>> good evening welcome to the wednesday, september 2, 2015, meeting of the san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer this evening is our president commissioner president ann lazarus and joined by

commissioner honda and commissioner fung and commissioner bobbie wilson commissioner swig will be absent this evening to my left a strident attorney and the clerk alec i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director we're joined we we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. in the front row is carli short and we'll be joined by joe duffy senior building inspector with the department of building inspection and scott sanchez planning department representing the planning department and the please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes,

participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of the podium. mrblgz if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process.

if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking the oath pursuant to the sunshine ordinance, and thank you. please stand and raise your right hand please stand okay do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> thank you. >> we'll move on to item one commissioners for general public comment the opportunity for someone in the audience who want to speak on a matter between within the board jurisdiction but not on tonights calendar seeing none, we'll move to item 2 commissioners questions or comments and commissioners. >> i want to let my fellow

commissioners know i'll not be here for the september 16th meeting. >> thank you. any other comments commissioner any public comment on item 2 that is seeing none, the boards considers of the august 27, 2015. >> commissioners any changes may i have a motion. >> so moved. >> any public comment on the minutes? seeing none, then we'll call the roll commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus the vice president made the motion commissioner wilson okay. that carries four to zero the next is the rehearing the subject property on jones street the board received a letter requesting the rehearing and

that's mars versus the department of building inspection of the street use and mapping on july 21st at this point the board voted to uphold it is code compliant is it so systems i know the construction after wireless facility permit 16 and we will hear if the requester or the requesters representative >> i'm doug appearing on behalf of the requesters they have illnesses if you'll recall this was one of 4 cases on july 1st involving the verizon wireless facilities for protected locations pursuant to article 25 of the san francisco public works code you may recall before the hearing article 25 had

recently been amended because those were the first hearing subsequent to the amendments this was confusion in evidence among the rent from dpw and the city attorney's office as well as the members of the board in fact the attempted to clear up the confusion midway a 20 minute recess was called to give the deputy city attorney to formulate a correct standard to be applied to the appeals the problem and the reason for the request is that the deputy city attorney determination on the standard to apply was erroneous and incorrect the determination said a zoning protected location capability standard this be applied rather than a stringent capability standard applicable

to this case maybe the written prior written submissions from dpw correctly identified this is a a planning protected location and the determination issued by the deputy city attorney occurred in the case prior to this case the deputy city attorney incorrect determination informed the decision by this board of the not only prior case but in case as a result an incorrection determination a - incorrect standard was applied to the decision for this case one of the sufficient criteria for rehearing it is the maufrtsd justice manifestly the incorrect incapability standard was applied to this case and as a result, the gentleman and ms. mars had an unjust result because the their case was

determined under the wrong incapability standards we respectfully request you rehear this case and the next hearing do so under the incapability standard. >> we'll hear if the next permit holder. >> good evening for written wireless this board made no error there is no manifest injustice or new evidence the city's brief clearly identified the john's location as an excellent for the planning protected standards the zoning protected standard is applied both standards and i

watched the tape and stood before you and recited both standards word for word and tells you that of a was a good standards applied and the you made our decision i think you were amply advised by the city attorney's office as well as by the department of public works and your decision is sound the standards whether it detracts if the characterized of the zoning or that impairs one the aesthetic electricities by impairing the view of a landmark open space or park no evidence in that regard this facility would do any of those things we think you should stand behind our decision mia my remarks is

covered by the city's brief and the city attorney's opinion the remarks with irrelevant we were clear on the standards and should stand by thank you. >> thank you anything from the department ms. short public works i'm concur we don't feel the rehearing request should be granted we also building that it was clearly identified as the protected and the zoning protected location public works shouldn't have issued the permit in the first place if the planning department had not determined did wireless facility had the compatibility standards we feel you were properly advice by the da and you made a correct

determination in this case that it meant the code requirements and therefore, we'll request the rehearing be denied thank you. >> thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> the standard - >> your microphone isn't on is the vice presidents microphone on? >> maybe you don't want me to talk. >> it's on. >> yeah. i think the standard for manifest injustice has not been found my decision was on the briefs during the hearing i will not go towards a rehearing >> any other discussion.

>> speaking for myself the standards were quite clear so i also will not support a rehearing is there a motion? >> motion to deny the rehearing on the gowns there was no manifest injustice. >> okay. a motion if the vice president to deny the rehearing request on that motion commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus commissioner wilson and commissioner swig is absent that carries 4 to zero thank you. >> the next item is appeal for the morris versus the department of building inspection the property on scott street protesting the issuance on june 2015 to scott street, llc for the interior modifications for the addition of subterranean parking garage with the

residential use for the horizon addition at the modification and the front elevation and this i understand commissioners the parties have reached an agreement the permit holder is here to present it to the board please step forward and my understanding is that the appellant is not planning to attend this evening. >> there's something i believe the permit holder has from the appellant to indicate his consent as well. >> before you start perhaps madam director what are some of the others that had sent them letters are they present. >> sure is there anyone here on this matter besides the permit holder great under public comment we've been certain to hear from them gentlemen 7

minutes. >> i'm jim i'm here are recreation and parks department the owner others scott street, llc we submitted an application for a building permit in 2012 there was several components to the project for the ground space to living space that is parking and storage and add four and a half feet to the front of the building and make interior modifications after the site permit was approved the neighbor that lives downhill from the property objected and filed on appeal he expressed to me the concern he had was two-fold one was structure for his building worried about a basement being built next to his property and have converting the ground space

he also had a concern we were with standing a deck on the building people will be on the deck and climb into his building after discusses with the appellants we have agreed to reduce the scope of work to remove the basement to remove the conversion of the ground level to conversion space it was part of the plan we will have a grail i have material we've gotten feedback from the planning department on one item a skylight we've proposed that is a peak skylight we were asked to make that a flat skylight instead i'd like to ask the board to accept the revised plans that reflect that change and we've made a few others changes consistent with the project as proposed i have a complete set of revised

plans and a one page summary and a at the last minute gotten to scott sanchez it if so it possible to submit those revised plans as well as a summary of the changes and finally he have from the neighbor a written statement from the neighbor saying we've addressed the concerns agreed to the scope i've described and i've provided him a revised plans he's signed a statement his concerns are at rest michael levitt is here he's the architect if you have questions that's the ends of my statement. >> is the revised you've provided in our packet the one you have here. >> no, it is not substantially

the same but as i mentioned we got feedback to have the skylight flattened and on the exit diagrams not changing anything substantive the floor plans didn't match our updated plans so we revised that and also, we updated the page numbers we have various page numbers and updated the date to september one and then some of the one other thing on the existed floor plans that was based on on the old plans we updated that to reflect the new floor plans the only substantive changes are the skylight changes i brought copies i'd like to submit the whole set and the summary of changes and a loss packet if you want to see them. >> we'll need a revised sit

down for the records unless everyone needs to see it. >> if you can give one to the clerk. >> i don't know if there is questions we let other folks speak first. >> no other questions from the boards we'll hear if the department mr. sanchez. >> scott sanchez planning department to the revised plans as prepared this evening have addressed our concerns the revised plans in the packet have a skylight with volume within the rear yard wouldn't have been allowed without a variance to remove it so the skylight is flat with the building with the planning code i'll noticed a slight increase to the penthouse

they're adding a mechanical area for as long as their, in fact, using that for mechanical equipment under the planning code in was a duly nose without identification otherwise the scope is being revised and the special conditions if the board approves this will note correctly the scope of work as it is now the building permit it references the underground garage that will be corrected as far as the process. >> mr. sanchez you took a quick look at this. >> yes. >> and is it okay except the penthouse. >> accident penthouse has expanded here and from the mechanical purposes which will be allowed in the planning code not needed to be revised if you

choose to accept that. >> okay inspector duffy has indicated no questions so commissioners public comment if you care to speak under this item please step forward. >> step to the microphone. >> yeah. a group of tenants were concerned about the noise involved and just a second hammering and the changes something might go wrong this is part of plan we were maybe got a lot of construction in the neighborhood roofs going in for a week if this as big project that goes a year or so we're hoping possible we expressed in the letter we've submitted. >> do you would you care to

state your name. >> francis occurring on scott street if you would care to fill out a speaker card 3 would be helpful. >> i'm sorry. >> that's okay and mr. occur are you finished. >> your letter talks about the just a second hammering that is related to the dpigs don't guess to install a new subterranean that's gone. >> that's gone. >> they're still doing odds and ends including work on the roof this is some noise. >> there is a lot of noise they're changing the floor plan 0 on the building to the south if we're going to the winter months i guess they start at dawn pretty much. >> this may not be the proper place to ask for a little bit of

control on that but we thought weed whacking give it a try thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> no other public comment then if you have additional comments you have additional minutes you have to come up to the microphone. >> not super relevant but for the record the mechanical equipment was on the plans you have before you and so the plans as submitted continue to include that. >> mr. roth. >> yes, sir. >> are the tenants i believe in the adjacent buildings were concerned about the noise any idea of what our work hours and work days. >> i don't know. i've never done a project like this and not a contractor but there are rules that govern the rules.

>> the rules are less than i cannot. >> right? i'm not sure what to say we've follow the rules and try to be respectful i live in that neighborhood since i live in the building i definitely know under is a lot of conduct that is annoying and try to minimize the impact that is reasonable. >> is the recommendation it would, nice to have a weekend off. >> i'm not sure i can commit when you have the money and don't know about the emergencies a certain part of project i've seen other folks sometimes do it on a saturday they will be open to discussions on that point. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. anything further from mr. duffy.

>> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi the work hours are permitted in the police 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. 7 days a week so that's what we allegation allegation to. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i would hope the permit holder since he lives in the building understand he needs to have some days of rest otherwise i see no other reason to not deny the appeal and i presume that the permit holder wants us to do you want those drawings. >> we need to grant the appeal; right? >> to condition the permit on the revised plans is that the boards - okay. >> further comments then i'm going to move to grant the

appeal and to adapt the revised september one submit to this board this evening on the basis that less work is being shown and therefore the contentious part has been removed. >> okay. and just to confirm with the permit holder is the date september one for the set your submitting now okay. >> thank you so on that motion if commissioner fung to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the condition of permit to accept the revised plans dated september one the scope of work has been reduced

commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner honda. >> commissioner wilson okay commissioner swig is absent that motion carries 4 to zero thank you. >> next item 6 appeal curtis verses the department of public works the area of note open masonic avenue protesting the issuance on may 20th to the department of public works of a tree removal to remove had 4 street trees with a hundred and 85 street trees this is order number and we'll start with the appellant. >> you have 7 minutes. >> how many of you have a tree that's your tree the favorite tree you are connected somehow.

