parties to the cases but if we could be somewhat thoughtful about our questions or comments it might help us in expediting the matters thank you. >> any public comment on this item seeing none, consideration of october 7th minutes item number 3. >> additions, deletions, or changes can i have a motion to approve the minutes. >> pie public comment on the minutes seeing none, we have had a motion from commissioner honda so adopt the minutes commissioner fung commissioner president lazarus and commissioner swig okay with commissioner wilson absent a vote of 4 to zero and that that motion carries the next item we had a request from the zoning administrator to

continue one of the appeals with the opens consent we'll have the parties to speak to that and decide whether the case will be heard this evening you'll call for that reason item 7 cindy family trust vs. the planning department properties on green street protesting the issuance of august 7th to an integral alternative permit from three to four units on two on the east side horizon addition of fourth floor master suit mr. sanchez start with you and commissioner president lazarus 3 minutes. >> yes. >> 3 men's. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department the apologizes we're asking a

continuance to address those two issuance one in the issues with regards to ceqa a demolition for purposes of california environmental quality act the permit holders brief help heaped to address those questions but needs additional time to review that and additional information from the project sponsor a dwelling unit the summer that requires a conditional use authorization so a continuance allows the project sponsor so go through the conditional use process or they'll not like to pursue those those are the reasons for the request for continuance thank you. >> okay. we'll hear from the permit holder then. >> thank you. >> i'm sorry 0 with you hang

on for just a minute i've hired reuben, junius & rose on my own personal project their representation will have no effect on my decision today. >> okay. >> thank you melinda reuben, junius & rose i'm here on behalf of the appellant plaintiff asked for additional time we were informed by planning today requirement for a portion of the work so the appeal is not readies at the moment and ask for a grant of a continuance thank you. >> thank you. we'll hear from the appellant and commissioners my name is mary gallagher i very much appreciate the deserve for the problems with this project, however, i believe there is a 0

problem that being continued there are several first of which additional problems had will be issued the zoning administrator is unaware it it will be helpful to be deliberated on and second a big part of this case about serial permitting and how serial permiters are treated in this city of a free pass to fix whatever is wrong with the permits i propose to you tonight we'll be explaining in further detail not the appropriate means to fix this permit and we can technician fix it about by a mean forces the entire project to go to the board of appeals i feel it is important to hear that argument tonight. >> public comment on the issue of the continuance only?

>> okay. seeing none commissioners you can entertain a motion or not. >> is this ordinance on the d u m retroactive? >> the law of the day given the permit is not finally issues subject to the interim controls and briefing the appellants remarks of this item is continued we'll welcome additional comments. >> mr. sanchez a how much time. >> in discussion minimum after the november 4th hearing whatever on the calendar. >> november 4th is the cu hearing hearing. >> there's been no place schedule but informed of this today so continuing it to sometime after the fourth gives

them time to file the application or decide they no longer want the cu. >> curious whether the mr. larkin is working hard. >> we're always working-class wouldn't we want the outcome of the cu. >> it can be continued but if it goes to the process pursuant to the cu not appeal able to the board of appeals so the appeal will be vacated at this time because this permit will be pursuant to the cu from the catch-22 is heard and grasped but additional one of the reasons additional time to get to the root of all those questions. >> i would recommend we continue to the call of the chair. >> any future discussion? >> okay move that. >> move to continue this to

the call of the chair. >> commissioner fung a particular action or decision that will trigger returning to the board with just the cu question being answered or other. >> other permits probably, maybe appealed at some point so i'm not exactly sure. >> okay. >> okay. so then a motion from commissioner fong to continue this to the call of the chair on that motion. >> commissioner president lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner swig that motion carries and this matter will be moved to the boards to the call of the chair calendar we'll return to the regular agenda and i'm trying to see from the item number 4 which is the snowing case not ready

move to item 56 that is a hearing request on broderick street the board get a letter from the appellant for the case which was decided on december 16, 2015, the board voted with commissioner wilson descending e servant the variance the 5 finding under the planning code have been meat the permit holder is michael jagger for the roof stairs and new stairs on the 2 and third story dwelling i minds president has as disclosure to make. >> i reviewed the matter and prepared to hear the rehearing request. >> thank you very much. we'll start with the query /*

requester you have 3 minutes. >> do i need to fill out a card. >> we've skipped it because one of the parties have not arrived. >> you can do it now or not at all. >> board members last time i was in connection are ms. goldstein our mailing list my name explicit show up on it the next morning i went to the assessors office within 60 second it showed you my family owned the building and since 1993 when my folks passed away no reason why our name should not have appeared correctly on this therefore according to the rules we've never been notified

of the preapplication middle east meeting to the neighborhood and the single most important issue the notification to reach the owners where they live not based on postings or any other method except where they live we've not had that we've neither had a meeting in 2013, the project sponsor appealed to the building inspection for a vaurnls in order to build a deck he sent a letter the deck will be identical to us in the short vicinity we support it he sent in the letter and thereafter abandoned his request and went on to build a stair to occupy the whole backyard we had a hearing and thereafter in touch

with the mayor's office reof the rules were not followed when wrong information is submitted by the project sponsor in all the packet the only ultimate for the permit to be recess he sent or revoked we've not had a had an at a hearing when we were informed the city planning department staff they told you they'll extend our 311 notification i accepted our questioning requester for a variance rehearing held subject to the expiration of the 311 notification the 311 notification expired we were requesting you suspend the permit and in the association was not informed of hearing and the mayor's office contracted mr. ray and he respond a new

procedure will be instituted whereby a copy of who sent the notification and who was informed we're in contract with mr. ray, in fact, what happened is the rules were violated and the only course for the city planning department to suspend or revoke the permit subject to our being heard and they've. >> suryour time is up thank you. >> we can hear from the variance holder. >> here's my cards actually. >> dear members of the board of appeals i'm not sure what to say the appellant submitted a lot of information that is false

