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 arify 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 listening to 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 hazard 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 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 ffy. >> 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 go first please please step forward >> (inaudible). >> that's correct no one not a named requester that wants to speak okay. so then no public comment? all right. so then it's up to the board whether you want to entertain further discussion from the parties otherwise commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> mr. saks i'll be interested in hearing. >> i'll be brief judge j recognizes we're a landscape in the property her order reprimand the matter to the board in the board denies the request for late jurisdiction the board will not on intersections deprived to rule on that question the reason we're here vigorously that judge jackson orders was clear if this

is the issue and not the other issues the board has i think correctly decided so the questions that commissioner lazarus asked suggested perhaps the board not have the authority that's - >> what very, very contrary this matter. >> i'm asking about the set of circumstances to look at the permit if it comes back. >> it is obviously for another day in our view thank you. >> mr. collier you want to - we'll give you equal time. >> yes. thank you a few other points first of all, inform evidence any strategy plan on trying to - >> i mean i'm sorry this is sou sounding rebuttal. >> mr. saks argued that judge jackson we could seek jurisdiction before we still could he said and we sought that

in our exhibit so he took a different position from the judge. >> i'm for public health department i'm not sure how are we commenting now. >> we are. >> i'll also punt we have litigations not fully implemented the judges order is not- the judge made an order but opposed to hearing motioned that means it is still open and so anything we do tonight maybe for nothing our ill con accepted the judge has not completed her work i'll move to continue this item until the judge as.

>> entered a ruling. >> rendered a final rules of law that will not have any opposed hearing motioned. >> we're thinking. >> the judge's order is actually more multi faceted than that that than presented by taser for the permit holder the question of whether we take jurisdiction is not necessarily tied to the legal case and i'm sure they're going to take that has far as they president in an ongoing manner if i looked at this that you recall as a jurisdiction

regardless of the amount of time regardless of the various things that occurred i would liking look at if in the following way and properly not change from what i said before is the actual permit an established condition effective or not i find it still the same so what are you recommending. >> by then take it from that the question how to traffic signal from the translate /* translate from the department erred i find if didn't happen the type of information should have been in the purview therefore the department erred in accepting that. >> the reason he was going after the information now a now whole set are circumstances

so, i mean any intimaticlinatio it comes back we'll tale with that, i can jump to conclusions but i don't want to do that and i on intersections we all could but are you sensitive of a continuance. >> let's go that to the call of the chair. >> basically, we not know when it comes back. >> i'm curious if you want this sent to the call of the chair until such time the matter is reprimanded if it is or the other matter the appeal or i think that commissioner swig i mentioned until a final decision is made which could be a long time after that if there are further appeals outside of you know after what happens. >> a good question. >> a good point.

>> i'll argue some soft - any i think sting the to the call of the chair the other appeal that reprimanded you do you want to make that. >> i'm i'll move to continue the item to the call of the chair which will be issued when judge jackson formally reprimands the matter before this board ; right? >> taking judge jackson outline i out of that and saying the associated appeal returns. >> that's fine that's fine. >> on that motion from commissioner lazarus to continue this to the call of the chair

until the related appeal returns to the board commissioner fung commissioner honda and commissioner swig okay 0 so that will be moved to the call of the chair with a vote of 4 to zero item number 11 gore, llc verse the deserve the property on 660 third street street on 2015 of a notice of violation and penalty alleging planning code that the first and second story the subject property not authorized for office use and we'll start with the appellant. >> again, i apologize i need to make a reuben, junius & rose disclosure wish to disclose i've hired reuben, junius & rose of counsel on a project reuben, junius & rose of the entity appearing before the board will

not have an effect on any decision tonight. >> you've done that before. >> a couple i think the whole firm is here tonight. >> is there not a reuben, junius & rose case. >> that's a good thing good evening commissioner fung i'm jim rebecca reuben, junius & rose with the owner ever 66 third street street and try to look at this presentation and hope to save you time by stimulating now that the first 7 pages out of 10 submitted with fewer sites are correct there's no dispute over what that record says but unfortunately as almost always the situation involving 20 more years of history permits don't tell the true story i recognize the planning department and the da must live with the record but

