>> good evening and welcome to the wednesday, november 16, 2016, of the san francisco board of appeals guidelines that he commissioner swig that he commissioner bobby wilson to my left is thomas owen for legal advice this evening at the controls is gary the boards legal assistant director. we're joined by representatives from the city departments that have cases before this board. at the table in front is corey teague the assistant zoning administrator and representing the planning department and planning commission that he

joined by joe duffy dbi chris buck urban forester and with the bureau of street use and mapping and deputy city attorney ann pierson representing of the department of health please be advised the ringing of and use of cell phones and other electronic devices are prohibited. out in the hallway. permit holders and others have up to 7 minutes to present their case and 3 minutes for rebuttal. people affiliated with these parties must conclude their comments within 7 minutes, participants not affiliated have up to 3 minutes - no rebuttal. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of the minutes, members of the public are asked, not required to submit a speaker card or business card to the clerk.

the board welcomes your comments. there are customer satisfaction forms available. if you have a question about the schedule, speak to the staff after the meeting or call the board office tomorrow we are located at 1650 mission street, suite 304. this meeting is broadcast live on sfgovtv cable channel 78. dvds are available to purchase directly from sfgovtv. thank you for your attention. we'll conduct our swearing in process. if you intend to testify and wish to have the board give your testimony evidentiary weight, please stand and say i do after you've been sworn in or

mroifrmd do you solemnly swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth? >> i do. >> okay. thank you very much we will start with our first item that the general public comment anyone that wants to address an item on the not on tonight's calendar general public comment commissioners questions or comments anything commissioners and item 3 the boards consideration of minutes of meeting of the november 9, 2016. >> unless any additions, deletions, or changes may i have a motion po to accept those forward. >> any public comment on the minutes okay. seeing none a motion in commissioner lazarus to adopt the minutes on that motion sdmung commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and

commissioner swig thank you very much that that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero next item a rehearing request the subject property hate street safer lower hate a rehearing safer lower hate decided december at the time the board voted to deny the appeal a separate a medical cannabis dispensary on a basis that was issued properly the doing business as staircase we've started with the requester and good evening i need to make a disclosure. i wish to disclose i've hired reuben, julius & rose on a since roars is handling the case reuben, junius & rose representation as an entity before the board will not have an effect on my decision.

>> mr. williams i'm steve williams the appellants request for a rehearing should be granted at the prior hearing the board was given incomplete information when the board repeatedly ask do about the dissension indication only an increase in size will trigger the land use we attached that transcript for our review at exhibit 4 and if you look at the briefs submitted that echo if exact assertion the brief states the planning code didn't draw a distinction between on embarrassment of the non-conforming use of the dysfunctions indication and as long as the use stays the same no retriggering matrix that was

what the board was told those. >> certifications are absolutely incorrect as a matter of law san francisco requires a new hearing on a non-conforming use if it is alternated or changed and claegd a there of 25 percent i've attached samples from the planning code interpretations that's exhibit 8 that triggered the intensification and exhibit 6 and 7 densification for the restaurant baker and banker other jurisdictions i can't imagine dealt with that issue a number of jurisdictions actually define intensification the santa cruz planning code any change in the recuse that results in a significant generation of

traffic smoke are glare or odor that's a big one sewage generation all a intensification and saratoga says you have a significant equipment or personal property to run the business that's considered an intensification brisbane that the exact same lack and matthew's says hours of operation volume of traffic generated, etc. those are all dissension indications of the use requiring a new hearing obviously that happens in f this case a tenfold in the there of what is sold at the site a tenfold a business plan for a tenfold increase in traffic and individuals patronizing the establishment i urge you to

grant the hearing. >> thank you encourage. >> thank you we'll hear from the permit holder now. >> mr. sunny and i'm sorry the people standing by the door please find a seat thank you. >> good evening members of the board i'm tom of reuben, junius & rose on behalf of the permit holder spark we we ask you deny it it didn't raise any not facts and circumstances the request raise the issue of expansion arguing this is a new issue it is not new we had a 3 hour hearing before the board that was discussed the board talked about that with the zoning administrator considerably ulnar this of the discussed at

the planning commission hearing on the project in august of 2016 contrary to the appellants allegations this issue has been discuss at two public hearings and the planning commission like this board voted to approve the project the request tries to draw a distinction between expansion and quote intensification but no such distinction exists the issue is the same spark is an obviously organization a supervisorial mcd operator with a proven track record from no violations and widely supported in the interest of time we're not going to have speakers but ask the supporters to stand we appreciate your c of that worthy project and ask you to allow the permit to be issued i'm

available to answer any questions. >> thank you counsel our we'll hear from the department now. >> welcome. >> good evening commissioner fung i'm a deputy city attorney on behalf of the the department of health as you may know according to the rule the board may only grant it upon new or different material facts or facts and circumstances in known at that time, can effect the original hearing and a failure to experience due diligence to reduce the impact is grounds for denial in the request before you tonight the appellant has not made one new single fact in fact, all the documents with the exemption of the transcript at the last hearing long predates the october hearing by 10 years every single one of the documents 0 could have been

