so damn if you do damn if i don't. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay public comment can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak under this item. >> okay. i'll ask you to do a couple of things line up on the far side of the room and if you haven't filled out a speaker card do so before or after you speak and hand to other collect the person to speak step up to the podium. >> so two minutes. >> i'll do any best. >> good evening my name is dr. evelyn rose fwlerp i'm - the residents of any neighborhoods are the ones that know their neighborhood the collective

voices on nordoff street has been loud and strong for the past 15 months those neighbors one hundred strong are in keeping this at its location and opposed to remove it 10 different neighborhood associations who have signed petitions to protect this tree neighbors have signed the current written e-mails to the city and overwhelming support to protect this beautiful redwood and keep it in hits current location commissioners please no personal interest in helping to maintain the character of our neighborhood or protecting the redwood monarch that is to the neighborhood glen park has a activism since the 19 hundred

have ripens to ask for equal assess and find a way to obstruct the freeway invasion and once again to protect the safety of those homes and trees in close proximity to this move one husband calvin built this in 1908 is honored by the neighborhood as one of the urban forester outlet community activists and established in 1908 and ladies lead the activities the history glen park activism grins with the historic stillings home in the redwood monarchy is helping to establish the spirit of. >> thank you your time is up. >> he /*.

>> next speaker. >> good evening. i'm eric i reside at thirty stillings director opposite the rear yard of norway off the department of public works declared this tree to be significant pursuant to the passage of board of supervisors a significant tree located within 10 feet of public right-of-way and meets one of several criteria with size bus the common factor in any designation is they're close to the street that's why a large tree is significant it is because it can, seen from the sidewalk and enjoyed from the sidewalk it operationally is on part of visual environment of the streets in this case, the most striking feature of that part of avenue in you move a icant tree away from the street 85 feet away it takes

away the since and what's the point of go designating the tree this remove sets a bad precedence to preserve the significant trees the sponsor states their brief at the removal and replanting allows the tree that residences much the visible project in advance but how can it be that way when there's a 4 story building straightaway it and o dissipating it and in fact the neighborhood enjoys this that will be destroyed matters in the the title of the tree will be retained but meaning also this is significant many people sfwak with that tree. >> outside my window it had

destroy the character of a neighborhood entirely please reverse this thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker please may i have the overhead please. commissioners i'm i live on stillings after across the street from the tree one of the the key points removing the tree the only way to put 4 units on the site this is simply not true for the relocation applying f states you can vary the lot slogans it is 1 hundred square feet per lot a blind movement to design homes as cluster development group housing around

landscape amenities i can't that on intersections of a better site around stillings section f allows this to happen and the sponsors earth all firm is the right one to do this from the sponsor didn't like cluster how about the dwelling unit in section c-4 the space that - it is eligible a unit that is affordable by design if you read the sunday paper you may have seen two important articles with an the plight of san francisco school teachers moving out of the city and the other was an accessory units supervisor peskin is in the process of making the accessory provisions favorable citywide they're with 9 history house on norwdoff - a

for senior and retired teacher with the san francisco public schools one of those options will help san francisco so have affordable housing none of those have been by the sponsor and . >> thank you, ma'am, your time is up. >> >> next speaker. >> asking for it. >> overhead please. okay good evening. i'm greg he live on according con go a block from our redwood tree the process that is followed by dpw

and the sponsor lacks transparency fairness and common sense in any limit time i'll try to raise two points it appears the urban forestry council has been shut out of the process this is the document that shows section for public works code and shows the duties of urban forestry to make the recommendations to the director on appeals of applications for tree removal and then this from the environmental code the scope of the authority the urban forestry council subsection 3 it shall consider the issues that retails to trees on private property the urban forestry council has not been sought in contradiction and contradictory to the entire purpose of the urban forest council and moving to a different point i find harsh and hate to see that happening the decision to approve the application seems to

have been made before the application was submitted to a non-public input before it was made and removing the hand of transparency i hope you see are a couple of e-mails and friday, october 30th the project sponsor informally submitted the application even though the rules require the application in person with a fee paid and the language applies it the discussion was discussed in advance on monday november 2nd early in the morning dpw staff said they'll approve the application for less than one - this whole process took place i hope you see something wrong with. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> >> next speaker. >> please. i'd like the overhead please.

thank you commissioners for entertaining any comments i speak as a concerned citizen and neighbor that live these on intersections the same block and speak as a member of the california bar that values procedurally fairness the sponsors brief states the discretionary action subject to the california environmental quality act and deals with the situation we believe he's one thing wrong on both accounts of the public works code sites 9 purposes for the urban forestry ordinance and letter g to recognize that trees are part of aesthetic environment and their remove removal of important trees should be with the correct dialogue with the california environmental quality act this specific purpose was added by this board of supervisors in 2006 to document why the tree

legislation was ceqa was not an afterthought when the ceqa documents for this project was completed last year only contained the tree removal a evacuation of the site as construction the relocation that requires up to 5 hundred cubic yards of evacuation so dig a hole large enough to accommodate the man made basis it is attached to the tree the sponsor indicates in his brief the 50 cubic threshold is applied you see this down here this is not true in san francisco the 50 cubic are threshold applies to every lot with a slope of 25 percent or more the guidelines changed from an average over the 20 percent 20 percent on the lot as you can see from the check list the term average is removed from

the check list. >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> next speaker please. state your name for the record susan. >> next speaker >> have the overhead please. commissioners good evening nominees a tom christian i live on north avenue a half block away from the property i'm a native san franciscan went to high school and raising my family here and i on intersections we have a chance to save the character of the neighborhood it is important to the neighborhood to retain that the graphic on the machine here is page four of the sponsors brief he himself quotes public works section 8, 10 action only referencing has to do with with

removal no section 8 a with the authority over planting of significant trees the reference 10 a is for removed so this is either a relocation that must be denied because dpw has no authority to permit the rezoning or a removal which was previously - the second graphic is let's see here - >> highlighted in yellow down here section 806 stated the directors action shall be final he was denied did permit last year the sponsor appealed and went to a hearing how many times does he get to apply to the same permit type that causes questions those call records and e-mail logs that was put on the screen were

shocking seeing those showing all the calls not returned and e-mails and the lobbyists getting respond to was shocking you have call that into question commissioner honda - >> (laughter). >> thank you. >> next speaker please. >> i'd like to use the overhead please. >> hold on a second your overhead is up and down. >> face it is as though you're looking at it. >> oh, i see. >> surprise. >> reset please thank you. >> commissioners good evening this is my agenda we live on congo street

we have standing before you to emphasize the developers have a huge credibility problem what they're saying what we do to support the ken tension that has a history of declaring bankruptcy thai they have liens and restraining orders we stand before you because of history of the section and the bankruptcy because of the nordoff, llc was heading on the project this project was full of problems the mortgage company filed for breech of the contract and specific performance and judicial foreclosing it was stopped bus of the improperly

permits making disadvantage and ufltd the property was taken and the contractor had a history of - a problem of developments that james has federal and state taxed and multiple lions and foreclosures on given avenue and penalty railroad approved by the board of supervisors when the judgment were made he declared bankruptcy the deceptions continued the plans by the nordoff that the - >> can we have. >> this is an area. >> overhead the tree size. >> ask for the overhead. >> can i have the overhead please. the reis the witted canopy is across this area 32 times the size and half the companion.