concerning the whole backyard we submitted the plans with additional letters that have been signed off on to have a hearing is considerable only if new evidence was from september 16th and manifest injustice i don't think anyone of those cases is that case the appellant asserted it didn't receive the notices, however, the sponsor put forth evidence in the brief we actually had substantial prior notice and involved in the project and consult and signed off prior to the submittal and reviewed the plans with the other neighbor and resigned off on the notification as required appellant can't assert no notice not september 16th notice of hearing as appellant is the

party that filled the hearing request and showed up at the original appeals hearing sponsor as repeatedly offered to meet with all neighbors especially with the cal poly association they're the preliminary mandate in agreement with the sponsor and appellant based on the history of this case appellants awe certification they again receive notification is false and the conception of 2012 first approach by the project a great personal effort and cost repeatedly and diligently with the appellant on this over several years as evidenced by the e-mails in my submitted brief and appellant signed off clearly in writing to sf planning and verbally several

times on the submittal about the stairs so no variance process is ever perfect but in this case we spent a tremendous amount of time exempting and signed off and you know we're obviously not sure of the motivation the deck is consistent with the appellants deck and the only difference is the hoax of code compliant stairs that is far away from the appellants property as soon as possible h as possible i'm available to answer any questions thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez anything. >> any public comment? >> okay. seeing none commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> a couple of questions

perhaps legal council may want to weigh in this board can't take any action related to the hearing request secondly, should a rehearing be granted the permit is not stated. >> the only thing before the board is the variance decision. >> so i guess i'll starter i partnering or personally feel that the notification is extremely important mainly so that the people that are notified can participate in the process i believe this has been before us many times and the last hearing this was thoroughly i believe that the appellant in this case has really abused the resources and this valuable

system we have here in san francisco. >> i also believe that the threshold of manifest injustice has not been met. >> make a motion. >> technically proven that the least based on the documents i saw he didn't receive written notice obviously he attended and prepared at the hearing itself and then and provided quite of response the question he was going to ask that their rehearing should be grant is whether the information he has is going to change anything we discussed the variance discuss the project and it's impacts to great length. >> i'll remind the board the

variance hearing is an integral opportunity to present a variance hearing is a notable hearing it is heard and reviewed by the board the parts of procedures then have an integral opportunity to present the argument to the board. >> i'll make a motion. >> to deny the request for rehearing on the grounds that manifest injustice was no manifest injustice. >> okay so we have a motion by the vice president to deny this request on that motion commissioner fung no. >> commissioner president lazarus commissioner swig. >> okay. that motion does carry with a vote of 3 to one and we will then move on to item

number 6 i think this is parties to item number 4 the permit holder is not here so item 6 appeal that an erratic with the urban forestry property opens mission street protesting the denial on august 16th of a tree remove a request to not plant 5, 60 inch boxes at the subjects property we'll start with the appellant that has 7 minutes to present their case. >> okay. can you go to the overhead. >> my name is patrick schizophren >> thank you my name is address the commission up to three minutes. kennedy the developer as the that an realistic a student

housing project that has was implemented in july of this year and now houses 4 hundred students from the compensatory of music and the california college of the arts i had an integral informational pamphlet to give to the board that shows the project. >> i don't think we need it thank you. >> on the overhead screen right now that or i was in front of this board almost two years ago this month on an integral appeal to remove 3 trees in front of the property that had to be removed in order to make way for the new utilities water, power, phone and others in front of the building and which was grand by this board and incorporated into its condition of approval that appeal a requirement to plant 60 inch box trees in front of the the building

when we designed let's see is this up on the screen when we designed the utilities and installed the utilities. >> sorry i'll have to interrupt you we're getting fluttering on our screens wait one moment didn't show there but on our individual. >> can you try to darken the screen with the overhead there. >> yep that's better thank you. >> thank you. >> go ahead. >> when we insult the utilities that is shown here in the purple boxes on this plan we found that

they interfered with the installation of 60 inch box trees and we concluded on 36 inch box trees. >> the 36 inch block trees are shown in those two paragraphs the difference between a 36 and 60 inch box tree is according to the landscaper a difference of 2 feet so the prospective in front of the building is the difference between the yellow line two feet t the handicap department of public works also required us to put in a 2 foot wide strip along the curve of the building that made handicap assess from a car easier and was a requirement for

their condition of approval of all the improvement in the right-of-way at present everything in the building has been approved but we have one last condition for your certificate of occupancy to sign off on the department of all over the on the landscape design the combination of the two foot requirements for the access from the street and the presence of those 4 large utility boxes made it impossible for us to put in 60 inch box trees in that location we submitted even though revised plan to the department of public works and to planning and planted the trees when it came time to you should

add that even though the original. project only had 4 trees we planted 9 trees overall in the project on the locations on the 3 sides substantially we went to the department of all over the for a final sign off on the building to get a certificate of occupancy required by our bans they said we couldn't get permission to put in 36 inch trees without coming back to you that's why they denied our application the combination of the requirements from the department of public works and handicap assess and the necessities to be putting in large new utilities in the in front of the building made it impossible to put many 36 inch trees we've intellectually learned from the landscape installer jensen

landscaping they've never put in 60 inch box trees 36 they have or less put in the project manager in the plaza but they said they never put in 60 inch box trees it is an inaccurate for box trees that large our professor at the california college of the arts wrote this letter in which he said to plant the 60 inch in this location requires power concrete on top of of the you think unimpacted tree it sets the tree lover and eventually leads to rot and tree death not physically fit into this location a thirty inch box tree are the absolute best choice i'll noted recommend