produced prior before the last hearing with due diligence to grant a rehearing in this case is contrary to the rules and sets a dangerous precedent in you don't like our hearing i can come back for other try for those arraigns that dph asks to you uphold the final permit to operate a medical cannabis dispensary to the permit holder in this matter. >> thank you commissioner fung the zoning administrator would like to address the board. >> mr. teague. >> i have a question for him anyway welcome mr. teague. >> good evening covering for planning department staff briefly want to touch on the issue raised by the appellant that the information provided by mr. sanchez at the prior hearing was incorrect or misleading i

was not at the hearing he looked at the video of the hearing the appellant quotes the standards that are outlined in other is cities and owners not the standards that are outlined in our ordinance in fact, our ordinance in section 178 plus provides absolutely no standard or metric for measuring intensification enlargement what necessitated the interpretation that exists in you can show on the overhead as you can see in the highlighted it states in the interpretation that the term significantly is not defined in the node code and subject to the interpretation it calls auto the types of garrett and the intensification that are significant and the specific

types of enlargements not since here in question about the garrett being less than 5 hundred square feet or 25 percent it is around intensification the only teaches dissension indication from a 47 to 48 your switching from a restauranteur to a bar so this interpretation is basically saying if you change our land use to a different one that is intensification the appellant did provide one example although they exclaim many examples one restaurant that got a new cu because of intensification i'll point out that projectile was no dissension indication of an existing use can i have the overhead, please? >> was that barker and banker.

>> it was barker and banker if we can see that says that cu to allow a self-service specially use for on existing special i didn't use under the project description the project sponsor says in in addition to the restaurant use in the zoning district it is in and of itself requires a conditional use authorization so in this example this is not an intensification of an existing use it is establishing a second land use on the site this requires a cu in and of itself. >> they're not there anymore and perhaps not. >> i'm available to answer any questions you may have. >> thank you for clearing that up. >> thank you

if we can see a show of hands of how many people wish like to speak. under public comment if you haven't got a speaker card and give me to the gentleman that would be helpful in the preparation of the minutes and line up on the far side of the room the first person come up to speak first speaker please come. >> don't be shy madam director two minutes. >> okay. >> welcome. >> good evening so thank you, again, for allowing us to speak about that issue one more time daniel i'm requesting this be heard the last year we had didn't show all the facts we have more information after the ruling that was put

fort by this board spark the goad standard of mcd that is never violated violated the rule and opened their doors for operation percentage against the rules of the board of appeals and know like we do you have to wait 10 days before they can do anything whether grand or not granted not the first time they've violated they did it in july they were wander like the board staff like after this hearing so again, i ask this board the first rehearing be great we can get the community here to get the families, and the children who are effected by this ruling here 5 o'clock is great if we have the hearing

then the first time around but again, i would love to see this struck down because of their violation of this board ruling and then to the health department who upon request about their violation said they were not going to cite them for those violations so again, i question the health department, multiple times and their goad standard for operating an mcd without the board. >> thank you >> next speaker, please. >> state your name for the record. >> bryan brooks. >> thank you. next speaker. >> hello excuse me - my name is nationally i'm asking you to rehear this i submitted

something a plea grant that shows in addition to the audio that was not available someone at the city level promised a second meeting and memos coming from the head of that department stailt the second meeting would be would get this is opposite of what we were told joining i did not know that would be coming into play two departments saying opposite things more importantly we've heard from the city attorney she was worried about a precedent i'm worried about a precedent of an entire community over and over has not been allowed to process that is a much bigger precedent to me i hope you agree. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is suzy osborn and again, i want to reiterate that

dr said he was issuing a permit multiple times not temporary or a group left the meeting having been told a per visional permit with no follow-up and they opened not once but twice on told they're not lout allowed to open they did it again twice and they bring people to the meetings on a big party bus we can't afford one we say your voices are not heard a small group of merchant, we just really feel like our voices are not heard in this situation and been deceived and railroaded and we're not getting a fair shake

and you know again, while they were open on a permit that was not valid a child came in i showed speak picture last time in you remember the police for some reason didn't have a record of that that's odd we have a picture of it we have a camera shop someone took a photo i really want to reiterate our community feels this is a gentrifier we'll lose our shops thank you very much. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> my name is johnny so first there was a department hearing he was in line to speak at and people who's voices should have been heard the boys and girls club were waiting to speak we were told we'll get another

chance with the health department and a planning department hearing at which we were told like the floor plans this is not the proper stage to voice your concerns of the gentrification to none licensed and last time at the hearing it was basically just like, yeah those things should have been heard and the second hearings shouldn't be scald so how do we know that is the case most of people's voices were not heard and the proper forum. >> next speaker, please. >> good evening my name is dei've been living on the front of hate street for 16 years with my now 15 and 17 year-old