>> i'm sorry your time is up there we go. >> i'd like the overhead please. i'm jennifer for the record second the developer pa claims by resolving the redwood no cost to the construction it is unlivable the redwood fragile is only one foot unaware away from the foundation the true canopy overlaps with the depiction of the - third, the house at 49 stillings is 39 feet the canopy is 45 feet wide the branches will not be trimmed but the trim is testified they're not going to significantly cut back the branches of the tree figured out this is really where i want you you guys to focus it turns out the sponsor fabricated for - we'll directing your

attention to the projector the sponsor submitted 22 letters for removing the redwood tree those letters are not from neighbors 12 more than half from other real estate brokers and spouses monthly in the project sponsors cold well banker office and from other contracts this includes letters from the project sponsors family and more concerting the second time the letters were submitted with the appeal the signatures don't match someone signed those letters fabricated both times why are redoing this we want you on the board to exercise caution this sponsor has not proven itself to be successful with the prior developments that didn't

require the relocation a much more serious undertaking and second reiterate our request for bond support because - >> okay your time is up. >> now thank you. >> proerj please. good evening, commissioners my name is a james i'm the - i live directly across from the tree there is no relocation permitted for significant trees only a removal permit that was denied and not denied filed under the public works section 3 c in the sponsor wanted to take on the volunteerly relocation the time was done at the previously schedule under 9 removal of

permit denial the sponsor says that refers to a section that green house gas emissions the authority to dpw to regulate the removals and planting that is for the authority for relocation second 8, 10 a only allows the removals not allow planting the word planting is not mentioned once in section 8, 10 a my graphic of 806 b rather 806, 10 is for the progressing fee the dpw to authorize the removal it states only covers street trees planting that's in the public right-of-way not private it says the appropriate form must be used the sponsor has not applied

for a sponsor form and not in those provisions are authorized the relocation of any tree much less a significant tree on private property the removal of tree must be denied the time and place to talk about taking on the conditions of loopholes was at the previous denial if this new removal of a tree - >> thank you for your comments your time is up. >> thank you next speaker please. >> good evening commissioners i'm stuart i live on congo around the corner i walk under this tree everyday i just want to brought to your attention to a few misleading false statements in the sponsors brief

month have been touched on the sponsor starts out stating the reason for removing the trees is for the health and longevity i think the real reason we should register the plan to remove a second and dangerous tree was denied my second point they state twice the tree residences it's visible prominence trigger not only shows you have to be thirty feet away the sponsor says there's support by 22 letters of support i'll not touch if you go into the immediate neighborhood you'll find support for keeping the tree the tree is under stress due to an inadequate

water supply that is because of the drought and states 6 to 8 feet from the sidewalk those measurement are not quite right and should be checked a justification for moving the activities can damage the root and true but digging it up and moving that 58 feet neither will taking the proper prognosticates and they site the executive drifshg to unreasonable impacts on residential development i'll note that prioritize 100 percent permanently affordable housing and those are not that. >> thank you for your time. >> next speaker please. >> thank you. >> good evening, commissioners

i reside an nordoff immediately in the vicinity of the current development in question relocating the existing tree pose danger for any and the properties with a falling branches and so forth i on intersections the tree will be better where it is right now in terms of community appreciation of the tree and i suggest that we should give attention to that. >> thank you. i have a question your at 69 nordoff street your property is directly behind the tree that is removed. >> right this is the demonstration area and that's my property here. >> and this is the property in

the back so actually, i will be in conflict that the relocation. >> so is the tree would be next to a building or next to your rear yard. >> if that had been in the rear of the existing development in conjunction with any property i will be impacted by it. >> okay. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> other public comment? any other public comment on this item >> okay. seeing none then we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant you have 3 additional minutes. >> can i have the overhead. >> seeing here the trees from a photo in the 1900s were in the area wooded area back then commissioners, i want to begin

any word with the urban forestry staff in their e-mail which he we got through the public records quote we're losing a significant tree the tree will exist but no longer be considered or considered significant hidden by a total of three houses then continues we can stick to our original denial and have the tree remain where it is end quote the decision to grant that was clearly not in concerted with the recommendations not legally authorized and no carefully administrative standards and not subject to environmental review it was the decision was made before the paper application was filed and made it was made for an application type of that didn't exist a legal challenge cried out advertise it i'm sorry, i have to speak from my heart i'm going

to disheartened i'm a proud san franciscan and lived in the city when the director of dpw denied the redwood permit it reconfirmed we're a community full of folks more than maximizing investigators profit when i heard who the urban forest was i - the decision was reaffirmed i was shocked what makes it worse looefrg e leon about the backroom negotiations hillside in the public the system that allows 44 e-mails because it is possible not because it is do the right thing to decide that a significant tree was two important to remove at one point and then now not worthy for the public to enjoy we adjoin with the neighbors of the groups around the tree in

obviously to have this redwood tree removed he leave with i the words of staff of the urban forestry i on intersections this is they can pull off something like that but you do not why waste those resources when it may not be possible to retain the tree and continues from a sustainability statement- is from a sustainability why invest in the watering just to pull off this transplant thank you. >> thank you, mr. gains. >> a question. >> do you want to tell us who the authority was of that memo you quoted from. >> if you want me to i will it was chris buck. >> thanks. >> thank you. >> okay. >> mr. cox.

