but working for the city and county of san francisco give us employees the unities to contribute their ideas and energy and commitment to shape the city's future but for considering a career with the city and county of san francisc >> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, march 30, 2016, of the san francisco board of appeals the presiding officer this evening is commissioner honda and joined by commissioner fung and commissioner ann lazardus and commissioner swig and commissioner wilson to my left is thomas owen the deputy city attorney and will provide legal advice and the legal assistant aim sgmd

legal assistant aim sgmd scombmd and we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. chris bucks is with the san francisco public works and jarvis an affairs manager with the muni taxable services and joined by senior intrishs and scott sanchez planning department will be representing the planning commission and the the planning commission and the planning department pr 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. 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. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. 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 please stand now 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. >> okay. thank you very much we'll start with item number one this is the opportunity to speak on items not on tonight's calendar. >> walter thank you. good evening board of appeals and why don't we appeal away why don't we appeal away

into the night make that turnout right. >> and hey won't you play none somebody done somebody done somebody wrong and make the appeals community based right. i miss any city won't you turn it out pretty and you got no money and you got no home spinning wheels on appeals the stone drop all your troubles at the commission side and make it turn t out right thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> any other general public comment? okay. seeing none move to item 2 commissioners questions or

comments commissioners >> no. >> and item 3 which is the boards consideration of the minutes the march meeting any changes or addition any public comment on the minutes okay. seeing none we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes on that motion commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you that vote is 5 to zero and the minutes are adopted moving on is item number 4 appeal number sarah, william francis the third and william versus the department of building inspection the property is appealing the issuance on january to martha from a remodeling units administrative

reviews the waltz and adrc one bathroom and workman's comp one electrical and plumbing on separate permits on for hearing we'll start with the appellant. >> thank you you have 7 minutes to present our case. >> thank you ma'am. >> i am donald i regret i'm unable to sing any presentation but work on that more next time before we get started i want to request commissioner honda several statements we'll to respond to statements in actually not relevant to that but statements mad representation of fact that are not true ear rebutting that with the declarations under oath from the two of the appellants and our request permission it be submitted into the record so

sarah. >> no, we don't need to take these do we. >> it is up to you the board. >> what do you guys think. >> it is relevant. >> i'm sorry. >> if it is relevant to what i think is relevant to accept the assistance. >> we'll not have time to read the material nor the permit holder had access to that at this point. >> i'm sorry, i'm sorry please sit down. >> not at that time go ahead and start you're a - >> i indicated my name is donald i represented the tenants on 22 street two brought the appeal i'm the neighbor and also 0 a long time homeowners that lives 4 doors down i took the case an pro bono i'm disgusted

of the new owner and the project manager that disregard the rights of tenants and the two united their seeking to tramp on the laws and the insistence that you are less able to defend themselves in cashing out on the real estate boom in san francisco as we noted in our belief this appeal epitomize the one that is socially and - a home against city only the white can reside that's not what made san francisco what it is today as the letters from over a dozens of nightclubs enough is enough the city's policies and laws must be enforced that's why we're before you today first i'll to introduce you to the original tenants of the apartment william a 69-year-old postman

who is on a pension as well as a - while serving in vietnam to his right is bill a 65-year-old nature that was laid off and partially sdarpd among the misrepresentation their claim it no think it protected in this unit in fact, they claim the 2008 lease is the original lease for this part time that is 23409 not true as the declarations will attest this lease hold comments in 1y69d 2000 and their protected by the virtue of their age and the time the unit the real obviously may seem like a building permit but the offering of the owners since the managers since day with an to cash in on

the real estate boom by get rid of the tenants and selling the tics to the highest bidder the facts were disputed by the appellant in their brief and another reason we've submitted this declaration awe testing to the statements by the property owners and the pshlg about to do piling what i described their acts speak louder than word necessary bought out the twin peaks in the lower units and a protective tenant that lives the unit for 40 years and have the imputing of those two apartments one the containments with the building permits applications provide a scant description of the work that doesn't allow the pravpt to do their job they were

ripped to the studs and some were removed new plumbing nothing original that remains in either of the units and now precisely what the permit holder seek to do they tried to boot out the parapets and the permit holders i'd like to an action and in their brief to insult the intelligence by claiming that eviction was not an eviction but the project sponsors to find out the identity of the people the tenants the property owners who boulth the building in 2014 knew of the attendants identity because the tenants provided an eis tool a copy of which is provided the dilations we've offered today and if this what was not enough 10 months before the permit holders set a 614 a

rent control ordinance with the two recipient they identified every single one of the occupants and the eviction what was brought to muscles them to get them out we were in fact, getting lawyers and the case was promoting terminated by the property owners they have no case they know who 9 residents are and no case for violating and p in the primary news we have the affordable housing as soon as that section was dismissed within a week they submitted their building permit to do what at the did the intent of the renovation to do precisely as described and take advantage and basically abuse a provision on rent control law that allows the property owners to evict their tenants up to 10

months for capital improvements it is not the type of capital improvement by that law it is simply to encourage landlord to keep their units up that requires the evictions so be that that law also allows the landlords to get an extension on the 3 months and as seen from the records we've presented in the opening brief the project manager knows that law well and take advantage of it to keep the tenants out up to a year we precisely expect that why? because the renovations in the lower units have been underway for a year and still not k34e9d their hope in a year it whether no longer be able to move into their unit they'll philosophical their goal of selling to the highest bidders that's not their intention we're here aspect

latino to sell as tics this is exactly what they said and absolutely what their actions will be their intention to follow on but the priority guidelines by the citizens and which require projects to maintain go affordable housing and economic diversities in the neighborhoods i have of their rent-controlled unit as apartments they have spent a future rent-controlled unit well above the 25 holidays not van the economic diversities if we requested this permit urban design denied and enforce the priority guidelines if i may wrap up this will request a few moichgsz first we request more than wrapping up you'll have

time on rebuttal. >> okay we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> >> good afternoon. my name is a agreeing alex an, an attorney i apologize from my accents i came from rather than i feel i'm still russia because this was a political speech on mortal grounds i've not heard a word about the actual permits but let me first address the issues we're here we're here in view the permit the subject property a 3 unit 3 floor building this subject on appeal is one of the steps of the renovations we have the appeal

the more calm approach there were consistence with the enforcement we didn't weigh that opportunity today to discuss and then see how the board decides to change it we want to apply for an amended plan in pursuant to the planning code - and exhibit a attached to our brief shows the amended plans and exhibit b is the set of plans subject to this so those technical grounds in you'll fairness we've addressed the political grounds also has a site that is grounds for them to have the unit at a lower price and on the grounds we disagree we've not singled outburst this unit

it was a planning innovation from top to bottom no as a say 75 more than 75 percent replacement of the frame therefore neither the original plan more the amended plan requires a permit for approval there is no issue - it is not brought up to our issues of the subject of the approval there are a r officially two bedrooms and one bathroom, under 9 plans i understand the place is used as four bedrooms but the plans are official legal authorized 4 bedrooms and two bathrooms the permit is in line with the city's plans general plan and agenda of housing there is absolutely no change so no

change the character of the community or the city and there is - for the tenants to move back as the gentleman did on the bus he had a unit renovated and the tenants moved in after the renovation were done we don't know the declarations that were to - brought to the copy o to do board i can't comment on this the bulk of the time of my appointment was a political speech to reach i don't know how to respond on the technical ground of the subject i will show instead liv e - this looks like only awe applicable point to brought to your attention and the response to the 75 percent category of

the innovated floor plan i attempted to highlight the existing this will be the overhead - and remembered framing the red shows the removed framing and sorry for any graphical skills to bring this back it shows it in place and . >> could you speak into the microphone. >> the rates between what is moved up and in place is i manufactured it and this is my notes if you can see - it is not 50/50 but definitely not 75 to 25 if we accept the lengths of this plan then one and 85 units will

be remaining and two hundred 46 at best will be removed and when i say 200 and 46 i tent the contested one a area the building that chars the closet and we send in a picture in our brief i don't hear any rebuttal from the colleagues so with that, i will not take any more time of the board but like to i'm going to turn it over to the gentleman to address some of the political charges brought. >> hello, i'm the permit

holders and an agent for the owners i would like to state that i never had any evictions in the city not a single one i know i've been described as a real estate speculator and yes, he own properties i roommate them most of the time, i hold the properties as rentals our attention to this building to roommate the property from ground up we started with the first floors and will be the third floors i have no intention to evict those people i only done once this type of improvement with the tenants allowed to move on

back into the unit and there's no other case i've not been involved in any other cases the previous case that was brought over the tenants to find out what was living there and get information on sarah who has been paying for the apartment. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> you'll have time in rebuttal. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> mr. duffy and mr. sanchez. >> mr. sanchez >> thank you scott sanchez planning department so the planning department didn't review this permit and didn't review the interior alterations to this was not up for review the issue was raised the

planning code 311 are requires the neighborhood notification in the event that 75 percent or more of the fraem felt entire building is roach that transitions the neighborhood notification this permit before you on appeal in and of itself didn't do that and come first or possibly comprise 35 percent of the framing of the building but provided the copies of the plans for the other units and covet just looking at and doing rough calculations less than 75 percent of the building removed that is before you the reduceed plans we didn't review the whole plans not the whole calculations but an initial review it is less than 75 percent will not trigger the neighborhood notification that is what i wanted report to

you i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> in reviewing the smaller plans they're up to scale is it close to the 75 percent. >> it appears to be the encounter demolition the upper unit seems to be slightly less than the lower unit and i think that is pretty close to 75 percent the upper unit given you can trusting the calculations of the project sponsor that if it is less than 35 percent that appears that certainly the two units are the permits are not on appeal because their xhejsz the notice got away from us on the units. >> the second question is that since they're closed what scrutiny in regards to the department are they taqueria the

project sponsor word or some type of justification of the walls or the percentage that has been removed from the units. >> at this point there's no scrutiny of our department we didn't review the plans those plans were not before us for review we didn't do the calculations in this do board has concerns we could review the whole plan and make the calculations more definitely on that but we will need time and assess to the full plans for all the floors in order to make that determination it triggers the neighborhood notification which gives us the ability for someone to - >> it is early how much time does the department need to review that. >> not much time i think it is april 20th we'll have time provided we get proper excess to the full plans from the project

