stop construction of the house. inspite of their inflexibility important to them and designed setbacks and notches into the design to responds to their concerns. they fist attempted to block the permit for their home through discretionary review at the planning commission. the planning commission az proved our design finding it to be well designed and fitting with the neighbor context. concerning the driveway across access from the after avenue to the house. parking in the gra raj our approved design approved a drive way. working with the planning director we modified the design and obtained a positive general plan referral. the driveway was approved by dpw but required final approval by the board of supervisors. because of the influence of the neighbors the project never got out of the land use committee.

we applied for and were granted a parking grant by the zoning administrator. a neighbor who we assume was working with the appellate was blocked we redesigned access [inaudible] to 1410 canyon street with a landing at the bottom of the stairs. [inaudible] since we were able [inaudible] these approvals aed the project to continue and the permit was approved in june 2010. given the history of the permitting process she reached out to them home changes to the house design. [inaudible] came to an agreement in july of 2010. karen made changes to the house design and they promised to not make further attempts to block further construction of the house.

karen was optimistic that the neighbors would be impressed with the house. this hope was that the neighbors would eventually see him as a good neighbor and could reengage them after construction to see if they might be open to [inaudible]

as minimizes disruption to neighbors [inaudible] for access to the site. karen followed proper permitting procedures [inaudible] again, con sis don't with the history of this project they opposed this legal sidewalk. they're ununwilling to make any compromises with karen.

the cited section of public works apply to streets, noting sidewalks. they argue that the walkway is e kwi lent to removing open space. a sidewalk is not a building, it does not remove open space. the proposed sidewalk has ha lower slope throughout the city and finally they resort to attacking karen's character accusing him to try and deceive neighbor ws a bait and switch. he nevada hid his desire for a driveway to neighbors. he has reached out to neighbors to reach a solution everyone could accept.

>> that was not part of a settlement. that was our way of figuring out access to the property so we could get a building permit since access to the driveway was denied. >> the neighbors knew about the stairs? >> oh, absolutely. >> and you're saying there was always -- your client was always clear about the driveway. >> he gave up on the driveway and would have accepted the stairs if that was the only way of moving forward with the project but as soon as the house was built he realized the stairs weren't going to

be very practical, in fact, certainly more dangerous than this sloping sidewalk we're proposing. >> one last question. has there been any discussion about indemnity? >> no not as far as i know. >> thank you. >> good evening. i'll try to sum up all the issues that have been brought up since. first of all, i'd like to address article 9, section 406 which the a pel lant and mr. williams address in their brief. we believe the appellant misconstrued dpw's policy about the applicability of

section 406 article 9 of the public works code. our applicability for this is when there is a proposal to construct the entire street, so the entire stanion property line to property line for the feasibility that the city would ultimately accept it for maintenance. in a case like that, yes. absolutely. all the fronting property owners need to consent because ultimately they are the ones that are going to be either paying for it or going to be assessed a certain value of it until the improvements are paid off, thus following the board of supervisors this approval of the proposed driveway to the site through the right of way, mark brand came to us with a proposal to

construct what is already legislated as a 15 foot wide sidewalk along both sides of the street for the stretch of the street. and mountain spring and i know it's hard to see off this, but there was app copy of this map also included in our brief, but the official sidewalk here is 15 feet so there's a ledge slated sidewalk width that

the matula's are already responsible for maintaining, whether it's approved or not, whether it's constructed as a con skreet sidewalk or whether it exists in its current state as just unimproved shrubbery basically. so based on that we issued a street improvement permit for the construction of this 15 foot wide sidewalk to city standards, no additional notification was required as a result because the sides walk is being built to city standards. there's a number of projects all over the city where there are unimproved sidewalks and based on the better streets plan, ada improvement to make

it less liable because if a pedestrian is walking on an unimproved sidewalk it would reduce the liability for the property owner that will ultimately be responsible for that sidewalk. thus we request you up hold our decision to issue the street improvement and provide access to the subject property. i'm here to answer any additional questions any of you may have. >> in your department's criteria for the design of a ledge slative sidewalk is there any requirement on where it's placed? >> it's placed adjacent to the property line. this line on this map -- this