>> i wanted to speak mostly about the health of the tree itself as it currently exists i mean you've heard all kinds of dimensions from the sidewalk you need to know also there is a stairstep going down the side of the tree that is also constricting it's roots that was planned you asked how would the tree it is 70 so 75-year-old but lived in a constricted with the soil for the tree to sustain itself it is amazing it made it through the drought through there was rain in the process of transplanting the tree we do some corrective bruno u pruning in the canopy of the tree it was

broken 3 times in the top i do not know if from winds or degrading woods but that will be corrected and the root system in moving large significant trees that are sometime 5 hundred and one thousand years old i've moved trees 2 thousand-year-old by setting them in a new environment and giving them a maintenance procedure a 3 year maintenance in place those trees can regenerate new roots and gives them a second lease on life whether or not you let me elect to remove the tree if it stays in its current position someone needs to do something mainly water it i'm not from this area i find the poling all the people are concerned and nobody is give e given it a

gallon of water in the last 5 years the long term benefit of this tree so preserve it. >> my name is jim keating with the 5 nordoff, llc i wasn't planning on speaking but i want to let you, you know, i'm a lifetime san franciscan and live and work in 2, 3, 4 town since 16 and been involved in construction i'm 45-year-old i've built literally over hundreds of units never had a problem yes when the housing crisis i got hurt but never had a problem with going back on promises if i known that testimonies was coming i could have brought people with me i made promises to - i wanted 0 clear that up thank you. >> i have a question for the

tree guy - sorry permit holder. >> tree roveer sorry, sorry. >> i didn't see pictures of the site are you able to transplant without assess from the adjoining property owners. >> yes, sir. >> not on their properties. >> not at all in fact, we have a new banned method we actually can transplant very large and this tree will weigh in the neighborhood of one hundred 60 to two hundred thousand pound we do that through a unique method of airbags. >> okay as long as any other question i mean so i can get a sense we know this is about money.

>> sure. >> what is the cost involved in moving a tree this size. >> typically and tree this size will move for 75 to $100,000. >> thank you very much. >> okay rebuttal from the department ms. short anything further. >> carli short public works a couple of points i'm going to finish reading the last statement that was read in an e-mail to chris buck to myself after saying we could stick with our decision to deny and state our preference to have the tree remain where it is the final sentence not read out loud the public works gives the director of public works i want to

clarify seems like maybe some misunderstanding the bureau of urban forestry is we work for the direction of public works and the code gives the public works the authority to make those decisions we hope he does that bans staff recommendations but ultimately the directors i would note that i on intersections if there is a little bit of selective read of record they submitted an e-mail and that i had written to the director regarding it is clear that the project sponsors in preparation for the previous board of appeals hearing proposed to the director a relocation the initial intent come to the board hope to have the department in agreement as often the board send this it out to reach an agreement their intent can we go to the board

with an agreement the director asked us to review it he believed this was possible and support of relocation of the tree at this point we said we on intersections the most transparent process to go back to the community and start of the public notification all over again, i just really want to be clear we followed the most transparent process not a process that is in the transparent i think the other thing to that they suggested the decision was not authorized legally the director of public works is given the authority to make those recommendations and the staff recommends to him or discussions no matter ourselves to make a recommendation not made by the department. >> i on intersections oh, one last thing i wanted to say someone said the discussion was

made with or without input from the public it is always made once we go to the public we are denying we follow the same process with every tree removal or relocation thank you. >> ms. short. >> i don't get a sense he get a sense that the advocacy position has been let's work very good hard to build those four houses on this site and the compromise we'll move the tree. >> as opposed to how are we're going to keep the tree here and build a house or houses on this site what happened to the tree advocacy i hear a lot about the developer advocacy. >> sure. >> how do we fit 4 houses on

the site i don't hear and mr. buck is my hero he gained any respective tremors what about the tree what about let's keep the tree and build three houses or two houses what he said to the tree huggers. >> can i respond. >> sure. >> i will say we felt the best way to have the tree relocated having i have been doing that for 12 years before mr. buck took in my previous position we've denied the removal of a tree before this board or any other entity and have that tree ultimately be preserved we think of we've been routing overturned by the board with a development

project whether or not that that project is sent back to the board or a proposal we've agreed repeatedly and some of the fellow commissioners are aware why want make the project sponsor we design we've lost every of those cases so your decision was could we safe this tree if we relocated it we thought the odds were better if it was removed than continue and have a removed entirely that's y where the advocacy went. >> there's always a first time. >> i'd like to see it in 12 years i've not been successful. >> i have a question ms. short severalty the public complained about unfair e-mail and correspondence can you shed headlight. >> it was public record like i said the original board of

appeals approached the director of public works would he support a compromise when he asked staff to review the proposal and you see all of the public communications in that we said surprising we on intersections this is feasible at this point the most transparent process to go back to the public i on intersections that would have been less transparent to go to the board only narrow three hundred foot notification for the board with our process we put notices on the tree and the corners of block so many people that walked the block and again live immediately adjacent get our notifications that's the intention asia and the last question anymore procedural since that cack before the board maybe a question for the city attorney as well if that came before the board and denied for a tree removal. >> didn't come before the board that was withdrawn. >> that was in the department.

>> yes. >> okay. is there a specific form - so right now an approval for removal than approval for relocation. >> a condition and you know the code actually referenced the tree removal process for street trees in restriction to the significance of street trees we require a replacement trio this would be the replacement tree would be the same tree. >> and my very last question have you seen the site i mean one of the public lives directly behind you ask the tree removal if this property is effected he said no is that realistic to you. >> yes. i've been to the site personally on several occasions as mr. buck we were directed at the after the public works hearing to go look to address that chris met with the just a

minute neighborhood as a result we fallout imposed a condition the tree is rotated a quarter term to give the best possible site we feel that is feasible in the promote location. >> the appellant had mentioned he felt that in his opinion the retaining wall was required you don't on intersections the retaining wall is required. >> it not required for the new planting but in terms of impacts for the soil removal that's how i understood that. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> anyone? >> i'm conflicted and i am as well the key phase the character of neighborhood that is a

significant tree the photo of the stilling house was seemingly taken a century ago had that tree in the background and didn't look like a young tree which was a century ago i asked the i wonder in the tree expert for the project sponsor was correct about it is a significant tree and significant character that the unfortunate neighborhood and this might - my recommendations would be that find a compromise point that keeps the tree in piss position and allow the developer to develop homes there awhile sustaining the health and

integrity of tree i'll move to deny the appeal. >> i on intersections you're right. >> uphold the appeal sorry. >> make a motion. >> i on intersections i did. >> commissioners you want me to call the roll. >> we need to continue this case and i think so two actually. >> you'll need four votes roll call on the vote first. >> ideally if it you think this matter needs to be continued it would be best for us to know without taking a vote whether or not that is necessary so we can formally poll the

board where our leon and misinformation or vote wasn't make a difference in the outcome if you propose a continuance. >> if any perception is right. >> you'll say you'll not vote. >> let's go to round b. >> i'll move for a continuance until the fact that the commission is not fully in place and a fuel vote is critical to the outcome of this decision. >> you wouldn't want more information from either party whether or not they're continuing you mate not get the 4 with the additional commissioner. >> you have suggestions commissioner fung.