sponsor to make those calculations. >> thank you very much. >> a quick question any indication the first set of plans were 75 percent. >> no - are the 3 units are separate plans submitted for the lower t is one permit in this unit was on a separate permit my estimation of the plan and trying to measure it out somewhat it seems close. >> thank you >> one more question, please, sir i understand the 75 percent change in the overall unit but i think in this case in reviewing the brief not yet in the testimony there was an issue of configuration and you know you can tear down 4

waltz or a building apartment which previously housed four people that are independent parties not living with each other and if you tear down two walls 25 percent of the apartment 75 use percentage might go away and suddenly four people have to live together. >> in this case how - i'm confused as or need clarification from mr. larkin how we might view that because we're trying to protect housing the city, we're trying to protect affordable housing if i go off wrong can you help me out and therefore even the 25 percent change which changes the configuration of this apartment takes to units of housing two bodies away out of that

apartment kind of flies the face of what the city is trying to achieve can you help me out how you evaluate that. >> some internal revenue requirements it providing a certain number or percentage of bedrooms, etc. for most of city we don't have that requirement that requirement for a bedroom mix is not in place here if they're coming in and not changing the size of unit but reconfiguring it and having and are two bedrooms to a four-bedroom or keep the rooms and now this is a media room the planning code didn't speak to that no that springs into place we know certainly units in the city that maybe three or four bedrooms but only one person lives there we can't regulate how they use those bedrooms with the codes it addresses mergers

earrings in they are you know non-compliance two unit and only one cooking facility that is clear we regulate it further if they reduce the size mornl 25 percent we can take it and put it towards an existing unit and in fact, that is a merger but that is not the case their own reconfiguring the unit to you know the number of bedrooms or the location of the bedroom it not something we will regulate under the planning code. >> so the consequence will force potentially two people to define housing if stlfrs a move banking back in kind of like tough luck. >> most of scenarios people are remodeling their homes because maybe their kids left and want more space or a variety of things we don't look at it by little issues it is more a red

rent board matter. >> in terms of your comments mr. sanchez that in the eastern neighborhoods the market octavia and new construction and applies to the worm units in an existing building. >> in those neighborhoods. >> in these neighborhood this is. not a district that is subject to the requirement. >> what. >> it is not a neighborhood that is subject to that requirement we'll hear from inspector duffy now. >> good evening, commissioners joe duffy dbi the building permit was issued over-the-counter before the

permit continuation more remoldings number 26 plus adding one bathroom, and one laundry room and logically of kitchen and bedrooms on two separate permits i proposed the separate permits it was reviewed by building and wrote routed to the fire department under the mechanic plan check in the district of columbia was the routing as well it is a typical interior with a remodeling of apartment it didn't have issues of the building code from our building code it doesn't appear to have issues from what i seen on the plans anyway the permit they october on the

2015 that is not under appeal it is pretty similar i believe the description and that permit was issued on may 2015 i checked the inspection it looks like it all inspects have been performed they're pretty much finished the work on those so what i saw in the plans just on the number of bedrooms it looks like an existing two bedroom and one bath apartment and now going to be 4 bedrooms and to bath that's what i've seen on the plans that is an increase the bedrooms but we do so these sometimes the old design people like to modernize them and make the space a little bit better i'm

available to answer any questions. >> mr. duffy references by the project sponsor to revise the permit. >> typically we don't see changes to the permits when their appealed there's an suspension sometimes in this case we didn't get a block they saw something on the appeal when the permit was appealed and looks like they got a revision to reflect the previous plans that is the permit under appeal plans don't reflect the existing bedrooms and on this number of rooms this is smoking gun some discrepancies they fixed. >> it was an discrepancy of the existing rooms. >> maybe not an issue with the dining room like converted to a bedroom but i see the revision

permit it the package and it is showing 3 floor plans that existing as approved and proposed so looks like they fixed it but that typically we don't see this is something that you will would see on a permit discussed and afterward something that the board tells us to do but in this case it didn't get flagged at dbi and they actually on the 29 of march got a door permit and should have stopped this they may not be valid permits we have in this case we never got the address block i noticed that the last day or two. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this

item? >> hello. thank you thank you for the opportunity to bring those issues to the board thank you for the opportunity to bring those issues to the board my name is paul tenant i'm a neighbor of the mr. willis and mr. con den i've also on yoeshg street for 39 years and over that period of time wilted two waves of gentrification through the mission in 2009 i had a small manufacturing business the

bayview and did business with like-minded entrepreneurs the mission i saw entire warehouses boric acid and gutted and businesses many of them forced to relocation the city and many of them outside of the city and some of them just were not able to adjust and went out of business in 2016 this is the severe wave of gentrification i've witnessed our small businesses have largely been dislocated and so, now the focus is on the most vulnerable of our neighbors those who rent with low income and they don't own their homes

i would add to the given in life death and taxes change i'm not one to believe we can stop change i believe that we collectively as a community and city we have a responsibility to each other to try and mitigate the worse exchanges of changes that we see their motivated and advanced through greed, through a kind of short-sighted - well lack of care in terms of the larger picture of our communities and whether we own our homes or

not i've lived in the mission long enough to know and fortunate after almost 25 years of renting to a block my home we're all effected by the changes that happen and i'll like to encourage all avenues of redress to our best efforts to as i said smooth out the worst of excesss and speculation is one of them. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> hello is this the milk can you guys hear me i'm wendy live directly from on this building where many neighbors live there

for 40 years for many years i know that when this place was sold those guys were - let me say i've lived there since 95 and not long i'm not counting the years i've been there for a long time bill and bill and i wanted to say the minute the building was sold they were under pressure to get out it was you know it was really felt strongly i felt a lot of compassion because of difficult it is to move i was evicted temporarily the first home we had i was given a year to move back into where i was to move in the renovations were you less than it looks like they're trying to do here it was

impossible and a completely different compliment i wasn't disabled i was young and it was really, really hard i had to give up any place and i also sit on the board of the latin cultural district the quatro we're seeking those temporary evictions spiral into long time evictions over and over and over again working-class and disabled people don't have the resources to find another place in san francisco to move i know their given money not much more money that they did in 95 and then to hold their jokes together or just to be able to find a place together for that amount of time to move in i think the two bottom floors were

empty for a year it looks like a massive renovation they're doing all really good neighbors and i just feel like this is just a way to get people out it is just not fair that's it it's not fair going to be so hard on the existing tenants one question there is a handicap tenants do the renovation allow for that at all? >> thank you. >> yep. >> any other public comment? >> morning or good evening board diane recipient of the city and county of san francisco 23 years my daughter is a native it is going on everywhere i think that the tighter we make the marines the more they'll

figure out ways the landlords definitely we're in the midst of a slow down but still and gentrification period it is california is failing into the ocean in the pacific we have an opportunity to change it i think that requiring bear minimum common sense things from landlord with the permits, the authorized agents, a as i understand document who is responsible for what it is related with the conflict of interest and the chain of the titles if you've seen the big short it is scary wear on the fiscal cliff and they'll not get the money in 5 years it is also be detroit it will be a problem

so i feel for you people and thank you to all the attorneys and the pro-bones and those that take the nonprofits and the time miff not getting the $6 million a year and anything the planning department or any of the departments can do to make sure the rightful owners the authors agent is who they are there is no conflict of interests with the architect firm who is doing the plans i mean, we need really to tighten reigns on purported owners thank you. >> thank you. >> any other public comment.

>> hi my name is marie i'm with the quatro this is the mission is facing a crisis we have a housing crisis people are being veektsd left and right and here we have a 3 unit building that should be under rent control and they're getting evicted why? because somebody bought the building and wants to flip it is it is a typical story area terrible one thing i want to address you're talking about the 75 percent how is it that a unit that has all the walls taken out and the electricity redondo, and has walls moved and has 75

percent it sounds like a 100 percent remodel to me anyway, i think this is ridiculous we're in our own the planning department hell ourselves and why can somebody walk in to industry a unit we've had to fight and fight and fight for ourselves ours it is a very uneven justice in the city and this unit this building i wish you would reject it once again low income renters and people that provide the backbone the city are punished not the weighty they can afford we kicking out rernlts rule u

you'll not have teachers and firemen they can't afford it so you have to stop it please reject this plan thank you. >> thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> okay. seeing none we'll take rebuttal starting with the appellant 3 minutes. >> thank you i'll request again your reconsideration of accepting the declaration proper and propose that the permit holders be given an opportunity toe rebutton the declaration i believe facts that are relevant to our decision making and it will be a shame not to be considered because the appellants are speaking for themselves and facts those other people have no knowledge and regardless of the 75 percent absolutely without a keep a look out the original that

preliminary we're roving 75 percent of the walls because there were dimensions of every single rooms were the revised permit last week that can be demonstrated by the full sized planks we've not been provided a copy but that would be helpful for the planning department to do precisely that action they can see the notification were there and liquor store not broke out before the planning this permit that displaces those tenants and dexhushg the unit got an orally approval from dbi that is not a means for responsibility for the agents regards with regards to the political statement the politics did adapt prop m that's where we were with the will of the voters and that's what is establishing

the priority guidelines con convened regardless of units are apartments or sold ass as tics they'll not be quotes to anyone more available for people with connective diversities the folks that afford the two bedrooms are 5 thousand dollars rents a 4 bedroom unit you can only imagine and many economically diversifies individuals that can afford those certainly not with regards to the number of bedrooms the initial permit applications said they'll have two bedrooms now they're new permit claims thaig they'll create 4 this apartment is a 4 bedroom apartment for the duration of the time that the tenants had dating back to 2000 that is the declaration the 3 things we want to see if approved number one a months

permit limitation and reconfigure the unit so the current configuration that allows the egress for fire safety is available for all the tenants the plan puts that behind the door of a bedroom that can be locked and third no clauses closets provided in two of the bedrooms and under the new situation they're describing they simply change the label of a den and call it a bedroom and no closets in that room or other rooms their remoldings we request those changes not to be made until this place is habitable and co-authored to the gentleman it is - finally with regards not evicted in any tenants calling your attention additional notice of half-dozen of actions we've attached to the opening brief it lists the

actions and sued for wrongful eviction of thank you very much. >> thank you. >> okay, sir. >> like to start the reverse order based on our fresh memory the exhibit a of that moving papers shows some court actions not all of them brought by the gentleman but some brought against the gentleman not one result in eviction you can see them separate not one syrup action the court so this correction and now i've heard a lot of emotional statements but here for the main purpose of the addressing the permits so for one brief second i'll calling your attention to exhibit b of our belief it shows the plans

particularly the page a-1.2 i'll repeat it on the overhead the page a-1.2 shows the remaining framing which is marked here in green and the proposed in red looking from the architect how and what happened was whatever the discrepancy he happened to have the plan the point of the story is clearly not more than 75 are percent proposed to remove even on that so even at the original plan it is 50/50 what is remaining in terms of the framing that was

supposed to be removed now i'll show you cabinet a that shows the amended plan and on that exhibit a we have page a-2 that the zero i'll try there are are two drawings one the eastern floor plan and the proposed on the top the proposed floor plan is 4 bedrooms the .1, 2, 3, 4 and 2 bathrooms one and two the increase and under addressing commissioner swigs comments on not making relatives living together forces them together and this is just the permit as

inspector duffy pointed out the inspections the brishgsz that complies with the - inspector duffy indicated the gentleman had k078 applied with the inspection on the lower units the commission wants questions for the architect he is present here. >> excuse me - i like our client came up earlier can you come up. >> i'm sorry. >> your client the question i have for you sir, you mentioned your rent of the owner are you the owner or a representative of the owner. >> i'm a representative audience you're not the owner. >> no. >> when you gave our history has to bearing to what the owners are doing; correct?