anything larger than a inch for a site we've fulfilled the obligation to landscape the street that is con defy to the goals of the department of urban forestry and the spirit of our acceptance so that condition two years ago and as you can see if you walk out the building over here the trees are large their substantial, and they fulfill the mission of humanizing the stripe it was physically impossible to remove those trees and put in a 60 inch box tree without shutting down the building that is a very difficult thing to do given the 4 hundred new residents i might add that is the first new student housing in san francisco

with either the san francisco compensatory of music and the college of arts has built in the city they're quite happy i'm asking you that the boards rise the the condition two years ago and allow us to keep the 36 inch trees in place thank you. >> i have a question. >> yes. >> so you went go ahead and planted the 36 inch trees. >> yes. >> why was there not discussion with the department or dpw or whomever before you, you went ahead with the conditions. >> we submitted the plans to dpw and the city and none ever got back to us on that was a physical impossibility to put in a 60 inch tree we wrote a letter stating this to dpw and the planning department and public works we laid out that design we

showed you and said it is physically governmental for us to do that. >> i don't think you answered her question why did you install that he was the change from your permit without approval. >> at the time he did that we were under a tight deadline to finish the building so the 4 hundred residents could more often on august 1st no way we account submit for an integral appeal stop construction of the project on the front of the building and delay the openly of the building given the constraints that were encompassed by the two schools that had classes of 200 students coming. >> i'm not not getting this but not installing the trees they wouldn't be able to more often. >> we had to finish the sidewalks tolerated to get the

department of public works to sign off. >> was the cut off the same and 60 franchisee is much larger and would go into the same area that were required by public works for public assess the two feet wide step auto area on the curb. >> okay. >> required by the - and no, go ahead. >> what was the size of the trees remind me of the trees removed prior. >> they were 1 or 16 foot trees they were bigger than this probably - we removed all the trees on the 9th street side they were dying but those other trees had to be removed because there was footings left over from mission street construction of hundred years ago that had to be removed were embedded in the area around the trees too so -

>> so i want to clarify this was only penthouse at the end of the project. >> right when we were landscaping pg&e and the department of public works sizes our transforms and other utility as you can see in the purple drawings here we found we couldn't put in 60 inch trees. >> wasn't that scoped out in advance. >> well, actually in the deity the requirement by the department of public works to put in the 2 foot handicap assess areas on the center the three was not something we casa verde considered two years ago. >> that's this area right here. >> okay most of the the

questions. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. bucks. >> good evening, commissioners chris bucks urban forestry with the san francisco public works the department denied the request to remove the subject trees and requested they be refaind attended during construction the appellant appealed that prior to this case going to you we were approach bystander the appellant they suggested to plant 60 inch box trees in advance of the hearing at the hearing we had an integral agreement not to further appeal the returning of our denial and the board here approved the removal on the conditions the 60 inch box trees

planted by the appellant sometime the appellant is before you they approached you with that larger than size we believe that over the 5 trees required to the planted four do appear to be planned the fifth would be a little bit of a stretch i'll go through photos i have in my brief he suggested two possible solutions when when we come before you throw out possible ideas to address certain suggestions that i have the condition roam and/or that some type of number two, fee be paid for the difference between a 36 inch tree and 60 inch required we called valley press nursery and worked with people out of northern california the cost was $2,100 per tree that defensive

is 10 thousand 5 hundreds i'll wipe through the photos for public works prospective on this. >> here's the view of the subject trees permitted for removal. >> overhead please. there are pretty substantial in size on the plan here on mission street frontage of the property the important thing to clarify is that when someone's is installing sidewalks sdlaip people have to get in and out of their car doors street trees have an exception not just ada which trees are installed not required to have a landscaping

permit and trees can be up to the curtain looishg like a light poll you have to move our car and figure it out we were approached in advance had we have been we would have as i said the 60 trumpets leaving the board with that decision planting the 36 inch box are the center of the universe that encroachment of that space should have been an integral constantly no way we have an integral agreement we remember no contracted until late in the process in the spring it in the spring my inspectors we got the application in the spring and so you would great and abusive a 60 inch requirement we had a back and forth and not back to us we

figured out where to go from here he contend that those sites on mission can be planted you don't need the two curb strips you'll show you a couple i have photos. >> here's a typical tree situation an integral mission street this is the two foot's courtesy strip that can be removed and 6 feet from the sidewalk to the curb a 60 inch box tree is 5 foot wide and room to drop in a 60 foot tree in that location that's the case for all 3 sites on mission street similar situation here's the trunk the tree currently could be moved over here room for a 60 inch box tree actually on

admitting inform excavation required into the sidewalk around the corner an integral opportunity because they snufd a bulb out if you look at the path of travel other trees here there's plenty of room here to expand that is a simple concrete cut and room for a 60 inch box tree that's 4 of the 5 the 5 is the challenge along 9th street modify the awnings and expand baseline to drop the tree and pour back a foot or two of path to travel for pedestrians not unheard of done commonly to conclude we feel strongly those conditions need to be lived up to you know, i have my concerns there is a utility we discovery underground looking to

plant a 60 foot tree a lot of pressure to be disrupting the area that said we can move forward and none has physically tried to do it we've heard about the utility conflict and meeting the space requirement for the utilities we have a quorum i'll put it to you and any other follow-up questions i object to answer them. >> to be clear you're saying one that could be problematic one out of 5. >> yes. i believe the 1 on 9th street where the sidewalk pitches into to a 10 foot width it is doable it will require baseline to be a little bit larger than the others not ideal but done all the time and some baseline cbo o come into path we'll absolutely maintain a 4