>> i'm going based on where i hearing the sentiment on the board and therefore what you are own procedures are in impasse. >> go for it. >> it seems then the question i think might be there is disagreement between commissioner swig and the vice president from the other two commissioners are in general agreement with commissioner swig then we'll need to hold this over that commissioner wilson can participate in the one of the commissioners not in agreement with commissioner swig we'll call and role and this matter could be resolved tonight so i on intersections the board is listeningo you to make an indication to continue the matter or whether. >> i on intersections continuing at the same time maybe the project sponsor and the appellant can have

conversations in the meanwhile as well i'm for the inclined to go that way we'll not get that done this is a very big issue that is about the relocation i mean i'll move well, you have a motion do you want to withdraw it. >> and withdraw and . >> i move to continue the item before 7:30. >> we have a commissioner wiener on that night no i'll not recommend any new items on that night is july 13th or 20? >> i move to continue to july 20th are the appellants and the project sponsors able to attend

that night july 20th. >> what is june 29th. >> i'm not here. >> oh. >> and i'm leaving around 7:30 on both nights. >> you want to look at july 13th then. >> okay july 27th? that would be helpful to know august 17th act back on the 16. >> august 17th go 10 we'll go to september 14th. >> they're back on the 16 they can come on the 17. >> you know what there is plenty of times i'll move to continue to august 17th i on intersections that september is ludicrous and the project sponsor have you able the appeal to move the appeal so august 17,

2016, and that is to allow time - allow the missing commissioner to participate in the final vote no additional public comment or no additional testimony that matter has been heard no preparation of new material and on that motion then by commissioner lazarus commissioner fung and commissioner honda and commissioner swig okay. thank you so that item has been continued. >> so commissioner honda we should move forward with item 7 which is appeal - versus the san francisco public works of urban forest and the property on 33 protesting the denial open march 4, 2016 a tree removal denial to request with roll call vote of

two trees adjacent to the property and start with the appellant. >> go ahead. >> good evening, commissioners from reuben, junius & rose here on behalf of the appellant for the. >> i apologize. i didn't recognize you as a person from reuben, junius & rose so i need to make a disclosure wish to disclose i'll hired reuben, junius & rose on a project reuben, junius & rose representation of the equity before the board will not have an impact on the my decision. >> i'm here with the professional arborist that

elevated the trees i'm available to answer any questions the owner has requested that dpw remove two city trees on adjacent from his property as is arborist will explain those trees are two large species for the narrow sidewalk this is creating a number of property owners problems that warrant their replacement most concerting is the impact on pedestrian safety the large roots are push and a at the sidewalk with the damage it is reoccurring and perhaps were left unraider and january order in this matter dpw is acknowledged it is limited the growing room for the species but stated the sidewalk can be repaired a repetitive cycle is not a reasonable conclusion and not good for the taxpayers dollars additionally the large canopy of the trees block

lighted if street lights that promoting safety concerns in the neighborhood a sleeping bag and clothing were found between the hedge and the house and a neighbor safety concerns lead her to add lighting also have concern the room systems for the serious threat of the case the damage to the line that is property damage is costly to repair removal of the trees is wrarnd they're a nuisance and the tree branches are encroaching on the house and causing damages to the roofs it escapes and the trees drop leafs and accommodate on the sidewalks and swept into a pile the owners

fails to clean the leaves and when wet a hazard because the trees are maintained by the trees the project sponsor lacks the authority to trim them back as discussed in the brief there's a double standard in play dpw stated in the january order if someone want to plant new trees staff will not allow the sidewalk is two narrow this means that dpw and order has refused to replace the trees that shouldn't have been planted in the first place and finally has not transferred responsibility to the property owner he offered to plant new trees in the finally removes the current ones the other trees provides a precedent for this situation for those reasons we ask that the board grant the appeal and require the

replacement of those trees with that, i'm going to turn it over to to our arborist to share his observations. >> good evening my name is roy i'm a consulting arborist those trees are a black wood arcacia roughly is foot each for the species that be relatively small and young and planned in baseline 2 and a half by 3 feet against the curve one is less than one foot from the sewer service and one right by the ground water and gas lines these trees are pushed the curbstone into the street and ripped the asphalt the sidewalk both old sidewalk that was not repaired a year ago and the one that was repairs is cracked and broken the trees are

sending shoots into the property side the trees are run out of room a big species and small areas they're nice and green and healthy their confined let me have the overhead i'll show - overhead there we go. >> as you can see they're utilities such here and the sewer line right here very small spaces so these trees are not in the sustainable location the repair circle 19 psychological is extremely short creating h and unsafe sidewalk conditions this space allowed for

pedestrians is substandard and didn't meet ada and i on intersections this is just a practical matter of those trees need to be replaced because of the small spaces allowed thank you. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> good evening commissioner chris buck with san francisco public works we denied the removal for the two black wood arcacia the arresting cash are still relatively healthy a big part of - that was the denial of the staff level that was appealed by the mr. president, and that decision was upheld by the department large based the fact the sidewalk is two narrow to

require the replacement trees we would like to grant permission for the replacement trees for any site this sidewalk with this 5 feet 4 inches so to replant this site we'll have a 4 foot path of travel and with a 7 foot sidewalk sometimes sometimes 2 and a half tree baseline and that will require 6 and a half foot sidewalk so in terms of the site and the potential for a replacement the big issue the sidewalk is two narrow for the replacement trees tree number one on the right when our facing it and viewing it from the street within a lens a foot of the sewer lateral one not replantable because of the sewer line and tree number 2 by default we'll not allow to be

replanted the sidewalk is two narrow the diamond height i've had ouch referred to a armageddon the landscaping pattern in the neighborhood is to have landscaping of different types in the front yard setbacks and a lot of people did a lot with that limited area there are street trees be planned that's what i mean and - and sense of earth is getting there. >> so the city agrees okay developer if you subdivide this neighborhood the city will that maintain the responsibility i wish i was there even the decision to plant any trees in the neighborhood itself what we're doing a case by case basis if respond has a sidewalk that

is wide enough we'll require that the replacement trees be planted under there are a few sidewalk areas that are wide enough but a lot of the sites that have existing trees the sidewalks are two narrow the species itself is ones we watch closely in san francisco au cash we no longer please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones, we evaluate those trees not large compared to what the species had had widen is keeping the height in check the sidewalk is currently ban repaired so the walk currently didn't need repair at this time 0 at the departmental level our decision was deny the request removal we understand that is a narrow sidewalk we understand the species can, problematic but we

don't have existi existing sidee - the hardest decide you can't replant one inquiry a completely reasonable inquiry so put trees in planters not have the trees with sidewalk. >> a key part the sidewalk has to be wide enough with a 2 feet space is between the curb and the start of planter we do have

not just an internal staff person saying you can't put at that particular time in the public right-of-way with advocacy groups and ada unfortunately in addition not room for street trees not room for any trees in above ground containers that's why the departmental level issued the denial to remove the two trees. >> i have a question. >> thank you yes. >> in dpws brief the trees are young and healthy how old are the trees right now. >> i should have checked our database we might have a planting date in there but the wind is probably keeping them shorter they look younger than they really are anywhere if 20 i