>> what you speak into the mike, we have a good news we're here because we're concerned about the trees number one the tree 3 one ratio apples and oranges no comparison we want to propose 3 studies to show a mutually way to look at trees number one it is a known fact that studies show old trees continue throughout the whole life two studies of trees accumulation increase shows the maturing trees do not simply act as a carbon reservoir but accurately fix carbon compared to a tree half it's size this myself tree is developing enough

for half of it's why is it doing that what's the nature of the tree a mutually tree and third study capability of old trees to respond to environmental change a study 2000 years shows a flat line here along comes the spiritual revolution a huge spike we're there today but look at what a matureing tree does when it comes into came back with this spike it doesn't go there but it is there how come that tree is doing that because it knows the necessity but has the energy already there

it is not side body the same with an immune system are we have that in common with those trees they're alive their there are for us giving us the clean air to be cleaned given that we're asking the following preserve the 3 trees on masonic public, public space two allow the trees to continue on ma song and keep the medium from geary to farrell, 5 years ago under divisadero under a simple project i walked by you have to see how this 3 for one this project medium looks at many

dead trees half the trees half there banner on many leafs so we look at those that's the 3 to one we're prospering another possibility to we're asking a restoration all of you to give us us the community to work with the city and be able to show there is a matureing tree to help our city thank you. >> do you care to state your name for the record. >> i live off masonic and anyone else speaking during this time? go ahead >> my name is dr. affordable housing i don't think it is our job as responsible citizens to expose the truth beyond the

flashy power point presentation our hope to convince the board this is in the city's best interest to preserve the medium and bus stops at masonic and gear as they are our voices harold the future and present the problem with the proposed tree removal is it that leaves out the trees and neighbors the motorists and the pedestrians we believe that a presence of local government is failing the long term residents in favor of technical people that have money and power as well as the developers and speculators that represent them such things are ravaging our city tearing down historic buildings and trees

removing the bluster and grace in this case the changes proposed at geary and masonic impede traffic and compromise safety i believe the proposed plans are damaging to our city's quality of life they're actually dangerous. >> i will continue during any 3 minutes thank you. >> okay. >> so that will close the appellants time to speak then and we'll hear from the permit holders. >> there's a power point presentation; is that correct. >> that's correct. >> okay. >> okay good evening members of the board and my name is john the project manager for the masonic street i'm here with the landscape architect and chris in

the department of public works urban forestry i want to say we're in complete agreement to the value of the trees in the urban environment this is why san francisco public works has an effort station and tree planting in the tree planting like the masonic street light improvement and i've included a plan in our exhibits so the masonic stape is a complete streetscape in front of the geary the mutilate project led by the deputy superintendant and the san francisco planning department in coordination with the stakeholders like the north of page and the sfai and the san francisco bicycle coalition the plan began in 2010 in a response for out crying from the

neighbors with grassroots including the masonic the call for the city to address the dangers on the street in the ma song the alarming statistics is why the tame is in agreement they must be reimagined over a 5 year period hundred and 22 collisions on masonic including two fatalities those are the reported ones we know there are more here's a summon avenue public outreach since 2010 and a slide of community workshops one p 1, 2, 3 i'll pass by in the interest of time so this drawing shows that the boulevard option the option we're move forward with we reimagine the street includes

the wide sidewalks throughout separated bicycle lanes and two lanes of traffic signal and new latent prints for the medium in the plan illustrated with the boarding islands newly imagined bus stations that allows the bicyclists to pass behind i'm including this slide so show why the graph is the risk of death from collisions from vehicular speeds it is in our project to include the narrowly of traffic lanes and the street trees medium trees act as calming agents for the road to drivers our project proposed to plan hundred trees in the near future at the intersection of geary and masonic a plaza is proposed and

a redesign should have a safety benefit to the streets in addition to the plaza situations that be widened for the target store for the distance for pedestrians across masonic and geary from interesting two crossings in '86 crossing to 72 feet that's the 51 decrease in the crossing distance and here's an aerial view showing the plazas as proposal the transit area with palms and the cafe with the trees and an open area with planter in the south end the centerpiece of the plaza will be a public art piece overseen by the san francisco arts called the points of depasture today hundred and 46

fruit trees 49 are proposed to be replaced by disease and construction conflict one hundred and 85 trees are to be planned with 2 hundred and 80 trees and additional trees this drawing shows the 49 trees that are proposed to be removed and respect the yellow video been inspected by the urban foresters and for replacement for disease and poor performance this cvs construction conflicts 7 trees are in the medium on masonic 9 trees conflict with the plazas on geary and 9 trees conflict that with the boarding islands and 7 trees conflict with the target stores

here is an illustration of 7 trees within the medium continue o farrell and geary streets in order to accommodate the medium it must be removed a new medium constructed to the west those trees will be replaced with new trees we have to relocation the medium these trees will be replaced here's an illustration of 9 trees within the island of geary and masonic the roots are uplifting the paving causing a tripping hazard but the construction provides a lower construction grades of one foot in order to constrict the plaza including the section of paste that is more than two feet of excavation for the plaza and because the tree rootsz appear in the most top two to three

feet of soil not possible to save the existing trees in that location this illustration shows 9 trees conflict with a typical with the transit boarding soildz to accommodate new design for the protection of the bicycle lanes they must be removed and replaced we can't provide the bicycle improvement and finally there's 7 trees adjacent to the target store and arborists will low relocate of those trees we can't guarantee those trees will survive that's one thing we want to provide an alternative and those slides shows the trees to remain in closing i'll say that

we respectfully ask the board the board of appeals to uphold the director of public works to replace the 409 street trees between geary and masonic and alternative recommendations to allow for relocation of the 7 beginning could trees between masonic and geary and approving the approval of 49 trees for the streetscape project an important project for the city safety wise and important for the city to achieve the vision zero to achieve vision zero traffic deaths by 2024 and the saving of lives is our priority. >> i have multiple questions if someone else wants to start perhaps the first point not

necessarily a question but uttering didn't set up lifting those sidewalks as a excess for demolition of a tree if i understand your point about the - perhaps that accommodates that particular element the questions i have are as follows: the portion of trees you mentioned you're going to attempt to roaming is there a reason why they don't work in the center of sidewalk expanding the sidewalk. >> the department of public works has a possibility corridor that works with the mayor's office on disability and the sidewalk is 10 feet wide and be

expanded to 10 feet more the existing trees will ended up in the center of the sidewalk the mayor's office on disability sees that is a disability for people with poor vision. >> i've not heard of that it didn't transform with any code. >> we had a lawsuit. >> the preferred alternative shows a medium our rendering shows a large tree but the medium is relatively narrow are you going to be able to support tree growth of that size there. >> yes. i'm not sure which drawing you're referring to but the trees proposed are the trees and a beginning could princeton their tail perimeter trees and the medium between o farrell and

geary is much wider than the other medium streets i know the divisadero is a narrow medium compared to then it looks disastrous this is neither here more there my last question no where to provide you talk about the planned pallet but no where to talk about the size of trees. >> the size of the trees are 24 inch block and 36 inch trees on the sidewalk the species are been selected with our partners and the urban forestry and from comments received if the urban tree council in the medium there are beginniginco trees and other trt

are in the main block. >> and in the plazas date palms and the flowering trees. >> our city has been taken over by pages? >> other questions? >> i'll wait. >> yeah. thank you, thank you anything to add ms. short and what hat are you wearing. >> my tree hat basically uttering is here to respond to any questions about the particulars about any of the trees remove for the health or construction concerns most of existing trees on the sidewalks

are being preserved and many large trees that you are being preserved those proposed for removal not related to the construction impacts are in poor continents or have major issues they have poor form and another full of decay we've tried to preserve as many mature trees along the corridors as possible we don't navigate we don't remove a tree because of the sidewalk damage but it has to do with the trees and it wouldn't survive or not have sufficient root structure to remain after the changes. >> ms. short did the mta and planning consult with urban forestry on the pallets. >> yes. we had extensive conversations on the pallet and it was presented to the urban

forestry council. >> can do you think i'm sorry what do you think with the species in terms of how they visually sit with respect to the existing trees. >> well, i think so there are already ginco trees along the corridor that's one the reasons their proposed although they're slow growing they'll become large trees and the principle has an upright importantly that presented the vertical element for traffic calming we presume without having a broadly gallop we have ash trees we've preserved that wish large but hard on center infrastructure and not sufficient root for the medium so the addendum is a

nicely climate to that was a lot of discussions discussions about the options and those are the selected choices. >> in terms of those planned in the medium their trees i presume they will obtain significant vertical height not much foliage; right? >> they'll get vertical height the species can reach 50 feet in height even turn around it is a windy corridor they'll not exceed that substantially but the canopy they develop a substantial canopy. >> how do you relocation the trees i think six or seven i

heard. >> most of trees are proposed for relocate have a good chance of survival they're relatively young i think our prospective has been we want to be cafeteria about what we present to the community and so in the interest of supervisor miguel bustos approaching this we'll let people know they're going to be removed he even though to transplant plant them they will be replaced with a 37 box tree i think they can survive. >> can you explain the 49 trees i want to make sure the board has before it. >> i'm not sure i can clarify that. >> the number has been 49 to 44 it is a typo. >> so 44 is before the board on

the permit. >> i think for the directors order does it say 49 or. >> 44 a. >> so there is the confusion about the ginco trees new ginco trees in front of the of the target store we've relocate they're really small their i think planted by the target store can i address the lifting sidewalk issue. question >> no, it wasn't a question. >> i want to. >> please wait until you have rebuttal so we'll take public comment now can i see a show of hands how many people want to speak under that item okay. so if i would ask the folks to speak line up on the fare side

of the room and fill out a speaker card and if you whoever wants to come up first please come to the microphone and each speaker has two minutes because of the number of people for those and other items. >> so - >> go ahead. >> you want them on the other side we have to keep this side clear for the fire code thank you. >> go ahead, please. >> good evening. i'm tim the president of the board of the neighborhood association i've been a 5 year residents and i wanted to let you know this project is not actually a politician emphasized project but a campaign from the residents concerned prior to 2010 the 2010 workshops i've

attend them all i want to thank the city there were well organized and well attend and a lot of input and surveys and the surveys have gone out the north page association sent out a survey to e-mail this and the majority of our respondents approved the boulevard supported the boulevard project we stand in support that have project today, we understand that it is unfortunate that the trees have to be removed how we're looking forward to the greater number of trees and most of all we're concerned about the safety of the streets there's a of most day with ask you uphold the initial decision thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name arnold i'm pleasured

to hear i think they did a good presentation and my appeal is similar to theirs we're coming into a decade-long trespassed that kind of changes you know even century in the making and millennium in the making extreme changes that require changes if how we think about things about now it is right time for it to start i appreciate the presentation very much. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hello, everybody i'm amber i live in the masonic geary area i attended the previous hearing where we were bringing this to light some of the cannabis of the previous hearing have not

