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 >> how are you 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, >> good evening, and welcome to the san francisco board of junius & rose of the entity appeals. appearing before the board will wednesday, may 18, 2016, the not have an effect on any presiding officer is commissioner honda and we are joined by and joined by vice decision tonight. president commissioner fung and >> you've done that before. >> a couple commissioner ann lazardus. i think the whole firm is here >> commissioner swig commissioner bobby wilson that

be absent to my left is thomas tonight. >> is there not a reuben, owen for legal advice junius & rose case. >> that's a good thing at the controls is gary the good evening commissioner fung boards legal assistants i'm jim rebecca reuben, junius & rose with the owner ever 66 third street street and try to look at this presentation and boards legal assistants hope to save you time by executive director. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. at the table in front is senior stimulating now that the first 7 building inspector joe duffy dbi pages out of 10 submitted with providing the advice for the department of building fewer sites are correct inspection and joined when i scott sanchez the zoning there's no dispute over what administrator who will be that record says but representing planning department unfortunately as almost always and planning commission and the situation involving 20 more carli short the bureau of the years of history permits don't tell the true story i recognize department of public works as well as chris buck forecast with the planning department and the da must live with the record but the hopefully to explain a little bit more of that and convince you it is right to provide the public works please be advised the ringing of and use relieve ♪ of cell phones and other case the owners the properties electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have are the raven family and managed

up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. by the folks danny and others have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. nanny a hidden me an urban to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the raeven bought this as raeven auction house over 60 permits since the 1980s and they say front office those permits business card to the clerk. include seismic fire safety and speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of ada upgrades the podium. the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction in 1980 bernard were partners in forms available. if you have a question about the the burt field action house that schedule, speak to the staff after the eting or call the board office tomorrow 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 we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live can read but the building was

on sfgovtv cable channel fused i used more auctioned that 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. fell accessoryy thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i there is inform arguing the fact that building was office as lout in 1980 and not used for anything other than office do. please note: any of the members may speak without taking except a piano store in 1990 it so, please stand now was rezoned didn't allow office and the building was a legal do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? non-conforming office with burt >> i do. >> okay. thank you very much field and butterfield so item nun on the boards calendar is general public comment an opportunity for the people to address the board on the jurisdiction but not on the political climatic change tonight agenda any public is change but without controversy in 2013

general public comment seeing none, the second item is investigating or less taken over management danny and arey talked commissioners questions or comments. >> commissioners anything? about the building the building let's go warriors. was used for office and non-conforming to allow for the >> okay 83 and ethiopian item 3 legal office to make sure the records were clear to any it was the minutes commissioners. clear if he were seeking to do >> any additions, deletions, the right thing clear up city records and pay the fees and or changes if not a motion to move on as a result i went through the accept. >> move forward options with them, they were multiple first do nothing the you any public comment on the building was running smoothly minutes to adopt and a variant of the finishes the central soma zoning district commissioner fung westbound pending and designated commissioner honda this block as office with the commissioner swig thank you very much that item passes with a vote of 4 to zero wait for central soma and then the next item is one that is do whatever the process that central soma called for to turn going to be done i understand it into office a third option to that the nellie win is here are tampering the legitimate process you with the person who great program excuse me - which was please begin the interpretation ceron amnesty for some business

of the item and everything that was said during the item that owners i sunshine had experience needs to be interpreted. and find if difficult not >> madam director prior to be completely clean rift history a starting because of the length fourth option seeking a letter of our calendar and the amount of depreciation if the zoning of cases to be heard we try to administrator determining the get this we cut the public building was grandfathered as comment to 2 minutes across the office but that is problematic board so we can get to the later because of the number of permits effectually finally it was to cases in the evening. >> okay item 4 a jurisdiction seek a conditional use to allow request the subject property on the office under the planning code sections which allows rectifying a letter from the jurisdiction of the building office in historic believes in permit application which was the zone that's what we did we researched every prior issued on february 19, 2016, by applications was approved by the planning commission ironic department of building inspection is evident and the across the street 665 in any jurisdiction was filed at the order was approved in october of board office on may 22, 2016, 2013 when sue hester speaking in support of the restriction this the project to add two bedrooms was the right way to do office and relocate the bathroom on the

conversions i explained the risk first floor and one full abandonment on the 72 hour and was minimal if any one remodel on the second story by third street on 2013 our start with the requester step hearing which was may one 2014 only 6 months later had a forward and because you have an problem in showcase square hit interpreter we'll give you 6 hike a tsunami that is was minutes to speak to the board. successful 9 times in the past we became collateral damage by >> but you'll need to speak the time the dust settled settled we had 40 at the 80 feet into the microphone when it is time. >> so, please begin. no implication and wonder in the building qualified flat planning >> we're ready yeah. code sections wait the rational for half approval with the political atmosphere we were just unlucky dan and arey were drying to do >> (speaking foreign language.) >> my name is ann win. the right thing and clear up the

record and reached the planning >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i'm at the address 221129 commission 6 months earlier we would have an approval like third street where do we go from avenue, 2002. here the planning department has issued the notice of violation >> (speaking foreign language.) as it must it is directed as one >> so i live in the house for and two the central soma plan is 14 years and seeing i have it preponderance of the evidence from the first moment the house and a pending and now both floors will be office included all the windows. if you upheld the enforcement danny and arey will have to end this even if in the central soma >> (speaking foreign language.) >> this neighborhood is very plan passes office uses will once again be allowed we request safe and my neighbor is very you hold this in abeyance until nice and gentle. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> during the 14 years. the rezoning a approved it only has attended for office in a year we're here only because >> (speaking foreign language.) >> so mr. can bought the house

danny and arey are trying to do the right thing >> mr. reuben i want to on river street i knew he didn't clarify i went through a conditional use authorization. >> correct. >> it was granted. spend any time there before. >> true. >> to occupy those two floors. >> yes. >> no appeal of that decision. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> that's right. >> so mr. can have paperwork >> that's because- >> the political atmosphere. >> i made a jewish-american to permit the construction but judgment call and illegally he did not let me know about it. occupied the others floors. >> in no there never a tenant. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> that's why i have to delays >> but instead we're moving when i you know when i submit my overseeing office tenants letter to the field. because you were not supposed to occupy those until the planning >> (speaking foreign language.) >> mr. can fixed the entire code found you in violation. >> that's right. >> when do you think the house included the inside and outside. >> (speaking foreign language.) >> i don't know if he fix the central soma rezoning is going

house to live in or rent out or to occur. >> we're told maybe scott to sold it. sanchez has a better idea the second thing if you're not >> (speaking foreign language.) >> that the fact that he built amenable to delaying the kworment of the rezoning that will cure a lot of the problem. the deck effects any families a >> i do not hold off you are everybody else around it. rebuttal one last question is >> (speaking foreign language.) related to italian-american to >> especially for my house ask the same question as the da eastern neighborhoods legislation rezoning had a location. >> (speaking foreign language.) mechanism for maintaining the >> sorry a minute. 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 >> (speaking foreign language.) >> because the location of the ring a bell. >> that would have been - deck is directed to any room i >> anything like when the feel like anyone standing on the

conversion from mc-2 to s l i. deck you know can see straightforward to any room. >> i don't think so santa monica might know the answer. >> one last question question >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and i have from views in over how much turnover has there been in the office use of floors the credit cards to have the ocean views i love the fresh one and two offer the period of time that the zone was on the property in instant turnover a air. series of leases or related to a >> (speaking foreign language.) >> my children love to hang single contributor entity. out in the garden and play in >> not a single contributor tenant and pretty stable i can get you more information the garden. specific about the turnover any particular tenants. >> so in instant turnover or >> (speaking foreign language.) >> plus my child has asthma so is that consistent. >> can i have the - and i'm my child's need more clear air dabbling raeven thank you for that helps with the situation. your time we don't have one tenants since

2005 and the majority. >> sorry could you speak >> (speaking foreign language.) >> and i want to say that closer to the marching and building the deck is very effective if i'm botching the dates one tenants since 2005 and inconvenient and make me feel one tenant this space turned very uncomfortable for my over before we had our hearing privacy for me and my family. 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 >> (speaking foreign language.) >> once again for the safety planning department so don't i don't know where to and the health of my family's begin that is an appeal of a and all the people around the notice of violation and penalty i think our appeal brief is neighborhoods i ask if you, you clear to the history i can consider the permissions of appreciate the parapet says the history is true and correct the building the deck thank you very legal use has been recommended much. >> thank you.