mean from 10 to 15 or 20-year-old. >> but the project sponsor said the concrete is a done but showing signs 7 breaking again so currently not allowing a tree to be planned there because of sewer the sidewalk is narrow and directed that particular species of tree yet denying this person to remove with we're removing lots of healthy trees from the missouri sonic i learned to skateboard on the street i'm two old but the permit holder is trying to replace it because the both trees are causing so many

hazards to this particular property those you know that is a iconic block that's a anguish making those protective on san mateo; right? >> that's right so commissioner you raised a couple of good points we generally denied the removal of healthy trees and do so the trees as more permanent infrastructure with the sidewalk the sidewalk you can replace in kind with no value cars you drive it off the lot the moment you do it reduced to 50 percent value and trees they cost money they do a greater than benefit one thing to note the current maintenance responsibility has been with the san francisco public works so many, many cases before you the trees are the maintenance the adjacent

property owners we are responsive despite budget cuts but you do raise a few good points we acknowledge the narrowness of the sidewalk and the phase right tree right place we felt the departmental level knowing no possibility of replacement we want to see those trees remain longer. >> you may or may not know that do you know the latest the city pruned the tree. >> i don't have that record. >> but generally the pruning is. >> the pruning is every few years we don't get out interest on that kind of a basis we are out there 5 to seven years. >> all right. thank you. >> i have a question in the appellants brief given the dwp the baselines are the same size and the sidewalk identifiable is it true.

>> some sites have been replanted again, it is always case by case so frontages surveyor. >> a wider sidewalk that is subtle not that obvious when i start with the department 11 years ago we phone number get rid of planting 18 inches one foot and a half foot 2 by 3 really we're saying we need a 3 by 3 bear minimum basis on intersections it is but. >> that particular block the one side is a home across the street is a more of a townhome and their sidewalk is absent

larger than across the street. >> some of the younger trees are they've been replanted a while ago maybe more than 10 years ago it - their remaining relative small i call it armageddon. >> the big valley behind so. >> i have conversation somewhere in the last six or eight months in the last year the commission on first down from harrison on a small alley there was an advocacy by your department to take out trees and replace them as part of a development and acknowledged that at this time they were healthy trees but in the spirit

of the character of the neighborhood correct me if i am wrong you advocated to pull the healthy trees out it was more appropriate for that location the precedence for pulling out a tree a healthy tree and putting something in to me correct me if i am wrong secondly, again within the last 18 months i can't recall the results a tree open fulsome street that was the same way situation the tree had become much to large in the opinion of both the property owner it had gotten to the point it sustained damage to the sewer they have sewer backs up it was

sew - and whether to take out the tree and replace it i'm project by project probably not appropriate if those trees grow we have another situation on that site and another you think happy property owner can you help me out how do we depend on full name street and pulling the healthy trees. >> your memory is accurate so the first example on first and harrison was 4 lansing that permit holder they were looking at trees adjacent to the gas stations one minor correction the proposal had the block a shared street that became so what happened in that case the

sidewalk created was reduced 6 inches or so and the rolling row of species were pepper so in this case knowing that the major improvement permit was approved by this board of supervisors and everyone on the block really wanted that shared street model based on the assessment of the street a grade change that allowed us from an arborist perspective you know what you're on the sampling what we know about the species is dropping the grade 6 inches to meet the level of road it is a new haven starter for that species so fulsome you're right repeated sidewalk damage and in that case we were able to meet in the middle i suggested if it looks like this will get approval can you require the owner to install additional landscaping to

mitigate the loss of tree that was ultimate approved by the commission with the condition they replace that with a reasonable tree and additional you know partially shaping to gunmen the community but have the issue of ongoing damage maintenance and challenges. >> in your opinion can we get to a resolution or compromises fulton street and no room to add landscaping in the sidewalk i on intersections for your body to consider it is fair to say the landscaping a lot of landscaping setback over off the sidewalk we acknowledge our goal

for accessibility for pedestrians that's why we'll not allow those that be replaced in that sense this is not a case that i would say we feel strongly about and that's why we wanted to pattern the plain clothes and acknowledge the challenges that created for that whole neighborhood. >> thank you, mr. buck. >> thank you. >> any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> my name is carol. >> i'm sorry speak spot microphone and i'm carol i live adjacent to the property in question at 20th century and my waterline was in one of the photos between 2 feet of the

trees in question where the sidewalk that reoccurring damage since repaired last year our waterline is in two feet and it requires a 3 feet distance i feel it is appropriately sized for this space along with the others that spoke this evening we have a 2 and a half foot tall sucker in the front planter bed that grew a foot since the last hearing the interests tree has a fairly aggressive root the canopy that is conservatism on the neighborhood roof is now encroaching on any roof it is not a problem now but a concern about this growth of this tree and it is inappropriate size i'm speaking to remove the tree and replace that with some

landscaping that's more appropriate whether a tree sounds like it will not be feasible today but some sort of landscaping thank you. >> is there any additional public comment? >> please step forward. >> hi other george a resident next door at 24 street listening for the conversation with the imperative and our neighbors subsequent our experts seems like we're stuck in a sidewalk where the dpw is requiring you know our neighbor to basically keep to the trees and can't replace the trees so we're looking and the situation the trees had continue to be there until they destroy the water or lateral sewage line and have a conversation with the neighbor

didn't seem like an opportunity to replace the tree or only one one side and offered to pit them into planters the most reasonable logical thing to remove the tree and allow him it replace the trees or one tree into one side of the sidewalk they narrow i also recently just two doors down a tree of similar size allowed to be cut down it seems like it is a no win situation for you know our neighbor and for ourselves so i offer my support of removal of trees he's offered to replace the trees i hope you'll do the logical rational thing and allow that is there any additional public comment? >> okay. seeing none rebuttal if you have additional comments