been met it was stated the project manager show investor the trees can't be removed i don't feel that's been done and clarify for the public the tree removal and why the trees have to be removed there is no outreach to the public when we came in april a lot of us the first we are heard those trees will be removed i lived in the area for 18 years i feel close to those trees also a bicyclist and mom i agree the masonic needs to be fixed if i could well, one thing that is concerning there was no environmental impact report it was there was an addendum in 2009 attached to the project that said because it was part of the bicycle plan no

environmental impact report i thought that was a trouble precedent i agree we need to think about things different you can't say we'll take one out for young trees to grow they need to be protected from the wind and you know have the orderly trees to remain the water that specific intersection is very wind swept if trees with not there the winds the sunlight like everything is going to add to the safety issues also i really question the use of palm trees they don't offer much for the birds or block the wind thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please hello my name is rubbing

pa i'm speaking for the san francisco forest alliance they recognizes the trees sometimes do need to be removed for the transit projects it is important first, that the plans should minimize the tree loss, and, secondly, that it should be up front how many trees will be cut down and which ones the best time is in the planning stage the tree presentation o preservation should be a priority san francisco has 13.7 percent of the precanopy for the 25 percent urban trees provide huge benefits they reduce pollution by trapping parcels and they are sound and have

water run off and they collect carbon and effect climatic change and provided habitat for birds and butterflies those they have a huge benefit for the 10 trees just 10 trees added to a city street has the same benefit of every households on that street $10,000 annually are making every one 78 years younger so i would like to say that the invitations of this hearing go much beyond many group of trees hundreds of street trees are threatened throughout the city as long as those hearings and this outreach is just a formality trees will not be preserved thank you. >> >> thank you. next

speaker, please. >> good evening board my name is narrow i'm the executive director of the san francisco bicycle coalition and we're here tonight to support this very important life saving project the dpepz permit to add a net of hundred and 36 trees it critical to moving forward on the safety improvement in recent years two deaths on the streepeeding is rampant in 2010 a gentleman was killed there and a year later james hunt was killed that was the same year the mta approved this project it is high time to get it constructed there were years of community engagement has been presented tonight by our colleagues at the dpw and

the north neighborhood association and the grassroots called masonic was born out to bring those changes about masonic corrects golden state and presidio and swfls ucsf and shopping and jobs on geary the masonic improvements improve safety for bikers and riders that are extremely necessary and especially in a city that is condominium to eliminating deaths in traffic in the years i'll say on behalf of the bicycle coalition and our 11 thousand members we strongly urge the board to make this appeal. >> i have a question on the motion a number of bicycle incidents on masonic do you have any numbers on the percentage of

accidents that are not recorded. >> that's a good question i don't i wish i did and the personal - there was

something about ada and i measured the business for the sidewalks at ada made the distance they don't need to be

cut or removed it seems to generate as the project precedes because when i look at the noticed on the west side of the street there were to trees that conditioned by the time a hearing there were 4 trees were there which were in bad condition i think another tree was planted otsz on the eastern side of the street for families and between the beginning for - later on. >> thank you very much. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> my name is terry oxford i'm here speaking for an endangered or darkened species connected to

this issue people don't imagine. >> could you speak into the microphone. >> this is police narrators and the beekeepers since 2008 what lay people don't know that bees get from trees the trees in san francisco provide flowers that are criterion and that he had free this is important because of the news that everyone has been reading about honey bees all policy narrators and birds are in serious trouble was of the loss of habitat and because of the trees grown in the united states now are all injected with poison from as soon as possible leg stage with the pesticides this is the life of the tree long enough anything that takes nectar and pollen is potentially

going to today, this is important we all know when is important about the policy narrator system so what i'm asking for i building this plan is for gone conclusion question have enough time to source organic trees and san francisco, california stand above every city a safe policy narratlinatp >> you have 3 minutes. >> if people believe that those are members of the community they have life and can't be removed without damaging us as a community one of the aims of the

better streets to promote public safety and to decrease the likelihood of injuries masonic and geary has 8 lanes running north and south and 6 lanes east and west with turn lanes carefully our street for the diverse directions there have been some fatality too over 6 year period and some injuries on the entire length of masonic yet that could all change in the trees are removed and the busses rerouted this is a very serious issue close to my heart my own beload of sister was struck by a motorcyclist when her and her boyfriend were trying to catch a bus 21 years old when she was killed masonic is a heavy used

street with cars moving smoothly open a day basis to claim the city could effectively reduce one the busiest thoroughfares and diminish the fatalities on this strip of masonic is good while alternatively the bus stops and reroutinely the bus traffic an increased likelihood it will be jammed and result in injuries or death morph by shift the bus traffic into the medium buses will no longer be able be able to pull over but stop and barricading only one lane available in one direction with 3 unobstructed lanes during rush hour in a city that is a burdening population that threatens structure in fact, the

san francisco police reports hit and run accidents on a daily basis bus stops are one of the most dangerous stops and in addition there is a yielding of east of geary that allows cars to run smoothly, however, if he shift the present bus stop most certainly an "x" potential increase in the number of injuries and fatalities for a bus stop located in the meridian the bus in the center of the street think about back your experience of existing a bus after existing the doorway in such a situation bus riders enter the crosswalks and cross the streets while talking on their cell phones and led to

chase a bus and began assess so not miss an opportunity to board and bus to should buses be able to obstruct the middle the street. >> your time is up. >> i know you gave twice the amount of time. >> exemplary there were questions that were asked. >> can i finish two senses please. impatient drivers will take risks library running red lights and while the pedestrians are crossing i think that is naive to think that the project will prove safety i believe that present bus stop and meridian should be maintained as well and the intersection of geary and - and

such is the case dpw and sfmta request should be denied for amending the meridian interests not a survival day. >> i have a question for you excuse me. >> i have a question. >> sorry i don't know the process. >> take a deep breath no worries did you participate in the community outreach. >> no, i didn't but i'm a neighbor and feel i'm informed i used the streets in the neighborhood i drive down the street i bicycle. >> why didn't you participate. >> i wasn't informed and not living in this area at this time. >> mr. dennis anything further from the permit holders you have 3 minutes of rebuttal. >> sure i just - not sure how

much to respond to the comments i've heard other than to say the project has been carefully analyzed for traffic close and someone earlier had made the complaining claim that didn't receive it's environmental clearance, of course, it did we can't move forward with any public project without the public contemporary and i want to thank you for your time and remind you this project was approved by unlawful by the board of supervisors acting as is mta board and the 3 supervisors that touched this street all wrote letters of support in favor of the project and also ask you to consider in addition to the verbal comments we've heard tonight in support of the project to consider the

14 letters that were you received including one from supervisor eric mar and point out that using the san francisco uttering plan the economic benefits of 2 hundred and new existing trees will result in an annual benefit of 2 hundred and 17 thousand gallons of water and 81.79 carbon stored and pollutants from the atmosphere in addition to the benefits of some of what other people are brought up tonight. >> it's been presented (laughter). >> you know what let's start done here. >> i just. >> no problem. >> i want to you to talk about a couple of comments into the public what about the issue of

organic trees. >> well, it is interesting i don't know of any tree nursesries that are labeled organic that is usually a term forestable agriculture but any nurseries growing the organic we'll be happy to hear about them. >> so it is not something that's been considered. >> not something that exists and this issue the tree remove not discussed at the community outreach can you you talk about that. >> i don't think that is true many people asked me involved in the mr. larkin process i was there but many people asked me what impacts, in fact, the trees and the one thing we didn't bring up the trees in the island at geary and masonic we received many complaints during the planning project how dark is it is another night and people

don't feel safe under the trees that is one comment we took to heart in our design. >> is that because of the trees or the poor lighting. >> the trees are plant close together apoorly maintained. >> are the new trees go to be better maintained. >> maintained for 3 years a period of time when they need the most care but through the contract and through the medium trees will be maintained by the department of public works and the sidewalk by the adjacent property owners and the urban forestry plan calls for proposes that the department of public works take back responsibility for all street trees it will require a measure put on a ballot. >> one last question maybe a question for the department but

what about the comment of the lack of protection for the trees and he windyness. >> most of san francisco is windy and i've been with the department for 17 years the designing streetscapes and public projects and eave selected our trees for their ability to withstand our conditions not only wind but salt and air and drought conditions so those trees have been selected to withstand that the more trees we plant the better the coordinator. >> even when their young. >> even when their young yeah. >> thank you. >> batter up. >> i'm familiar with my street that's my daily route the corner store what was pub before and you know from what the public said that is never came up prior

but brings a sensitive bell you're taking the trees are the trees your replacing them with able to sustain bee life as we know it. >> yes. of course, with the exception of the palms flowering in a different way maybe carla can explain their unique but the other trees flower think a regular basis we're doubling the trees on the corridor more habitat for the bees. >> the second question reports of amount of accidents and unfortunately fatalities any studies with the routinely of the traffic or routinely blaefrt what accident reports anything statistically. >> your question about accidents. >> if you reroute this traffic

there is traffic for a period of time any reports that have been taken or done to indicate what kind of accidents that will cause. >> we don't anticipate any accidents because of that the traffic routing is analyzed by the traffic engineers and a recommendations on how to proceed with traffic roument one of the provisions they can only constrict two blocks at the same time so the entire corridor will not be under construction 18 months the reason it takes 18 months they're only allowed to do 2 blocks at a time. >> i recognize this is a tree removal initiative that's been appealed but out of curiosity

your plans shows the bicycle path crossing the traffic fold not for see new conflicts between the bicycles and pedestrians at a point. >> go back to that slide. >> so you're talking about the way the bicycle lane travels behind the boarding island this is something that been done in many cities around the world including san francisco we have one boarding island at deboss and church street been in four or five years it has been a great success not incidents of collisions between pedestrians and cyclists and what it does it eliminates the conflict between buses and bicyclists that is extremely

dangerous the busses don't say viability and the bicycles sometimes get trapped. >> i have self more questions related to the tree issues one of the gaps in this particular corridor is adjacent to the ball fields it's a narrow sidewalk isn't it your showing a lot of trees. >> ucsf. >> ucsf are we widening the sidewalk any are widening to the 22 feet we're widening three or four blocks along the corridor but on that one, the sidewalk is narrowed because they planted trees between the sidewalk and the curb. >> go back. >> their greenery comes down to the sidewalk commissioner. >> there's a retaining wall there's a fence here.