>> correct but i was answering the brief that was submitted by the other side arrest plaintiff and the entire challenge is based on what i did. >> and the other in question would be since you're the representative of the owner which are present when they purchased this property. >> yes. >> when they purposed the property what was sdlosz disclosing and you're under oath at this point. >> as far as being protected over and over not protected. >> it was presented to those people moistened in 2008, i believe and they've claimed they're living there more than 10 years and when the previous owners asked them to submit information on our beef they never submitted

the information to prove half a between living in the unit. >> when you purposed the property it was not disclosed they were there at that time. >> no. >> i'd like to answer to the question. >> go ahead. >> the protected status of tenants is for evictions of owner move-in that is not the tenant for the whole city that is the protected tenant it is the right to claim protected status. >> that's not the question counselor what was disclosed at the time of the sale protected and not protected. >> we've clarify. >> please sit down thank you. >> okay. any rebuttal from the departments mr. duffy no? yes >> commissioners just one point that was brought up the

second part the egress for the second egress that bedroom door should not have a lock on the inside of that door i've not on the plan it is a point of order that bedroom goes through the bedroom to get to the egress it definitely shouldn't be electable from the inside it is part of plan but i don't think so it we can do it during the inspections i want to point out. >> are you finished i'm sorry inspector how can be that construed for fire and safety. >> it is an apartment so not a public building so you can exit through a bedroom you can go into a room that are for the fire cape but the bedroom door not lockable. >> there's no code that says there should be a lock.

>> it should be on there it should be. >> it is a little bit different from the area plan i don't think it is the same configuration. >> thank you very much this remains we had 11 lombard we had a building with a lot of work on the different levels and it was talked about a relocation and work was done the building i wanted to remind you of that i was speaking with community college but a multi unit building they were able to figure how to move people around the building that was mentioned just for . >> how did that workout. >> it worked out it worked out. >> believe it or not for everything so. >> all right. thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question for mr.

sanchez. >> is there a legal definition of a bedroom in terms of it hazard to have a closet. >> under the building code. >> oh. >> no single definition. >> no requirement of a closet. >> i don't think that is, we have lofts they're not considered bedrooms. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi luckily i anticipated this question. >> i'm sorry. >> no requirement for a closet the room can't be more than 7 feet and have to have an egress window and i checked the plans it shows a window in that room it which will be inspected by the fire and bring to your attention and the ceiling height 7 foot 6.

>> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'm - confused between concept and realty the concept being the 75 percent item and the reality that something that is less than 75 percent in some plan in reality becomes more than that i heard mr. sanchez talk about i think verification of since this year has has been already two units that were adjusted the testimony they remember down to the studs that is 100 percent and that was significantly done

that plies more than 75 percent that would be bigger and then plans that indicate it is far less than 75 percent how do we - you know, i would hate - i'm confused think outside the box 0 point and how do we get a verification in fact, since there are two units that have been under construction and seemingly are underway how to get a verification, in fact, those constructions or reconstructions have gone according to their plans and don't steady 75 and a implies forhe bottom unit. >> so what is before us commissioners is the legitimacy of the permit not all the drama;

right? >> as a licensed realtor for over 18 years is a landlord and it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck that is a profit over humanity and unfortunately, we're not here for that but to second yours i feel it would be nice the department to verify the squeamish on the property that's my feeling unfortunately, we're not here we're here for the permits it is for the legitimacy of the permits but i would feel for comfortable if if the department got involved and from the plans were different in a couple of diversities ways i'll feel more comfortable. >> your i'm in the same thing camp i find it troubling those revised permits police chief said they shouldn't have but i

feel like there is a hiccup i'll move to continue it subject to the verification of the amount of square footage or whatever the term is that is being done to displace and some rationalization between the two sets of permits. >> okay. what would you - i'm along with that commissioner fung. >> what material would you allow them to provide. >> well, i think i'm asking. >> just the department. >> the department to form a calculation based on the set of recent permits this is doable. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department. >> so, yes, the permit holder can have the building show the full sized plan we'll dimension those out and make a

determination in the 311 determination will be for the interior framing. >> i don't know sorry - from the mr. duffy's department would provide the changes. >> i think we could adjourning work on that with the changes of the version seem minimal. >> it is confronting to know that is the case and confirm 3 didn't trigger the notification of the 75 percent of the removal of the part of building. >> as part that have can there is given two of the units have been already xhundz can there is a reconciliation of the action in those units to affirm.

>> maybe the sheetrock stage it is covered up to determine or determine whether or not the framing is covered up in terms of it was the studs are the framing their the studs that will comply with the framing but we're happy to review those plans and as long as the are permit holder can provide those. >> thank you mr. sanchez and a reconciliation or does dbi side this reconciliation between the plans and what was asked the units. >> it will be department of building inspection. >> just to we are that joe duffy dbi this scope of the work shows the walls to be demolished and what walls to remain as part of rough frame the inspectors are meant to check as that is

part of the plans and only taking out the walls and get an permit instructed by a discretions be notice a revision notice to document the walls to be dooshdz i'm assume and the district inspector that we had a walls removed we're showing on the plans it was done and inspected per the plans we are at sheetrock is just the fact you use the plans approved in 2015. >> if they choose to postpone an action on that tonight and move to the verification please. you can't you have to go off the approved plans not take the sheetrock off the only way from the planning department to measure what was done in 2015 on the approved plans on the percentage of demolition.

>> thank you and one last question inspector duffy all the fertile was removed. >> yeah. for the electrical upgrades blue the 75 percent doesn't effect >> one last question city attorney the appellants attorney mentioned do we have the ability to put a time stamp in regards to the board to work to be performed. >> no. >> i don't think. >> no. >> no. >> no. >> thank you. >> so i'll move to continue the item to april 20th is that our next meeting and ask that the two departments verify between the approved plans and

the revised preliminaries it is sufficing of the walls and any additional changes. >> say the last part again. >> any major or significant changes been the original permit and - >> i will put into the record that was orientated on march 16 we know what we're referring to an that motion by commissioner lazarus commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson commissioner swig okay. that motion carries and that will be on the board calendar april 20th. >> we move on to item number 5 appeal gold star taxi with the muni agency of a color scheme

permit revocation of the permit and we'll start with the appellant. >> ongoing good evening commissioner honda and honorable commissioners i'm heidi representing the gold star taxi company the appellant that boils down to the main question what constitutes good cause to revoke a taxi company they want to dismiss this as a legal technicality we consider due process and sufficient evidence to be more than technical technology cattle's we hope you feel the same sfmta has asked them to revoke on the 17 reviews that are written by the public over the course of 4 years sfmta

asked to you revoke unyou substantiated allegations without any evidence and any due process like everyy hearing sfmta has recycled old citations in a leading efforts to get the board to support their actions we have a problem with the brief of sfmta i prepared a table that i'd like to offer to this board if you'll accept that that in the interest of time and will certainly make myself available to answer any questions and, of course, a copy for sfmta i'll ask to be passed if you'll accept that commissioner honda. >> why not use the overhead and

it we have questions we'll ask. >> i'm going to use the overhead on a trouble and exhibits i'd like to present to this board again in response to new allegations and i think in order for this board to get a full picture please accept this if you would i'll sit that there and let you think about that. >> okay. >> so finally with regards to revocation sfmta asked for a revocation on a safety violation they've defined as gold star having the wrongs phone number on documents that are on file at the same time mit the sfmta has been able to reach golds star by phone and now present a timeline on the offend projector.

>> face that like our viewing that. >> okay. thank you. >> god starring ♪ business for 4 years and under the sfmta radar in 2015 and put gold star probation by may 28 july 2nd after inspecting each and every vehicle an gold stars lot sfmta issued an all clear notice with no citations okay. so over the course of the next 5 weeks july 10th to august 12th sfmta issued more saving these are failure to coordinate were

issued on the same day for the same offense and september 2nd they ask do for a hearing but they adam in a revocation notice on the citations and because gold star had alleging places this public in danger on november 20th the hearing officer heard the case and gold star wanted to know what happened when san francisco municipal transportation agency issued a revocation that was bubbled with the review the hearing officer after the hearing dismissed 6 out of 12 of the citations that were supposed to help to substantiate sfaufts case for revocation the how fast reduced the fines from $70,000 to less than $2,700 skipping ahead here we are with a bunch

of urban substantiated allegations in packages in sfmta brief bearing in mind the sustained allegations we ask the board to focus on those rather than on random arm waving and misleading arguments that are not supported by a citation or any law not to mention die process we would like to give this board good cause to keep the small cab in business they have have been in business for 14 years and not put out of business with civilizations that happened over the course of 3 week half were dismissed gold star invests the

company despite being under seize he a threat of revocation since april none in they're right mind will continue to invest including $4,000 to repave the lot i have the reset for gold star fixed all the vehicles sdishz by invested in money in paving the lot and retandz an attorney me and they did invest in new management nun of the sustained civilizations were related to a failure to respond to an e-mail and failure to submit timely paperwork in conclusion we like to urge this

body 0 overturn sfmta revocation order if you're using this to shut down the companies i have a formula of yellow cab i would like you to look at the item you have before you and i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> or wait for any rebuttal. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. murray. >> good evening, commissioners j jarvis this is gold star taxi company that is held by the permit holder i don't believe the gentleman is here today he's i don't know why but not here so there are allegations