foot, however, 5 foot travel we'll mediate the requirements the trunk of the tree verizon will get close is to the awning where the tree leaning in the wind will be problematic and you'll concede it, it is reasonable to concede it 5 tree on 9th street. >> in building if something is not done per permit a notice of violation is issued is there something similar with the urban forestry and we'll typically send a letter we had an integral active dialogue we pointed out the short coming when construction related our ultimate hand to not sign off on the job card it creates problems we typically had to withhold signing the card at the conclusion of project. >> you mentioned one of the trees would interfere in an integral awning is that the

awning from the building being put in. >> it is. >> thank you. >> so there's a unless i'm getting it wrong a conflict in the story the project sponsor had said at the wrote a letter to dpw saying this is not going to work and dpw didn't respond i don't deny that is a possibility. >> at the same time well in advance of the planting you said in march that ongoing dialogue existed between yourselves and the project sponsor so which will mean that and there was dialogue for the 60 inch tree plies to me a conduit of conversation that was open and

that the possibility of seeking a seeking significant feedback was there rather than waiting for a letter in coming or not from dpw is that true. >> a lot of what you said was accurate one thing i didn't point out public works has any divisions when someone is installing a brand new sidewalk right-of-way they needed a permit through the street and mapping my sense the appellant is stating you know they submitted a permit to the street and mapping and to planning and they may have shown 36 inch box trees but not called button u out we're the department it is going to review any deviation from the box or size of requirement that's not the appropriated modification of what is possible so this was not the accurate way to go not that i'm aware of any

letter i've not seen it in writing. >> and follow on also you said the two foot ada strip was in place at the time this board heard in the plan at the time the board heard this case previously by of it was it sdpoofrnt because your trees trump ada in this case and there can have been angle constant deviation with justification. >> absolutely i think the path they've reviewed guidelines and codes about the time distances and see that win their landscaping is it so adjacent to the trees i think there is a conflict there but your department is the one that needs to be making that determination

it is a shaping permitted that cantonese that language our permit with our department of urban forestry and we're never approached that was an integral issue. >> and finally what i heard was that you what i heard was may be different than what you meant i heard it in lieu in lieu of -- if the trees were to sustain their current position it could be done with a fee which is the difference between 36 and 60 or approximately $10,000. >> that's correct looking at ways to move forward. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> two minutes and okay. we're going to allow two minutes

for public comment per speaker the fact we'll losses our quorum at 7 o'clock. >> hi, i'm david president of the musicians union local 6 musicians we own the building directly let's see it on the - >> directly to the east i believe of the panoramic project i just want to say for the record a 12 story building going up a potential for havoc is trimmers especially, when we have members who rely on not only access to parking and to record in our studio and have to see through this yearlong process the panoramic has been

more than accommodating and has tried to work with us every step of the way i'm appreciative of that they've brought to this project phalanges to just the what the project has meant to the neighborhood both in terms of the appearance and the functionality of the neighborhood i want to mention that i have an integral issue with only one tree happy to say and that's the tree immediately adjacent to our this one - >> to the property line and it is within inches of the property line the unique thing about the building it extend out the basement area where our staff works extend out underneath the sidewalk into the streets slightly and by placing the tree there as effectively we

noticed after the tree was there a tremendous amount of ground water coming into the basement and lost 1/3rd of the basement a 20 foot room i want to mention the fact that the friends of the urban forestry several years ago canvassed the neighborhood to reforest the neighborhood and they determined that putting a tree that close our dwelling unit was improbable and unfortunately, one urban plan to place those trees it was done so without that piece of due diligence and i think that is caused tremendous problems. >> your time is up. >> you want to remove the trees. >> the trees previous was 8 or

9 feet west on the street. >> and with that being that far away completely we had no leakage problem whatsoever in that area an integral estimate it it will cost over $15,000 to remediate the leakage into our basement and even then as you may know you can't remediate the lamenting before the inside of the structure so we have a problem we would like to request that the panoramic be allowed to remove and move it that tree if necessary but certainly remove that tree it wasn't done with the proper planning on anybody's part we've taken the brunt of the hit here and - >> have you talked to them panoramic. >> yes. panoramic in absolutely in agreement and we're at the mercy housing of

the forest department and unfortunately, they didn't do as i say - >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> >> other mike and hi, i'm jennifer grant i work at the small nonprofit on the block on mission street and i got the postcard in the mail and i find is interesting i mean unless is the developers first job this many surprisingly he didn't know to do some of the planning ahead it smacks of making principled we need to make to get the permit and after the fact we can't do that i've been involved in rehab projects for shelter here in san francisco and going through the permits i personally

did a condominium conversion and, yes it's complicated i as a clay layperson get through that i'll exterminate the developer and landscaper to be able to do that the whole confusion about the two foot and the - i don't buy it and we would like trees we would like big trees too much of san francisco is becoming sidewalks and concrete and i'm sorry but it if it had cost $10,000 the amount of money powder into the building already it is that's such a drop in the bucket and there's been a lot of negative impact to the neighborhood of them moeven as well as tweeting and every other building all our rents gown up and local businesses closed

because of this i want them to do their part for the neighborhood and put in the damn trees. >> is there any additional public comment seeing none, are you. >> are you associated with the developer. >> you need to speak open rebuttal not on public comment. >> so no other public comment we'll take rebuttal and start with the appellant if you want to speak with those 3 minutes our option. >> okay responding to the last comment. >> state your name for the record. >> zach responding to the last comments we get flaps from the architect when you hold pa 36 and 60 inch box trees the 36 will be a third learn then the 60 inch box tree primarily that is ac matt better to the soil on the switch i think from his prospective we

have a different take we have many submittals of variance to the city the plan check comments we got back on the 60 inch trees has nothing to do with only comments about ada in the mind of dpw they say ada trumps everything we removed the trees and put the two feet strip and other ada requirements to us the bureau of urban forestry we've discuss with chris binging buck sits sub sir, this tells us ada trumps everything that the bureaucracy of urban forestry tells us we submitted a letter saying that to dpw and also addressing the urban forestry and harder nothing back we get a stamped set of plans and moved the tone thousand dollars delta