>> the plans show what i described the sidewalk is setback if the curb with the trees planted there we will in fill the trees where there are missing trees there are a couple of years ago they planted trees on that stretch. >> can't even read my own notes i'll go to my last question which is for those replacement trees that are at the sidewalks can they be bigger. >> is 36 inch box is larger than we normally plant there are pros and cons to planting bigger and smaller trees maybe our arborists want to chime in the

smaller trees tends to have better health in the long run in our urban conditions the tree needs to be sizeable enough not to be vulnerable to vandalism and breakage age, etc. so the normal is the 24 inch box tree on the corridor we've sized up to a 36 inch box it is possible to get a larger sized tree over time or a number of years not end up being any bigger of a tree the smaller tree will catch up; right? >> questions? >> thank you. >> ms. short you have 3 minute of rebuttal if anything to add no? >> i keep hearing about the doubling of trees and that we are taken away x amount and

getting showing so many more so as a practical matter is the apples and oranges so that's exactly right probably at installation there will be a net loss of the eco system services we're getting if the mature trees over time because their multiple trees plant for those removed there will be stabilizing and a gain in the eco system services but it is true that initially there be likely be a drop that's the time. >> the species proposed for planting on the sidewalks are relatively face growing trees so i think we would likely see the

benefits in you know - i could do the math but i'd have to go back and try to do the math in a number of years 5 to 10 years for example the medium trees they're not super slow the beginning goes o gos are the faster of the gincos it will take substantially lower than to realize the benefits in the medium there are no medium trees there's a huge increase but a slower growth so a number of years. >> the issue the pollination is there concerns considerations. >> not consideration i'm not aware of tree nurseries it is something i'll research and i'm actual a beekeeper as well it is something i'm concerned about.

>> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> that's a lot of trees. >> considering we normally hear about 12 tree issues of the neighbors. >> all in the comprehensive plan. >> right? >> on top of i think the target has been land use is working. >> right. >> you know the i'm not going to comment on the concept what they're intending the issue is the removal that was appealed of

the 40 state 44 but i think they want 49. >> i'm prepared to support the permit to allow the removal and allow the then the improvement of this portion of masonic street. >> so grant think conditions. >> the only issue there is that the code requires there to be notice given to the public of each tree removed by indemnifying the underlying question is whether or not the permit says 44 whether or not it was the roach of 49. >> maybe we can ask again, i throughout the difference was

the ginco trees relocated. >> we'll have to go back and look at it what was submitted for the tree hearing i know the plans drawings haven't changed so in those drawings were submitted part the tree hearing that is a typo the 44 but the question is what to do when there was a typo and i don't know if under recent a precedent. >> you'll have to post. >> we could go back and double check the posting i know the gincos were posted it only had 44 trees they were thinking in the gincos got relocated but the beginning 'coz coulds were posted we talked about the fact to error on the side of caution

in case they don't survive. >> it should be a bigger number then; right? >> so that i think that might be the difference between the 44 and 49 i'm not sure. >> but i think there were 6. >> it should be 50. >> you'll have to speak into the microphone if you're go to record. >> the 5 and 6 there is that one small tree that was planned while we were having the hearing process. >> oh, for the target store and starbuck's. >> we can certainly go back and verify look at himself i mean, i have the public notices we used so we could add that up but i know for sure those quentin coulds got posted and protected in terms of the this. >> should this be continued for that to be sorted out.

>> the 44 is before us. >> is the reposting necessary and that make sense. >> that's the easiest. >> we'll come back okay. >> so more discussion or motion? >> move to deny the appeal on the basis that the department didn't error in the issuance of the permit for the demolition of 44 trees. >> my motion i will speak up sir, thank you my motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the department did not error in they're posting and permitting removal for 44

trees. >> i believe we need to make environmental finding. >> only if you - >> if we call the appeal. >> commissioner if you're going to uphold that permit you need to make environmental findings there are some that have been drafted in case i can read into the record and mr. longly if you could put a copy on the overhead the board has consideration for the agenda and all documents for the review for the 2009 bicycle plan and the masonic streetscape this information is available for the public and board of appeals office on mission street and made a record for that reference the boards bans in light of the whole records there is no project changes or project changes and circumstances and

now new information of substantial importance that changes the conclusion of the california environmental quality act including the motion and planning department amounted to the environmental impact report dated june 28, 2012, that were incorporated here so commissioners, if you commissioner fung if you care to add if to our motion that would address the boards need to make a determination. >> i would add that many my motion. >> annex okay. >> so we have a motion by commissioner fung to deny the appeal and uphold the permitted on the basis it the department did not error in their issuance of the permit and with the adaptation of the environmental findings read into the record supervisor cortese. >> commissioner vice president honda's. >> commissioner wilson commissioner swig is absent that that motion carries 4 to zero

thank you. >> so we'll move on which taking the next item item 7 william and beth versus the department of building inspection the project is on crest visiting avenue pertaining of an alteration permit for temporary shoring for application and on for hearing today and we will start with the appellant is there someone in the room representing the appellants for item no. 7 thank you. >> you have 7 minutes. >> thank you clint for the appellant the good news i thought i'd need 7 minutes but

the board is familiar with the problem on crest visiting our client the appellant lives directly up slope of a sleeping slop of a property at 19 sure wood and the exact problem is that the excavation of the site i think pretty much is well stipulated to at this point was done i am properly not followi improved plans and shoring plans submitted and approved and 6 piers in sight so we no longer have a permit that matches the con turns and typography of the site we've been in communication with the respondent principally

santos the engineer for this site we've spent how time in the hallway talking about a solution i think we've come up with one and with permission i'll outline it roderick 0 if you want to stipulate on your own we would like to do is we recognize the importance of winter riggs the site cola whether or not the preserved danger of el nino we recognize this site needs to be stabilize listed for the pending winter you, however, this might be so there will be a winter riggs plan a water management plan that will be submitted for us four peer rectify u right-of-way by september 16th.

>> that's correct. >> we'll have a time that we'll have to review and get back to mr. santos and his team so your structural engineers and geotechnical consultants what weigh in on that plan then in the meantime the responsibility will continue to work on the permit plan that incorporates the 6 piers that are in place i'll let mr. santos speak to that specifically i think that will certainly get us introduce the winter the plan that is currently approved p is attempted to be implemented not enough time to get it is a stabilized in time for the severe weather did i miss anything. >> are you finished.

>> i am finished unless this year questions from the board. >> where did it leave us. >> the brief indicates two koufkz the secondly, you've list all those conditions the permit holders are willing to accept the conditions. >> correct. >> is that also, if they can do the work over the next 3 months stable that. >> yes. we're willing to agree to you suppose to keep the permit on life support as it were to allow the stabilization of the hillside for the winter realizing another application submitted for the review that covers the new excavation and the alternated top debris for

the project and eventually go in there. >> gives daily of the weathertion of the fact. >> i'm the structural engineer for costa mesa as you may know this was approved by the fact team of structural team that consisted of a geogift an excessive review of the calculations and the details recommending to the shoring given the fact that it will take over 80 days for the shoring we simply do have enough time to retaste the permit we're prepared to make provision for the shoring project and submit it through the process and the neighbors at the same time we'll also prepared to submit a

separate set of drawings to zeal with the water issues and for that it will be a temporary drainage system that will be potentially tarp that will occur to make sure we say don't video debris things on that slope an extra set of drawings presented to the neighbors folks and they have a structural engineer and, if you will, we'll submit it to the city as an actual permit to not only have drawings that describes how we will deal with the water but it be part the inspection process and dbi will be monitoring the inspections we'll implement. >> the potential delay your raising is for the proposed

modification required due to the unfortunate changes if the original design. >> that's correct. >> not only do we have a view but we also interacted with the neighbors and technical experts and engineers they have a tech engineer we want to make sure they are happy with the revised drawings that will be a great deal of technical expertise had been prepared to go through the process and prepared to incorporate the conditions that have been suggested by the appellant. >> i raise those questions because i'd rather have the site fully stabilized through the engineering work to be done

rather than keep reviewing and reviewing anyway, i understand your potential. >> thank you. >> mr. barkerly you want to speak on behalf of. >> i'm the co-counsel for the appellant one of the reasons why the review process for the revision to the current temporary shoring problem right now that didn't have any underpinning not asked for anyone's permission since the slope is about 50 degrees above there is discussion office whether parts of that site underpinning should be a consideration and our client will not object it that if there is a better way to stabilize.

>> i understand. >> mr. duffy. >> joe duffy dbi it might be easier if i eye the overhead i have a couple of of the photos if i could get the overhead. >> so the first photograph is this is. when they started the excavation enroll that wasn't done properly they ran about it completely the wrong way inexperienced we got contacted pretty soon we were contacted before the permit was issued that was what caused all the problems we issued an emergency shoring permit and i will put up another forga photo this is wha

hillside looks like with the shore beams and it is typical of what we see for emergency shoring mr. santos included more work for the winter i totally agree with that, i think that is other permit is going to be required for the shoring because of the changes and the sack review because the hillside because where the site is located is is required i'm glad we'll gotten to that point the one thing concerned about the property let me ill put up the other photos the stabilization work to make sure it is secured

because of the season we're anticipating and they're going to have to obviously get the project back on track the department has nicole's and the monitoring for an address restriction we really are looking for them to move forward with someone that knows what they're doing a proper the way to do it and contact osha and the dbi do it the right way the second time around i'm available to answer any questions. >> mr. duffy it looks like it will need additional shoring further up. >> as part of the new shoring plan that is quite possible but i do, they have to redo the shoring plan if it is under sack review it a process that works i think the key thing the design is okay as long as the person

doing the work is competent and know what they're doing and done in proper sequence that's all i have at this point. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, nun further comment if the appellants? no mr. santos anything further commissioners are you clear as what you're being asked to do >> no, i was going to ask that question laura. >> who would like to ask the board for what you want and the appellant is requesting that if you choose to affirm the current appeal permit you'll do so with the following conditions of approval and the conditions of approval is one that the permit

holder submit a plan to winterries the sites for the safety of the adjacent improvements by september 16th and with prior consultation with the appellant and second a new set of plans which is requested actually right now under the department of public works be submitted that will redefine the shoring system to reflect the change in 20 topping graph and those plans blackberry submitted to dbi and subject to review and when this set of plans is reviewed and approved then that will be the set of plans they'll actually do the actual shoring

which by the time unfortunately we'll be well into the spring season so they'll have to do that after the rainy season is implemented and we'll see whether there is any rain is there a date i don't want this thing to drag. >> i'll ask mr. santos. >> before we hear could you have the ability to uphold or deny it sounds like the private she means to all the time are not conditions you can place on this scope of work before you. >> if we - i believe the board doesn't have the ability to do that what is happening we're appealing a permit because it was due to the actions by the permit holder it become unsafe and therefore they're required