hopefully to explain a little bit more of that and convince you it is right to provide relieve ♪ case the owners the properties are the raven family and managed by the folks danny and others nanny a hidden me an urban raeven bought this as raeven auction house over 60 permits since the 1980s and they say front office those permits include seismic fire safety and ada upgrades in 1980 bernard were partners in the burt field action house that moved in and opted out the building into the early 90s

toept at the time it was mc-2 and office building was lout you can read but the building was fused i used more auctioned that fell accessoryy there is inform arguing the fact that building was office as lout in 1980 and not used for anything other than office except a piano store in 1990 it was rezoned didn't allow office and the building was a legal non-conforming office with burt field and butterfield

the political climatic change is change but without controversy in 2013 investigating or less taken over management danny and arey talked about the building the building was used for office and non-conforming to allow for the legal office to make sure the records were clear to any it was clear if he were seeking to do the right thing clear up city records and pay the fees and move on as a result i went through the options with them, they were multiple first do nothing the building was running smoothly and a variant of the finishes the central soma zoning district westbound pending and designated this block as office with the wait for central soma and then do whatever the process that central soma called for to turn

it into office a third option to tampering the legitimate process program excuse me - which was ceron amnesty for some business owners i sunshine had experience and find if difficult not completely clean rift history a fourth option seeking a letter of depreciation if the zoning administrator determining the building was grandfathered as office but that is problematic because of the number of permits effectually finally it was to seek a conditional use to allow the office under the planning code sections which allows office in historic believes in the zone that's what we did we researched every prior applications was approved by the planning commission ironic across the street 665 in any

order was approved in october of 2013 when sue hester speaking in support of the restriction this was the right way to do office conversions i explained the risk was minimal if any by third street on 2013 our hearing which was may one 2014 only 6 months later had a problem in showcase square hit hike a tsunami that is was successful 9 times in the past we became collateral damage by the time the dust settled settled we had 40 at the 80 feet no implication and wonder in the building qualified flat planning

code sections wait the rational for half approval with the political atmosphere we were just unlucky dan and arey were drying to do the right thing and clear up the record and reached the planning commission 6 months earlier we would have an approval like third street where do we go from here the planning department has issued the notice of violation as it must it is directed as one and two the central soma plan is preponderance of the evidence and a pending and now both floors will be office if you upheld the enforcement danny and arey will have to end this even if in the central soma plan passes office uses will once again be allowed we request you hold this in abeyance until

the rezoning a approved it only has attended for office in a year we're here only because danny and arey are trying to do the right thing >> mr. reuben i want to clarify i went through a conditional use authorization. >> correct. >> it was granted. >> true. >> to occupy those two floors. >> yes. >> no appeal of that decision. >> that's right. >> that's because- >> the political atmosphere. >> i made a jewish-american judgment call and illegally occupied the others floors. >> in no there never a tenant. >> but instead we're moving overseeing office tenants because you were not supposed to occupy those until the planning

code found you in violation. >> that's right. >> when do you think the central soma rezoning is going to occur. >> we're told maybe scott sanchez has a better idea the second thing if you're not amenable to delaying the kworment of the rezoning that will cure a lot of the problem. >> i do not hold off you are rebuttal one last question is related to italian-american to ask the same question as the da eastern neighborhoods legislation rezoning had a mechanism for maintaining the previous zoning based upon

notice to the department; is that correct and not that i'm aware of i'm sure you're referring to something didn't ring a bell. >> that would have been - >> anything like when the conversion from mc-2 to s l i. >> i don't think so santa monica might know the answer. >> one last question question over how much turnover has there been in the office use of floors one and two offer the period of time that the zone was on the property in instant turnover a series of leases or related to a single contributor entity. >> not a single contributor tenant and pretty stable i can get you more information specific about the turnover any particular tenants. >> so in instant turnover or is that consistent.