we spent more than instead of 5 the third iteration of plans we submitted they're our prospective on it. >> thank you. >> thank you zach pointed out a critical problem developers face and this is we often get conflicting messages from the department it don't corporate with one another address the department of public works has more power for moving a project forward or stopping it than any other department and ada handicap issue is the number one issue we've faced on their list so we had no choice ♪ circumstance bull to abide by their plan check demands and put

in with what we requested to proceed and get it done on time we were we did enter this in good faith to build a projects are 60 inch trees but once you get into the dirt and lay the pipes and see the conditions sometimes the conditions are not what you expect we the berries under the circumstances and planted the 36 inch trees we'll be happy to plant the 60 inch trees somewhere else but we face and trackable problem and had deadlines the schools imposed to get the project done thank you >> i have a question from the commission. >> so understanding that our permit was subject to the 60 inch box trees and dpw has the authority at any given time did you get something in writing

that would say that your permit was no longer subject to the 60 inch. >> no. >> since i felt they were more aspire or had - >> no. >> so you knew that was time your permit would be subject to the 60 inch box. >> well, we thought we could show the department of urban forestry the same plans with dpw with their comments 60 inch trees will not fit in those spot given the location of the two foot handicap strip. >> that make sense but what is before us the fact you didn't talk to them and installed the 36 inch box knowing you had a requirement of a 60 inch box. >> yes. that's true. >> i have a question do you understand the process here

enough to understand what our under the circumstancess this board can grant our appeal and take the replacements of 36 inch trees box trees versus 50 as a condition of the permit or this board can deny the appeal in which case you'll have to resubmit and get bureau of all over the powerful. >> yeah. or the last one this board can grant the appeal with a special condition if there recent an integral undue payment in which case you'll not have to summit

>> i'm not sure i follow that i mean we are happy to pay the fine i think that mr. bucks suggested i honestly don't think we can fit 60 feet trees through into the space and to move the utilities is an integral impossibility we have to evict 4 hundred students. >> did i say something. >> mom and dad's is that the option before the board would be to grant the appeal and allow them to do what in their proposing of 60 inch the city attorney cac correct me if i am wrong but i believe the pole if they don't plant the size they have a pay the minimum fees i may be wrong on that. >> is an option to pay tin liu

it is required if they remove the tree and not replace it they're required to pay the fee in this instance it appears their effectively removing 60 inch trees and replacing it with 36 inch trees but the permit what can be as you said condition with approval. >> that's fine. >> then the other option as you mentioned the board can deny the appeal and required to replace the trees with the 60 inch box. >> the in lieu fee is automatic or do we have here on behalf of the appellant and room. >> i think mr. buck might not in the best position to explain

it in lieu fees but the life value of tree that would have been removed and not replaced. >> okay. we'll hear from mr. buck mr. long way are you asking speakers to be submitted that will be helpful that - >> can i should i address did in lieu fee and wrap up with the 3 minute rebuttal. >> don't start our time until you answer the question. >> the reason the urban forest suggested that the fee a dedicated fee called the adopt a tree one 20 feet of frontage with the code for every tree you can't plant we have a it's like

a development impact fee to try to not through out random numbers we have fund for the planting of trees not going to car tires a good hard cost i suggested that we have an integral account that is accountable and established and just as the attorney stated the idea we're not getting 60 but 36 theoretically your you know removing one size to the smaller the idea okay. let's split the cost difference and treat it like an integral in lieu fee it may not be a lit fee go i don't know how the board handles financial impact decisions that's why i'm suggest that. >> mr. buck can you tell me what the cost of a 60 cost of a

tree and the cost to install a 60 is 5 thousand dollars tree and 36 tree is 2 nine hundred so the difference 21 hundreds per tree. >> if we require that they take out the 23 inch trees. >> 36 inch tree and replace it with the 60 inch tree then it will cost them $4,000 a tree. >> it will cost them 5 thousand dollars a tree to do that. >> plus curve cut and condition of trees. >> you're being kind in our fee i think but seismically thank you. >> i'll keep my rebuttal brief and so i don't want to take too much time with the tight agenda

this evening i'll reiterate i think the conversation was clear just a phone call or e-mail away we have jurisdiction over the placement of trees and those are divisions that don't this is something they need to be aware ever the moment another department is saying something different get on the horn immediately and go to bat on their on behalf of - the planning code does require the tree planting with the new projects so planting additional trees a requirement of development not an additional sort of saying the appellant is in so doing, however, i'll state what it they've installed regardless of size - i'll say in one thing that came up rather

unexpectedly the trees from the intersection is a problem for the adjacent property owner one way to address that we still have actually too many trees planted others this 19th street frontage so thankful move the middle trees and space that the tree a little bit foster away from the property line so we have 4 trees on 9th street only room for 3 instead of losing the middle tree we will look at the opportunity with panoramic that's an integral issue outside of your jurisdiction we have an issue of the saying that i'll work with the appellant to try to address those concerns thank you. >> are you talking about which

property line. >> 9th street. >> during the public comment they said the sub sidewalk basement maternity be impacted one possible solution. >> thank you. >> all right. so commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> so i'm going to jump in on this one. >> please. i find is appalling that happened if you were in that situation and i often am of conflict information i would have pursued that as a way to resolve it with urban forestry and others to sit down and now we're at a point we have clvth information about what is possible my inclination to try to go for the 60 inch box trees i'll consider continuing this item for the party to discuss whether