to submit additional plans to make sure that the shoring process is safe for all the neighbors and given the fact we may end up having extremely heavy rain as an additional safety requirement that should that happen there has to be a plan in place to make sure the sites during the rainy season can you be winterized you can't do this kind of shoring and excavation the top - >> that doesn't answer the question the question is do we continue this while the submittals occur in a private agreement. >> we're asking for we're saying the board can quotes impose that as a stipulated or

you can adapt what we suggest as your own conditions of approving. >> the board can't enforce a decision that's not feasible for the board the question is this permit before the board need to be brought back to life in doing the work contemplated and to continue to maintain the jurisdiction of the permit. >> you concur that is the best solution. >> i will urge you commissioners as stated keep the permitted on rife support we need that permit it describes the geometry and the location so we're going to be mortgage forgiving that permit the basic

drawing will be ultimately what we're going to use on this site. >> mr. santos we'll be rising this you'll doing the resubmittal of a new design this in and of itself is a new permit. >> if the boards continues this appeal than you can submit the revised plans and when the appellant is satisfied they'll withdraw the appeal if you continue this appeal that is suspended that's, if they need to use the permit they're contemplating in the short time. >> they're saying not until an accepted plan that can be followed by an accepted plan, etc., etc. >> i have no objection if you want to continue this in which we'll begin to become the dates they have to summit the revised plan through the temporary shoring permit. >> and then once they do that

it is up to dbi to decide whether they need a permit which will automatically basically, in fact, go replace the old permit. >> mr. duffy did you wish to say something. >> we'll get the problem. >> 19th avenue dbi it is better to continue it then i don't want to call the new permit - well, the winterization we don't have to reference the temporary shoring more call the new permit a restriction to the shoring this is two new permits and pull the shoring permit that is under appeal and cancel that permit and can get feedback on it and that takes care of the appeal and both parties will be saying their satisfied. >> so the weathertion has no

bearing on whether or not to continue. >> yes. as long as we get permission from the board to issue that permit typically when a permit is in suspension we'll look at this and talk to ms. goldstein but if you call a permit a restriction to a permit ultimately that permit is not what you're doing it becomes a little bit in years to come hard to explain so just keep it clean. >> exactly. >> okay. >> the other thing is one of the issues here i think it is important that notification was not given o under the civil code that from 91 excavation they obviously didn't do that when the neighbors heard the machine

on the hill that going forward will be addressed it is an important issue so. >> maybe on the winterization permit it is better than workers showing up on site i don't think that is in the future but certainly in the past and this is example the communication doesn't help and we ended up in the same situation. >> not the same folks. >> i'm sorry. >> not the same folks. >> no. i don't think so. >> mr. roderick could says, in fact, he could have the new owners revisions to the existing on appeal to the department of public works in the four weeks. >> by the end of the month. >> we will have to sets of drawings one that deals with the

winterizing the site and the second permit the shoring permit which will be subject to review by september 30th. >> we can commit to those dates. >> so the continuance will be sometime in october. >> it wouldn't matter and yeah. >> commissioners i'm recommending perhaps october 28th give time and calendar. >> is the 14 accounting not good. >> question closed the items on the calendar. >> 28 october. >> october 4th. >> for the continuance absolutely so commissioners i'm going to move to continue this case until october 28th.

>> and that fact if the parties can continue to finalize on that >> commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner vice president honda's. >> commissioner wilson and commissioner swig is absent that motion carries 4 to zero. >> we'll take a. >> welcome back to the wednesday, september 2, 2015, meeting of san francisco board of appeals we will have on item 8 appeal michael gorman versus the department of building inspection the property on ma begin avenue pertaining the may 15th of an attention permits for the dock active lighting for the rear deck and fence start

with the appellants. >> i wish to make a disclosure i have a relationship with reuben, junius & rose and retained the firm as council on a project reuben, junius & rose replace of the appearance will not have any effect on any decision today. >> thank you. please step forward i have 7 minutes. >> thank you i'm going to need the overhead alex it is there. >> good evening, commissioners i'm north pole representing the neighbor appellants deborah and michael gorman in the appeal of construction of poles and lights in the neighbors backyard deborah is traveling on the east coast otherwise she'll be here and michael will speak many a

few minutes pursuant to the planning code obstructions in the open spaces are not lout except in specific distance were their lout their 8 feet in height the recent built back deck this is sort of a bad picture this is a better shot of that the floor of that deck is about 62 so our at 8 feet of the obstruction but may i interrupt you stop the time police are they not pulling this permit. >> okay. >> canceling this permit. >> we are the parties have waved whatever procedural problems with the permit so we can resolve the substantive issues so we can weigh the b b n notification we've wavered the process of going drove the

planning department because the zoning administrator has informed us we'll approve those poles and lights we're good to go. >> sorry for interrupting this is to not hide the ball the zoning administrator will tell you he informed us that we will approve that as a reservational or household use like a play structure or drying lines is the term. >> so should we restart the clock. >> please turn the pictures facing you the way you'll look at them. >> oh, all right. >> terrific so right about there is where we're at 8 feet

so there's already a big 8 foot obstruction in the back of the neighbors yard and now they've added enough 8 to 10 feet on top of that and stinging lights across them the so - as part of that i would like to ask michael gorman up to talk about how this effects him and his wife deborah thank you. >> good evening. i'm michael gorman i live on accident billiard abutting the street when we bought our home the property was shield from the street by trees maintained on that park over the last year the trees were removed the deck that you see was built is a looms over our backyard so going to the edge of the

property when people are on it in the backyard in may the additional the pole you see in the picture or has shown in the picture was built i guess four poles crossbeams and lights and i guess 20 lights were snuffed the structure it is 15 feet at all my wife and i live in the hill towards the neighborhoods neighbors and just have this feeling of the our privacy and enjoyment of this property have been decongratulated we ask the board act upon on behalf of the privacy to enforce the proprietor limits of planning code that exist thank you. >> just a- i'm sorry. >> no, no. >> you got to go again, i, wait

that's the question based on. >> it's okay. >> sue ann approval based on this is a household use or recreational upcoming drawing the lines there they are six or seven feet tall their 15 to 17 feet tall and unless the drawing line was attached to the back of the house this is not the case they put it closer to the neighbors hours then to their own home the addition the poles seems like on unnecessary usage indigenous indication of the backward to increase the structure to 17 feet it is just huge play structures sits on the ground this is they're building

on a subordinate a structure that is 8 feet tall in the back this is an invasion into deborah's and michael's privacy the as we said we waved the requirements for b b n notification and wavered whatever procedural issues went with the granting of this permit but we would ask that the board vote to say those poles and lights violate the spirit and letter of the code and violate the codes hundred 36 they're not permitted under one 36 only objects specifically approved in certain areas can be built that way thank you. >> do you have a question. >> yes. >> have you had any discussion

with the neighbors about compromises can you talk about that. >> yes. we had a discussion when the deck was initially built out we realized how big we contacted them and had a conversation and shared our concerns and talked about asked if they can rerecollect the green barrier there was a lot of back and forth about that over 6 months and the proposal they came back with was we would pay half the cost of green barrier and pay 8 years ever half of the costs of 8 years of waters value so basically skigs to pay the hole costs instead we felt this was unreasonable and invest money to put greens on our side of the lot sufficient to cover

the deck and as long as that the poles went up once again that is more daily. >> there were trees for green barriers how many intros. >> there were trees back to the back of the house i never walked the property this is a satellite photo you could put that down i'll try to indicate the part that was the trees i think that was this yeah. >> i'll let you - >> overhead. >> that's our house. >> right. >> this is 309 obscured. >> are you done one the photo expects showed a chain-linked

fence is that the property lines. >> no, that's a different photo you see the chain link. >> that's the that property line. >> yeah. that's the property line. >> thank you. >> thank you we'll hear if the permit holders now. >> good evening, commissioners john with reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the appellant when we first received the appeal this permit i reached out to mr. sanchez to ask him two questions one are those poles permitted by the planning code and two was the permit did it go to the proper procedure and what is that approved properly we

heard back from mr. sanchez we'll hear him speak with that the poles were permitted by the planning code one 36 c 20 but he said the permits should have been routed to the permit counter and b b n notice sent to the neighbors typically what we do ♪ sidewalks because that went through the improper process we'll school cancel the permit we didn't have time or we'll ask you to disapprove it so we'll go introduce the proper process with the prufrd we were not prepared to speak but the permit holder will wave that we're happy for the board to make a decision on the merits tonight if you like what i'll say is section one 36 c 20 exemption

certain structures in the required rear yard setback of the rear lot allows for normal outdoor recreational and play equipment i don't think we need to get into a legal analysis of this i leave it to the board to determine whether or not mr. sanchez has made a correct decision or not respect to the placement of the polls the appellants stated they're near the rear of the property that's the purchase of that that exemption for the structures for the to be expected and finally with respect to the privacy issue the permit holders do intend to install a green barrier that behoves the privacy between the to properties considering the images you've guys have seen today, this is

intended by the permit holder i want to make that clear i'll be happy to answer any questions thank you >> mr. sanchez. >> good afternoon scott sanchez planning department so has been noted in our opinion it was not properly reviewed and issued it should have been rolled to the planning department for the planning code and the b b n block notice as filed for the submittal date when it comes to planning we would have done the b b n notice we appreciate the appellants desire to have this and their wavering the preliminary matters in regards to the planning code section it allows for a variety of obstruction into the open space it could be rear yards and

public right-of-way to correct to say what the appellant said not blanketed limited there are a variety of features bay windows as we know in the next case will be a wave the public right-of-way or other open areas we call the telephone pop upcoming out fences within the required rear yard and planning code listed the feature and the further restrictions so if i could have the overhead that will overhead please so - >> so as you can see here it listed certain features and talks about no more than that 3

feet above grade so it has specific heights associated with the feature and firefighter down 20 the normal recreational play equipment and dry lines has no height limits and gardens and realistically this element could go under either of those and further on down other structures that come into the views and greenhouses and sheds and equipment that is limited to 8 feet in height and hundred square feet the appellant referenced an interpretation the interpretation of the planning code limits all the other features to 8 feet in height they didn't list all the interpretations that was relevant to the series this is a specific interpretation related to 320 that talks about the play

structures with solid walls or recovers have an effect of having a plan that blocks views or has shade on residents must have the interpretation it is further reich what is in the plan letter of the code it didn't say anything about limit the play structure but it is more restrictive having something like a garden shed or you know have a play structure that has solids walls that should be limit to 8 feet in height this didn't have solid walls or the effect of solid walls i see no reason to apply the 8 feet limit in the to the our practice had we reviewed this permit had that possess not to say it is no a desirable feature you may find the impacts

are negative and therefore the blinded folds should not be allowed but bans the planning code it is a permitted bring to your attention in the section one 36 i'm available to answer any questions. >> that put you out there. >> i'm a little bit confused is a there a definition of play structures. >> no, but the interpretation was a feature under the c 20 play structure even though the code didn't say it's limited to 8 feet in height but if something that has an quack impact the treshgs is more restrictive the play structure has solid walls or roofs i think the idea that people get creative what necessary consider a play structure to someone

having a creative application of a play structure build a large virus in the back the idea they're going to be subject 40 for more restrictive restrictions. >> i'm having trouble that this interpretation. >> but the code without going to the interpretation the code says those features are allowed without limitation in height. >> for a deck. >> no within the required rear yard i showed you the interpretation it has the weight of the code. >> i couldn't read that can you just tell me and the interrogation for the play structures for solid walls or roofs that has a feature for the block for shade on neighboring yards members have up to 3

minutes limited to 8 feet. >> i get that but i'm having trouble with the play structure it's not defined and no. >> are saying that will will be like a play structure. >> so section 20 doesn't say it only play structures that allowed the subsection normal household features lake play equipment and dry lines it and limit those and so it says such as. >> the next line says landscaping and garden furniture one could your that the light poles are furniture but the normal household features such as a play equipment and drying lines didn't limit what is in that realm. >> thank you.