line right here is the property line on the east side of stanion street. this sidewalk is constructed adjacent to the property line and because it's legislated at 15 feet that's what we typically require. we often allow construction of less of a concrete sidewalk, you know, to include possible landscaping, additional information, but in this case due to the com cast box that currently exists, here's the

existing cable box. we initially contacted com cast to relocate that box to provide for of a path of travel but they informed us that the box could not be moved, thus when i informed mr. brand of this information he asked what is the minimum path of travel that would be required and under ada the minimum path of travel is 4 feet and here again, providing 4 foot 7-and-a-half inches of unobstructed path between westerly -- what will be the curbline essentially and the wall from this cable box. . >> and the legislated sidewalk be placed elsewhere? >> no. .

not typically. >> and some of the other instances where you mentioned earlier in your presentation talking about the >> if there's building within, behind or off that right of way andsome form of access is required for the closest sidewalk to their front door,

yes, we often issue a street improvement permit for them to construct that stield walk. >> if there was no building that was being accessed by the sidewalk, but they're creating a sidewalk to utilize the open space would that be allowed as a ledge slated by the legislate a sidewalk where there may not already be a ledge slate legislate property owner. >> thank you. we can take public comment. can i see a show of hands how many people plan to speak under public comment?

okay, if you wouldn't mind lining up along the wall that will help move things forward quickly. if you haven't filled out a speaker card we ask that you do so after or before you speak. the first person can certainly start. please step forward. >> i live in house number four and done so for five years with my family. this is a wonderful neighborhood where the people who abut this unaccepted street cooperatively garden and maintain both the staircase that exists to allow us access to our homes from

clarendon. we maintain all the trees and garden such that it's a place that's known in the city for people to come look at our garden. we enjoy that community. we live quite far actually if you compare even house number one, which is perhaps the furthest from clarendon over quite a gradient. the neighborhood opposition, i'd like to characterize it. i'm new to the neighborhood. we've never wanted a driveway at this property because we feel it's not characteristic of the neighborhood. we like the community we have and we'd like this particular unaccepted area to be in similar vain where it's gardened and maintained and an

attractive area for all of us. when we saw the permit filed for this development it's a 15 foot sidewalk with curb cuts. you get come cast to move the box and you got your driveway so that's from my perspective and the neighbors, the objection we have to this. . a sidewalk would be greet. great. a staircase is what you need for that steepness of property. >> next speaker, please. >> i'm charles shoe i'm a resident to the neighbors inviting us to a reception to

view their plans for 1410 stanion. they included a small copy of the plans in that letter. a number of neighbors attended that session and then subsequently we discovered that the drawings that were presented to us for which they were trying to solicit our approval were not the same drawings on file at the dpw and planning department so in fact what they were doing was -- can only be characterized as a bait and switch. we don't want to engain in inflammatory language, but mr. brand has characterized the neighborhood as personal animus, which is incorrect. i didn't know either of these

parties until after we had been drawn into the issue when we had since then i have actually personally met with mr. woods and mr. brand and have been -- i had invited them to meet i've arranged meeting space for us to talk and have repeatedly been presented with misrepresentations of their intention and plans. my core objection to this is that they cannot have it both ways. they can't say they hearing they're attempting to be good neighbors, but then say he wants to build a house and sell it and get out. he's an out of town speculator. we would be handing him a gift of several hundred thousand dollars at least, which would immediate ly leave the city.

there's no benefit to the city. next speaker, please.

i would just break my heart to see this h be broken up with a 15 foot sidewalk for one house. i believe that it's a code word for driveway. i don't trust the terminology of it. i attended all the meetings mr. brand held to work out something with the neighbors. they were all designed to get us to approve his driveway. there was never an effort to work on any other kind of a compromise and it's been interesting to me having lived there for so long in the

neighborhood to see how our whole neighborhood has come together in an ad hoc because of interest in preserving this land and it's been a very -- if there's any positive the positive is that as we've banded together as a group just other this issue, which we hadn't before so i really urge you not to allow this. i mean, and my question is, how long will this continue on? >> thank you, your time is up. >> okay. >> ma'am, i have a question. >> yes. >> have the neighbors made any effort to get this land vacated and therefore create it as a -- and use it as a public open space? >> yes, we have in the past had urban forest and other organizations come and talk with us about ways to have it be made more available to the public. as it is it's very able.