that are made in my brief regarding the gentleman i was hoping he would be here to discuss but regardless regarding this matter gold star has numerous problems under the gentleman permit ownership yes, it has been a company for 14 years in that period held by the gentleman a small company i think one to 3 taxis at the time it self-have any problems but under the gentleman it has grown but it is also grown 2, 3, 4 prlems and those problems were addressed at the hearing the biggest problem which was at the hearing in high papers one being just force the mta's hand regarding gold star inspections it was a failed inspection of one vehicle and the second vehicle - the issue those

vehicles kept on operating one after the inspection was done 4 months on the road a safeties issue no matter that is this kind of issue it if something serious happened we didn't r didn't want to wait but that will be devastating the mta will vet and say to everyone in our code that each vehicle is inspected every year and every vehicle over $200,000 inspected twice a year and these vehicles are also inspected when they change the companies there is a constitution of the vehicles this company choose to ignore it was not clear they didn't had had inspection all we know they didn't have one and this happened with two vehicles in the just one vehicle but both

vehicles and part of this it gold stars mismanagement of the company the overall mismanagement to the communications with the public and the communication with the sfmta the evidence we presented and the things i've mentioned in our brief is not necessarily not in any information this is information that is ongoing ongoing for 3 months or 6 months or next year we'll have a consistent problem with be able being able to reach the permit holder for gold star and you can fix the vehicle one time but didn't mean you stop fixing them 3 or 6 months later they're trying to introduce the vehicles into the fleet that are dangerous vehicles if we didn't inspect them we wouldn't know we're trying to raise the level of standards for many of our

companies our job to insure that the public can trust with the sfmta says it is a good company from the sfmta has approved and vetted the taxi company whether one cab or 10 thousand carvings the public should know if there is a problem is can be and the and the public should feel comfortable knowing the vebz vehicles are properly inspected and the company public should feel comfortable if there's a problem they'll not get the round around who should i talk to and the only numbers are for a couple cell phones for presidio's and good luck that's not appropriate our role to do something when he is a large problem we try to work with every

company as gold star and tried to work with gold star and encouraged their development and pretty much we said go forward and make as much money but when things go wrong it is our job to step in i'm not sorry that gold star feels oppressed by the citations but citations are part of what happens if you have a driver that is operating our vehicle not permitted by us this is a problem for us and, yes an incident that occurred and an incidents i put in my brief as an indication of the kind of things to deal with the gold star cab companies and had an issue with the airport stopped a vehicle for you know in their opinion they blackballed a vehicle not - yes, we'll cite

them and they'll say it is not fair we shouldn't be closed for skipping our violation but good cause under the codes involves a lot of things by any violation of the transportation code i don't think we have to wait for the most severe thing before we closed a company we went to the hearing officer the hearing officer sided us on some issues not others they felt our penalties were too high and not a rubber stamp by the hearing officer this is okay we gave the information to you whatever the outcome obviously the san francisco municipal transportation agency will abide by that outcome i'll say i feel confident that in a few months

if gold star is allowed to keep on operating we'll be back here discussing some issues whether or not they'll claim no small company and the sfmta is going after us we go after any company we're here for the public trust and continue to do that thank you. >> i have a question. >> certainly. >> so the briefs were a little bit different on each does the disparity was quite different so the permit holders attorney laid a timeline of what happens and you were present how accurate in your opinion the timeline she put-down forward. >> in here brief. >> that she - her oral brief. >> i couldn't see that well on the performer. >> can you give him a copy

please. >> because in here oral submissions they stated all vehicles were inspected july 2nd and cleared and the other question that like you said your board is not a rubber stamp but roughly 70 thousand to 2000 that is a significant significant number well, i, explain both of those figures so in terms of the inspection that was equipment gold star didn't have equipment in the vehicles routing we've seen them on the street and not a set of equipment for radio equipment

so what our inspectors inspected the equipment their investigators not mechanics they're the ones that do the annual inspection my inspectors inspected the equipment in the vehicles the other thing was cameras we had an issue with the gold star cameras not working inside of the vehicle and at that point yes, we put them on probation and they accident fix those things and fixed the cameras and got the right cameras and did all those things we cleared for the equipment that was assigned to the vehicles the larger issue the daily amount of fines in terms of the sdpaech we fined them for each day they were not on impeach and each day the car remained on the road without

inspection our transportation code doesn't well, i take that back your transportation code allows for the day 5 but not on those particular citation for instance, a workers' compensation fine a per day fine the attorney i think properly pointed out that well, there's a per day fine here and the manifesting attempted to do the same thing not permitted it is true it is not per day if you add up $300 a day or whatever it i understand up the $70,000 range if you want to fine them you have to fine them for each day and couldn't do that. >> so was think outside the box an error on your department. >> an error in interpretation we believed we could give a daily fine but the hearing officer sdraurgd with us.

>> so at this point you're not allowed. >> we changed the code to allow it based on the civilization we were not that is the way it stood. >> in our brief you provided a lot of pictures but no depression of i mean it is black and white have no idea what this means and close to 70 pictures. >> well, yes their photos of un- and i guess it is supposedly a reset for what's the problem in that picture what is the particular problem. >> not that picture but if you see other ones - and some are somewhat obvious but no

explanation on the particular pictures and the last question sorry my second to the last question what were the failures for the cabs not the specifics you said two vehicles didn't pass. >> correct back up one vehicle never had inspection it was given a date and stickers on the side the vehicles to be inspected they never returned that vehicle for inspection that was one issue and i don't remember that the failed inspection but given an opportunity to return the vehicle it is not you fail the inspection and not come back but fix it and come back. >> you provided in our belief it failed i assume there is a

reason it failed that's the same question you're asking them are the questions we're presenting to you when you say a vehicle failed and not knowing what it gives some bearing so how me personal look at it thank you. >> i have a couple of questions do you routing look at the the yelp reviews you not routing no. >> and the other this year's a most it sfmta put outlets color scheme is revoked how it it allowed when necessary have the right to appeal the revocation. >> well at a point it was after it was revoked by the hearing officer so at the lower hearing it was revoked and at a

point it was not revoked we sent out a notice giving them time but sent out a notice giving them a week i forgot the timing but a notice - they had not appealed they would not be a company and in a lunch so we let ink know we had a hearing it was row revoked start preparing but once they filed the appeal we sent out a second notice with no revocation. >> i didn't see that so thank you. >> any more questions thank you. >> thank you. >> we're going to take public comment can i see a show of

hands how many people expect to speak no public comment? okay. we'll start our rebuttal. >> first of all, commissioners i'd like to say that, yes unfortunately - the gentleman had to attend to family business and not here tonight unfortunately but mel is here and obviously that is an important issue for the family and so they're represented second of all i'd like to address some of the things boy - i'm going to go ahead and take commissioner honda's invitation to put my chart on overhead and really can't see it i'll offer to the commissioners if you like to accept it

and when sfmta talked about for instance, the failure of the vehicle that had been operating the taxicab despite it's previous inspection failure that was dismissed number one and sfmta my mind it didn't know what was going on the agency knew that was going on and records that could have communicated communicated to see from the vehicle was used to transport a passerby but nothing was done and citation was dismissed sfaufl it was trying to raise the level of standards great just codify those new standards so the company knows what to expect if there is a new

standard that says hey, if you fail a inspection we revoke that make that a law so at least the taxi companies know what to expect it is due process no problem finding gold stars number the pages on line of we baby boomers like books they called that number on march 8 i'm not sure what the problem was regarding the inspector of a driver not permitted by us honda has a permit i have a company copy of the gentleman's permit if you want to see it the fact it is white instead of black

really? that didn't matter it expires on 4, thirty and a new allegation we've not hunting u had an opportunity to address good codes there are some given to the drivers i want to see the same support extended to taxi companies to keep of them in business i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> ma'am, do you want to address the second car that never showed up for inspection. >> the second car that never showed up for inspection in fact, one of the allegations there were cars that were routi routine routinely delinquents i'll using the words from the brief that the sfmta presented to the board that numerous citations have been given to this but have you

seen any citations i haven't in fact, not seeing the second notice and this board hadn't seen the second notice which sfmta sent out that said the taxi was in business and engaged the appeals but the bell was rung you can't unring the bell. >> you're not answering the question there were two vehicles one didn't show up one m i a. >> we've not had an opportunity to aid that because the citations were given even though san francisco municipal transportation agency saying their delinquent i've not seen the citations given for that. >> thank you. >> okay. we'll take rebuttal

from mr. murray. >> thank you commissioners, i actually don't have too much more to add regarding the gentleman he was placed out of service in october that was for every single company he has issues and complaint and i know that gold star will pretend they've never seen it and we've cancelled the old card he was caught trying to use the old card at sfmta and stopped him and said you can't use those they looked him on the system oh, you've been blocked since october you need to go back without a separate matter we don't want to skate the rest of the issues those are the

things we routinely deal with with that particular cab company are i want to quickly address a couple of things when writing the brief for this matter i did look at the yelp reviews i was wondering what phone number are they using i know i can contact him by cell phone and their management by cell phones certainly but it is a business number i was looking at only the internet what their number and that's why i hadn't looked those before this is the whole thing about yelp reviews but beyond that the issue f again, we building that the sfmta job to secure the public's trusts regarding the usage of taxicabs if they feel like they're in a taxicab and not

trust and a values reason if we don't push the inspection to make sure our do the right thing and not just about use it is about how they'll operate the company and serve the public that is the primary issue how you'll serve the public safely i don't care how much money it is that will be great frankly hope they do but our bigger issue we tried and tried to work with them we spent a lot of time get it together and the only way to create a system so everyone gets citations we reached a point if you guys can't get it together we'll site you, we did that and someone asked about the timeline the timeline was you know fairly

accurate stieshgd and it's been over a year and frankly nothing has changed their here saying please let's us keep our permit no indication they'll comply. >> sir, did you say before there was a sticker that was placed on every cab that says that is the date you may be getting inspected. >> yes. not an exact day like in front of 2016 something like that. >> so with the references i'm referring to commissioner fung's question about the second cab that didn't or did get inspected when a cab no shows if a cab is scheduled according to that citation on the windows for the first of december and don't show up that's a yes or no situation

no, they didn't show up. >> correct. >> therefore of they didn't get a citation they didn't show up. >> that's right. >> so when somebody says what about the second cab and it didn't show up it does matter whether they received a citation or not because all the sticker on the window said you should have shown up on december now you're in breach. >> for the record the sfmta won't issue that it comes from the people that handles the inspection thank you. >> thank you. >> okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> i have a question for the lady. >> in mr. murrays brief and talked about november 30th he

was going to fix the electrical motorist on the gate and hire people when this happened and pave the parking lot can you tell me whether those things happened or not. >> certainly commissioner first, i'd like to is that the statement was taken out of context it was sort of more the context of what we need to do to stay in best can we make a deal can we you know need to buy all new cars or pave the lot i will say that no new taxicab company in a it's mind would have have found that that cab company invested after the hearing they increased the number of managers, upgraded their equipment as previously mentions as july 2nd all clear memo and paved the half of their parking lot upon which the taxis sit if

you look at the pictures that commissioner honda's what are the pictures depicting one thing that is - struck me the photos showing the alleged unpaved part of the lot is because that is where the drivers park their personal cars so when the paveers came out they were unable to get to that portion of the lot nevertheless, this is a company that make the effort regarding the electrical phil ginsberg the gate not a requirement under the transportation code it is something that gold star hsa had conceptualized something novice, however, you can find in the pictures dig through them there is a picture of the gate and analyst a gate there it does lock and that satisfies the

requirement. >> so, yes they they have not purchased any new fleet. >> any >> they've no idea needed to and having put into the business the amounts of money $4,000 here and $10,000. >> why did they say they'll do it. >> again that statement was taken out of the context as in what do we need to do the vehicles currently run between ages 2008 through i think maybe 2014 something like that. >> and you bring a certain familiarity with the color scheme would you say that number of citations was unoriented.