>> okay. thank you we'll hear that the appellant on the multi applications the use of property from the permit holder now. is or was as a warehouse use and >> good afternoon. my name is 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 derrick the designer and permit office use there was a notice of holder we're the architect that drew up the plans for 1915 special restrictions which specifically noted they can have rectifying i'll start with the a very small amount of accessory design of the deck the deck height is 9 feet one office space but anything else hundred and 13 inches off the is needing planning code grade and in the planning code permission and coagulate back to the early 1980s impact fees with nothing under 10 feet not the conversion from the chair to requiring the 311 notices it is office for transportation and, 10 feet including the stairs and in fact, those beginning if 1985 subject property 1915 river it and 86 office variances for this

building as well subsequent to is one across from the avenue in the 1987 authorizations that we're invading the two 22 permit was perfect with the seismic and exterior work that privacy we're invading through was the final inspection and a someone else's backyard our adjacent neighbor which is on converted to sympathy or prejudice office space with the the map is 1909 rivera. 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 >> now on the subject property permitted prohibited in that to the deck itself is if or 2211, allow for office space but never sought that would have been 29 after the windows that facing suggest to the office allocation but not sought it we appreciate our decks are property line window on the property line are they came to try to legalize those windows permitted? are those uses and appreciate that

you know they have different they ever you know on permit or expectations and our department recommendation was for approval there, there before or existing the entire building with the we do know i can't say they're historic preservation commission which had reviewed that and not they might be but they're a signed off on that once the property line window and planning commission with hearings ultimately had a regarding the avenue yards did recommendation for maintaining part of building as industrial yards so close to an open space use and part of building as but it is enclosed with a patio office to benefit to reduce it it is we have a picture it shows to a small cap authorization we have limited excuse me - limited in the cap for the projects 50 thousand square feet and more the enclosure with those windows but for projects that contain 25 installed and the property line thousand because we have itch in san francisco i believe there more availability and our office are no real - kept the program that he usa i believe we're not blocking any vails themselves the small cap sunset and open space program that was more reeled available to maintain the pdr on of 22, 11, 29 avenue and we got the ground floor and the commission took the action on

2014 our plans approved based on code public policy that they did go though the appropriate process and paid the fees and legalize compliant and it was issued and we built according to plans. the upper second story and with >> thank you. the office attention didn't >> i've got a question, sir so appeal that and continued to looking at the brief wasn't clear that is a side yard you occupy the building in violation said a vacant lot between. we have enforcement and >> that was a vacant lot it sensitive to the displacement issues raised by the patented but note was on rivera street that is the it is almost two years since the planning department decision we same lay out, same deck we're have tried to provide time for basically flush with our them to comply with the decision property. >> okay. your the third house from the corner. we're at the appealing hearing >> side third from the corner. they clearly are in vision of >> can you thrum what you're the planning code not providing lot size. >> it is by one hundred square argument that demonstrate point feet our zoning should be 25 building was legally converted percent rear yard variance within that rear yard area. to office in violation and

>> thank you. uphold our notice of violation >> anything from the department the jurisdiction i'm available to answer any questions. >> so the other building that request. >> sew scott sanchez planning was mentions across the street department this is in the rh1 is it 6. the deck is code compliant and a >> 664. notification would have been required i'm available to answer >> this building was approved any questions thanks. >> mr. duffy anything. no violations fully appropriate how would you characters that >> good evening joe duffy dbi believe and this building. >> hard to distinguish the the building permit mr. appeals to have been issued properly by dbi a typical remodel on the differences it was the timing ground floor rooms at the deck and rear didn't require the and having a public hearing and firewalls the deck has been hearing the public comment made the decision we're now pulled in from property line a implementing. >> and that's where i have the current approval and we - the issue why is there i hesitate to building is second story and we use the word discrimination when did the structural notification

and there is an open complaint on the property i on across the street you said there intersections it is filed by the is no no difference. appellant and it was the deck >> what am i missing. was blocking the view i can't >> those are arguments for the see my room in the window in the appeal decision but the decision yard so we investigated that the that is final and that's what we are obeying. complaint is open the inspection on the deck and permit was on >> and so i'm asking firing unapproved plan many it's advise from the building across updated prior to the suspension the street and this building are of the permit i'm available to answer any questions. >> your notice only goes to the same what are the steps if the adjacent. >> that's correct. >> doesn't go to the. >> no. they're the same you're saying >> the appellants property. that that building here and this >> right a structural building here are appropriate notification for both sides. for the seam use how do you get >> subject excuse me - to this hearing the nov will it be a small business operators small to memoranda seller family abated. >> not an nov we issued a - business how to get them to, yes to the seam status as the from the permit is upheld we building across the street

certainly have no reason to keep that's where i'm skrechd i don't it au open. >> it was hard to look at the know. >> no, i know the appellants pictures from different angles have the same thoughts and but properly lined windows if questions i don't know all the the appellants. details in xaern of 665 to 660 >> yes. >> is that legal or not legal. looking at 660 the commission >> there are very hard to say found the lower levels could be you'll have to do a thorough used as used with the underlying investigation to see what the zoning perhaps pdr uses the original permit you're allowed building across the street i the property line windows under don't know the same potential new construction and they have and it had historically been a warehouse all warehouse building to be 3 quarter fixed windows in at one up to this point in time i don't know the history of that the metal frame you give up all this but the fact we have a relevance if someone want to final planning commission decision not challenged and the build against you a lot of buildings have property windows position we are applying. >> thank you. many, many years ago we don't >> can you shed light reference to the new zoning get that many complaint unless potential. >> yes. the central soma plan something like that couples that has been sometime in the they're hard to investigate you're trying to keep bodies making anticipated adoption by

happy those windows are there the board later this year but looking more spring as the for 40 or 50 or 60 years you're timing for that which could make not popular. >> we'll had a couple of those that perhaps for perspective not cases here. >> right depending on how things a use the use is allowed through go certainly on the neighborhood a process they went through the the permit holder not - and process and the commission said no. >> i understand. >> i don't know if it will warrant the jurisdiction. change anything come next year >> right. right we can look at with the zoning controls that it. >> just asking. make it easier perhaps a >> thank you inspector duffy conditional use is not required but an office allocation so still need planning commission any public comment seeing none, approval for an only a year if commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> >> i might explain for the appellant the standard of now or today. review in a jurisdiction is whether the department erred most of the discussion was on >> i scratch any head put an the actual issues of the case itself office building many if hoax the confusing part with a series of notice was properly given notice

preempts for a long period of that of required properly given time this building has been i don't find that the department operating as an office building and nobody raised the red flag erred. >> i agree. >> i concur would you like to make a motion. the community and neighboring community is fine none made a >> move to deny the appeal the permit was properly issued. serious phone call in the middle >> okay. thank you so the of the night with a violation motion then by commissioner fung against it i believe mr. reuben 0 deny the jurisdiction on that motion want the raven family is seeking commissioner lazarus commissioner honda to make everything clean so they commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero he wanted to can get everything clean and ask from the parties for item operate as an office building number 8 on 21st street are in and suddenly penalized that doesn't make sense. the room if you could raise your >> they were operating without hands are you expecting many the permits and paying the patterson who is not in the room appropriate impact fees for the we'll move on and try to get to use they've established there so they bend for quite sometime you soon, we'll take item 5 without paying the fees that the everyone in the city pa pays. >> is there a solution i'm

panning ramp versus the urban forestry on mission street looking for a solution rather than making a bumpy rode not requesting the denial retrieval necessary a solution where and denial to not plant 60 inch impacts historic impact fees are box trees at the subject property it was held on are paid and how is that october 2015 and on for further possible to turn this around and consideration on october 2015 make you a happy camper. that was continued to allow time >> it's not me but the for the parties to talk about - planning commission has the authority to approve that i to appear before the board to don't have the authority this address how americans with was before the planning commission and they said no to disabilities act impact this permit on 2015 that was the bottom two supervisors if continued to allow time for the they said, yes they have or party to further discuss the would have paid did impact fees city's requirement for the site and you know we're here on the and try to develop a plan so i'm hoping that the parties in violation because they've not to this case are here this - it come mrirld with the commissions decision. public works in the room >> what are the fees for wonderful i on intersections we should continuing to operate. hear from the departments and >> the penalties under the

see we're tasked with action and planning code i think 200 and then we'll hear from the $50 a day for each day the appellant. >> commissioner honda shall we give each side 3 minutes? vision is unabated. okay. thank you >> good evening across the city bucking urban forest urban >> there was a process in the forester thank you for recapping eastern neighborhoods you could have locked somehow the the history this is a lengthy case the original permit to preceding use before it was remove 5 trees 2 were very large and to replace with 5, 60 box zoned. >> eastern neighborhoods program that is now expired and replacement trees that didn't we called an amnesty program to were not able to sign off since the october hearing we met with answer your question mr. krooub reuben a similar program when mr. jensen onsite with the sfmta the 346 to the south of market kevin jensen i have his e-mail mixed use zoning district i'm i'll put it on the overhead his aware of any litigate or concern with the layout was that legalization permit that was the last second sfmta once the legal at that point that was