or not this is feasible and come back to us with some sort of convince i think giving $10,000 to the fund is off cheap and having violated the terms of the permit. >> yep i'll you could just add enforcement is another issue than in lieu fees the department can pursue the enforcement actions but the in lieu fee is a differe matter. >> i gave them credit they planted more trees than required to. >> out of guilt. >> (laughter) pursue i doubt that was the - >> on my short tenure on the board it is not the first time the large developer has come

before us and asked to remove trees and came back to planting them they couldn't plant them because of electrical constraint or imagine understanding the project in development a steel difficult in san francisco i don't believe this is the developers first project here and mined of how building planting and dpw urban forestry works i don't have i mean what and a half done looks at quite nice but at the same time i don't think that we would actually be setting a bad priebt over permit with one thing we'll allow you something if there were happening in the fwblg they have a penalty system i don't want i don't what to do the developer

was away not to put in the box trees and instead of doing the right thing they decided this was the result and a 10 thousand there's in lieu fee is laughable at this point. >> yeah. the missing pulse pieces is dpw because we're talking about what dpw should be in the room to tell us which would be the the cause for continuance but i would suggest there is a solution i think the 10 thousand in lieu fee is good i think sorry. >> i think the cost of replacement of tree that is 5 thousand dollars a tree is more the in lieu fee and i agree with

my fellow commissioners when necessarily say this is abusive the plan was there everybody this was a seasoned developer if they were were not getting the response from the dpw they should have gone to urban forestry but at the same time i'm not sure that i would want them to go rip up the trees and cause further havoc in the neighborhood that has already occurred but i think there is a halfway point in lieu of a continuance which is in lieu fees of 6 times 5 thousand and the cost of fixing the nifrth issue according to the in agreement with urban forest so that's what i would - so i- your

pretty generous too. >> what. >> you're pretty generous. >> it is - and i guess i was the most forgiving of the bunch not prepared to accept the bureaus position of establishing the cost like this before. >> and you know i don't want to monkey around with that it is becoming arbitrary i think there is sufficient questioning as to you know what really occurred whether it was well, let me not go into that i'll be prepared to somewhat accept this but see if they can

come to a better conclusion with the bureau. >> i'll move to continue this item and so would you recommend - >> maybe. >> november 15th unless you want to give them more time then december 16th you why not move it to december no harm no foul with the trees staying there and sufficient time to work with dpw and everything else i'll move to continue until december 16th. >> i'll be in residence on the 16 i know that from before i was appointed i would request if they can do it by the earlier date we should. >> to see if they can handle this within that timeframe. >> what was the ultimate date.

>> december 9th meeting and on november 18th. >> the 9th would be fine. >> we're only discussing the continuance state. >> nope. >> i'm sorry. >> i believe there's an issue you're going do have to deal with the property owner. >> i move to continue the item to december 9th with the request that all the parties sit down and try to work through their difference of opinion has as to what the solution is. >> commissioner president lazarus to you want any additional submittals or have them present. >> present at the hearing paw may we may we request dpw be present. >> that's part of my request. >> dpw is present with them. >> the university you want to

different division. >> the dpw that didn't respond to the dpw it is responsible for the sidewalk ada requirement we have to establish who has persistence precedence i believe whether urban forestry or whether dpw those who put in the ada strips it that's all. >> i will make that request. >> okay. so on the president's position to continue this to december 9th commissioner fung commissioner honda. >> and sdmig p commissioner swig that motion carries with the vote of 4 to zero thank you. >> we're going to take item 8 which is appeal wayne versus the

department of building inspection protesting the issuance on august 16, 2013, to gloria gonzales for a in fill lightwell 8 square feet we'll start with the appellant mr. tampa step you i know you have things in our way. >> you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> put the overhead yes, we're seeing it. >> good evening respect to the spec asbestos, sir speak into

the microphone. >> with respect to the respondents question for the facing asbestos on my family's property should be denied because the proposed boys work will endanger the health and health of my family including my 8 and 10-year-old children and disabled mother the respondent has done asbestos with work without notice and shown disregard for the property they broke the asbestos is end up in my let that i have here they also threatened to harm or threatened to try to harm my i'm

sorry relax relax. >> i'm not that good at this either so - >> they wanted the contractors damaged any pickup truck also assaulted me the man has given a declaration making false statements about me and my dog the asbestos work is strictly regulated because of this potentially fatality potentially fatality not done right it can cause cancer according to obamacare a 9-year-old child can maneuver symptoms in the year

2035. >> cal osha title section 8129 cal oshas standards applies to all asbestos work also, if more than one hundred square feet certified asbestos contractor must do the work and cal obamacare section 30.16 both projects the rear and side of the respondents home counts and should exceed one hundred square feet section 1529 of one hundred square feet is not exceeded of a certified asbestos contractor is

not required the person doing the work must comply with the abatement standards the respondent on video threatened he'll do the work without abatement broken asbestos material is exposed and is in violation currently respondent did extensive asbestos work on the backside of the home without notifying the neighbors and the respondent also left broken asbestos sigmund open and exposed uncontained at the present time, in fact, their conduct is the

hazard to the neighborhood as you can see the other neighbors also want i to deny their permit. >> the neighbors on the side saw workers in hazard mat suits and warned me this was the first, i had that the respondent did asbestos work. >> so i filed the appeal i working hard to make a organic garden so any kid's can grow vegetables and without knowing this work was being done required now i hesitate on going to the yard or trying to grow something after i filed the appeal the respondent retaliated they broke

the asbestos siding and piece of bibliography in my lightwell where my children walk through everyday. >> this is a piece i've found in my lightwell my lightwell is the primary entry and exit that we use my kids know how to get in and out we never use the gate through the front door. >> so it is really intrusive for what the respondent is proposing and even what is happening currently the respondent retaliated when