>> i'll not say that is inordinate - it was a quick failure write of citations the company is trying to he'd those. >> okay. thank you. >> yeah. >> so follow-up on that vufrl that is your business i deal with a lot of cab companies. >> i was this executive director for the cab companies for years. >> there was a flurry not indicative of format what is that telling you in in your opinion a confusion or lack of communication or someone got their feelings here. >> i tend not to speculate i

say maybe all the above you mentioned. >> sure. >> additional questions. >> anybody want to start. >> i'm conflicted. >> we've gone with sfmta many times i think there was a lot of contradictions and they were different from commissioner swig yes, a crop dead time it says november i get a parking citation i forgot and the next thing i know i have a penalty notice and have to pay it having multi cabs is a plus but at the

same time the cab industry is a hurting industry we're ground zero for uber so putting them out of business will not be the best interests but that is my comment. >> the problem is the fact there is probably some issues here indicating that not everything is perfect you know and when i look at it from that point of view then this is not a due diligence excuse me - a process die process issue issue presented as i initially was leading that way but not leon that way anymore. >> from the cab has failed and

you're coming to the board of appeals and mentioned the cab has failed do you think people will ask why that cab failed was a seat belt so. >> go ahead. >> i didn't write the brief (laughter). >> someone want to make a motion. >> i'd like to ask a question of the city attorney. >> do we have only the choice of upholding the rest indication or a continued probation.

>> i'm not the city attorney but not heard the board say anything. >> as things happen no longer be suspended. >> or a number of days my point that is an alternative to revocation within the boards - and i think that commissioner lazarus question in some instances some type of ordinances we have no ability to modify it is a yes or no the question is this one of these are not. >> you're suggesting we have angle option in terms of whether there is a different level of punishment. >> right. >> but i don't know about probation if you explain more of

what you envision. >> take a step back i don't feel this company has worked the best interest of the public i don't want to have a harsh punishment but allows them to have a color scheme does make sense. >> mr. murray you heard what commissioner lazarus is leaning towards maybe you can help with that. >> certainly. >> i think the main issue i'll have is the enforceability any type of option that will assume a probation i mean, i'm

not quite clear for instance, if so a suspension of the probations operations or matt haney they operate from those conditions the issues i'll have if i issue a citation because i can tell you right now there is more coming related to other issues that will be seen by the board perhaps that we're doing unfairly and trying to sabotage it i would want to act fairly and someone to monitor it essentially to be sure that yeah, this citation because they don't have any draech versus hey, guys i swear that is true and a citation to prove that i don't know i'm not certain the

board will trust the mta in that matter. >> from the board had specifically actions they wanted to take they could continue the item and have the parties come back the period and agree on whether certain improvements have been made and certain inspectors have been completed and at a point make a determination. >> as an example move to maintain the suspension for 3 months them to clear all notices and at that point have another periods of 3 months and if they get another notice in those 3 months

- >> one consideration there are a lot of affiliated - they'll not been able to operate under gold stars color scheme during the period of suspension. >> but if we maintain the revocation then they could. >> correct. >> the concern i have i might sounds hard lined that's why i asked the question if you're operating a cab and your operating the spirit of public safety and a member of the public get in our medallion cab you have a responsibility to as the operator to keep that cab

safe and keep it up to a standard as maintained by the mta and a guarantee of that standard is that you complied with getting the inspections to affirm that standard and if we - and so the blaerts yes or no nature that's your responsibility a real big deal if we're lows on that one issue right there we're putting at risk potentially any of us who gets into a gold star cab any tourists from a foreign city lands or otherwise that gets into that cab and assumes based on the fact it is a medallion it is safe and up to standard much

less than a san franciscan i'm sorry that somebody maybe put out of business but more sorry if someone died because there were a safety issue we allowed look at of the flexibility essentially when the sticker. >> but was that a safety issue that's what i'm asking this may be apples and oranges but at the same time the car that stopped before me in mid-traffic and cut 3 lanes ever had a pink mustache and no standard that's what their competing with at least a standard here and to me the question i have is there are two violations one didn't show up and there's a severe violation what's the severe violation and none can answer when it severe violation was i mean that's like me going to the hospital i was very sick and

- >> thank you, mr. murray. >> you give them a pass because their competing with others. >> did they cut you off. >> they'll have a banner on their cars. >> i believe we're not here not here to argue the merits of mustache that cut you off but to augu argue whether the public trust someone that has been given the responsibility as a medallion that is part of that responsibility is that when it sticker says come in on december 1st it is that's the mandated of that medallion and by not coming in on december 1st

whether there is a safety violation or not they are breaching the public trust by not seeing a violation that's why the sticker is there in the first time that's why there is a breech of public trust that is the mandate of holding that medallion. >> medallion. >> i think we should take a motion. >> yep. >> motion to deny the appeal based on the fact that the permit holder did violated the theory responsibility of having a medallion. >> uphold the rest indication

on the basis. >> that the permit holder violated the terms of holding that medallion permit. >> holding do color scheme permit okay. >> on that motion from commissioner swig commissioner fung commissioner lazarus commissioner honda no. >> commissioner wilson okay. that is 4 to zero and it carries the revocation is upheld. >> 4 to one my apologies. >> can i have two minutes. >> after that vote no. >> we'll move on to 6 a

through 6 j commissioner honda shall i call those items appeal numbers all of them filed by diana from the san francisco public works of urban forestry at the appeal of the issuance on february 1st to park merced from trees at the following addresses lake merced boulevard and two avenue and sincerely rerano and resources please wait for the commission to come back and we'll be continuing.

>> commissioners there is since there are 10 appeals we

have conversations with the parties and agreed to a timeline for each side has maximum of thirty minutes to present their cases and 15 minutes of rebuttal on the ground we'll start ma' , ma'amma'am - start. >> so the zeros out, i guess good evening, commissioners thank you for allowing me to present a few housekeeping items that unfortunately, i'm one person not a team of administrators or lawyerss and not go do get copies printed but filed an appeal against the dpw

order that recommended the denials and conditional approvals as an agent of park merced where they held a hearing on december 17th of 2015 i was arrears of the hearing and great they took a step into the community that was an issue the past but dpw involvement in handling this public input in and the ability of the tenants and residents to participate fully other than the 3 minute mark there are several concerns with request the park merced development but the permits are

before you today so i do have housekeeping items one of the maps that i referenced in any belief was inadvertently left out a burn in 2008 and 2009 that was included in the eir so i have that for you all if you want to look at that. >> we're fine. >> all right. i'll put it on the overhead. >> could a i get this presentation on the monitor

please it this - okay. good. >> oil start with new documents that kind of came across any desk this is a tree disclosure statement from the planning department signed by robert actually i'll do the overhead first for a few items that is dated january 7, 2008, and it says that there are almost 5 hundred trees under the bureau of urban forestry or department of public works purview on the property do you see that i don't know from the overhead is on your

screen not on that one. >> oh, can we have the overhead. >> i'm sorry. i'll have to flip back and forth so was was as i understand in 2008, so the gentleman has been involved with that property since at least that time and was aware that he had to follow guidelines related to the care of the trees and following dpws regulations related to the trees that one says there are 200 and 98 street trees he's aware of and on the next page one and 98 street trees that he's aware of and he signs again under various penalties this is available if you want it or if project sponsors attorney

wants it so really that is a question of clarification let's get started i'll do this a little bit different lift ev'ry voice and sing ly by dpw 408dz those permits it limits the public input and the amount of time the public has two or three each and adds an undue burden to process the public comment to make a fair determination dpw issued a single order it seeks to force the public to appeal all 10 permits versus a singled issued permit by the

time to appeal their order in half a b u f tree resolve has thirty days and dpw has 15 days for 10 permits and 997 trees in 10 parcels a lot of information and this is the ownership issues the individual and location issues vary per parcel additionally the inconsistent sisters before the permits and the arborist and representation what they're taking down has issues as well so i tried to you put together a presentation on that as well but if you're - i

mean it is black and white and small print and couldn't afford but i have it and do have it on electronic copy as well if i get to it i get to it but i'll stick with the changes and maybe touch here and there on other things approving offenders or conditionally approving or taking trees out and not doing recommendations for planning on this some and not others is not a great way to document what the city is approving and it certainly leaves the public with questions and it provides an unfair advantage to the project sponsor it is a disservice to san franciscans and the employees

that have to reconcile and put this together and make a determination it really is burdensome versus coming up with a plan a timeline, replacement a timeline what is going first is this i mean this is a 20 to thirty year project why it is done that way is beyond me so projects o project sponsors has violated the regulations has a long history of it i know it went on prior to my moving into park merced in june 2011 but right after the development agreement was signed two trees

from my apartment came down i said what is going on the guy said they're dead they were not dead that's how i got amy start in trying to figure out what the heck is going on and how they're allowed to get away with that and what are the processes so dpws order says urban forestry under urban forestry testimony it says the current project at park merced was initiated by the prior 2011 paroling process it was grant prior to the consideration of san francisco public works tree removal process so basically because they were involved beforehand they get a free pass they don't have to abide by what about when they sell is it peace