unclear when the uses chang's building is inhibited they changed the permit is 87 and changed the code marks don't called that has a warehouse with line up so the last several months the applicant the the retail and the auction it is appellant had to go back to the unclear exactly had the current sfmta to get permission to tenant came in we saw the permit modify the color curve so that's been done at this point and i do in the mid 90s more more office have an e-mail interest kevin to office and perhaps the appellants can discuss the wave jensen he sent the other day to of that unopted out building. - overhead please. he says thank you for the confirmation it is depicted as >> the central soma rezoning discussed, in fact, sure the appellant stated see below the screen shot the highlighted areas we'll fill in a planter you're saying probably not concrete to accommodate you impact the potential use. >> it may make office more we've agreed upon upon site and kevin jensen is acceptable our permissive but a whole host of

ada issues are addressed and the things in central soma it could appellant is waiting for mta to make office more per color the curbs but the ada administrative and pressure the issue was addressed replacement of pdr i mean, i don't know that it will be any at this point, i on intersections we're circling necessarily any easy or better back to the - one idea to start or change things much not do away with invokes and do away with the office allocation over move the utilities it sclft process. >> thank you, thank you. with those trees and other >> any public comment on this option our department suggested item? okay. seeing none we'll have is a way forward is they planned our rebuttal. >> so the office use that 36 inch boxed trees and this is 29 hundreds to install a 6 building started in 1962 and raeven bought that and remained manipulative box tree is $5,000 as a office building an auction so times 5 trees $10,000 plus a house auctioned on the ground floor and on the 3 floors always been office you can find a lot fee the board is tacked how to of setup stuff number two the

come up with a penalty this is planning commission unless we've not a penalty this is what was done that 50 times in any office very a large volume of work from planned not arbitrary and one the appearances here way to move forward the planning department takes this is the one remaining issue the position not grandfather the we have no other issues on site office until you have a permit regarding this permit. like some use as what is a or >> thank you, mr. buck. retail was the use exist use intended use office that covers >> thank you we'll hear from the scope of work that covers virtually the entire building with a sign off on the back that's a unicorn they don't the appellant now. exist i don't blame the planning >> that's correct across the code from wanting to protect city across the city kevin and i themselves that stuff good evening ever happen i'll be met onsite as chris said we precipitated in that board two respect to sfmta and applied for or three buildings work the white curb and as a result themselves with that system the kevin wanted a loading zone we conditional use application a difficult process 4 signatures accommodated that and made i from supervisors or you need to

paid all the fees kevin from ada get the signatures of 10 percent is okay with that and given us of land use owners the board of the green light to move forward supervisors had just passed i might add that overflow room we had committed to doing 5, 60 malia cohen passed a law prohibiting landmarking that hemispheres on 665 and our inch box trees but planted 9 as building 630 we're not getting you recall that was dictated relieve from the planning commission no point i'm not sure we could have gotten through not saying the landscape was - we a freebie but signatures the followed the better landscape central soma plan the map if you plan we planted 9, 36 inch trees look at central soma right now we thought that was sufficient there is our building the the result of plan check scheduled to be mixed use office confusion within the department as to how we end up with that we entirely office, of course, i don't actually on intersections are cognizant of the fact that that scott was direct that's you know we should have come back to the board of appeals and what it says anything can happen clarified that we know that but if you read the but those projects tend to be plan it is office pretty complicated what you know in terms of the fees ravens don't have a problem with paying executed them and had a number fees they'll pay them with the

of permits that was one of '75 opportunity i had pictures here permits we got the drawings of the two buildings 66 o 5 stamped so the 9 trees i guess directly across the street was you have to review those as part over 100 percent thousand feet of plan check so in an effort to or 80 close this out i on mr. reuben. >> flush out for me a little intersections we left off talking about the difference and bit in terms of the specific the other thing from dpw is details when you talk about the paying the in lui fee which is auction house being office versus the retail 18 per tree i heard a total of sales that the folks 5541 we can do a check for that incorporated as. >> so you know, i think that the image that people think a a you know, i on intersections that chris agrees the site looks auction house a great big area at great the trees as we see the where auctioned are held not the case most of work is dub in the projector office or consignment and deals with people in the con we had brought up our landscaper assignments. >> give me an idea of percentage of square feet.

architect says that within 5 >> 60 thousand this is an 80 years a 36 inch box tree will thousand foot building 2 and 3 fill out what a 60 inch box they and 4 floors are office with ground floor with storage and trithis is in 5 years a 60 box some occasional auctioned. >> what was the split. >> i'll ask danny who visited tree would have been we're looking to the board to close it this out we're in line with dpw the store there there were auctioned to draw a lot of and ada and fta this site looks people they did them elsewhere at good we're looking to close and the storage for the con out at the direction of board stimulate was the office for tonight thank you. >> thank you butter field and butter field thank you. >> your number is different shingles 1962 i've told you than the d s he said 5 at 21 about 1980 and no fees for hundred. >> that was the delta so i office use scott the va is think the confusing thing with the board is trying to follow referring to the tdif was the kind of a rule book book with transit fee and glad to pay the the city an in lui fee which is fees. >> so where we are - well, you

1890 and the delta of planting a want me to get the answer. >> >> gave me enough. 36 inch tree and a 60 inch my >> where we are an enforcement understanding the 36 tree is 29 action i get it and understand hundred to plant and a 60 is 5 it was inevitable we've appealed thousand that is the delta of 10 central soma will rezoning district the area and office thousand 5 hundred we were again and if we have to evict supposed to plant 60 inch but if some tenants in a year from now you calculate it a number of ways the 5 for 5 the delta is 10 we'll go georgia back to the same tenants a they'll be - not thousand nine hundred or add up you know the total that we spent fair we choose to do the thing which is 9 times 2 nine hundred that worked 100 percent of the time in the past and in the planning code tipping the goals versus 4 times 75 hundred we're goal to allow the owners with looking for a way to close this historic building. >> i'm sorry was your time up. out and have the board make a >> thank you. discussion how we want to do so. >> oh, i thought i got to >> are you fine with the 10 answer a question. >> mr. sanchez. thousand 5 hundred number that >> sorry i interrupted his

the department has come up with. time. >> yeah. i mean we spent a >> scott sanchez planning department so again as was stated in their application from bunch of money applying to sfmta 1987 listed the use of warehouse and phil the concrete taking down existing trees so i on and had an office listed as office lowered they're parking intersections ideally we would requirement and maybe not seek like to have it be lower but if and justify a permit putting this is what the boards decision we can commit to that. chair actually puts a lower >> okay. thank you. >> thank you public comment on parking requirement as part of this item environmental review there was a site visit conducted and need okay seeing none, then commissioners, the building was partially the matter is submitted. >> and again, just a reminder occupied with chase and wine and what is before you is an appeal of a denial to not plant the 60 4 floor administrative office for the auction company and the variance they noted that the inch box trees okay. >> perhaps a further response action company dealt with large from mr. buck. and bulky items a pamphlet with trademarks and equipment that

>> based on your presentation are available for auction even in the appellants own we're down to the number. application for the conditional use authorization they listed >> thank you, commissioners the former auction abuse as chris buck with public works whenever a new building being clarified as wholesale of constructed a number of trees are assessed to be required to be planned this site is required good ideas and customer storm to plant 14 trees to the this is the light wholesale part right-of-way in the end there's a planning department of 7 trees i understand they're seeking to so 3 of the trees, 4 of the try to justify this is as legal trees are even substitute skulk office space not in the documents overflow room and the concerns of paying fees it would landscaping for required trees 7 trees planted landscaping be great if even paid the fees totally the equivalent of 4 when necessary converted the trees and paying 3 in lui fees office and now they're coming through the process to meet the planning code that unfortunately for them the planning commission did deny is where the 5 thousand plus their application and it was half available for them i don't comes up that is charged regardless of 60 inch box issue know what difference the moh they feed to go back to the

a total separate fee just to clarify that is the simple price planning commission for the office allocation he process may differences between a 36 inch say no, not allowing them to and 60 inch box tree the convert if moh or not so plus difference is $2,900 per tree so whatever provisions may get added to the central soma plan $10,000 san francisco public so again, this is illegal office works has an adopt a tree fund space not through the process in lui fees are adopted we have and didn't pay the fees he a mechanism that money is understand there is some literally a lockbox for tree not frustration about this we've gotten complaint over the last purchasing new tires or trucks but towards the planting of new year or two with the illegal trees we want to commend clarify conversion they've not paid the impact fees we want in this that amount. process to bring people into >> so you'll be accepting the compliance and some cases we can legalize and there was a path to po and owner o overturning the the legalization the commission denial that $10,000 plus will be said 2 stories of office two paid into our tree fund. stories have to comply with the >> yes. and for the record our zoning and i'm available to answer any questions you may

preference is the 60 inch box have. >> i request a have a quick trees, however, i will say that question the 36 inch box trees were n s r was filed on october 2015 planted a year ago they're in the ground 36 inch trees and and want the enforcement notice establishing well was someone paying attention and i can say that the site is doing well it is performing well . >> we were getting complaints it is a little bit of a photocopy from the community the people came out and spoke in opposition and follow-up of the consolation a learning curve when we head into some of the status of enforcement case the commission was interested i've cases but to move forward and been reported back to the based on the number of months commission that the status of we've worked to continue this it enforcement and we now will seem like indirectly another report to them tomorrow. message to applicants to adhere >> a silly question you got to the rules of board otherwise enforcement and a fee if they the approvals will not accompany don't comply potentially we will be okay this treatment. legislation that takes effect maybe in a year to two years >> listening to you is the 10 what happened if necessary stay out the compliance and pay the thousand 5 total or plus the 10 fee until that new legislation thousand. >> it would be $10,500 comes into place.