we trespassed and broke concrete blocks in my backyard over a lightwell i was home and i heard the loud crash i looked at the window and caught him red-handed i have the video on my phone i can play it if it is okay. >> you only have 30 seconds it's up to. >> the respondent retailed for the appeal when i have one of the contractor which one of his contracto not - >> you'll have additional time on rebuttal thank you. >> okay. >> i have a question mr. tang. >> yes. were you aware of the

procedure of this hearing we don't have a brief supplied but you generally, that's the material in hearing an integral oral submission is helpful but that you way you've said we have nothing to go along and unfortunately, it was a little bit rough for you on mike is there a reason you didn't submit a brief. >> i am a single father i am trying to raise two kids it is difficult and finding i know between work and sending two kids to school and attorney fee taking care of them and raising them the best he can i am simply alone i'll trying to fix my

computer so my daughter can work on here report due tomorrow. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you so we'll hear from the permit holder. >> gloria gonzales representing moourns. >> please speak both the mike and overhead please. i wanted to just mention that mr. tampa was not here during the oath so nothing he said was under oath we also at our house over 26 years and you know feinstein remodeling after petting putting the kids through college and adding a room to the kitchen level to have a bathroom on each floor.

>> as far as the asbestos siding it was less than one hundred square feet in response to one of mr. tampas complaint is immediately after he filed his appeal he called. >> the department of public works and department of public works and made a compliment wisp roving asbestos siding and having this opportunity to appeal so steve hodge from the building inspector company said it was preceding we've extended the work as far as the lightwell and that needs specifically told you you only have under hundred square feet you absolutely don't need a certified asbestos removal person to do this kind

of work the homeowner can do that do the wreck zit containment and take it and have it documented it is all that is required in the code section as well that i included in my brief, you know, osha didn't very specific requirements for asbestos removal under one hundred square feet. >> you know the area we're trying to - you have to speak into the microphone. >> we're talking about here is stepped on the second floor not other ground floor no where near the organic garden i was not aware of anyway it is roughly about 19 inches in one area and then about another 24 inches in another area we

have our here on behalf of the appellant we've met with wayne on 4 occasions trying to alleviate any concerns including our architect and contractor as well as dpw coming by and assuring wayne we were not preceded with the work. >> as far as the asbestos on the back of the house we did that with permit that occurred over what. >> a year ago i think. >> and you know it got signed off by the wrerequisite. >> we're neighbors of 26 years the children arrive with wayne

i've railway heard the kids using the lightwell in question you. >> of they want to preceding with the remodel and directing the stafldz is not going to interfere with their enlarging and exiting through the lightwell if that's what they want to do as far as the dog i've mentioned in the papers we think first degree his dog using the lightwell for a restroom is in violation of a code. >> is there anything questions into the board regarding the questions. >> are you finished. >> thank you want to have a couple of remarks okay. >> primary we're not aware of threats that mr. that wayne has brought up this afternoon or any damage to his car or any i don't

know it is out of left field we don't know where this is coming that from. >> we at an integral earlier point offered to hire a contractor he didn't cooperate and so we're not willing to go through the extra expenses not necessary at this point you know your contractor has all the requisites and certification and experiences over thirty years and removed asbestos in the past and we think he should be allowed to go forward with the existing permits. >> you have a question and are you finished. >> yeah. >> so the appellants had showed a plastic bag with asbestos what looks like he claims to be asbestos that's the

thing whether hundred square feet or not remedial and removal of asbestos is delicate so further piece of asbestos left. >> no, but i, explain what could have happened we have plumbing and electrical need inside of our dwelling and the house was built in 1912 you know we're not necessarily a aware of what is happening on the outside a lot of shaking and banking when dpw came but we had with a permit now to proceed with the work we had removed a window which provides access for ladders with that into the lightwell with that the trim of the window was removed that exposed what was underneath the wood that's one possible area of confusion you know. >> is there a possibility of

where the piece of side by side. >> that might not you know how this little piece of asbestos feel into the lightwell area we don't have a clue. >> thank you, thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> we can hear from mr. sanchez. >> okay. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department just to be brief the subject permit meets all the issues and building permit. >> we'll hear from mr. duffy. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi as you may know it is part of the second floor floor 8 square feet not much work but on the asbestos i just did some of my own raven today

and want to google it if there's a lot of of information from the bay area earthquake quality management about the hundred square feet and what to do and things like that it is probable a good idea for the people to do the work even though it is under hundred square feet they should take care of that with containment and wet it down there are reductions on the website very good details i printed that i object to share it with them i think we came across this before personally i've done it you take down the old asbestos with our gloves and masks and triple bag this is what you do when it is a small amount bigger you have to use someone but not sure that's a

big issue and obviously the gentleman appealed the permit is a concerned but if handled right shouldn't be a problem i noticed that the other permit for the siding removal in 2013, the shiblz and weatherries is under the would you describe shingles that permit was approved in 2014 and today has not been completed yet many that is something the lady said not signed off according to dbi records that maybe under hundred square feet and hopefully followed the process that is not before us i thought i'd mention that i'm available to answer any questions. >> no -- excuse me. >> mr. duffy.

>> the department has rules regarding hazmat. >> the department has rules on the asbestos for department building but our building code explicit talk about that. >> did it talk about the materials. >> no. >> just the example of what used to be that is my understanding was plyable. >> i mean it is obviously concerning when the dust asbestos you have to be careful it didn't seem to kick in hundred square feet is the magic number but less than hundred there are guidelines not plastic making sure it didn't get airborne like everything you do you're not going to let things gone improperly this is where those people need to make sure

that is done right. i i believe there was a complaint to the department sometimes, we do give our recommendations on what to do in those cases and small amounts what the inspector steve actually did. >> thank you any public comment on this item? seeing none, we have rebuttal. >> is there public comment or not? >> please step forward. >> two minutes. >> i'm cindy that the owner the property on the one side of subject property. >> you can move the - >> please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, tampa is a concerned about the asbestos impact on his kids and dog and the airborne substance they had the work done on the back of the house a

couple years ago we weren't aware of what was being done i happened to be home and saw the people if hazard mat i asked him and he tell me that was none of my business. >> so you know i'm in the house and told the man, i'm concerned what with what is going on and when the work was done i have to mention that there was no sheet around so it was not airborne that was our big concern too the parcels get airborne thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment. >> seeing none, mr. tampa you have 3 minutes of rebuttal.

