it is a recycling center that will be permit and we can push through the neighborhood notification on that. we are not saying that the use is not allowed or can never ab llowed but it has the public process that is provided here, i am available for any questions. >> what is the statute that you cited or the code section? >> planning code section 846 and there is a table associated with this and these are all of the use controls for the service, art and lights controls service zoning district and includes, residential uses and institutions and retail sales and service and arts and entertainment. >> okay. >> you said 100 i am not interested in hearing all of them. >> okay. >> and i think what, i thought that the basis of this suspension was the failure to notice. and is your position then that

it there was no use associated and therefore, because it is not listed, and i mean no use, was articulated, and your department assumption was that it was a recycling center and therefore it would have required the 312 notification, right? and because they failed to do the notification there is no evidence they actually did it or sufficient evidence to your standard. and therefore, it is suspended is that the basis for the suspension? >> 312 requires neighborhood notification when you change from one use category to the next and by the category they define it within the tables there are headers and so like under vehicle parking, there is automobile parking lot and automobile parking garage and you would not necessarily need the notice to switch between those two. but to go from vehicle parking and retail sales and service you do. >> sure. >> and so this is a vacant lot and there is to be no, kind of legal use of this time, or you know, or at the last, i think that the use on the property

and there is illegal signs that were removed a couple of years ago and just establishing a use on the property is in itself a new use category and i mean, that otherwise, you know, may have benefited that and maybe this was legally some use in the past, and most likely a parking lot going from parking lot under the vehicle parking to the public use under the other uses would trigger the notice. and so, again, the appellant has not articulated any reason why 312 is not required. >> okay. thanks. >> and i have a question, i don't think that you addressed why or how you think that the permit got issued over the counter in the first place. >> i don't have an answer for that from the staff. i mean, the permit you know, if i think that is may have been an error or a staff oversight and i don't know how it was represented to them and there were no plans, and it is just the building permit application. and so i don't know how it was represented to the planner, at

the time, other than that was on the building permit application and i think that the staff made a mistake and again, you know, we have to enforce, the planning laws, and that is what we are doing here. >> and i am sure that it is in your good and how did it come to your attention that this had been issued. >> i don't know if this came through the supervisor's office, but corey has listed the administrator, has with the compliance that were made to him and he informed me of this and i needed a notice and he drafted the suspension request and i signed it and issued it. >> thank you. >> i think that the permit was issued for a change of use. wasn't it? >> well, i mean this is, one of the zoning, and i think in the tracking system it is showing under the building permit occupancy as parking, as a parking lot. and under their tracking system and under the permit it does

say the vacant lot and the mobile connection center. >> and i thought that i remember seeing something there about a change of use on the permit itself. >> yeah. >> but somehow, that did not, trigger or set up a flag for the approval process, right? >> yeah. >> requiring further type of effort, >> i think that the staff made an error. >> okay. >> thanks. >> commissioners the matter is submitted. >> did mr. duffy want to say anything? >> okay. >> commissioners i just speak because i think that my name got mentioned somewhere along the line there. and on the notice of violation, that i heard referenced, i apologize that i don't have the copies of them with me or a copy. i believe from working on-line that there is one notice of violation issued, two complaintses and ee