mill it off will the new owners - they're part of development agreement will they have to abide by the current i mean to me that is a silly statement and many any case the clarification of what rules apply and clarification somebody who can - mitigate and identity what parked is - the current owners are held to so far as rules and regulations and the - that would be helpful to not waste of time and come to you that is how could you possibly

know. >> if dp f or dpw they've been held account for the new b f regulations for 2011 i'm aware of and this includes not just b u f but the temporary occupancy they're not getting those either i have 19 minutes left i'd like to give you guys a case study to demonstrate my concerns because they have an established pattern for violating eir and the development agreement so overwhelm to clarification of authorized agents oversight ownership and liability i mean, i think we can agree those are

important stuff however, there is no clear path to found out who is responsible for what who is organizing what we've learned here you have to - is that a center that is significant or private property which leads me to the overhead again. >> where this is from the eir that was signed in 2011 and down here i don't know if you can see this green thing here that was included in our packet trees to remain so you have the rephrasing phase one

that has changed substantially i them as anyone that frequency park merced or whatever there is this whole givenlg away hillside to remain in 2011 they agreed that was the eir they're in violation they definitely need the hillside and to the best of my knowledge no soil erosion or any reconciliation of the impact of that because the eir is fine you know it is done didn't nothing on the wildlife except i guess the coyotes moved from there to presidio trust but environmental review and hitting

surrounding cities this is our last-ditch effort to have the sponsor do the right thing or this board to mandate a rehearing but we'll get to that in january 2016 a lot of the landscaping at park merced i don't know how they get away with not getting permits for work on pickup property back to the overhead there was a map enclosed in our packets that had from the eir in

2011 that shows - the public space public open space i hope i brought it hold on. >> was under exhibit c and here it is where the color it is the public open space that is all of it the courtyards and everything now park merced owners, llc were limited liability company version of what exactly they own the development rights, who's land belonged to what is the air belong to but it is a

public-private debacle that has created havoc within the city and within the residents and the owners even they don't know the employees with doing oh, it is private property i get did as i understand to pit people against each other and in the meantime that areas is decimated and killed back to the case study can we get the computer please thank you so, anyway there is questions about permits being post for the work a community garden and all those lovely things and taking down one and 50 trees with zero permits and zero notice to residents but anyway, case study so the labors local 261 is doing it the park merced doing the work the management company the

city, future management e.r. random attendance that rented equipment who's doing the work excuse me - >> between february 6th and 16 the day any appeal was any appeal was due i started noticing. >> huge, huge tree trunks screens up at the top of font and then a frames for what you went to the park no parking and homemade permits and here's some one person in the frame that says no parking which means no permit number or company number one nothing but you can't say park there existing it is coastal paving the names of all

the a frames that are around there is no - it says your car can be towed but in the the company no contact information no if you go that went on in february pg&e's a frames and city of oakland and ranger people lines on a crane a-frame but this guy as permits posted it had his name a coincides with the tree removal company was doing their business and the parking as you can see on the towers on font were blocked off for days 60 spots taken away by this tree company no notice and struggling

with parking to disable the parking no notice who's doing it wait there was a word 0 documents on the bad backside of one of the a frames i was like wow. you know but can't get interest that is roped occupying 0 off with tape but post the professional tree care company the schedule is a following previous residents notification where they're allowing this will be interesting to know who is noticed on that the general contractor says the professional tree company and this co-respond for the emergency or contacts for this

operation it let's the professional tree and 395 that's it no number so, yeah this is what park merced residents have been dealing with for years and more so at times you you know when certain approvals are in place or ready to be as i understand their rode to rock so what does a citizen do call the 311 operator and the complaint will be looked at within 7 business days but what city department is in favor of the documenting and enforcing temporary occupancy permits and this municipal codes now that operator is citizens you back to whatever you need to go and call them and they call you who is

liable if scratch when something goes wrong for this real life case study is the circle so in late february through early march arbor well removed 3 trees with no permits this is private property no temporary occupancy or permits are required; right? a citizen calls bs m the callers are referred to 311 to report the activities the caller calls 311 the employee referred the caller to the city department if they understand which department is responsibly and the person asked to speak with a supervisor that informs the caller their

sending an inspection inspector mommy arbor range is doing their business this is where their parked the middle of the circle or bicyclists or dogs people are strongly or playing they put caution tape around it their doing better and took down 7 trees those are more photos no cones but had a flag but really limited they're parking to the grass and the circle which you know so they wouldn't have to get the temporary occupancy permit i guess but some more photos chopping away using the would do chirp the caution tape prevents the chirp from impacting people that are using the circle so march 5,

2016 a large storm hits san francisco and with less and less supports from the surrounding trees their disappointing the common places of the remaining trees their housing is in risk of failing and relevant zero evidence of pro-active maintenance to park merced have been priority despite requests without those records i'm sure the project manager have diligently have the agents put together and backside accordingly if requested for them they'll provide them and without seeing arbor well, coming to the property to prune those trees despite the complaints of parking ticket for cars that couldn't see the parking signs because of the over growth of those trees

and it leads a prudent person those trees were not maintained ever since 2005 when the ownership changed possibly earlier so a prettiest powerful storm hits and branches fall the fault of the trees they couldn't withstand the high winds and the winds increased did removal of several trees you know natural blocking and rediverting the winds are gone so it is whipping around up that but here's photos of a poor tree that one branch met their demise and the tree is dead inform reason to look at why their

failing fairly taking care of those trees when in reality this tree was soaked by the rains and because it can't be repopulating the pine cones adam extra weight to the branch a strong branch i might add and most likely would have survived from the winds had not been what they were it failed so then it was curious after the storm i took a drive around and olivia trees uprooted three or four trees uprooted with no companion base it was curious and then there was on another street a couple of trees that fell so dead trees at the top of

the hides gave out and people were appealing the removal of trees that's their fault not my fault that's the reason we took down the trees that provided the stability for the groves were not under the purview and failed to apply for permits you know we're not here to say you can't take down the trees we're here to say maintain them do our due diligence and make them do what a individual homeowners do from the b u f didn't like if this was a heck of a and arbor well is back on march and don't see a temporary occupancy permit

march 10 heavy rains again so back and i see the cone and this plywood what's going on there is an a-frame down who's it operationally is it is park merced but no permit in a public right away and half the street and arbor well, was the only vehicle that i've seen there except maybe the motorist home that park merced is now putting out there on tuesdays and saturdays i urge you, you to look at this picture this has been this way since three weeks or 4 weeks this is the sidewalk at wall circle and it is a hazard by the plywood remains the cone remains so it is

critical thinking time who is responsible for the american people disadvantages is arrest bob borrow wells that the the work and most likely caused the work their, llc are they responsible they contracted the work nobody saw the original contract or the taxpayers of san francisco overall it is a public problem shunt the city fix it and the further questions to the gentleman is here i'm not trying to pick on him is he the attorney for the authorized agent or the owner is it a conflict of interest to be an attorney on - i don't know i'm not an attorney but those are questions i need you to think about what authority in san

francisco is responsible for oversight to those activities i've been trying that for 3 years you're the on this people that listen i'm sorry. i'm running out of time as people get hurt as a result of this damage who is responsible it's not clear up it's time to clarify the liabilities and ownership and it is public land i believe without any evidence to the otherwise they have not submitted any ownership information other than what is the development architecture and list but i believe they only have leasing rights to this property that is buildings and facilities whether they have a deal with the city they'll take care of the lands i know the one

lease did based on the residents testimony i'm not making this up but it is - they're requesting one hundred trees without verifying who is liable and the owner and what is the replanting going to happen happen what will be planned the community does have input on that that's what i have thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> good evening commissioner

honda and board of appeals i'll jim council to park merced, llc who is the project sponsor the park merced mixed use project development addressed owner of the property as discussed this evening i think to clarify one of the questions that came up repeatedly this is private property and owned by park merced, llc the property was approved in pursuant to a development agreement a thirty year contract with the city the city is entered into the other planned development projects like treasure island and candle stick point and the development agreement contemplates the prong in phases the trees that are subject to this permit are the trees removed for the first half of the phase one of the project every tree has been approved for removal that is part of the infrastructure under the sewer lines and the sidewalks and

streets or they conflict with the part of development agreement it is district with the location of every building and sidewalk and the location of future infrastructure so this is all contemplated the approvals for the project in 2011 we've glutton and applied for the tree permits under the codes they were processed by beautiful from the ordinance a notice placed on all trees proposed for that a thirty display period and public hearing held we presented to the dwp hearing officer very, very detailed presentation 75 slide presentation showing the reasons for the removal of each tree the appellant has provided no documents this is in error we

have a very lengthy presentation the same thing for the hearing officer but in the interest of time we'll save that thank you very much. >> i have a question counselor. >> you're saying that is private land at this point. >> yes. >> and so the liability will be the park merced, llc if interest were disadvantage or things - and; is that correct the urban forest didn't allow the property owner is the one liable and dispubetween the pro owner by generally dpw they look at the property owner so assess and fine or any problems with the trees. >> so because the appellant showed a picture that the public

right away has damaged concrete and san francisco it is the city's property inform specific qualifications of insurance regarding work that is done the private in the public right away. >> correct. >> so that's specific photo the situation i'm sure the location of that or whether or not that damage is a result the tree removals or other activities i'm sure we'll follow-up and be certain i'll prepare what is happening to that sidewalk is it so unclear if so related to the tree removal bans the location it who wouldn't seem like that was there it was on this common wear and tear on the sidewalk. >> i have another questions i will let the department speak first. >> thank you, mr. buck.