>> you know this is just not the specific for the tree size the first time that has happened we other matters is a separate fee have enforcement issues with that is taken care of final penltsdz accrue and okay. thank you. typically if we have >> thank you. >> if cliepdz to make the non-response to the penalty and people are not compliant the motion there ought to be a price city attorney's reviewed it and takes the predicament action. >> 40 thousand square feet and to pay i don't consider that a huge amount. >> commissioner swig was not 2 led hundred and 50 day here but the three of us were penalty. here. >> i was here. >> this can you please the >> yeah. so. concerns you can have one >> i will make the motion to hundred square feet building with illegal and paying 200 and grant the appeal overturn the 50 day penalties is not an denial of the department and incentive that is raised as an issue. condition that would be payment >> thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i'll be clear where i of $10,500 into the b u s tree

fund. >> okay. thank you so we have stands. >> go go ahead i kind of know. a motion in the vice president >> it was the planning to grant the appeal and overturn commission decision i think that the appeal by the department on was not adhered to there was a is condition that $10,500 be violation i think that need to be upheld. paid as an in lui fee is that >> so let's talk through acceptable through what happens if we make commissioner lazarus commissioner honda that what's the next step from commissioner swig that motion carries with a vote of 4 to zero thank you very much there, i on intersections that goes the same way either way. >> what happens next is not mr. >> i don't see him. our issue. >> no. >> yeah. yeah. as. >> okay. we'll move on to >> a reminder this was an item 6 appeal number stephen error standard. >> well the planning department have their own gains versus the urban forestry procedures and temps timeframes the property on 95 norway do have street to, llc the tree when they pass it on removal moving a tree to the

rear of the property and this is on for hearing tonight we'll - it's hard to fully accept start with the appellant some of the points made regarding the political >> you wish to say i have compliment climate- i don't retained reuben, junius & rose on a project reuben, junius & rose representation appearing before this board will not have an effect on my decision this know why you're raising our hands the point had i looked at evening. >> you have 7 minutes to the permit i do so a lot of the present are your case. >> overhead. permits and so there was a >> commissioners good evening pattern involved in the use i'm steve my wife and i are the appellants on 49 next door to the project awhile i testify on there and i'm not sure that i'm my own on behalf of i have willing to make that determination that it is office snatches for people 0 wishing to space in any form or manner we enjoy the redwood tree and where don't have that particular

it exists the neighborhood authority but have the authority associations represent thousands of families surrounded the tree to give them a little bit of i have a roomful of neighbors breathing room that care i want to talk about we could continue this - the tree a 50 coast redwood as >> penalties will still noted in the brief less than 04 accrue. >> no and he'll have to make they're percent of trees are native to the city this is a privately on business decision based upon owned tree visibly within the what may or may not occur with public realm because the proximity to the public right-of-way that is designated enforcement. >> i will lean towards a under the public works code the continuance but not towards for city staff described as one of the penalties to not keep on the largest trees in the neighborhood providing shade and accruing. >> yeah. yeah. character the evaluation was for >> we have. >> money is not the issue at the denial of the original application the trees location this point. >> right but. >> i think it is timing is important it is indirectly they're going to have a make a dribble behind the park and it decision they need to determine is essential to one neighborhood gives them some ability to - important neighborhood

intersection >> i'm with ann the decision with the two other nearby redwoods one landmarked it is was made they know or knew the one of the last visible reminder decision. >> i'll not support a of golden gate park in the. continuance. >> i don't know - >> can you stop, stop the time >> commissioner lazarus. have you been trying to use the >> pardon. >> what did you say. >> i'll not support a overhead we need to have the continuance. >> okay. >> i'm kind of with overhead you if wanted to use the overhead you have to ask in commissioner fung and why i rays the microphone i did not hear you, you're on the overhead now my hand you referenced the go ahead. >> on the same evaluation political atmosphere that is the board the dpw said the tree is problem here we're facing it completely unrelated issue you healthy and sustainable we marked the tree it showed know we have to conjecture but i excellent color this tree is healthy it is covered are new pointed to the building across growth and shows inform sign it the street which is the zoning is in danger or peril the administrator completely agreed

was a similar project seems to arborist declared the tree now that the sponsor wants to move have sailed through and then the tree so healthy it can across town there was the interest effect and an emotional sustain it's roots it is bold and moved and placement attached political issue even sued and i to the platform in a new construction site we ask you don't see - that's what bothers consider this r all of me and i don't know how to get opinion the trees are laid out over that but that's why i in article 16 lacking from the raised my portion there was section is the term relocation it speaks of removal in fact, no political emotion i'll support where is relocation mentions the continuance b it gives us whether you rove a tree or you more time to figure this out may not roach that no section of relocation in the brief you saw continuum. >> but the gel climate they've the staffs response to the acquiring the application no owned this since the 60s and place form for relocation so the

staff instructed the sponsor to use a removal form and change lirnd. >> i i understand but the the name no circulation and no initiative to recognize the conditions and to come out and try to legislative authority although resolve those conditions and the adopted application the notice to the community then there's the emotionally regarding the permit was about relocation in order for this for roaming of a redwood but the april climate. >> if a decide made by the actual permit was for removal of planning commission with the process that's what the decision a street tree under section 806 was that's also true. >> i think we all understand that quite well, that implies. not a street tree the tree is on private property by the sponsor as a significant tree you'll >> well, let's i'll move to hear from the sponsor that authorizes dpw to allow for the removal of trees that's open a continue this for a period of 6 half-truth it established the months. procedures whether or not >> you want to. significant trees thereby removed we believe this is no >> on the ground. >> excuse me -

legislative authority and only >> (laughter) do you want a november date or conditions that will protect the tree and the neighboring properties if you believe that december date are available. relocate can be considered it >> i mean 6 months is must be considered in the standards that apply to the removal of a significant tree november, november 9th and 16 this tree exceeded protection and december 7th and 16. and has been denied permit and >> december 7th. >> december 7th okay full removal by dpw it was ruled final by this brotherhoods in december 7, 2016, do you want to say why you are continuing to 2015 which changed nothing other than that date what you want to see the sponsors arborist, however, happen between now and then or such a permit because the unsafe not. conditions the sponsor this have >> not. >> okay a geotech report of soil removal (laughter). >> yes. you you can the to have soil engineer and motion by the vice president to continue the appeal to structural engineer study this december 7, 2016, undertaking on the historical commissioner lazarus. single-family on norwdoff - and >> no commissioner honda?

commissioner swig okay that motion carries with a vote of 3 to one >> okay have the sponsor pay for the then the next item is item 12 residence of 49 to the offsite appeal castro hill boosters housing during this event keep in mind this decision has no versus the planning commission property at arkansas protesting public input the period of time to martin building copy of the discussions were take place the decision was made i tried to planning code large project authorization to allow the new contact the department 17 times construction of a 5 story weekly only after the written notice on with exceptions for rear yard the other hand, the lobbyists pursuant to the session dwelling exchanged 49 phone calls and used the arborist as the only unit with the section off street person with the expert opinion loading and pursuant to planning no outside independent kourlts i code 207.6 this is on for want to move on to the tree has to go so the city can be hearing this hearing for this provided with four new housing matter was reschedule at the units that is untrue first if request of the parties. >> what a surprise i need to

you approve the dpeemgs of the make a disclosure wish to disclose i've hired reuben, historic home and the junius & rose on a project as subdivision of prominent lots counsel reuben, junius & rose representation as a entity and third the construction of 4 before the board will not have new believes in the exact location no way to know whether an effect on any decision. or not this will happen and if we influence that it will not happen bus the tree is important >> i'm glad we can do this i'm in the current location in the brief we printed in the record out rules used for 4 unit of representing the appellant in housing in different the matter you're asked who the configurations a decision not exception to the eastern reserved whether or not a tree neighborhoods the second does is removed in the past didn't the respondent meet that standard in depends on the matter f eve they move this tree answer to the first, we ask you the tree is healthy determined overturn that mixed use project by multi arborist and dpw it is and the large project authorization be conditioned on healthy moving it it the only the mixed use requirement if our thing that put united states it unable you overturn or continue at risk for 4 units without the appeal so the planning commission may have time to toughing the tree please don't legislatively clarify the code relating to project it is