>> one question one comment it looks like store poles in the back and second does the stinging of the lights change the elements there are electrical there are things you can not have electrical or plumbing to those are not temporary eventually the permit calls that a temporary lighting it is up to the permit holders to talk about what we want to put on the permitted it caught it was erected my understanding we don't have limited in terms of electrical if someone want to put lights think on a tree in the backyard the concern recommended to electrical it developing a rear shed with plumbing and electrical and garden shed it is is it a habitable structure rather than something inform store garden

equipment. >> is it is separate electrical equipment permit. >> this is something to plug into an outdoor outlet. >> thank you. >> you know when in deck was built. >> it was built on a permit a 2014 permit for the deck and this permit for the lighting. >> how duo close it that deck. >> within 5 feet based on the plans. >> it is over 3 feet. >> it is offer 3 feet in the planning code most typically we see decks limited to 3 feet in height that's what you can do on a lot that has a 15 feet grade but if it is a higher deck if i have a slope greater than 15

percent this is not the permit before you but it was one of the concerns whether or not deck that was under a spirit permit we determined based on the plans in the review that compiles with the planning code revision for the deck. >> so some information was provided to you in terms of the slope you couldn't ii presume you're talking about an average deck. >> yeah. it is a slope and depending on the slope of open area in this case distinct 13 and 70 percent they're allowed to have a deck as they have a maximum height of 7 feet i think that is actually pretty rarely used provision of the code but we may see more. >> inspector duffy.

>> joe duffy dbi commissioners actually on the overheads if i could have it may be that might be more helpful if some papers i grabbed from the office that might give you an indication of slopes and height of the deck if you have any questions for myself or mr. sanchez the permit that is under appeal the description was posted for temporary lighting was approved over the current by building unfortunately, it doesn't get ready if the planning department i should have done that so dbi missed that i know we got a complaint about it as well that was dealt with

by the district building inspector in regards to the posts put in i think on the deck permit which was approved in 2014 new deck to replace the footprint that is the description working on that permit the deck is constructed but not received a final inspectors inspection as of today. >> are i think finished. >> yes. i'm available to answer any questions. >> it shows a retaining walls is that there before. >> just the discussions with one of the senior inspectors the retaining wall was existing you might want to ask the permit holder i think i'm certain it was existing with the wall interest is some discussion that was misrepresented on the drawings dbi is currently

looking at that and the inspector is looking at that matter it added to what we're discussing tonight so - >> and then the question i had earlier regarding the temporary lights it that. >> i would say the electrical permits not offer seething you have to meet the electrical permits i don't have full acknowledge there are certain lights that are not required but a separate permit may have been required i was pointing out mr. sanchez if someone came in and want to put an audit light on the back but it requires an electrical permit so lights are the posts are the more you know the definitely need a building permit that not what happened. >> thank you.

>> yep. >> any public comment on this item? seeing none, we have rebuttal if thfrom the appellant. >> it's hard to tell the retaining wall was existing and what it held up was obviously dirt but the pack patio is 15, 20 feet deep and runs side by side what that built was this deck which i guess is about 12 feet deep coming to within 5 feet less than 5 feet of the property line so this rarely used provision to extend a largely flats backyard just seems sort of a use of a piece of code

the building up - they get a deck permit that creates 8 to 10 feet solid structure very close is to the back property line and then once they get it done at the go and put on big poles so for lights without a permit and go get a permit to correct it i mean the deck had to get noticed to the neighborhood and so everybody let that go but this just seems like an abuse of affection the example of bay windows that is close to the building you know this is a bay window back there and none is claiming that steendz too far up and the statement that you're planning on building and green screening they were talking

about that a year ago nothing has happened our clients didn't give them any money in part it feels like this is already the 8 foot solid structure back there that somehow overwhelms to be exempt but now there is poles that seems to be you can look at that that r them and take a flag on them their flag poles and dry clothes on the light wires all of this is close to the property line and very big and liam over the neighbors property so we would like for you to say that this is not an approved structure under one 36 thank you. >> okay. mr. kaplan. >> commissioners, thank you i'll add since we were not here on the substance tonight we

didn't get anything in writing the two neighbors on either side are not in opposition to this project i'm here with any questions and nothing else to add. >> i have a question why what was the reason for the poles and the lights. >> you know i think it is basically to provide you know the deck is in their generated away from the house wanted some form of appropriate non-bright lights they've what they decided on what was appropriated inform provide them with some ambient light after dark. >> any consideration given to the impact on the neighbors. >> you know this we can have a back and forth about the trees in the rear but the intent of the permit holders to put trees up there not only the appellants have the deck sorry not only can

the permit holders see down to the yard their intent to install trees along the property line adequate to separates the two spaces that was why they thought that would be adequate. >> but then that asks the question why did they remove that. >> if you saw the picture a significant demolition of trees to build the deck first place now the next step to put in the greening on the 5 feet yeah. >> question someone mentioned the permit is not finalized is there a reason. >> this permit is holding up that permit the deck is basically done i don't know it has been inspected we went through this once this permit is

done they'll finalize that. >> mr. sanchez anything further no pursue mr. duffy okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> i have a question for mr. sanchez. >> if that retaining wall at the edge of the deck was existing then the original grade on this raider has been changed significantly probable for quite a long time how is the department then define what was the slope to be used in circulating is 7 foot maximum it wouldn't be the because of the wall be the measuring point. >> it is a challenge of the because of the wall that would,

16 percent grade because it is the grade of the required rear yard area in this case an rfp b a 25 percent rear yard and you know assuming that the grade we presume that grade is the top that have patio area at least a 7 foot difference of the plan we're priority up to 27 percent or so and dropping it down to the height of the retaining wall shown as 3 feet if we look at the 4 foot difference a 16 percent so i think in either case it seems like that will be above the threshold of using that provision for the decks under the planning code on a permit that is spirit from this one. >> understood but the question

in my mind that was my second question if you then look at the edge of that retaining wall the top of it as being existing grade this deck couldn't be that tail. >> if we took the top of the retaining wall as exist grade i mean which point of existing grade are you having a concern if you take the top of the retaining wall that is a hierarchical distance if we take the bottom of the response time it is a lesser grade but exceeds more. >> if you take the tape of the retaining wall as finished grade and you strike a line horizontally out at the point it hits the current edge of the deck the rear edge of the deck

it exceeds 7 feet. >> it is over 7 - right now over it is 7 feet at the highest point. >> above what we seems like to be the existing grade. >> can i have the overhead please thank you. >> so right now it is calling out - he measured the height to the deck of the floor deck of the deco renew they're showing a height of 7 feet above what they're calling the existing grade. >> so the sketch assumes the top of response time is the finished grade. >> the height of 7 feet is the critical point at the highest point looking at its highest point on the lot this is what we're taking out it compiles with the planning code this is

not an issue you can have a deck that doesn't steady 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank teady 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thaneady 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank ady 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thandy 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thany 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank e 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank x 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank c 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thanc 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank e 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank e 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thand 7 feet in height that's what they're doing here thank you. >> i'm ready to say something. >> feel free. >> i think that is height and extension in the rear yard of deck is quite obtaining destructive and adding r a.d. those poles makes it more so i'm not ready to port in permit at all i'd like to revoke it, in fact, i think the deck is over

do done. >> would you be willing to allow a green screen. >> i mean that helps the most but we have no idea whether or not they'll do it for how long it starts to grow we've had a lot of tree issues today. >> i mean at this time i believe the deck is going to be there i don't particularly like the store poles can i make a motion. >> further comments new i mean it appears to be code but not neighborly. >> it's not you know especially so close to the rear property line i'm prepared to move that the

and would you be granting the appeal commissioner. >> granting the appeal and revoke the permit on the base that the - that those poles do conform to the planning code definition of rear yard recreational. >> the zoning administrator errored. >> right. >> mr. duffy. >> sorry commissioners if i'm

not mistaken i the president to council the permit is that not an option to council the permit. >> when i asked that question at the beginning of the hearing they've chosen to hear the case on its merits. >> from what i hear it will cancel the appeal they're not going to come back but that's me thinking and my suggestion. >> the effect is the same whether or not we revoke it. >> the board is done already to remove the work? >> is interest a time limit on that. >> for poles. >> i know i agree (laughter). >> have to do that. >> i'll let the building inspection manage them. >> let's give them a month all right. >> i'm sorry commissioner fung

is your motion to moving forward with our motion okay. i wonder if you want to add a second basis the boards tort to do in the best interest the community so there's a motion to grants the appeal and deny the appeal on those two basis they don't comply to the recreation and not in the best interest the community commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner vice president honda. >> and commissioner wilson okay. that that motion carries with a votes of 4 to zero last motion appeal john nolte versus the zoning administrator and auto duh versus the zoning administrator for protesting the

owners on july 30th, 2015, the cost of architecture ink for a construction of 80 feet with 85 dwelling units and 85 thousand square feet and off-street parking spaces i'll start with the first appellant mr. nolte you have 7 minutes. >> good evening. i'm n u l t y. >> the 2000 plan to preserve expand and improve how's that is for protecting and moderate residents a objective b prevent the loss of affordable units and two objective d is it to

increase the neighborhood beautification and the unique architecture then i have which we're discussed in my brief this is picture of 350 golden state those are the bay windows here and here we have 421 golden gate is bay windows are here o one of 68 hyde and this is one

sorry those are the bay windows at this - then one 21 golden gate as you can see the bay windows on both sides of the property and then here are the bay windows at 242 turk at the come out an aerial picture if the east of the neighborhood and the project sponsor is right here the definition of bay windows a bay windows submitted to the emit light and flush with the wall line

the historical district was established in 2009 this is a map of the uptown historical district and the project sponsor right here his property within the boundaries a construction of the uptown district has the bay windows and facade that is a map of the abutting next historical district to the south which was established in 1994 and the project sponsors site is at that thank you.