3 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners overhead please so two quick points i'd like to reiterate that is the property owner because these are city maintained trees has from authority to keep them under control so the dropping the roof encroachment and a lot of the both ground problems that our city mitigated he is not able to take on the pruning secondly, i'll let roy talk about the alternative transportation landscaping option we're happy to try to accommodate. >> we've been doing a little bit of creative discussion awhile mr. buck give his testimony we came up with an idea where i have the pencil

pointed a property line in that planter bed between the gentleman's property and neighbor and there are gas and waterlines and all kinds of utilities underneath that planter bed and a root over below but my sense is that there might be room for a planter with an above ground small drought tolerant that adds landscaping function wouldn't be a full blown street tree but maybe something along those lines and so that's a suggestion might want to incorporate that and also there was a question that was posted to mr. buck about when the city last pruned the trees he asked the gentleman he built the building in 1990

and he said no pruning i on intersections that is true looking at the trees they don't looked pruned those are the facts and hope that helps you in our decision. >> thank you okay. mr. buck anything further. >> good evening chris buck san francisco public works a couple of points i appreciate commissioners time i'll try to get this back to a conclusion a couple of points the two trees we're talking about are relatively healthy there was a tree on one way it was posted for removal without replacement and you know we do there's not a lot of great opportunities to

landscape the front setback it's well maintained a sewer line on one side and water on the other than landscaping in the setback this is one suggestion but a coach moving pieces something not necessarily going to be a real legal condition just something to promote and then lastly ada guidelines they allow us to have pinch points are limited tree basins with any sites no problems in the future that's it and appreciate the discussion we've had already thank you. >> thank you. >> commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> knowing the block pretty well and an at&t trim i'll allow

the pertaining to remove the trees i'll not make that a condition. >> can't win didn't seem to matter who owns the trees i'll go along with intimation the city has not maintained and two that's e they'll not allow a tree in this location so why should we allow this today. >> you have a motion. >> my motion to uphold the appeal. >> grant the appeal. >> on the basis that ada.

>> so our moving to grant the appeal over the department and allow the removal of two trees on. >> correct. >> on the basis. >> for pedestrian safety and ada. >> improving pedestrian safety. >> correct. >> okay. >> okay. so then on to motion to overturn the department and allow the trees to be removed. >> commissioner fung commissioner lazarus and commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 3 to zero. >> thank you the next - 4 to zero. >> which one of us disappeared. >> this is the next gretchen and robert and trashing versus the department of building inspection with the planning

department approval the property on 21st street appealing the issuance on february 2016 and with an alteration to add a army basement and family room and second story with the dining room and kitchen and three story - roof deck and replace and install the sprinklers that was heard on april 2016 and continued for to tonight to allow times for the parties to discuss the dormers dine i believe that commissioner swig was absent that night. >> i've reviewed. >> you've reviewed the video and i believe the parties have reached an agreement to present that. >> sorry mr. patterson it's been a reuben, junius & rose evening i wish i've hired reuben, junius & rose on a

project and reuben, junius & rose representation will not have any effect on any decision. >> okay gentlemen start your engines. >> thank you. (laughter) good evening commissioner honda bryan patterson i was recently brought in to help to negotiate a settle as pointed out this out and i'm happy to report we were able to reach an agreement >> thank you to the gentleman and his client like to read the terms into the record and from the board choose to support that we will ask you grant the appeal and uphold the conditions would be the settle terms we've

negotiated. >> so i will go ahead and ask for your permission first to file 3 documents one a revised set of plans the second is a list of settlement points and an e-mail including the other two appellants i don't recommended if that's okay. we have 11 copies. >> i on intersections you need to describe what happened first before we are going to accept any documents. >> okay. >> the party sat down and meet before and after trying to resolve the two primary concerns which were privacy for the neighborhood and these proposed dormers the dormer proposal has not changed so that rather than having two dormers side by side

and commissioners on the overhead like to see what that looks like. >> and mr. tuney can describe that that will be on sheet 87 point so 0 showing the revised dormer plan and also looks like our time is almost out but i'd like to with our permission read the sum of the terms. >> go ahead and do that. >> so a list of items i don't think i'm going to have enough time maybe mr. tuney can finish is one item is not going to be in these revised plans it's keeping the existing cherry tree

and adrc mature trees at that description the screening in the backyard will consist of planting 5 italian trees with 24 gallon box 8 feet tall their grow during the construction we are general obligation bond general obligation bond to replace them the tree in the backyard will be kept it is what it is. >> go ahead and continue mr. patterson. >> provide the landscaping in the back of the property as requested and described incorporating the exit mature trees remove the railing and sliding with the case the with the size and reducing - with flannel panel see with a simple

piece of tempered glass will discourage people if rubber in the case the neighbors and replace the upper windows that creates privacy for neighborhoods to - when they're on their deck and replace the metal rail with glass and those will make more sense hopefully, when you have the plans in front of you to remove one of the dormer windows and east side which i understand they're not instead users obscure glass with the discrepancies at the roof deck and redesign the dormers and additionally term that planning asked for is retaining the existing window locations as proposed in the dormers rather than a triangleer part that mr.

tuney can speak to and the privacy of the neighbors and all new windows visual from the public right-of-way or wood or aluminum played windows so those are the terms set out in a chain of e-mails between the parties and planning this afternoon and the second i'm i'd like to roared and put on the overhead is from the other appellants that is robert trashing and cherry holder consenting to those terms thank you for your time i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> commissioners you want to hear from mr. tuney you have anything to add no the department has nothing to add okay. >> maybe just-

>> thank you scott sanchez planning department so we reviewed the plans and as described we're accepting those changes that have been made i will note some confusion about the rating of the building a potential historic resource that was listed in the 1976 survey but not in here today a separate resource i placed the two at the last hearing this is a non-hectic resource. >> the building the hearing many of the items were not decided in terms of the line item they popped up in new york city by 3 big items one was whether the dormers were appropriate for that area and

two the orientation of the glazing with these to one adjacent neighbor and 3 was the cut out in the back of the gable roof for the deck i did not hear anything. >> i reviewed those with the previous proposal with the preservation tina and the residential design team and all the staff was fine with the project as previously approved the project sponsor is responding to the concerns raised and worked that the neighbor that addressed their perhaps their concerns that the board had related to the size of dormers and having both of them on one side the building but we really - i guessed wrong. >> thank you. >> any public comment?

okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> on your desk. >> it seems to me in harmony between the parties action speak for them. >> i want to applaud the project manager that was a willingness to work with the neighborhood and the neighborhood with the property owner do you care to make a motion. >> before you entertain a motion consider not sure how we enforce any altercation related to trees with the building permit so. >> i was going to respond that is not in any hearing i'm willing to make the motion i'm going to move to grant the appeal and condition the appeal on - with the drawings that show

the changes with respect to dormer shaped glazing i'm not going to include the components on the trees. >> this there was a long list of conditions do they all you're saying all except the trees are covered by dormers and glazing would that be - >> reflect our understanding. >> scott sanchez, planning department typically if so best for our department that is board grant the appeal and adopt the revised plans certainly tln then a question how specifically i want to condition if they want to come back from the future and change from o pack to clear glaifgz do you want that to come

back to the board of appeals versus just on revised plans then. >> then we'll have to deal with that. >> i on intersections in this case we were anticipating that your adopting the realized plans and move forward with the plans. >> perhaps we can restate in the sense we would condition it on the adoption of the revised plans as provided with the exception of trees. >> okay. so we need to cvs those plans submitted i'd like to know if they're dated today, i can reference them in a motion. >> or submitted at the hearing. >> ryan patterson son inundated plans i'm assuming their revised date. >> as submitted at the hearing that's fine and anything in those plans that addresses the trees? >> i'll show on the overhead