make this decision thank you. helpful for interpreting say we should look at the mixed use >> (clapping.) no- please thank you. with the statutory framework >> a procedural question i know you limited it to 2 minute from the languages is more one but people wrote for 3 minutes. litter interpretations that >> the problem we say several results in the third consequence long cases they've not come into look to the protective history reasonable to read the code with the room if we go to 3 minutes the variance project mixed use we'll not be able to finish the exception the context supports this screening approvals in the evening. >> thank you we'll hear from eastern neighborhoods are split the permit holder now. according to size the zoning >> mr. duffy. administrator makes the desertion and the planning >> good evening commissioner commission makes the sdergz honda and members of the board sdeshgsz it together the tom reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the permit holder and mechanics for large project and property owner, llc as we see provides the expectation to the the it appellants raised 3 main code read as a whole section issues the first, the legal provides a fraction states the authority of the department of public works to authorize it and

the replanting of the tree applicable in the mixed use cross-reference other code and this clearly is addressed in the so forth the standard and looking at those closely the urban forestry ordinance standard used by the zoning administrator parallel each together authorized department other the provisions allowing the expectation to the parking of public works to and through the urban forestry to both ratios and open space and remove and plant trees planting on-street parking loading zones can be done on its own accord or requiring the large and small the mitigation of the resolve projects they should be read and them a tree in this case the removal and replanting of the this state the unit mixed same tree a difference without a through the variance process so distinction the bureau is forth in section 304 or 329 clearly authorized to issue the permit through the procedure in second issue environmental celebration this is minimally review and in this case the larger project was granted unclear we're not reading in categorical exception and that project included the remove of the tree it is important to understand what the categorical exception that didn't mean no celebrati environmental review first is a isolation - the eastern neighborhoods mixed use district determination of whether a maybe misdemeanor pursuant to categorical exception even applies and second there as a the section 329 the rear yard

determination whether the requirement in the eastern project results in any neighborhoods mixed use maybe misdemeanor by the zoning significant impacts administrator pursuant to the nevertheless, and in this case, the project procedures in section 307 was studied including the removal of the tree and the hectic value of the tree and of paraphrasing criteria met as unclear with the mixed use the home and the planning language and unclear in exactly department determined no significant impacts the only change in the project the same way and large project now that the tree will be handled by a different replanted an environmental department they see, yes the benefit we submit the environmental review was proper large project authorization the third concern was really the authorization quotes the same technical and physical ability provisions and makes to successfully roach and philanthropic decision the replant the tree commission and planning department prepares the motion with that we have our expert and the city attorney's found david cox of the environmental the same criteria under the design inc. to speak to that section has applied to the issue i'll is the world renowned zoning administrator with small projects the code is not clear it is responsibly to follow did and removing and replanting fraction for the standards to be trees this is a 98 percent the same we're not asking. a novel use of reading but a

success rate they've removed trees in the white house we have reading that conforms to word it our tree arborist mr. roy for in the provisions the application of the criteria recalled find project size is any questions thank you. i'll consistent with the code and turn to mr. cox. therefore reasonable any doubt >> good evening. i'm david have not meaning of the status cox with viral design based out look at the history for guidance of houston, texas we are the further accepting the large tree removes we've removed respondents interpretation is an absurd consequences when applied significant trees of this size and larger for on the united to small projects no criteria states capital ground the white whatsoever will apply to large house, the supreme court, we've projects >> the unit mix has to insure done work in many area he moved we maintain the living rarmentd the tree for soma and work in and not shut families out of the arrangement those with large project and open door to the mixed use awhile requiring the trashing moving a 65 inch a minority projects to approve the different species to move and net under the variance criteria currently working in santa fe on it is absurd and undermines the several projects and basically

purpose of the unit mixed remodeled projects and requirement we look at the preserving and replanting them protective history and found on the same prompt that's last december was amended primarily all we do we don't striking the language that says it applies to large project remove trees or do tree removals the prior version left no with the open up for public question we must determine why comment we're specifically a the legislation intended to tree transplanting in business grant that exception well the since 1977 hold the world record legislation purpose was clear and intended to correct the errors and add the language for the biggest distance of move and the diameter and the tallest update the code with provisions to simplify the text and put you name it, we transplanted the another way to make substantial tree on peaceably beach in the clean up changes that the code year 2000 because of the tree shows the intent to move the the pine trees criteria many argument should be dying from the disease a rejected a - something gesture significant history in the civic county and area if there is any should be read at the same kind technical issues you want me to of specifics update the code to discuss i'm available to answer any questions. update in a nonsubstantive ways

>> thank you. the history shows this is the >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the appropriate reading the legislation the text amendments quote explained because prior code quote various error and department now. cross-references and lack of >> good evening, commissioners clarity and grammar mistakes and carli short san francisco public other errors to correct those works i said to make a couple of errors with the language no points i on intersections we mention of the unit mix or any wanted to emphasize the fact other new substantive changes in that the department approved the relocation of this tree on this the developed new planning code after reviewing the proposal way are concerned initially the tree given the purpose of the history no change was intended in the might not be successful in its relocation we want to see the criteria should be continued to tree preserved we actually felt be applied the language maybe this was a win-win i hate to say reasonably read for the criteria it we've yet to see a tree not for the mixed use exception a career reason is absurdity and removed and when a development the protective history no project is at stake we thought material changes from the clear that preserving this tree onsite prior version were intend we ask will protect most of the you apply the criteria and concerns raised by the community

and the concerns the tree is not revoke the mixed use exception thank you. significant we addressed by >> okay. we'll hear in the requiring a notice of special restriction on the property so motion holder. >> good evening commissioners we felt this this was actually a thank you for happening in there good solution to preserve this prpg commissioner honda andy tree visually with all the with reuben, junius & rose representing the martin building environmental benefits that come along and many of the benefits company thank you for your attention the legal arguments to the community i want to address the idea the are clear that was one clear simple idea do appellant is they briefs are saying we have a can't pick and choose the secret active progress we brenda planning code they apply to the project it is coming down to over backwards when the tree - that simple there is really no dispute about the facts and part of amendment in conjunction to the board of appeals rather than having that addressed at that the body loan the 329 changed in many version we agreed that the most the planning code what the transparent concept to be to a planning commission and planning department staff look at it and new thirty day notice on the approved the project that is tree and held another public today's planning code not works hearing and that was finding of any kind to grant appeal able to the board of

this expectation on interesting appeals this was not done in pattern by the way, really not that unusual that the planning secret we felt the public should code is riesdz in 2014 over 20 know that is the best way to get the notification out to the new all the times many 201532 code amendment and there are 8 public by following our typical process and lastly the with 14 more pend if we got into suggestion not consistent with the code addressed by the permit an argument 0 nothing would be holders brief you know settle we point back to this and relocation of a significant tree that shouldn't have been changed the code requires we plant a the appellant says - again, this tree of the equal value is the way the code was written or obtain a fee if that is not in 2015 and not read the day we possible relocate of a significant tree to a different had the hearing before the spot on the same property is in commission and still not there appellant cites no case law and our mind the most ideal equitable of a tree we feel that logic that supports that and is consistent with the code so allows them to point to another code and let go back in time we again, i on intersections that the departments perspective we don't know what the applications would love to see this tree would have done the - that is retained the initial denial we want to see the tree retained

speculation none knows what the relocating to a new recognition commission would have done from arguing having better ground it is constrained because of the the code was in effect then exist property and the sidewalk those finding were not required we felt was a good solution to the code changes were lowering the commission to proceed on the maintain the benefits of the urban forest we're charged with thirsted that issue do of and maintaining most of benefits the community and preserve and neflthd bedrooms you'll hear in patrick a bitter of a convoluted protect this tree the regret i have it tree is not visual to history the exception an the public that's the one thing interrogation by the zoning administrator late in 2009 is we can't achieve through the part of conversation here i'm leaving it to mr. sanchez to solution but that roves that we explain the history but note felt this was a win-win given that during the commission hearing the planning commission the proposed development project specifically asked mr. sanchez what if that are interpretation on the review and the existing good evening exist and mr. location of tree. sanchez clarified by saying this >> thank you. >> ged. exception didn't exist that >> is there any use of interrogation the exception would not be required but again consistency in the actual permit itself neither location where none of this changes the fact in