>> chris buck with the ousting i have a recap and perhaps answer questions we have a total of 10 permit applications because the trees proposed for removal are located on 10 parcels of proposed so whatever we issue a permit we'll issue it foyer a parcel of property most trees as stated earlier are in conflict with the proposed the approved new buildings approved radio roadway, approved infrastructure sxhud the sewer lines and changes and also some trees were important addition the totals removal count is 73 trees to be removed and replied

14 trees identified as young enough to be transported some were permitted for removal to you and our department and were the replacement trees their young we'll protect those and have them removed we denied the removal of 16 interests one with a conflict with the curve ramp we're trying to figure out how to work around this last year beautiful tree and come up with an option with the ada folks 15 trees along the terrace boulevard the retaining wall they're not directly within the footprint of one of the buildings we're seeking to remain 15 trees it will require one portion of

the jazz boulevard to have one configuration that planning want in front of the new building we're saying keep an existing configuration we can retain 15 trees along jazz boulevard we worked with the developer to identify any they see e trees we think can be retained as part of development generally the trees are healthy we didn't request to remove the trees the trees are an important addition based on our review of the tenants applications we found that really there is two sites we want to deny the requests to rove the trees they didn't combat the development agreement at the hearing we had in december with over on our posting notice we wanted to air on the side of posting more trees anybody replaced and error on the side as honest a picture as possible

we stated approximately, one and 20 interests will be proposed for removal as you can see the count of 73 and the 14 transported four attendees one of the 4 had a specific issue about a tree within the 10 permits and now the cypress trees along lake merced boulevards those trees with proposed for removal due to sewer lines and roadway re alignments along the western edge of the property and the other 3 that spoke had a lot of general comments again, the proposals in general but not a specific tree we can pout point to and a way to work around this tree one thing that is important to emphasize this project has a development agreement with a number of areas limits the

discretion that the city what calibers for the subsequent approvals after the development architecture was approved the agreements need to be consistent what what was approved under the circumstances we've worked with the developer to protect as many trees that warrant attention for building new roads and extra i'm going saying we don't have much power to deny the removal of trees with a project that is approved i have a few things to mention in testimony mentioned the tree disclosure statement in 2008, that's a good thing we use the tree all the time for an applicant as tent about their project they are aware what trees need to be protected and

the general clarification of who's on first, the appellant diane has a straight line and overwhelmed questions to us we tried to answerable we are that i feel liquor the bureau of urban forestry is the most responsible department she's interacted and as a result we receive issues beyond our purview but try to connect her for example, a parking issue with the permit you know we have jerry of the urban forestry mapping other than the e-mails in a few hours we try to connect all people involved and the departments in 2011 a mention of a change in process i want to clarify in 2011 prior 2011 the planning department will approve a project like a driveway installation like a tree in front of a garage they'll approve that and the applicant

comes to us for a permits around a garage install after 2011 we changed the code so that planning when someone comes to them from 2011 the tree issue conflict now people will refer us to get and now get the tree removed first those trees are protected only now since 2011 we have the conversation up front it didn't mean that trees were given a short tripped prior to 2011 and doesn't mean the process was violated there was a were a number of trees failures and park merced and arbor wells in private property they're not rid or required to get an occupancy

permit and the cones needs to be directed to another depended and in general i'll reiterate we take concerns of illegal tree removal severely and work with the members of the public diane and have received protests for the removal of dead trees and in all fairness i think that is a legitimate contractor trying to do his jobs they need a permit to work somewhere to sort of blocks people from removing a dead tree by appealing a tree occupancy and asked us for a lot of information we're open to that we want to be advocates for the trees but you know people need to maintain the trees and it is a judging act with that, i'll again summarize we have a development agreement that

really limits alot of what i'll say our typical process of approval and denial with that said, those trees most of them are the footprint but roadway changes that occur we don't have a lot of trees to work with in terms of denying and making them that's all i have prepared for this evening so far. >> thank you >> mr. buck the developments agreement does that specify that changes for the master plan requires a review. >> i - and for example, they did count master plain saw way back that was laid as a concept they'll do their

approval to get a detailed study it didn't necessarily follow the same pact when you had a detailed study or engineering report. >> i'll not comment i think that the permit holders probably would be appropriate to comment on any sort of issue related i don't won't have information. >> mr. buck so what you're seeing e surveying there is a development agreement that is a specifically what we can and cannot do what was specifically said in regards to the trees because prior to you being the city representative arbor wells and others have been here doing many things to be honest were not nice. >> i have been directly involved with park merced since

2007 when it came to in light to move the trees prior to 2007 we don't know what happened prior to park merced none came to ply for a permit but when they illegally removed them in 2007 i'm the right-hand man and the senior inspector. >> followed up on all the inquires some acceptance by arbor well and park merced to determine where the right-of-way whether the trees were sixth and in the right-of-way but if you can repeat our question. >> you mentioned earlier a tree count we're limited to we as a board can make them comply the question would be was there

a specific - do they have to keep an x amount of trees and why is the permit necessary. >> there is limitations on what the department can do. >> the developments we can also have the permit holder talk about the development agreement it is essentially creates a pathway for a developer for a pertaining to know that the next thirty years the overall master plan agreed to they'll be able to reasonably pursue that without a discretionary roadblock and assume the capital improvement and have a certain expectations about what is allowed so specifically it is not my sense that specific trees are mentioned in the development agreement what is mentioned what they're planning on doing and

the eir ceqa that will talk about specifically hey those trees will be impacted so the development agreement these are the buildings we'll build and the roadways this is what we want to do as part of development agreement. >> the follow-up will be we can't say - there is a pattern that effects the foundation that is fine but the existing trees what responsibility to maintain the existing trees i remember a tree came down and squashed someone. >> the fatality was over 10 years ago it was the sandy hillside a challenging sites for tree maintenance they c they can pretty much trees on private property are i don't understand 10 feet from the public right-of-way have no protection the city has

jurisdictions over private right-of-way e.r. trees within 10 foot find right-of-way so and trees on private property it is up to park merced management to determine what they're going to do with those trees. >> but when it it public safety or the city get involved i drive past that street and see half cut trees lying on the side of the hill. >> they have jurisdiction over the trees we see a tree that is leon or dead we get involved but not in private property has to be an egregious we'll director their attention and the city sent a letter to the property

owner and said as a reminder trees on private property are our maintenance for your responsibility. >> there were 4 attendees for the presentation and regarding to notification what was the reminded for notification. >> well, we in this case we had 10 permits we post for thirty days leeds much to a hearing that's what we did we posted the trees and polled we post a number of light poles on the individual blocks a thirty day hearing notice we combine the four - sorry the 10 applications so we can get - we also i should say had a single dedicated hearing for the 10 cases we didn't have it as part of 8 to 10 case agenda we had a special hearing where all the

cases were heard no idea how many people attend one and 50 but prepared for as many people to come that was the process we definitely feel the most importantly it is to me public works wants to pick sides we want to make sure the permit process was was uphold we're striving to do and been doing with park merced and thank you very much. >> thank you. >> oh, i'm sorry can we have a - >> 2 minute break. >> okay. we're reassuming the board of appeals and going to take public comment on items 6 a there j can i see a show of

hands come up and speak thank you. >> good evening commissioners my name is john i'm a managing partner of park merced shopping center has nothing to do with with the parked owners of the property i want to comment on the tree removal i've been watching them do the removal and i have to say they've done it in a professional way like carefully making sure that everybody is safe you know and protecting everybody's safety you know, i had my wife you know we owned a building i mean a business in the shopping center

before we were part owners on green brotherhood way a tree fell down my wife 5 men's after that tree feel she was ahead and going to the bank and you know it was dangerous tell her some trees on park merced i don't know how many that are dangerous too heavy the beetles have eaten them and the removal of them were warned for the safety of the public and as you saw the march rainstorm in san francisco all over the city trees are falling that are heavy and didn't seem dangerous at some point but all of a sudden did one incident in 1995 when we were in the occupying as a tenants in park merced shopping center i parked my car the parking lot and one

of the trees the eucalyptus tree fell and indexed it was a a pretty big heavy tree people get upset cabin tree removal but safety is an important part of remove trees they're doing a wonderful job i think you should allow them to continue and let's get it done thank you. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hi my name is a larry juicy edmond i'm a medical marijuana person so trees literally saved my life i was in d.c. 16 years in bush and their presents i think that you have 75 trees removed and only 3 are dead

i think if you know the history of trees no trees in golden gate park but grace grew i happen to know that mom brought lips from australia on scott street i'm looking at all the trees that are taken i go out to city college where i went to school and the trees are very popper and katrina they wouldn't have suffered if they had trees near the equator it gives us our medication and i think that taking the trees that the streets will be significant trees actually, i think you

should be growing medical marijuana trees out there and the downtown area because it is so important that trees would not have been appeals on mason that's why you have walgreens and rite aid's all our medication comes from trees we himself need to not take trees seriously and we will have global warming and the importance of trees in san francisco is significant whether redwoods, pines, or i don't know how many trees you're taking out a distilling i don't think and eucalyptus and other trees he can't pronounce but lexington and palms the john birch that's a lot of - 3 years ago we planned a monterey pine tree on

earth day you can go to see the trees and i think that is market but planet of set african you need medical marijuana that overtakes other things like heroin and so we need to respect trees i hope you don't take away 75 trees when there is only 3 dead trees so we have a green world. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> hello, everybody told me i'm educated republican i've been in park merced over 21 years and i understand that we've come to change in park

merced and the project is forwarded through many, many legal appeals i accept that i understand i happen to be right at ground zero but it is literally i sleep on that corner and so watching the trees comedy thinks they do given the project is given the green light certain trees will be removed to continue to build in the way they want to build i'm here at that microphone i drove down from park merced this evening i care about those trees and really, really, really get a lot of subsequence and annuities when i moved to park merced i could look at my asked it is more emotional than legal nothing you can change i wanted to make my statement he felt

good and came and spoke i ask the people of park merced they've been responsive and noise to meet and going to their meetings and asking about the trees not near may residents and they were nice enough to get an e-mail i respect and appreciate i would ask that since this project has been detailed for so many years and continues to has delays not cut the trees down until construction i'm seeing the wood chirps and we don't know when the trees will be cut down but leave them up until they mo mo must come down. >> any other.