>> not really good at this i'm not vieshs not looking to disturb anyone's home i want to ask if possible i can simply show you the video i captured there are pictures on there showing broken asbestos siding if this is okay. >> if you can get it into the public overhead. >> that will work. >> that's the actual broken siding that's the window that is facing our lightwell this is the area we're talking

about right past the green garbage can is the garage when i pull into the garage a doorway we exit and come up the stairs we use the lightwell not a lot of room think outside the box the right side that's where the plants >> just to do it (inaudible). >> can you move that stuff as required i'm to call the fire marshall you've created a hazard mat. >> i'm sure you if guys heard that. >> basically it is pushed the

lattice and damaged any property he's not did not apologize and made and treat this is the letter. >> that i received. >> attorney at law it is a threat this was dropped in any mailbox. >> here. >> if i can. >> (inaudible). >> can you move that stuff it is a fire hazard i'm going to call the fracture you've created a hazarmat.

>> thfrsz after the contractor. >> i don't want any thing disturbed i have small kids and a small area i use frequently okay. okay. >> and any contamination be back to you. >> okay. >> so what does that mean? >> that means any contamination and sir, i'm sorry your time is up on rebuttal. >> i'm sorry our time is up. >> i just want to request a denial that so i can - >> okay. >> get a lawyer or somebody to help me. >> thank you. we, take rebuttal from the permit holder.

>> i just want to reiterate that we intend to have this asbestos siding removed with the applicable laws it is less than 90 square feet so you know our contractor has the restricted licenses and certifications to do the work and . >> i just wanted to add clarification on the work that was done it seems almost two years ago the reason it was not the permit was not signed off on an integral tension he was working with an integral architect and my architect is here but anyway, i hired a general contractor to put up new sigmund's and this was done with a certified asbestos removal company i've had a receipt it

was disposed of credible so we've done it in the past and credible we we intend to do it correctly that was me in the video i do not appreciate my neighbor continues to videotaping our workers and myself not only on my private property but berry and exit my home and car i strongly feel this is a delay tactic by the letters we've proposed to him we were and will remove the small amount of shingles florescence with the statistic and state laws. >> are you doing construction work there now. >> yes. we are. >> under a different permit. >> under a different permit we're doing the inside. >> we have to bifurcate the powder room permit ways we

couldn't get mr. tampa to sign off on the architecture drawings back in february we explained the project to him and tried to get him - >> i'm sorry. could you explain specifically why the first permit is the for the finalized as partially because of the days or delays. >> they're separate but recommend involve the same contractor and others part of it includes the deck and outside sidin sidings. >> so has the work on the first preliminary been implemented. >> now waiting for all holes to be filled. >> i'm sorry all - >> if there is any say and

pipe at one point it is literally 99.9 percent done. >> are you talking about. >> your what you're saying your second permit you got needs to be mreltd to complete our first permit so your serial permit. >> i hired general contractor. >> no, no. >> confused he's confused. >> (multiply voices). >> to remove the asbestos siding and then weather riggs to take place yeah, we extended that permit the weather riggs was not complete in the meantime, substantial got the larger permit to do the remodel of the kitchen and bathrooms. >> so again why hadn't the first permit is the first permit completely or the second permit

required to finish our first permit. >> the second permit is required to finish the first permit to you if i reform a down spout with a hole i can't have the sidings all complete until. >> okay. i think i got it thank you. >> put in place. >> any other questions. >> thank you any rebuttal from the department commissioners, any questions for the department commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i don't know what to do. >> we're all in that quantumy. >> it's a valid permit the two neighbors can't get along in

terms of finding what should be done i'm going to have to go on the basis that any type hazardous materials is going to have to be governed by the department in terms of what needs to be done in terms of the appropriate abatement and appropriate screening to take care of it but i don't see any basis to revoke this permit. >> agree. >> hope they can work it out how having reviewed the situation of a major remodel and having the same situation with my left and right neighbor i sincerely hope you guys work together what i saw as far as

broken asbestos panels in i had children that is unskeshl to be honest there is specific ways of handling it understandable you folks are not getting along you'll be living next to each other unless you move if you want to be here again and again i suggest you sit down and have a good conversation. >> if no further comments overwhelming to move to deny the appeal and to grant the permit on the basis it was valid. >> okay. a motion thank you commissioner fung to deny the appeal and uphold that was valid. >> commissioner president lazarus. >> commissioner honda commissioner swig. >> okay. that that motion carries

commissioner president lazarus shall we call the item number 4. >> and as i mentioned i'm leaving i apologize. >> we're going to have to need a motion to continue it. >> we'll continue it i know for the next meeting is. >> i would recommend to the next meeting can the parties attend the meeting on the 28 of october and your apologizes to all for keeping you here. >> we're sorry that was unusual for us. >> yes. okay. we need a motion. >> move to continue item 4 for the october 28th. >> okay. >> all right. on that motion commissioner fung commissioner honda. >> i do apologize sincerely. >> commissioner swig. >> okay. so that item is continued thank you very much and commissioner president lazarus no other business we're

as we bring events in the city, and know that we have partnerships throughout the communities, i think, there is a lot more confidence about what we're doing and it's exhibited by the people who tap into our sf72.org. you remember that? [laughter ] , as well as