finding were required by finding google brought up by the were certainly made the law requires them to be made from payment. >> we followed the process of the planning code didn't provide removal process guidance the commission makes we felt that we were trying to the finding they did on page 14 communicate as clear as possible the planning commission goes and we said the tree was removed and say, however, given for recent we expected people to be concerned so i on intersections changes with the dwelling units that essentially we're following reminder equitably the department is conducting a the code with the tree removal comprehensive view that may result in future revision and process our use of term the department researched and relocation we were not approving was in consultation with beginning request the mayor's the out right removal but office of housing with other relocated within the property. city departments and other >> commissioner swig. jurisdictions where this nestled >> how old is 12 tree. >> i never like the guess the bedroom was going they said research and conclusion in age. consumption with other city >> a range of restraining agencies shows consistent order years. support for the nestled bedroom >> like range 50 to one there is a two bedroom unit this is at the heart of the issue the hundred. >> how old is the

neighborhood. >> i don't know perhaps the appellant eve the code changes planning department will know. >> i'm trying to establish back when the interpretations goes away will in the near which came first, the chicken or future is mute those are two the egg era the significance of bedrooms you'll hear from mr. that tree patrick in a second to sum up and what i'm wrestling with a commission did the iconic no. bunch of other stuff is changing nothing has been presented that the character of a neighborhood changes that result so i'm going to turn it over to to patrick to it is clearly a tree when establishes a character in this talk about the nestled bedrooms. neighborhood and one of the >> good evening patrick of briefing a couple weeks ago on martin building company just for a moment elaborate on the things that go wrong or right or nestled bedrooms we've been wrong with the jauflts to home building for almost 25 years renovations the key elements built hundreds of overseeing units indeed hundreds in the eastern neighborhoods and in the which is remote is changing the south of market they are - we do character by renovation of. that because we are passionate >> house changes the character about great design and something of a neighborhood or we've held on to strongly their inconsistent with the character of the neighborhood it seems to creative inner solution for one me this standard will apply with

bedroom and two bedrooms units we certainly, if is to hold onto this tree this component we asking could i am not this is a i'm wrestling have changed the design this is with the importance of this tree a aspire design and it is and the character of the neighborhood is that part of validated by our occupant character of the neighborhood do resident and owners of those you on intersections. units and have had dozens and >> absolutely i on intersections that any large dozens of families paved and tree is the character of a present living in the units i neighborhood and certainly this from the does continuing hearing nothing but i on intersections that our positive february on the configuration we know the of all concern that the tree with the the evidence bedrooms are a solid evaluation so i want to out right removal by perceiving it within the neighborhood and say oftentimes they hear about within the basic property the nestled bedrooms their ideas footprint we felt was a better are going to something like a alternative than out right removal of tree. windowless room and converted >> i'm wrestling we believe walk-in closet if i could have the tree is the expert his the overhead. >> it is difficult to see but you'll see the large windows and success ratio is good but am i

doors that impact with the willing to take the risk the living space tree will live or die what here's a good example the living happens from the tree didn't room it is a tremendous amount make it. >> from the tree didn't make of light as you can see this is it the requirement for an 84 a general configuration where the outside wall is this wall here and the bedrooms are in replacement tree seller not as bound and face on the living larceny as the tree by honestly given the amount of resources space paw tremendous amount of natural light they're nice more investing in the relocation i don't on intersections anyone will be intentionally spending that much money for the tree not au currently the entertainment to survive. >> it is a one hundred commission applauded this design plus-year-old tree i'm old i if i got moved i'll suffer for a because of the nirlt use anyway and want to do in conclusion one hundred plus-year-old tree with this project we are deeply rooted and established definitely stakeholder and there is risks. >> certain i'll emphasis you condominium to doing high quality work and committed not know that someone brought up why only in the $2 million fees we not angle outdoor arborist the pay we volunteered over $500,000 staff has oovshtd we've

in payment to jackson playground condominium our lives to and improvements in the jackson playground across the street and preserving and protecting trees the project is voluntarily that's why we're in the business we reviewed that carefully i was increased the affordable from 14 to 20 percent affordable so initially resistant and if you there's a lot of merits to this read through the material you'll project i ask for your support see we were concerned initially and denying the appeal thank about whether or not the tree you. >> thank you. >> mr. sanchez. could successfully be relocated after reviewing the proposal and >> thank you scott sanchez the success rate of firm and how planning department they do it we believe it can be so the real as i said two issues that are here first, as the and successfully ronald. >> our decision to whether to i applicable standards whether upheld the appeal or deny the or not it was the review criteria of section 329 or the appeal we're taking the risk to move the tree will live or die; variance in 305 section c it is right? >> no, i mean i on true that prior to last year and with the code amendment it intersections you're taking - >> taking on the risk. >> sure okay. yeah. referred referenced that was >> okay. thanks. >> i'll note this board has on removed and our staff identified one other reference to 305 c as many occasions approved the

something needs to be removed removal of trees. >> again to see you by the for the relevant and went to the way. >> good to see you city attorney for drafting they removal the provision we'll in the appellants brief their address that by having concern the relocation and specific relocation of where it legislation that be people's will be put in not a good place exhibit 10 pending before the board next month and reintroduce could you explain that to me. them to add back into the code >> well, we accident as a so is a discussion about the response to that concern raised at the departmental hearing met criteria but applying the law that didn't have the 305 with the adjacent property owner he looked at the site where the criteria and in regards with the tree will be relocated our kind of unusual i'll say it is feeling a good location not a conflict with the neighboring usual as part of 305 process trees in many ways a better that is the only provision we location because of the existing don't do that are inform a site constraints of the sidewalk very close. downtown project with the >> and the 4 o'clock that's my various project the zoning next question. >> i have a question the administrator administered i can't recall another findings on conditions does that literally the 905 k it is unusual and mean the permit is not issued until the conditions are coming to the commission i'm

surprised to hear that is a satisfied. >> yes. so i should also note possibility but that is what our approval constituent what in the code not in the code currently and take it back to conditions that all the the planning commission to have a public hearing to provide what necessary planning and building permit be satisfied the tree the employment standards showcasing should be that will will not be loudly to be removed be addressed and been reviewed until the other conditions are by this project the appropriate satisfied. >> if they get the approval standards to see the laws in that will changing change the effect today and the second item character of the neighborhood as the mixed use requirement the well issue is but with the exception so damn if you do damn if i is about in 2008, we adopted the don't. >> thank you. >> thank you. mixed use as part of market >> okay public comment can we octavia so today a project can see a show of hands of how many people wish to speak under this item. >> okay. i'll ask you to do a certain size percentage of two bedrooms and if you don't mc couple of things line up on the far side of the room and if you that or three bedrooms that an haven't filled out a speaker exception and the market octavia card do so before or after you large project authorization and it could be through the 329 speak and hand to other collect process then the question of what is a the person to speak step up to

bedroom and which is a great the podium. question and in 2009 when in the eastern neighborhoods plans which followed by year the market >> so two minutes. octavia plan it was brought to >> i'll do any best. >> good evening my name is dr. our predecessor zoning administrator that i think was raised that the brad had changed went to the international evelyn rose fwlerp i'm - the building code much different residents of any neighborhoods standards with light and air and are the ones that know their early versions the san francisco neighborhood the collective code and application of the voices on nordoff street has been loud and strong for the didn't have things like requiring natural light so i past 15 months those neighbors know there were concerns about one hundred strong are in what the quality bedrooms we keeping this at its location and would see at that point an opposed to remove it 10 interpretation was only for eastern neighborhoods so different neighborhood everywhere else in the city the associations who have signed petitions to protect this tree bedroom the interpretation didn't apply only in the eastern neighbors have signed the neighborhoods and for in current written e-mails to the

particular and for the mixed use city and overwhelming support to requirement i revised this in protect this beautiful redwood 2014 to make that more flexible and keep it in hits current we find if over time after the location commissioners please no personal interest in helping to negotiable adoption of maintain the character of our international building code neighborhood or protecting the bring backs to the use for the redwood monarch that is to the local code for light and air and quality for bedrooms and for neighborhood glen park has a sleeping rooms so we kind of made the interpretation that more activism since the 19 hundred flexible and had firefighter discussion about doing away with have ripens to ask for equal that and had discussions intense assess and find a way to discussions with dbi about adopting their procedures we're obstruct the freeway invasion still working through that but and once again to protect the on the path towards removing safety of those homes and trees this interpretation the code in close proximity to this move version applies still have to is one husband calvin built this in where bedrooms but more towards 1908 is honored by the what department of building inspection says is a bedroom neighborhood as one of the urban rather than a different forester outlet community activists and established in definition so we're headed that