seeing none, you're up >> all right. >> all right. where do i go where do i go

thanks so essentially the gentleman said it is private property and it was probably based on a register situation 99 years that's why it is a 20 or thirty years i get that and get that the time is coming up before they have to - so they can continue subdivide and whatnot but build the rattlers before anything comes down that is the technical agreement they threw the word technical any building no demolition until the relocation units we're here for the trees

and that last are public commenter said do they have to cut them all down at once so brutally i understand what is involved but again you're dealing with 9 thousand san franciscans that rents who are paying our mortgage that maybe not at price tasered we're move on to issues with the permits consisten consistences between the applications i respect and said that chris has work hard with park merced and holding a hearing but we really the hearing did nothing because what

came out of that was that the original application has nothing to do with with the order that came out of that trees went on and trees came off there was - it was mind boggling i appreciate the effort but let's see so permit one of the tree removal application owner park merced and contract arbor wells for the number of trees to be removed one okay so the conceives report listed 20 tag trees on the public right-of-way and the dpw order seeks to remain two significant trees to basically the order didn't line up and sciences report didn't line

up with what is actually there i think project sponsor may have given them to instructions to report on trees part of development with the new blocks and lots so not complete and b u f and b w trees to be removed and the rows for replacement no number of trees or types only a row no timeline only a row of trees and who is responsible for maintenance of them afterwards two that would be great for clarification if anything comes out of this hearing so those are pictures of parcel one and taken photos of trees the right-of-way and few left there is 5 actually

actively 4 one tree that is - so this is 3 of them here's the fourth that's a duplicate picture of one of the 3 and a fourth where the horticulturelists sign shows 3 trees were there too of them illegally removed it must have been the san francisco entertainment commission storm pulled them out of the ground and the head rows are considered a street tree the birds make nests throughout park merced that are surrounding the buildings and whatnot then you, see trees their clear cutting trees the planter box gone it is part of rogue tree removal company the care whatever it is

all the hedges around this parcel everything green with the expectation of the grass and yeah. this is the last private tree on that parcel and the others are street trees that requires a permit so basically two japanese black pine are on the chopping block the permit holder has one right arm on the application if you look at all the applications every single has a simple tree 24 inch don't block the box as a replacement tree that is what can i get a copy of the application that is what i have so this is what people assume are approved to my left is at the dpw a matter of

city record it is there's go go back accounting working out the permit holder should be reasonably on the fact of the matter with what they're doing they put in an application for one i say approve the one have them relocation the tree with the other 4 and no reason for removal of these and, in fact, the eir there are several trees that are slated for relocation but seems like the small trees or the few replacement trees that have died because of the lack of maintenance and care to the trees is at issue the peers the park merced will

that, llc hired a guerilla tree person to take out the trees and the hedges home to small birds the application indicates that 24 inch box a replacement tree that is inadequate clearly inadequate this is permit two already so the permit two - yeah. when they say it goes against the development agreement i think any prudent person agrees not doing the right thing making you do the right thing is not a violation of the development agreement the development agreement was as i understand and the planned change from a time and when they

change kind of like the 25 percent with the is planning department this arrest interest number it should going to the planning director for an annual report before the boardf supervisors and at that point who you know to approve or work with somebody it should go to a meter or mitigate our or something that handle this and the certainly this is an easement that scripted phrase is private property is abused for too long let's get the documents bring them up that's all i'm asking for for every time we're here just tell me you know and the city didn't have anybody who

is responsible for mitigating this entire project so i'm going all over the case okay permit 2 they submitted the application to remove the medium at lake merced boulevard it ap m is not non-existence is again, a city owned medium who's the owner and if so is arbor well, an authorized agent of the city in this capacity why 33 are they submitting that with parked or park merced with the liability it goes back to the lady got hit by a tree the trees are dangerous who is responsible who picked up the tab did that family get resolve or what was it who's responsible for maintaining and why didn't they

maintain it was it private property mates u.n. acceptable public safety is at risk not because of trees but the people that are supposed to maintain the trees have not been managing them sorry off any soap box it is misleading those applications being submitting are misleading have the city and private citizens do their work for them i can seek out information anytime i want with the city department i tried to i have a lot of friends and families that not family that live in parked by friends they're close friends like family i don't want them to get hurt and get the section 8 eviction notice or their rent is up one thousand dollars in thirty days oh, yeah, the

process we this the wheels of justice are slow but all i'm asking for to take a breath and not approve any of these permits don't need to come down right now don't need permits approved for building okay permit number 3 mr. hester's they seek to rove 8 trees the conceives reports listed 13 significant trees the feshgs eir listed 8 trees and dpw orders per the order project sponsor will remove 8 significant trees and the b u f has 9 trees for them so dpw recommend the approval of the remove o removal ever one tree not on the application in

exchanges for the retaining the 8 trees until the next phase or until an undisclosed time inform refurbishment trees, no you know - so they get a free pass not for maintenance for that the trees not paying for permits or paying for the liability the staff time it takes to bring this to you here you do the work and we'll chop down the trees and pay the cronies basically those are rid he would with similar issues and inconsistent too i would really like to get to a different thing i have two minutes left here it is for you to look at one and 50

trees were taken down in two weeks not part of 10 applications b u f did their site visit before that happened and made you know recommendations based on trees actually being around then after the hearing and after the final orders of february one that company came in and chopped down one and 50 trees on their private property even though the sidewalks behind the public uses them this place is open to the public with the thought building excuse me - >> so here they are using the a framed with the homemade permits and people are walking around while these guys tenants with or trying to drive up to

the garage there was no notice 72 hours notice of that activity and you know then another tenant pulled up behind them they can't base they're taking down the trees the one tenant tries to back up the other tenant is honking at them they want to park too nobody knows what's going on it is not good that sidewalk incidents critical thinking we need a chart we need something in writing who is responsible for what and if not a bond to cover this activity the quality of air since they removed over one trees with it is in the eir that is a health concern this project - it was with the entire brotherhood way

hillside remaining just because it was as i understand didn't mean we can say oh, embed it was signed they've changed it and they've changed it horrifically. >> thank you. >> okay rebuttal from the permit holder. >> good evening jim counsel to the permit holder park merced, llc i wanted to send the rebuttal answering a few questions from the board in particular commissioner fung the question about the development agreement and the the document of the development agreement non-material amendments can be done by the agreement of the project sponsor and the planning director so in this case, the amendments with respect non-material they could be

approved by the director of dpw there be material and require a aboarder approve by the city administrative or the others involved the project i also want to clarify those removals were not done for aesthetic purposes are it would be nice those are trees that conflict with utilities probed in the advertisements agreement and building and 19 trees we've owned and had removed from the basis from the discussions of what we worked out ways of incorporating those trees into the plan that didn't conflict with the development and mr. buck mentioned 16 trees were disapproved didn't conflict and

misgivings and considered this board decided to work with the phases and incorporate them before this has not been a rubber stamp of every tree to be removed and a good amount of deliberations what conflicts and does not i want to clarify the tree that killed a person ♪ the year 2000 on bro brotherhood way under the pressure ownership and starting in 2007 there has been annual tree inspections by the annual - part of the reason that trees have been removed american people infestation the beetles cause it to fall over and rather than having them fall over on this is an own the project sponsor removes that is that an important thing to mention those are all the

comments i have i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> i have a question about the timing. >> yes. >> how soon do those trees need to come down are they coming forward a long time before the work. >> it is a difficult question we have a wide variety of permits that are going to the city for example 5 sites and 4 building projects two final subdivision maps and two screening permits that go to the city all the time we're progressing them as fast as we can the reason it succeeded other projects that is between april 1st and october 1st there is things that needs to take place to protect the birds nesting we're trying to rug the impacts we're going to consensus the

construction or instruction as soon as we can in the fall and permits that have been filed with dpw and shows the location and the nature of those processed with the city the short answer we removed the trees that have been removed to avoid the birds nesting season that that is approval the project and xhengsz the construction of the building and the construction as soon as we can. >> you'll not make the april one city council and no, no, no. >> did that mean none of the trees come down from the fall. >> that's could be the case we'll wait subject to the permit that's my understanding this permits beulah's for 6 months if

we consensus after august 31st we'll have a valid permit we can't wait too long after that. >> that will consensus with the work otherwise the trees will still be there. >> yes. >> can perhaps i can follow-up that goes in a slightly different direction in the fall are there any master plan changes or design changes which lead to remove of some of the trees you. >> no one there is been no amendments to the planned documents whatsoever except with regards to signage 94 nothing was amended for the parking structure nothing of that nature we stuck to it to make sure we

came together on all this. >> any more questions. >> you've been the most clearest person if park merced i appreciate that. >> mr. buck any rebuttal. >> please step forward. >> good evening chris buck urban forestry of san francisco public works just to addressing some of the information was provided applications are a good starting point we evaluate each tree application and make sure to verify what is in the right-of-way and the significant tree and beyond significance trees zones that's why the numbers will change a resulting decision is 9 pages long we try to explain the basis for the removal of each the trees within the 10 applications so there is

a lot of details in the 9 page recap and really just wanted to address no permits application fees were waved or not charged we assessed all the tree removal fees required and you know really just to do a close evaluation of the application if you have any questions i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> question and comments first of all, i was impressed with the detail the aboard eerie felt it is tree by tree it this one of the largest tree removal applications that you've dealt with i mean this many trees at one time. >> it is definitely up there headed our way will be valencia there are hunters point and

candle stick point a number of trees there and it is a challenging challenge when the project is approved you want to get in there and fight and protect the trees a lot of the fight happens during the planning process the public says wait a minute you have to protect those trees. >> do you feel wooul you've gotten a good response from the project sponsor this one can stay and this one - and i neglected to state the 20 trees they applied for didn't need to be removed and pursuance brunt. >> some before brown and during the review they said you know what there was a give and take. >> i'll say that is a deft you

know those are different contacts than the contacts on the park merced going on martin luther king and be riders to plant all the replacement trees before we'll sign off on this job that prevents people from entering there is a 5 to one replanning department and advocate for replacement trees if they're getting away with something that is wrong we don't penalize someone with an approved project. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i was really impressed by the echo commissioner lazaruss

thorough tree by tree diligent and according to everything that i exempted if a diligent activity so and i thought there was a good partnership between the developer and the bureau of urban forest so i would be in support of sustaining those permits. >> i would concur. >> agreed. >> want to make a motion commissioner swig. >> something else my quota is one day. >> i'll move to deny the appeal and uphold the permit and on the basis they were properly issued and to incorporate the finding that our director pointed out us with in

regards to the eir. >> okay. maybe if you can pop those on the overhead for a second then we have a motion from commissioner lazarus to deny the appeals and uphold the permits on the basis they were properly issued with the adoption of those on the overhead commissioner fung commissioner honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig that that motion carries 5 to zero and commissioners there's no further business before the board tonight. >> yeah..

>> i'd like call this meeting of transbay joint powers authority to order monday, april 4, 2016, doctor call the roll madam secretary you'll note director sartipi

will not be here director gee commissioner kim director nuru and director harper mr. chairman we have quorum i'd like move to the next item. >> yes. please item 3 at this time, members of the public may address the commission ami i've not received an indication members of the public wanted to address you on your calendar. >> yes. the meekly will go into closed session with the code we've not received a member of the public wishes to address you if you want to go ahead and clear the >> all right. the board of directors did special meeting is in open session and . >> to