>> we can hear in the other appellant mr. duffy. >> you also have 7 minutes. >> yeah. >> commissioners mar i'm auto duh a second appellant live in the tenderloin where the project is located my issue with the variance is simple the listal code was to protect the liveability of the neighborhood and the residents that live in the building granting the variance maybe an error because we cereal deteriorates the liveability

what is allowed i guess i'm after the extra 20 units it didn't build this type of marketing in the city with the medium and family income of $25,000 a year many people living under $12,000 a year smaller units and fewer parking will not create housing that fits in the neighborhood i'm talking about price and in order to get price that have to get smaller units so for some reasons they if the court please put in larger units that i agree with the previous appellant this building doesn't fit with the neighborhood one day but when it came to the size of the units they've dropped the

ball i want to thank the help you got from the staff south end that and others have been helpful i think it is within our discretion to sustain this appeal to deny the permits reverse the finding and send it back to the planning commission or a continuance i want to point out i'm not opposed to the project only certain protection under the law and the protects that the specific code allows me and the neighbors and the people that live in the building i think that if the judge o gentleman in the project supporters if they

are going to ask you to do an extraordinary thing and ignore parts of code that clearly involve changes in the mobility it is the burden of proof should you been on them to prove that somehow everybody has decided a window should have 25 feet of exposure and reducing it to 2 and a half feet didn't effect the violent they can't do that because the regulation was put out 25 feet for a reason that is to maintain liveability if there recent anything finish i didn't if they say they want exemption ross are the kind of communication that is the kind of things i've been told this is not a particular egresses of things being granted and if this is the case i apologize i have to remind you liveability

activists like myself have regularly asked the board of supervisors and the planning commission to take into account accumulative impacts and the request is did understand the only tool to enforce the listal code that is all we have left we know that exposure is a big thing it effects air quality i want to point out that the nolte's made we we're limiting they've not a problem they're a warning sign if anything that something is wrong and i'll say that believe didn't fit the neighborhood it creates liveability problems it deterioration and quality of life those are absolute my mind

the project has lae ways for them to do they want i don't think they're looking anything that building have buildings and all the properties are constrained in one way or another they have building so they can't build as many units as we want to it would be difficult to get a demolition permit for most of buildings that are insufficiencies in the neighborhood there are open space public safety and personal transit and wanting and homelessness and air quality it is mediocre in the tenderloin and on top of that you're looking at the amount of airs coming into the rooms that is effecting the quality of life

the section thirty 5 c says whether there are variance that are acceptable and clearly that requires those variance not be detrimental they're clearly detrimental the project to, schneider to fit the neighborhood better it was not i might remind i that i'm only asking for acts that are within the purify of this body if i had any other objections i'll take them to some outlet body i'm asking them to build within the code by that same standard they can't ask you to change the code from the project sponsor wants to change the code i might say i'd like add i'm not sure what the released of the world's would be if someone is willing to pay $3,000 a month to live in the tenderloin for that a wall

18 and a half feet away of them it is not a good project for the sponsor i'd think about getting out of it as quickly as possible. >> we can hear if the permit holder i have 14 minutes because there are two of you >> if you want to ask questions - >> commissioners i'm not going to take all 4 muffins i'm from the law enforcement duh and base

overwhelm here on behalf of the variance holder and one the co-trustees of the marries family trust and is the chief architect that has been involved in the project since the beginning i want to start with the most of the issues concerning this project have been addressed by the board respect to the questions that were raised by mr. duffy as to potential impacts on air quality, potential impacts on liveability, cumulative impacts all of that has been addressed in the initial sued with a negative declaration that was addresses on august 12th i don't believe that is properly before the board what is before the board are the two veterinarians and that's it two variance with an with respect to the open air

area requirement and the other with respect to the pretuition requirement so let me show you so you can visualize on that this is for the pro transition requirement all we're limiting talking about is this corner here is going to here and it goes here and it just an architectural feature not something that was part of the original design that went through give and take with the planning department many times an under the influence a strong corner element so this is all we're limiting talking about it is not a large change it is to under the influence the corner element that p there is

obviously a lot of light in the windows it is scaled is it does not overhang the sidewalk at the lower portions the building so it's the issue with respect to the overhanging mr. duffy was asking considering the variance issues and everybody that reviewed this the planning department mr. sanchez and the architect buildings it is a superior design not a variance with respect to the protrusion with respect to the issue again, it is a corner unit the corner lot so when you have a corner lot you have variance not always but not unusual this is in the downtown area and what the department would like they would to have the both sides of the

corner we want the building to extend all the way to the lot they want to fit you know the buildings to go all the way along so not a have a rear yard that is 25 feet and having also have the space of building extend to the limits of lot so, in fact, the first design that was presented to the planning department did have a code compliant rear yard of approximately 25 feet and the department said why not consider an l shape design with an interior court there's a series of battering over 3 years not something that the project sponsor came up with on their own not something that was done in a vacuum but with the objective in mind of satisfying the departments conditioners for a corner lot and a building on

that lot in addition to working with the planning department and every step of the way the project sponsor has been involved in a lot of community outreach again, we presented the skin. >> to the community including the designs they call for the variances and it was you know i've included those in our papers but three or four meetings with different community groups and, in fact, the community sponsor is continuing to meet with people to this day mr. wong who is here this evening was here on august 12th and, in fact, last week albert the architect met with mr. wong to again talk with him about his concerns nothing is done in a vacuum the project is in design

for three or four years with respect to the couple of concerns raised by the appellant nolte and duh they've talked about affordable housing with the tenderloin 2000 plan with respect to affordability and the simple answer is the project fully comprises with section 415 the planning code it provides that if you're going to provide the affordable housing on site then you need to provide 12 percent of the units need to be affordable housing so having the 28 additional units that are permitted by the open area requirements i have 3 additional affordable housing units and by way of i think that mr. duffy was incorrect in saying those you know this is not the

correct kind of project for this area it is certainly is those are not large units all the 85 units the majority are either studios 2 or 4 bedrooms the average size is 5 hundred to 6 hundred square feet those are not large units so, yes there are the 12 percent that are specifically earmarked to be affordable units but noting none are larger units a few 2 and 3 bedroom units, of course, it is because actually desirable for this neighborhood to have the ability to have families there as well so in summary i would say the planning department been involved at every step of the way with the variance the

planning commission was aware the variance when the initial studies was undertaken they took the variance take into account that's the initial study for ceqa purposes and for the initial study is he analyzed all the issues that mr. duffy identified they looked at air quality, they look at liveability, they looked wind we've talked about that at the last hearing all what is take a look at it and they're required to do the potential cumulative impacts and what results a final negative declaration with the determination, in fact, it could not have an fetish on the investment that is a great project for the site we'll continue to try to work with the various members of the communities but i think that is just a wonderful project for the

tenderlo tenderloin. >> counselor the renderings you showed thought building was that the design that was part of the prevail by the planning commission? >> yes. >> were there alternative designs. >> no there were alternative designs presented during the process. >> it was the basis for planning for the commission approval and the variance both. >> yes. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i think this matter has been thoroughly discussed both at the previous

hearing on the planning commissions section thirty 9 review of the project postage that granted certain exemption for rashldz in the letters and briefs that were submitted to you the variance and is section thirty 9 were considered on the first date and the application of the planning commission we reviewed the same project the project was reviews as part of the environmental impact to determine is compliance with the preservation concerns one of the issues for the historic district one the elements for that district the bay windows can be part of the provision was it was compliment known is a modern interrelation that is consistent with the up down tenderloin district explicit create offense

replications but a new interpretation on the bay windows to interrelation one for exposure necessary at that time, by the rear yard exception that was granted one of the ways to face the coat compliant given the project didn't have the compliant rear yard doesn't meet the exposure the units that face into the courtyard one of the reasons for the rear yard courtyard was to have the design introduce the process the department looked at the design preferences over the general plan and the downtown review and given it is a corner property we look like to have more prominent architecture that resulted in the corner element that leads the variance for the bay windows

they're not studying the area under the codes compliance issue their aggravating it and do so doing it in a more architectural expression that was created by our staff that is not an issue that came about because of the project sponsors desire but the skyline of the vice president and not exceed the code was it allows rather than than having a reflective pattern it might be a creative expression over the bay windows on the enclosure endorse it is a sizeable courtyard and in the planning code the minimum rear yard is 25 percent of depth or

in response 15 feet it is less than the minimum rear yard under the planning code that's not the rear yard given the dimensions would be larger but take that dimensions from the golden gate frontage and project that they'll have a rear yard ever 19 or so rear yard feet given the lots configuration it is on this 767 feet deep from golden gate was also in the previous hearing one the discussion that justified the greater molestations for the reduced courtyard had it been hundred and hundred foot within a larger courtyard they can't have the number of units that we'll desire with taffordable units with those vbtsdz the lots configuration and the design concerns we're justifiable in

regards to the variance those are not unusual variance one the appellants raised that in the 3 districts it is fairly regular anytime the commission entrants a rear yard expansion that triggers a rear yard variance it there is no way to say their sound building code reminded the only way to create them through the mankind changes and again the rigid application of section one 3620 or the bay windows you can have a more creative expression through this process and again not seeking anything greater than what is loud that is otherwise allowed 0 with that, i'm available to answer any questions. >> i have a question mr.

