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 house there would be no turning radius so that's r just not foing to happen. that's not the intention at this point. whatever happens with that will be way in the future because karen's planning on fibbishing this project and selling it. it is true. he's been trying to sell it for a long time now. hard to sell when you don't have access to it.

doctor shoe said there'd been a bait and switch. we floated a whole bunch of ideas for the neighbors on how to make that driveway fly. we wanted to get a driveway in there, we offered park, we offered extra parking for the downhill neighbors, ones who don't have down hill parking, well thought maybe that would get people intrepsed. interested. there was no bait and switch. the final application we made wasn't the same as five of those ideas we put out there because we couldn't apply with all of them. yes, we were very clear we wanted a driveway. and the board of supervisors didn't deny the project unanimously twice. the fist time it didn't get out of the committee so it just tabled and also it's been

approved by planning department, the planning commission, a lot of otherwise people have approved the design. any questions? >> can you address the temporary path issue? >> i don't know what happened with that. you have to get -- >> in other words, why isn't that an acceptable solution? >> why isn't that an acceptable splugs? solution? it's not permitable. the sidewalk is legislative. we can do a permit for that. anything that involves negotiation with matulas died. >> no you may not. >> you have rebuttal if you care to use it. >> yes, i just want to make a

few clarifying points. one, again, to reiterate what mark brand just said, there were no curb cuts permitted under the street improvement as part of this 15 foot wide sidewalk, thus, unless the future owners, unless the owner applies in the future to construct one, there is not one in the plans right now, nor is there one approved. with regard to the temporary path, commissioner wilson, my understanding in talking to our inspection staff who were inspecting the work in the public right of way was that this path was constructed strictly as a construction path to get equipment to the site and our decision was if this is construction related it could be issued as a street space permit, however, prior

to signing off on the project, whatever was constructed whether it was just ripping through some landscaping, that needs to be restored to its original condition before we seen off on the project. thus, at this point we're still expecting that that temporary path will be restored. as a matter of fact, i believe we conditioned the permit upon that. however, in talking to mr. william, just now, i mean, he informed me that they're willing to allow construction of it to address mark brand's point. yes, we can a allow this under an encroachment permit, we can make it permanent, so to speak, provided he gets consent from the two neighboring properties. in this case consent is required because it's something that's not constructed to city standards. the 15 foot wide #150id walk is proposed per city standards, thus no consent is required, it's already

legislative sidewalk. for this additional path consent would be required from the conjoining property owners. if that is obtained we can issue that as a minor encroachment permit. i have nothing else to add. any questions i'd be glad to answer. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> quite a history lesson, commissioner. >> i'm not sure, my memory -- whether i made the comment that was a really long walkway on mountain spring.

i remember the case but our review of it was predominantly on the parking variant, a little differently than the other entitlement hearings and appeal that is have occurred on this particular project. i'm not sure that i can craft any type of compromise here. it looks like people are pretty well entrenched. the question then is whether legislative sidewalk done to city standards, whether that department ered in terms of their approval of that sidewalk permit and at this point i have nothing to say

that it ered. so whether i'm backing into a technicality to take a position or not, i don't see any other basis for me to go on this. >> so that the other commissioners and the audience understands, when you said air and -- >> interpretation, yeah. >> exactly. >> i would tend to concur with your response. >> it's too bad because i think the configuration of the temporary walkway access point makes a lot more sense, not as it allows them to be much more creative in dealing with

landscaping and things around it, but i don't think that's going to fly given the consent requirements. >> you look like you're poised to say something. >> i'm just thinking. >> shall i make a motion? i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the sidewalk permit as issued was cocompliance. >> there's a motion on the floor from commissioner fung to up hold this permit on the basis it is code compliant. on that motion to up hole,

president lazarus. >> i. >> commissioner honda. >> i. >> commissioner wilson. a: i. >> i. >> thank you. the vote is 4, zero, the permit is upheld on that basis. >> thank you. item 12 has been withdrawn so we'll move on to item 13 which is appeal number 14-176, jason blie versus department of building inspection. it's at 730 commercial street. protesting the issuance on october 3, 2014 the cultural services center to add four riser stairs between 731 and 731 again and provide approved entrance facility to 731. >> could we take discussions outside, please? we have other business to conduct. >> new doors to match wood

existing and include power door assist. we can hear from the appellant. again, we just ask those who are leaving the room to do so as quietly as you can please so we can move on to the next piece of business. >> ladies and gentlemen of the the board, jason blie. some of you will remember me from our many past discussions and appeals over this property. it's unfortunate that we are here again. i'm very much hoping we are once again moving in the direction, never theless, we need to discuss the matter of why this appeal has come before you. to touch briefly the facts are in your packet but the

overview, i'll say this started a year ago with the fact that the threshold for number 735 was removed prior to any approved permitting process for this. second i'll reference the missing pop up in the city's computer system over the fact that we have had an issue with this property and that permits have gone through without that. and most importantly, we come back to the center of this discussion, which is where are the drawings that show the removal of the garbage room from the front of the building and the aluminum doorway, the replacement of the windows that make up the historic design of the building. that is where we concluded in 2012 with the agreement that was made as part of the decision of this board. and the other important things to cover quickly and my discussion here is the fact that the original wooden

doors, the number 735 which there are pictures of in my brief are something that we were already denied the removal of them as part of the section 106 review for federal funding, which happened over a decade ago, the approximately $1 million in community block grant funds, which with your expended on this property. so here we are discussing the removal when it was said that the funding of this project was contingent on their retention. lastly, i've only received this copy of the brief yesterday at my request from

replace them with poer doors that are not the original doors and that's the huge

shift of the restoration of it will property. >> we'll deal with it. >> mr. lee, we can hear from the permit holder. >> currently we're using

someone else's restaurant and it's all pro bono. by expanding to 735 we double the size of the training area. the areas of the door, we have no choice but to have accessible ada requirement and we're replacing one door. currently you have two doors of equal with. the new door we have one slightly larger wider than the other one, but in terms of the facade, the area looking from the front area is identical, the same color, exactly what's exposed today. the bottom line is that we do need the space here and the funding comes from the city, the federal and of course i have a do nation. we've been here for 32 years

and currently we have graduated over 10,000 students. today we have students standing behind me and i believe one will be speaking, with your permission, before your board. at this moment i'm going to ask engineer to come up here and he can show you more details in the plan and permit and what the exterior facade. i'm going to call up duke [inaudible] the engineer for the project. is that okay? >> yeah. >> yeah hi, i'm duke. i was brought in just to solve the entry geometry of how you get sloping sidewalk and a ramp in and doors that gave improved accessibility. these are reduced plans so i'm not sure how they're going to show up.

let's see. so over here is the existing entry, over here's the proposed . the proposed intriz with the unequal doors and a ramp up and a power opener since we can't do landings. and that's the set of doors we' talking about. when i went in and talked with the historic preservation planner and asked him how he wanted the historic issue addressed we talked about a few things and what he said was that he thought the best thing was to instead of keep the existing doors, he thought the besz thing was to replace