>> can i have the - and i'm dabbling raeven thank you for your time we don't have one tenants since 2005 and the majority. >> sorry could you speak closer to the marching and effective if i'm botching the dates one tenants since 2005 and one tenant this space turned over before we had our hearing with the planning commission and then we had one tenant that we recently put under there complies with the recent zoning. >> okay mr. sanchez. >> thank you scott sanchez planning department so don't i don't know where to begin that is an appeal of a notice of violation and penalty

i think our appeal brief is clear to the history i appreciate the parapet says the history is true and correct the legal use has been recommended that the appellant on the multi applications the use of property is or was as a warehouse use and in the 1987 so you get an application to convert for retail uses a variance was required for parking because the retail use had a more dense as the parking requirement as the office use there was a notice of special restrictions which specifically noted they can have a very small amount of accessory office space but anything else is needing planning code permission and coagulate back to the early 1980s impact fees with

the conversion from the chair to office for transportation and, in fact, those beginning if 1985 and 86 office variances for this building as well subsequent to the 1987 authorizations that permit was perfect with the seismic and exterior work that was the final inspection and a converted to sympathy or prejudice office space with the office and never sought a permit to subject to the planning code requirements the planning code did change in the early 90s to make office permitted prohibited in that to allow for office space but never

sought that would have been suggest to the office allocation but not sought it we appreciate they came to try to legalize those uses and appreciate that you know they have different expectations and our department recommendation was for approval the entire building with the historic preservation commission which had reviewed that and signed off on that once the planning commission with hearings ultimately had a recommendation for maintaining part of building as industrial use and part of building as office to benefit to reduce it to a small cap authorization we have limited excuse me - limited in the cap for the projects 50 thousand square feet and more but for projects that contain 25 thousand because we have itch more availability and our office kept the program that he usa

vails themselves the small cap program that was more reeled available to maintain the pdr on the ground floor and the commission took the action on 2014 public policy that they did go though the appropriate process and paid the fees and legalize the upper second story and with the office attention didn't appeal that and continued to occupy the building in violation we have enforcement and sensitive to the displacement issues raised by the patented but note it is almost two years since the planning department decision we have tried to provide time for them to comply with the decision we're at the appealing hearing they clearly are in vision of the planning code not providing

argument that demonstrate point building was legally converted to office in violation and uphold our notice of violation i'm available to answer any questions. >> so the other building that was mentions across the street is it 6. >> 664. >> this building was approved no violations fully appropriate how would you characters that believe and this building. >> hard to distinguish the differences it was the timing and having a public hearing and hearing the public comment made the decision we're now

implementing. >> and that's where i have the issue why is there i hesitate to use the word discrimination when across the street you said there is no no difference. >> what am i missing. >> those are arguments for the appeal decision but the decision that is final and that's what we are obeying. >> and so i'm asking firing advise from the building across the street and this building are the same what are the steps if they're the same you're saying that that building here and this building here are appropriate for the seam use how do you get a small business operators small

to memoranda seller family business how to get them to, yes to the seam status as the building across the street that's where i'm skrechd i don't know. >> no, i know the appellants have the same thoughts and questions i don't know all the details in xaern of 665 to 660 looking at 660 the commission found the lower levels could be used as used with the underlying zoning perhaps pdr uses the building across the street i don't know the same potential and it had historically been a warehouse all warehouse building at one up to this point in time i don't know the history of that this but the fact we have a final planning commission decision not challenged and the position we are applying. >> thank you. >> can you shed light

reference to the new zoning potential. >> yes. the central soma plan that has been sometime in the making anticipated adoption by the board later this year but looking more spring as the timing for that which could make that perhaps for perspective not a use the use is allowed through a process they went through the process and the commission said no. >> i understand. >> i don't know if it will change anything come next year with the zoning controls that make it easier perhaps a conditional use is not required but an office allocation so still need planning commission approval for an only a year if now or today.

>> i scratch any head put an office building many if hoax the confusing part with a series of preempts for a long period of time this building has been operating as an office building and nobody raised the red flag the community and neighboring community is fine none made a serious phone call in the middle of the night with a violation against it i believe mr. reuben want the raven family is seeking to make everything clean so they can get everything clean and operate as an office building and suddenly penalized that doesn't make sense. >> they were operating without the permits and paying the appropriate impact fees for the

use they've established there so they bend for quite sometime without paying the fees that the everyone in the city pa pays. >> is there a solution i'm looking for a solution rather than making a bumpy rode not necessary a solution where impacts historic impact fees are are paid and how is that possible to turn this around and make you a happy camper. >> it's not me but the planning commission has the authority to approve that i don't have the authority this was before the planning commission and they said no to the bottom two supervisors if they said, yes they have or would have paid did impact fees and you know we're h