briefly there are trees shown a-1 point zero shows the existing mature tree remove the cherry tree needs to be stricken as is parties discussed. >> is that included. >> it needs to be stricken so happy to make that change. >> that will help staff can we do that on the set one set you don't need to an all of them and commissioner fung is a motion on the condition that reflects the condition of the parties so the motion to grants the appeal and issue the permit only the condition the revised reflective of the plans submitted at the

hearing and on the condition that on the basis that it reflect the agreement of parties. >> so on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner honda and commissioner swig okay. that is a vote of 4 to zero and that take a 10 minute break. >> board of appeals before we call the next item i want to ask if norman is in the room for items 10 ab commissioner honda i want to ask if you agree we call 10 ab next to. >> i agree. >> no briefs submitted either so - >> we'll will move on to item 10 ab we will be heard together

normal versus the department of building inspection are the planning approval the properties on grand avenue appealing the ordinances on march 15, 2016 to one 50, llc for a three story over garage single-family dwelling with three bedrooms and shoring the evacuation and under construction of second story over basement with three bedrooms at rear of lot under separate permits as well and with the appellant missing we'll hear from the permit holder. >> perhaps over there. >> are those gifts with purchase. >> (laughter).

>> good evening commissioner honda and board members i'm jim i'm a multi faceted contractor and one of the property owners along with my wife and two from the company with me together tonight we hope the resolution is simple to you as us there are 3 main points to discuss and described in our brief first, the permit approval for the most important that is properly and permits performing issued the patent has no argument for documents and second the appellants stated the issues presented by the appellant we'll talk about are you think fount and don't apply to the case and 3 overriding issues the appellant has with the seattle

that sold us the property at the end of the day the filing of appeal we'll talk that most importantly the approvals as agency architect and build in san francisco i've been working and done over one hundred projects with the permit process i feel that the projects has the procedures and requirement and fully reviewed by the rdt and reviewed by scott sanchez planning department the variance was you think contested and submitted without conditions and compliant and meets the requirement of the planning codes in the residential design guidelines and satisfying the general policy finding we conducted all the neighborhood notifications and made outreach hold neighborhood meeting above and beyond the preapplication gardening the support of neighbors we held a saturday open house with two neighborhood

groups agreeing to support the project we invite over one hundred people showing the model and answering question a dr filed at the rear the building they filed a dr against blocking their light and air and have the model let you make a discussion we came to a resolution they retracted their dr didn't have the lecturer of presenting to the commission the main point no proprieties with the approvals that were issued and second i'll address the appellants stated objections in piss appeal planning commission i stated two concerns the building is quote/unquote too big for the property and if reserves more

affordable housing no presentations he's not submitted a brief we're vested and have the appropriate response i bring the model to help to illustrate i'll not go into the detail to fit into the neighborhood the response described the scale and massing the building to the rear are large 3 and 4 and 5 unit buildings and the property to the east has 5 unit over here and then two doors away is a building that led us to doing the scheme two attached buildings right here built around 2002 the pattern of the neighborhood has led to the solution we have also the appellant if participate in the lengthy approval process as far as he didn't attend any meetings and most importantly not willing to,

directly impacted and somewhat in the neighborhood about 10 or 12 blocks away the stated objection we considered during the progress and considered we the zoning administrator and the appellant has not factual evidence to substantiate his performance and the second requesting that be reserved more affordable housing unheard of in a rh or rh1 and the one that requires serious k is for the applicable to this project the appellant's claims with not applicable not provided any evidence and kind of interesting almost fun except it affects us the motivation is his listed

property i won't go detail i provided detail but fighting the satellite and filed multiple lawsuits and to the point there is 22 pages in one of the legal documents i provided illustrating the complains against the estate this appeal is in the nuisance he is involved in and somehow back handicapped a way to get back at the estate question feel that is to despite the saels so in conclusion you should deny the appeal and uphold our

presentation petition how many of the neighbors appeared. >> we were there for a morning and set up a table and brought in the table and had to sro people and supporter from the adjacent neighbors effected people there's a 5 unit building next to us and for the occupants supported our building and occupant of that building supported our building and jonathan any partner lives here the neighbors supported the project. >> okay. thank you. >> mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department i'll be brief just to restate the project has met all the design with a variance that was issued in july not appealed that

decision is finally a discretionary hearing and the dr was withdrawn otherwise that meets all the design requirement grabbed to the variance thank you. >> mr. sanchez that's unusual lot coverage pattern. >> well the explicit circumstance the top debris and the mid block pattern the design they proposed the way to develop on the properties in. >> what that is consistent and harmonious. >> so of these parcels built at the top viewed driven or. >> i think those lots are a bit shorter as well as which causes that circumstance those loots behind are about 70 - >> i'm talking about look at the parcels go directly next to

the one the 3 parcels away. >> the street is done at the bottom. >> i mean it is unusual but i think what is unusual the buildings up above which is from on i forgot the name of the electricity shorter lots 70 feet deep with highly densely developed. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> mr. duffy anything okay any public comment? okay. seeing none mr. zach anything else to add 2, 3, 4 rebuttal commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> so we cut to the chase. >> go for that. >> no statement no appellant the process was fully vetted by the appropriate pa parties i'll move to deny the appeal.

>> two appeals and two permits. >> yes. both. >> thank you very much. >> commissioner lazarus so that on on that motion to uphold the permits they were properly issued. >> commissioner fung. >> commissioner honda and commissioner swig thank you so that carries with a vote of 4 to zero and move to item 9 jurisdiction request subject property on market street with a letter if chad poter and naomi, period of time and adams and others chad poter and naomi, period of time and adams and others chad poter and naomi, period of time and adams and othersf chad poter and naomi, period of time and adams and othersro chad poter and naomi, period of time and adams and othem chad poter and naomi, period of time and adams and others (calling names) requesters asking the board take jurisdiction over this was issued by the department of

building inspection the appeal period end on 2013 and the jurisdiction request was filed on april 29, 2016, on market street, llc and the project is to comply point notice of violation demolition of office from 5 to first story and we'll start with the requesters you have 3 minutes. >> thank you, commissioners steve with the white house clinic essentially the permit applicant didn't disclosure to the department of building inspection that the permit would remove 70 units of affordable rent-controlled unit that resulted in the department inadvertently issuing a permit over-the-counter the board recognized in the hearing a year ago that the permit application