makes the need but concerns the 1908 and ladies lead the neltd bedrooms if done well, can activities the history glen park be good sleeping spaces the activism grins with the historic stillings home in the redwood planning commission found that granting ass will be quality monarchy is helping to establish bedrooms not a question of not the spirit of. providing those rooms it is but it will be absent different >> thank you style so we're working through those your time is up. >> he /*. the finer details but we expect it so change with a flexible interpretation if not completely with the building code application and the provision >> next speaker. something that might modified >> good evening. i'm eric i only slightly so that's where we reside at thirty stillings are on intersections of the director opposite the rear yard planning commission appropriately reviewed this project and recommended approval of norway off the department of public works declared this tree of that and did have discussion to be significant pursuant to the passage of board of with concerns with the project supervisors a significant tree sponsor they've addressed all of located within 10 feet of public those and the planning department and planning

right-of-way and meets one of commission approved the several criteria with size bus proximately so i'm available to the common factor in any answer any questions you may designation is they're close to have. >> thank you. the street that's why a large >> thank you. >> so can we can see a show of tree is significant it is because it can, seen from the sidewalk and enjoyed from the sidewalk it operationally is on hands of how many people wish to speak also want to make sure part of visual environment of that folks if you're an officer the streets in this case, the the association the appellant most striking feature of that our time to speak is with the part of avenue in you move a attorney and not under public significant tree away from the comment but none not an officer street 85 feet away it takes of potrero boosters neighborhood away the since and what's the point of go designating the tree this remove sets a bad step forward. >> good evening. i'm drew i precedence to preserve the significant trees the sponsor live others arkansas states their brief at the just a couple of blocks up the removal and replanting allows street also introduce for 14 the tree that residences much years and lived in the 200 block for a year i'm familiar and love the visible project in advance

but how can it be that way when the neighborhoods i have a 5-year-old and 9-year-old there's a 4 story building straightaway it and o daughter and a heavy user of dissipating it and in fact the jackson playground i said to neighborhood enjoys this that just provide a neighbor will be destroyed matters in the the title of the tree will be perspective and specifically retained but meaning also this address did nestled two bedrooms owe had the opportunity to actually go look at one of the projects in the neighborhood is significant many people sfwak castro in the dog patch and with that tree. >> outside my window it had destroy the character of a taking into account and what that would look like i thought neighborhood entirely please that the throughout the lay out reverse this thank you. >> thank you very much. >> next speaker please may i was great and instead of sacrificing the light and air have the overhead please. and put that bedroom inside i commissioners i'm i live on guess from a dads perspective a stillings after across the street from the tree one of the little bit darker at night but

the key points removing the tree those bedrooms still have a lot the only way to put 4 units on of light and air during the day the site this is simply not true so i thought person lovely his for the relocation applying f ceiling heights appear higher states you can vary the lot they're beautiful and as a slogans it is 1 hundred square neighbor i'm excited about folks feet per lot a blind movement to living around the park and design homes as cluster making that more satisfactory so specifically to the liveability development group housing around landscape amenities i can't that and desirability is a positive on intersections of a better site around stillings section f thing i noted when we were i allows this to happen and the came to the planning commission to hear the dialogue how careful sponsors earth all firm is the this was thought throw by the right one to do this from the planning commission from a sponsor didn't like cluster how neighbor's perspective he want to show support for the nestled about the dwelling unit in bedrooms thank you. section c-4 the space that - it >> as a parent of a daughter is eligible a unit that is no outside assess good job. affordable by design if you read >> next speaker please.

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 >> i'm this parents of a accessory units supervisor peskin is in the process of daughter and son and i'm raising two kids in the making the accessory provisions city and jackson playground is a critical piece of green space in favorable citywide they're with the eastern neighborhoods 9 history house on norwdoff - a and objective 2.3 requires a significant number of units have two or more bedrooms and encourage family units especially located in close prompt to parks this is not just for senior and retired teacher any space a space with a park in the eastern neighborhoods and we with the san francisco public need housing which is more schools one of those options will help san francisco so have accommodating to families in the eastern neighborhoods affordable housing none of those when i look at the documents have been by the sponsor and . that was approved by the

>> thank you, ma'am, your time planning commission there the project includes one hundred and is up. >> >> next speaker. 27 units 5 of which have two >> asking for it. bedrooms and one thousand square >> overhead please. feet a greater number of bedrooms with a smaller square footage 2 and 3 bedrooms okay good evening. i'm greg he complying but tiny units live on according con go a block and they really does not afford family living this is a space from our redwood tree the process that is followed by dpw which really needs real family and the sponsor lacks apartments and that is what this transparency fairness and common sense in any limit time i'll try variance should be required - to raise two points it appears required the urban forestry council has and the units mix is critical to been shut out of the process the community taking advantage this is the document that shows section for public works code the amenities that eastern neighborhoods have and we don't and shows the duties of urban forestry to make the have very much open space at all recommendations to the director on appeals of applications for tree removal and then this from so i would the parks fraternal the environmental code the scope this is the safety park there is

of the authority the urban franklin park but not let my forestry council subsection 3 it kids play interest shall consider the issues that the playground was not properly retails to trees on private designated as wildlife refuge property the urban forestry council has not been sought in they needed more window space contradiction and contradictory this was circle to the building to the entire purpose of the urban forest council and moving requirement. >> would you care to state to a different point i find your name for the record. harsh and hate to see that >> i've talked with social happening the decision to approve the application seems to have been made before the application was submitted to a their skeptical for adoption. non-public input before it was >> next speaker please. made and removing the hand of >> good evening my name is transparency i hope you see are a couple of e-mails and friday, alison i'm representing castro responsibly he urge you to uphold this appeal the eastern october 30th the project sponsor neighborhoods plan established a informally submitted the high threshold for expectations application even though the rules require the application in person with a fee paid and the to the dwelling unit requirements as the zoning administrator he described language applies it the during the planning commission

discussion was discussed in hearing the eastern neighborhoods place was nearing advance on monday november 2nd completion with nestled bedrooms early in the morning dpw staff were allowed in other said they'll approve the neighborhood plans then as now there was concern application for less than one - about our ability to build this whole process took place i hope you see something wrong housing for families it allowed did nestled rooms for the plan that was approved by the board of supervisors did not allow those rooms to count towards the with. >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> >> next speaker. requirement of 40 percent of >> please. i'd like the overhead please. requirements with 2 or more thank you commissioners for bedrooms in the objectives that entertaining any comments i specifically requires a speak as a concerned citizen and significant number of units in neighbor that live these on the new developments have 2 or intersections the same block and more bedrooms the expectation speak as a member of the with the mix is part of planning california bar that values code since 2008 and not procedurally fairness the sponsors brief states the challenged until now the project sponsors have you belief refrj discretionary action subject to the california environmental quality act and deals with the those to intentionally correct an error in the original plan situation we believe he's one and it was part of a large

thing wrong on both accounts of the public works code sites 9 package of technical corrections purposes for the urban forestry and remove now appears the ordinance and letter g to recognize that trees are part of planning department is now acknowledging it and we've aesthetic environment and their learned they've initiated the remove removal of important trees should be with the correct large project authorization to roar the 305 finding your dialogue with the california decision to uphold the appeal environmental quality act this specific purpose was added by will confirm the law since the this board of supervisors in package of the eastern 2006 to document why the tree neighborhoods plan that will sure all developers are treated legislation was ceqa was not an equal we we retain the only tool afterthought when the ceqa to encourage the family-friendly documents for this project was housing thank you. >> any other public comment completed last year only seeing none, we'll have our contained the tree removal a evacuation of the site as rebuttal starting with the construction the relocation that requires up to 5 hundred cubic appellant. >> thank you you can there is a tough case in yards of evacuation so dig a a lot of ways the issue is not hole large enough to accommodate nestled bedrooms that is fine if the man made basis it is nestled bedrooms were there in attached to the tree the sponsor

addition to the bedrooms indicates in his brief the 50 required from the eastern neighborhoods ublt mix requirements the issue is cubic threshold is applied you certainly not jackson playground as the developer said that the see this down here this is not project density will not change true in san francisco the 50 cubic are threshold applies to if they went to conforming every lot with a slope of 25 bedrooms the same comedics will percent or more the guidelines still be in play what is at issue in this case is what is changed from an average over the 20 riders for an exception to the percent 20 percent on the lot as unit mixed requirements and you you can see from the check list know contrary to the respondent the term average is removed from the check list. i cried the code incorporated >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> next speaker please. versus the city of a los angeles we have to look at status and harmonize the parts if you look state your name for the record at section 329 b here b-6 d-7 susan. >> next speaker >> have the overhead please. reads the same way the zoning administrator will use those commissioners good evening nominees a tom christian i live criteria and the planning commission used 329 in the case on north avenue a half block of 7 they apply the same

away from the property i'm a native san franciscan went to criteria with those newly high school and raising my family here and i on intersections we have a chance to save the character of the enacted legislation on small neighborhood it is important to the neighborhood to retain that projects and then they don't the graphic on the machine here have a criteria to apply that is page four of the sponsors doesn't make sense and not brief he himself quotes public harmonize the code according the works section 8, 10 action only case i've cited we need to look at the protective history that referencing has to do with with is this is a mistake the removal no section 8 a with the legislation mistake lee struck part of code the planning authority over planting of department is trying to fix this significant trees the reference 10 a is for removed so this is and the stakes have happening this mistake came up with the either a relocation that must be approval the project on ministry denied because dpw has no the planning department because authority to permit the rezoning we've been through the process or a removal which was with those conversations looking at a project for 2 of the two previously - the second graphic bedrooms units in code compliant is let's see here - and recommend they recognition