available. it's open, it -- >> thank you. >> you're welcome. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening . my name is arnold, i live on clarendon and will the me open by saying it's ironic after being unanimously voted by twice by the board of supervisors, mr. woods is accusing mr. matula in being unreasonable for his opposition. the proargument has many truths. the board of supervisors have seen through this twice and denied permission to proceed. i've lived there for over 30 years and don't know of any of my neighbors in favor of this project. doctor matula is a reasonable man and doesn't deserve to be attacked for his opposition. what would you do if you were put in his position.

in my opinion, regardless what you want to call it the issue is open space.i have lived in san francisco all my life, what open space is still available is a precious commodity. making a gift of something so valuable to a speculator for a 15 foot personal sidewalk which will be used for a driveway eventually is irresponsible and disregards the wishes of the neighbors. there was a hearing about a proposed driveway at 1410 stanyon street which was rejected. now we have a change in labels. the driveway is now called a 15 foot driveway. the driveway wasn't allowed to happen because of the recognition that our open space is disappearing. why should a 15 foot project be allow today go forward that is not in the interest

of any of the neighbors. what is the rational of reintroducing a proposal that has been unanimously denied by the board of supervisors two times. my opinion, the people responsible for allowing this issue to to on again should be ordered to fully explain the reasoning. any professional relationships of this builder should be fully disclosed. >> thank you. >> is there any other public comment? okay, seeing none. mr. williams, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> thank you. steve williams again. you know, with all due respect to mr. [inaudible] who i've known for a very long time he's just wrong about article 9. please look at the language

of that statute. it says my portion, any construction, and any portion of an unaccepted street requires the consent of the abutting landowner and the reason is because they're responsible. you heard it from his lips. the matulas will be 100% responsible for this. they get to pick their poison. it's more dangerous to build a sidewalk and a lot higher level of liability for a sidewalk that's been constructed than for natural land. if someone's hiking up through these bushes as it is now they will at least have that defense, but won't have that defense on this steep slope of concrete. as you heard from the neighbors, mr. brand is bent on attacking the matulas, who knows why, and he's bent on rehashing arguments that went out with the dr. he talks about windows, and the design.

the design has been set since 2006. the only thing he's been dealing with is the access, but he keeps going back to that. we tried desperately not to be here tonight. we tried to settle this. we tried to make a gift to this developer of the illegally constructed path and the illegally constructed path makes a heck of a lot more sense than what they're proposing now. here's the illegally constructed path that slopes gently up. here they were building it columbus day weekend they went out and built it illegal le without permit. they claim they didn't know we needed a permit for construction in the public streets. then they say they have a permit for it and exhibit 15 is attached to their brief. it's a street permit that was

they don't have a permit for this, never have. this current proposal is unworkable. this has never been treated as a sidewalk, it's not a sidewalk. this box is more than 4 feet high, sits in the middle of it. it was built with any kind of permit. i tried to obtain it for a sunshine request. it goes up an incredibly street hill and would require the cutting of the foliage that exists there now. the developers have already cut down the foliage. we've tried to cut this deal and get them to apply to legalize this path. if they don't want to come from mountain springs, which was their idea to begin with and they already have approval and permission from mountain springs so this particular

sidewalk project only is what we're talking about should not go forward. i want doesn't make any sense and violates the law. >> do you want to expand a bit on why that curving temporary sidewalk is more acceptable than the straight sidewalk? the neighbors are against any sidewalk. >> not true, the neighbors -- actually both adjacent neighbors -- there was a letter sent from mrs. tom who lives in the other adjacent building over here. she couldn't be here, but she's lived here almost 50 years. she sent a letter -- >> it was sent at 4:54 and submitted to the board. >> she would agree to the sloping sidewalk with landscaping. that's what we've tried to get but for reasons we don't know they've refused that.

this is what i've been banging my head on trying to convince them. it makes more sense and is more attractive and you could landscape this area and pave it and maybe widen it a little bit. taking a 15 foot sidewalk up here makes no sense whatsoever and it's unfair to the matulas and not legal. >> thank you. mr. brand, you have three minutes of rebuttal. >> a sidewalk that close to the