didn't correctly disclosure the work to be performed a requirement of the planning code section 106 a .3.1 subdivision one not disclose or not disclose the work to be performed properly more the uses of property and as the board voted defective under the building code section the department is required to refer the permit to other departments but that didn't happen because there was no trigger for that to happen for planning code - planning department review no loss residential housing disclosed in the application to planning review didn't happen in fact, not clear whether the housing inspection reviewed it to be

responsive to the notice of violation so without planning department review there was no discretionary review wyoming be a likely loss of 70 units of affordable housing in san francisco question we have a link standing policy the discretionary review for removal of affordable units in the city and the preliminary person didn't respond under the planning code they were applying for a permit to demolish their housing with the civil code was in place the tenants wasn't have been notified introduce a discretionary review application if they were the stakeholders also in the california building code two occupancy so they would have been the department should have required the permit be posted and to our smimgsdz

indicate according to the permit holder that posting affidavit was forged by the department and therefore the permit holder never said unit be resolved that note that forgery happened the permit holder would have disclosed the illegal units were removed and the posting would have taken care of base the department inadvertently fails to follow the requirement if i might beg the commission for a little bit more time to address. >> you'll have - how much long. >> one more point. >> if i may have the overhead. >> thank you. >> i wanted to point the applicant indicated that there were september 13, 2013, e-mails to the tenant provided the notice i want to just to be clear when you read the

operative provision the unfortunate results is that due to a long-standing notice of violation we have been forced by code compliant to get a building permit to change the unit configuration entirely per the city orders the building must be vacant that's the only mention not the permits was obtained or it simply says they're required to get a building permit it is unclear whether a permit was objected and therefore didn't provide notice to the tenants in september that a permit was actually objected. >> mr. collier why comping to us now. >> okay. that was addressed in the belief he only had 3 minutes by happy to explain. >> please. so the permit holder or applicant appealed this board decision from a year ago and went to the supreme court in a

writ in the preceding just jackson cack and said the issue of whether the permit was defective was not properly before the board so the board had not issued not grand lastly jurisdiction over and over on the permit issuance but no requests for lastly jurisdiction in our brief once the permit was suspected was no for seeable need to seek the jurisdiction because the tenants had been involved in every appeals two appeals one by the permit holder against the suspension remained the same argument and the permit holder dismissed the appeal because they were going to work with the city on legalizing the use again, no reason for us to be appealing if they'll work with the city and a new attorney

the new attorney decided to have either the permit revoked or approved then the zoning administrator sought a to have the suspension released we appealed that in this board ruled the permit was defective no reason to appeal jurisdiction at that point because the court is remanded we want to get the request in now. >> thank you we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> >> andy on behalf of the permit holder and obtain take care to the - the city in no way caused the patents appellants to not appeal with the timeframe

under the board's rules the permit was issued in 2013 at this time no requirement of notice to those individuals and they found out about the permit in the fall of 2013 there was no request to lastly justice they were aware felt permits issuance when on appeal was filed by any clients in intuitively they were certainly aware the issuance of the permit when we themselves appealed the listing the suspension what occurred a strategic decision to not file a lastly jurisdiction request i'll point out when we were here more than a year ago i was arguing the board exceeded the jurisdiction in the decision they had a resounding hearing and i made that argument no reason the request couldn't have been made at that time on the

overhead any brief in april of 2015 the braid reflected the argument it acted in excess of its jurisdiction went to the a prevailed their remedy not to come back here the remedy so go across the street to the board of appeals and passion or prejudice the decision of just jackson pending no judgment in that case and post-trial cases before judge jackson an position of having two separate appeals over the same permit by the same folks make sense no sense most importantly judge jackson in her decision issued a narrow distinctive to this board if her

decision is upheld this board will look at the narrow issue it didn't consider the original appeal which is the issue of whether or not there was an abandonment of the use which i think a majority of members of this board rejected one can make a strategic jurisdiction and litigant over a 3 year period and losses in court and cack before this board we want to do offer and go back in intuitively whether we clearly had notice of this permit that is an unprecedented request it would set a dangerous cyclist precedent for permit appellants and lulled in the city we don't go back 3 years and reinvite the decisions that coffin made and incorrect decisions those folks

had counsel counseled at every step of the way by the best lawyers in san francisco no late jurisdiction and i think consistent with the jackson decision and inconsistent with the boards own rules and a dangerous precedent to allow it at many late date i'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you. >> thank you mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department so the subject property on market street is before you for a jurisdiction request currently this item has been before you a couple of times in the past in onthd of 2013 our department issued a suspension because of the permit had not been routed to the planning department we had concerns about the permit in terms of compliance with the planning code pr bunt there ever interim controls that require the conditional use

authorization for the removal of unauthorized units that were in place for sometime those controls lapsed and did our review that position was appealed but withdrawn by the appellant by the permit holder so the suspension is in effect we did review it we determined that the office use was national abandon and issued a use of suspension that was appealed to you by the tenants of the building as you recall at the hearing at the appeal hearing we argued that you should grant the appeal and over turn the decision by that time new interim controls that required the xrufgs for the illegal units and interim controls with permanent controls from the planning code under section 317 their clear and unambiguousus to

their use for the - suspected by the city or the applicants rights were not vested this is the matter before you the permit remains suspected the planet has not vested rights we firmly believe that the permitted controls we don't see any way out of the conditional use for the theory subject to the conditional use process and don't see how the permit can be released for suspension it is not before you but outlining that suspension remains and not port that until they get the correct conditional use authorization today they've innovate so you get there are other concerns raised about the value outlet of working on the permit and my review i concurred with the issues raised and the

requester in terms of the wording and one could easily misunderstand the scope of the permit geneva the wording i understand how this impacted the ability to understand what the permit did about with that, i'm available to answer any questions and joe duffy department of building inspection is here if you have any questions. >> thank you. >> inspector duffy. >> supervisors joe duffy dbi basically i'll read the wording on the preempt and tell you that was a formulate over the over-the-counter permit it was issued and suspected and the wording to comply with the notice of violation 20071840 demo of office walls on the

first floor i'll prefer if anyone has any questions that's the best way to handle this from the dbi point of view. >> thank you. >> i think i have a question for mr. sanchez to. >> mr. sanchez. >> is it it correct to say there's a change in the keyed since this is all kind of started because of the permit has never not been issued then comes under the purview of the new code. >> that's correct as the code is written and there have been two interim controls and now the permanent controls they're to the applicability and this permit was issued and remains

suspected as such those controls apply so the conditional use is required for those preempts thank you. >> i think we need to be careful with the terminal the permit was issued. >> yes. the permit was issued and suspected by our department. >> i understand. >> the fact it was suspected means that whatever happened in the intern that was applicable to the permit to permit that are suspended. >> thank you. >> not at many moment i'll ask we take public comment next is that okay. >> i'm sorry misquoted. >> public comment would be good. >> can we can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak under. all right. so whoever wants to