>> highlighted in yellow down here the mistake and not want it section 806 stated the directors going forward there is discussion about the changes for action shall be final he was the zoning administrator whatever nestled bedrooms will denied did permit last year the quality that's it putting the cart before the hours or horse a sponsor appealed and went to a progress to determine how hearing how many times does he nestled bedrooms any count get to apply to the same permit towards accident eastern neighborhoods unit mix requirement right now the law type that causes questions those says they don't count that's why call records and e-mail logs with the exception pro go to that was put on the screen were begin there. >> and there is oath moving shocking seeing those showing pieces if we need to continue all the calls not returned and this process until the planning e-mails and the lobbyists department made the derpgz but getting respond to was shocking i'll suggest we let this project you have call that into question go on as code compliant for the commissioner honda - eastern neighborhoods right now. >> (laughter). >> thank you. >> thank you. >> sir. >> next speaker please. >> to with a few closing rakers first of all, the characterization of clean up

versus substantive this is interesting i will note that >> i'd like to use the while i don't doubt the have a overhead please. right majority was clean up that >> hold on a second your overhead is up and down. was fixed it wasn't all that way >> face it is as though you're looking at it. and in fact, 10 different >> oh, i see. >> surprise. >> reset please thank you. substantive changes in light >> commissioners good evening this is my agenda we live on 2015 are not substantive issues. congo street >> i think the second issue the we have standing before you to point here from our perspective emphasize the developers have a this about nest bedrooms with huge credibility problem what two bedrooms units not the two they're saying what we do to support the ken tension that has two bedrooms units based on the street an different design about the layout not a history of declaring about anything else you can i suppose he could come up with a bankruptcy thai they have liens situation the planning commission could have a and restraining orders we stand situation their predicament evaporates a high standard in a before you because of history of

case where 88 arkansas and mr. the section and the bankruptcy because of the nordoff, llc was tuney was trying to do many heading on the project this studios you better have a pretty project was full of problems good reasons and meet the the mortgage company filed for variance to get that kind of strange project approved in the breech of the contract and eastern neighborhoods that's not specific performance and the case here technically judicial foreclosing it was because we need the expectation for the two bedrooms but not stopped bus of the improperly bedrooms or two bedrooms nestled if you walk through the plan permits making disadvantage and they are two bedrooms and ufltd the property was taken and patrick mentioned additional the contractor had a history of idea so i think that would be a - a problem of developments that much easier call for argue for james has federal and state studios but this project as two taxed and multiple lions and bedrooms in the project and the final point it is really foreclosures on given avenue and not that unusual for not to be penalty railroad approved by the board of supervisors when the criteria for none of those judgment were made he declared exceptions in fact, the process has about 10 or so expectations

bankruptcy the deceptions that can be requested that don't dr. criteria including that one continued the plans by the not like? is the most steering nordoff that the - wheel uncommon the code is back >> can we have. >> this is an area. >> overhead the tree size. if the old days very little >> ask for the overhead. >> can i have the overhead combines more guidance now but please. ever code section didn't have the reis the witted canopy is the guidance that's the case across this area 32 times the here thank you very much. >> thank you. size and half the companion. >> mr. sanchez. >> i'm sorry your time is up >> hi scott sanchez planning there we go. >> i'd like the overhead department just to note a couple of things with regards to the please. project that was referenced we i'm jennifer for the record recommend this approval the second the developer pa claims mexico planning commission actually did approve the project by resolving the redwood no cost with the unit mix exceptions and to the construction it is with regards to the section 329 unlivable the redwood fragile is only one foot unaware away from provisions it is actually across the board for smaller projects the foundation the true canopy the eastern neighborhoods created the 329 projects overlaps with the depiction of

the - third, the house at 49 received by the commissioning not dissimilar to downtown stillings is 39 feet the canopy projects with downtown review or is 45 feet wide the branches will not be trimmed but the trim in other parts of large lots for is testified they're not going development the commission can to significantly cut back the consider a broad range of branches of the tree figured out this is really where i want you you guys to focus it exceptions for the p u d the commission is grant expectation turns out the sponsor fabricated pretty much to everything for - we'll directing your downtown is more restricted for the 329 a set list - so for the attention to the projector the sponsor submitted 22 letters for removing the redwood tree those letters are not from neighbors 329 railway i can't on 12 more than half from other intersections of a says i'm there for a variance and they're real estate brokers and spouses considering the project on 329 monthly in the project sponsors is different so but the variance cold well banker office and from process is in place for smaller other contracts this includes projects not eligible for the large project authorization so if you have a smaller project letters from the project not big enough you don't net the

sponsors family and more code compliant there are a concerting the second time the letters were submitted with the couple of exceptions processes but most likely you'll go appeal the signatures don't through the evaporates not usual match someone signed those letters fabricated both times with the last have perhaps hard why are redoing this we want you to achieve findings with the variance process that's the way on the board to exercise caution the code is set up true not this sponsor has not proven every provision has the criteria itself to be successful with the it is frustrating as someone to prior developments that didn't implement and make the decisions require the relocation a much we wonder what they were more serious undertaking and thinking a general criteria at the beginning of 329 is speaks second reiterate our request for to you know look at the unusual bond support because - >> okay your time is up. >> now thank you. location and topographic factors so pretty broad it is criteria something that the commission can look at as part of their >> proerj please. review so with that, i'm good evening, commissioners my

available to answer any name is a james i'm the - i live questions thank you. >> thank you commissioners, directly across from the tree the matter is submitted. >> not everyone alter one 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 time. >> well, i've been kicking off most of them i haven't heard volunteerly relocation the time anything to lead me to on was done at the previously intersections that the schedule under 9 removal of commission erred i'm inclined to permit denial the sponsor says that refers t a section that green house gas emissions the authority to dpw to regulate the deny the appeal. >> me, too. removals and planting that is for the authority for relocation >> motion. >> move to deny the appeal and second 8, 10 a only allows the uphold the planning commission removals not allow planting the on the decision that never erred word planting is not mentioned and adopt environmental vengd. once in section 8, 10 a my

>> can you please put graphic of 806 b rather 806, 10 overseeing on the overhead the draft environmental finding for this matter are those the is for the progressing fee the ones your proposing. >> yes. >> thank you. >> so there's a motion by the dpw to authorize the removal it commissioner lazarus to deny the states only covers street trees appeal and uphold the motion on planting that's in the public the basis the commission in right-of-way not private it says the appropriate form must be used the sponsor has not applied error. >> on that motion commissioner for a sponsor form and not in fung commissioner honda commissioner swig those provisions are authorized that item passes with a voted of the relocation of any tree much 4 to zero commissioner honda less a significant tree on private property the removal of tree must be denied the time and place to there's no further business before the board light for our 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 streets illuminating our ideas and the sponsor starts out stating values starting in 2016 the san the reason for removing the francisco public utilities trees is for the health and commission is xhoefl that light with new led with the did i longevity i think the real audits for better light for streets and pedestrian and reason we should register the they're even better for this plan to remove a second and vitally lasting longer and dangerous tree was denied my consuming up to 50 percent less second point they state twice energy the tree residences it's visible upgrading takes thirty minutes

remove the old street light and repeat 18 thousand 5 hundred prominence trigger not only shows you have to be thirty feet times while our street lights will be improving the clean away the sponsor says there's energy will remain the same support by 22 letters of support i'll not touch if you go into every san francisco street light is powder by 100 percent the immediate neighborhood godfathers hetch hetchy power you'll find support for keeping in one simple word serious the tree the tree is under as day turns good afternoon and 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 san francisco planning commission regular and true but digging it up and moving that 58 feet neither will commission regular hearing for thursday, june 16, taking the proper prognosticates any kind. and they site the executive

proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. drifshg to unreasonable impacts i'd like to call roll at this time. on residential development i'll note that prioritize 100 percent commissioner vice president richards commissioner antonini commissioner hillis commissioner moore permanently affordable housing and commissioner wu and those are not that. we expect commissioner president fong to be absent and commissioner johnson to arrive >> thank you for your time. shortly >> next speaker please. commissioners, that places you under your is consideration of >> thank you. items property for continuance >> good evening, commissioners it 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 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 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 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