sanchez. >> with regard to the variance for the protrusion the staff write up a report? >> talking about and analyzing the effects of the veterinarians in terms of creating a superior design. >> not separate write-ups for it was something that there maybe memos from staff to the sponsor to giving guidance and direction but our final hearing at the planning commission did have a staff report and include a recommendations to approve and i know was supportive of design but the. >> the different like a dr request analysis you have actually other instances where the staff will write up a formal

analysis there is if you go that relates to the surveillance or variance the variance document didn't say much about it. >> how they justify it is a superior design. >> i hear what you're saying it is something that decision the departments support for a project is something that is done by the counter planning division and through the design professionals one of the things that comes before me i'll route ask staff you know is that to be clear a design that the department supports and resulted through and entered a process but in terms of documenting that - >> i'll be curious to read such a document how you justify something as a superior design. >> duly note one of the concerns we have is insuring it

self-steady otherwise what is in the code not seek a empower area only changing the dimensions from what is allowed in the code thank you. >> we can take public comment now whoever wants to speak on this item please step forward. >> two minutes. >> hi my name is a benny the founded for the golden gate hills i came here last hearing but i think i need to come to talk about with the skablt in health, i want to address one main issue my big concern safety issue and i'm sorry i don't have any picture

golden gate is on the left side of the golden gate so that saying on the left-hand side when our door is on right side so usually we have a cone to one lane and my kind get up the ramp and they help but if possible traffic jam caused we by the correction i'm not sure we'll be able to have one lane ♪ situation and also the street is a flat to my safety and second thing due to the traffic jam possible caused by the construction most of kind they have on the ran it will delay to

come to the center they may on the ramp you'll create a gastro i want to address the safety issue of my kind thank you >> mr. wong we've talked about that last time in terms of looking it nothing was provided to us. >> uh-huh. >> does our organization own that building. >> no. >> your representing from them. >> yes. >> the in order to handle the permitting and construction of that project they're going to have to require possible two things one is their right to be able to sit there their ability to constrict at the property line wall and secondly, in terms of where the underground portion of the foundation will require

either shoring or someone else the owner ever your property is going to have to enter into the agreements to be able to construct that building. >> uh-huh. >> that's where you are leverage is for a robust logistics plan. >> okay. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> when i was last here and talked about the boxes and the fact that you know people have to the been informed where it is they're going to be ref their mail it turns out even though i'm not our organization has a box in that facility alliance

for a better district 6 even though i personally don't have a mailbox there the other southern for the homelessness people ref general delivery nothing has been said i have no news of where people will be able to get their mail who come and this is going to be more homeless people and specialist it is very hard it is 6 thousand people who have been who are homeless many of them getting their home at general delivery if tree have to travel several miles on buses or walk to get their mail it is going to be a hardship i want to mention people have been

complaining about the visiting planning - policies of san francisco but i think that this is what is preventing bad buildings from happening i'm not sure this is a bad building but many buildings that have been proposed and flaws found in them because people have been attentive of those issues. >> kindly restate our name for us susan bryan. >> any other. seeing went up have rebuttal starting with mr. nolte you have

3 minutes >> for the assistance decision of july 2015 findings under the general plan 7 the project will effect landmark and historical buildings that's why i was presenting in any presentation two the respondent of the past sponsor degree the declaration of the costco number 6, 7 and 8 shows sections 13, 136 c two subject corner bay with these of 13 on packaged three and four the variance hollers on page of shows the example of the north of market and recent projects that don't require the barriers

for the section one 36 section two communities outreach of 101 outreach exhibit 5 from august 2012 was updated in exhibit 4 to the today's hearing so those people i contacted them from the project was going forward the project sponsor should be doing a communities benefit agreement i've talked to the project sponsors they does not have on either side no benefit all the times on the surrounding properties and information of giving the communities liaison contacts information and providing xhibts outreach and updates as a project processes and of this therefore i request the brazil to reject the variance for this

project the remaining the time michael nolte speaking the project is the enar fluctuation of the health 360 into the tenderloin those are developments that will be happening in the tenderloins the tenderloin is starting to i didn't want the tenderloin with the neighborhood plan that that not happens because it is catching the residents off graduate those market rate housing how's is coming into the neighborhood the sro's the private sro owned building are disrupt active with the place. >> mr. duffy you have 3 minutes too. >> yeah. i'll just repeat i

think the neighborhood has a right to the protections afford by the code clearly a deterioration of language that is allowed in the section thirty 5 k is a short section that is highly favorable to the appellants here to sustain the appeal and deny the variances i would as i understand correct me if i am wrong as i understand the situation in the veterinarians are not granted there will be 28 fewer units and a greater mix 6 hundred square feet in the tenderloin is huge we're talking about studios and small studios you know the junior one bedrooms the 5 hundred square feet is big for the tenderloin as i understand

if you deny the variance we'll losses the density we're after and we'll be able to come back with a better project. >> sir, you have 6 minutes of rebuttal. >> let me just say with all due respect to mr. duffy most people it is consistent with the san francisco general plan and the downtown plan to have this project and to have the project with the variances that was the planning commission went throw in detail the general plan and went throw in detail the downtown plan, mr. sanchez in his variance decision also went through the 8 points of plan to make sure that was consistent and we're not displacing any

current housing to refresh your recognition no health 36085 more units tone will be affordable housing of which three of those you'll not have in terms of the open area so it is very much a benefit for the whole area and the city and the downtown plan that is - and hopefully mr. duffy will come to agree with that over time but objective can't pleas everyone this is a fantastic plan for to area when you walk in that area and look at it what's there it is just going to help in a lot of ways with respect to mr. wong's contempt to put it in front of the board the initial study search warrants the negative declaration and there are not

going to be traffic jams and they also take into account the cumulative impact is so queer aware of mr. wong's concerns and we've met with him last week, we will i'm sure there will be ongoing meeting are him or mercy heirs and we'll take a look at it and finally under nolte's comments that will effect the lark or historical buildings that is take into account the initial study the ceqa study we actually went through the whole section on historical landmarks how does it fit in with the neighborhood and as mr. sanchez explained that is really a modern take on you know

it hastens to what the character of the neighborhood and really a great edition so other than that unless their further questions we don't need to go through the post office issue there is other options for the post office so - >> mr. sanchez. >> anything? >> scott sanchez planning department just to reiterate the environment with the project has a lens sixth impact on the resources that the design is compliment that will not adversely fact the investment will move forward with 28 fewer units will become larger wouldn't you know denial of this variance will not dictate

smaller units then the enclosure will be greater in order to comply so wii'm available to answer any questions. >> the district the density increase if you go less than 5 hundred feet correct. >> i think they're within their density and could go greater gesture so almost with the density. >> just as an aside mr. sanchez are there any current studies for the tenderloin besides the historical? >> as a historical district resources. >> something beyond historical look atth tenderloin. >> or the land use yeah. >> i'm not aware ever any planned analysis or surveys of

you know projects they've recently approved and pending i understand we're not aware of any plans at this time but double check with the staff. >> it's pretty clear that it is there's the detriment niblg at the edges of the tenderloin and a few districts itself. >> absolutely so. >> this is not the only project in the tenderloin that the commission as reviewed recently and not the last. >> this was quite a bit of redevelopment in the tenderloin correct. >> yeah. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> does anyone else want to start okay thanks you know, i was curious to find

or to read how they would justify the design variance to justify that variance since there isn't anything outside that that. >> for new; right? >> the questions really are related to the two variances and we had the fuel hearing that looked at the planning and made suggestions hopefully, they'll paper bag out on a neighborly basis distinct the parties and for those of us who understand construction and it is likely this is a concrete structure you have concrete trucks parked one

after another getting there and double-parked and creating impact on the immediate neighbors and neighborhood but back to the two variances i'm supportive of the one that tratsdz that a little bit of the exposure we're tarnishing you know less than one feet between what would have been a code compliant for most of the units as a rear yard versus the piece that returns what i meant is is a code compliant building with a stretch along golden gate with a gap distinct the ends of the building and the adjacent building and i don't think that makes for a good street wall and didn't make for good urban design therefore i'm supportive

of that portion of the variance and have been through probably god must be like 8 projects have been in front of of us everyone i've recommended to the da that the planning code needs to change that didn't make sense at all the other one relates to the protrusion and therefore more difficult to engage the incentive coming out of that we all know how every person feels around design but i'll be consistent i've rarely talked about design even though that's my profession i'll proposed prepared to maintain that variance.

>> any other comments. >> i concur. >> you want to make a motion. >> i'm going to move to deny the appeal on the basis that the va didn't error or abuse it's discretion in issuing that. >> this is a notable matter we don't need to have discretion but we need to if we're going to uphold the variances to uphold the section thirty 5 criteria and incorporating the zoning administrator rational for that. >> mr. bryan you know i've never liked those 5 crazy. >> 3 of them at least i'll amend my motion to deny the appeal on the basis that the variances met the 5 criteria.

>> okay. so that motion then by commissioner fung to deny both appeals on that basis commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner vice president honda. >> commissioner wilson. >> okay. that that motion carries four to zero and no further business before the board tonight. >> we're adjournedúx

>> feel like it really is a community. they are not the same thing, but it really does feel like there's that kind of a five. everybody is there to enjoy a literary reading. >> the best lit in san francisco. friendly, free, and you might get fed. ♪ [applause] >> this san francisco ryther created the radar reading series in 2003. she was inspired when she first moved to this city in the early 1990's and discover the wild west atmosphere of open mi it's ic in the mission. >> although there were these open mics every night of the week, they were super macho.

people writing poems about being jerks. beatty their chest onstage. >> she was energized by the scene and proved up with other girls who wanted their voices to be heard. touring the country and sharing gen-x 7 as a. her mainstream reputation grew with her novel. theses san francisco public library took notice and asked her if she would begin carrying a monthly reading series based on her community. >> a lot of the raiders that i work with our like underground writers. they're just coming at publishing and at being a writer from this underground way. coming in to the library is awesome. very good for the library to

show this writing community that they are welcome. at first, people were like, you want me to read at the library, really? things like that. >> as a documentary, there are interviews -- [inaudible] >> radar readings are focused on clear culture. strayed all others might write about gay authors. gay authors might write about universal experiences. the host creates a welcoming environment for everybody. there is no cultural barrier to entry. >> the demographic of people who come will match the demographic of the reader. it is very simple. if we want more people of color, you book more people of color. you want more women, your book more women. kind of like that.

it gets mixed up a little bit. in general, we kind of have a core group of people who come every month. their ages and very. we definitely have some folks who are straight. >> the loyal audience has allowed michelle to take more chances with the monthly lineup. established authors bring in an older audience. younker authors bring in their friends from the community who might be bringing in an older author. >> raider has provided a stage for more than 400 writers. it ranges from fiction to academics stories to academic stories this service the underground of queer fell, history, or culture.

>> and there are so many different literary circles in san francisco. i have been programming this reading series for nine years. and i still have a huge list on my computer of people i need to carry into this. >> the supportive audience has allowed michele to try new experiment this year, the radar book club. a deep explorationer of a single work. after the talk, she bounces on stage to jump-start the q&a. less charlie rose and more carson daly. >> san francisco is consistently ranked as one of the most literate cities in the united states. multiple reading events are happening every night of the year, competing against a big names like city arts and lectures. radar was voted the winner of

these san francisco contest. after two decades of working for free, michelle is able to make radar her full-time job. >> i am a right to myself, but i feel like my work in this world is eagerly to bring writers together and to produce literary events. if i was only doing my own work, i would not be happy. it is, like throwing a party or a dinner party. i can match that person with that person. it is really fun for me. it is nerve wracking during the actual readings. i hope everyone is good. i hope the audience likes them. i hope everybody shows up. but everything works out. at the end of the reading, everyone is happy. ♪