children i live across the street from the location i'm a co-founder of the lower hate merchant association last time hello commissioner fung to deny a permit which was a medical cannabis dispensary or mcd we as a neighborhood along with the police were opposed to this facility that was security stabbing patients and patients selling machinery to non-marijuana patients outside of mcd you denied this i tell you this history to explain i and the neighborhoods association came to oppose spark we were very opposed at the beginning with many meetings first to the board to assess what the problems might be and looked at the neighborhood of

mcd are less safe or get satisfactory we built a memorandum of understanding to take care of are concerns and started the projects it includes codes of conduct to audio to the safety of our neighborhood and add cameras and share those cameras with police and keep smoking away from the building we did this to hold the business accountable and the first to go after them i can't guarantee this business will be great but guarantee done what we think is remarkable to give the business a shot between the neighborhood and now we super no neighbors our goal to hold the business accountable and be reasonable merchant and neighbors for this reason we ask you not renew this

hearing. >> thank you. >> next speaker, please. >> caseload. >> offend please thank you. >> hi, i'm ryan a proud business owner in san francisco and happen to live on a block up from the mrs. in question i've lived there 10 years we need this location right now there's no foot traffic on the street every restaurant is closing and changing every 3 months i'd like to share two flyers on november, 2021 and the 8th of august 2016 on the top one that is showing a little bit of a clip what the places would look like we went over the intensification of use and had spark explain the nice changes to the building to keep up that

the planning department needs every person in opposition today no reason those people should be wasted our time to hear something already heard their abusing the appeal system we've seen spark through every single hoop possible including the lower hate association that is very intense i'd like to say they've done everything in their power to demonstrate good conduct and ask you see the new appeal and yeah. let's get them into the neighborhood. >> item seeing none, public comment is closed. commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> i have a question for the project sponsor. >> mr. sunny. >> a been raised that the mcd

has been in violation of time periods related to being closed versus allowing the appeals to run their course. >> right. >>; is that correct. >> right i understand the allegations and they were not violations not to be lawyer about that but talking about the first incidents when the original what was called provisional or temporary permits was issued and it was made clear to spark they could operate under the permit and then the department of health that realized that was an error and asked them to stop operating they the immediately, the second one over the hearing before you

i didn't know anything about that but asked do public health department staff on their own if we were able to operate and staff said, yes that is documented by e-mail and the board of appeals staff knows about that that was a mistake and ones that was discovered within it was two or three hours of operating i had them stop immediately i don't know about that i know the general rule about a preempt still suspended and had them stop immediately. >> thank you i have ha i have a question for the department of health. >> good evening. i'm june the manager for the medical cannabis dispensary program at the san francisco department of health.

>> can you verify what the department did in those instance. >> we made a mistake i take full responsibility for 2 we can call that a supervisor issue i was out of town at the time of the last hearing not present to be providing appropriate supervision and direction our inspector did his slut best to give information when asked and he take responsibility for it. >> so to clarify this therefore you would not blame the project sponsor for opening. >> i would not. >> thank you. >> then my question is that in the first hearing i voted to hear the appeal and lost but

that was generally based on a clerical error or other error from our department i'm not trying to hammer you in any what what happened there i mean. >> essentially the distancing as a supervisor again, i just started managing the program in april of this year it's been a challenging year personal for me and i am some of my supervisory skills have fallen by the way side. >> and a follow-up question is with the passing i believe proposition 64 if you're department is having issues with a limited amount of stuff how will they handle it going forward. >> we're hoping for additional staff and support that is going

to be a big job. >> okay. thank you very much. >> i very sympathetic to the public i think to verbalize that last time i voted in the direction i was the final vote in the direction that the ruling went i felt that i heard the public's pain those who felt they were not heard we heard the source of that pain a moment going ago through unfortunately mismanagement? about new evidence and new and important information that was not presented from our last hearing and i'm not hearing anything

that we didn't hear the last time equip for a few statutes that are global around california that are repudiated by the deputy zoning administrator corey i hope i got our title right. i see no reason to have a new hearing according to the rules. >> i was in support of appeal last hearing the rules and the bar for a rehearing are extremely high i don't see any manifest injustice and after reviewing the appellants brief that was the same exact material i reviewed in the past hearing i'll not support another hearing either. >> make a motion. >> motion to deny the request

for a rehearing due to the fact no new and important evidence has before present and the threshold for that will constitute a hearing or rejuvenate a new hearing has not been met commissioner swig to deny the request commissioner fung commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda and commissioner wilson that motion carries are voting of 5 to zero and next christopher versus the public works of urban forestry the property others vermont streets of a tree real estate brokerage for two acacia trees with one with 24 inch box we'll start with the appellant maybe take a moment to let the

room clear you have 7 minutes to present your case. >> house that. >> kari i think that mike is set up for me. >> sorry. >> sorry. >> okay. >> is this okay can i have the pc? good evening we're here about two trees on vermont street tree

number one is an acacia healthy what with large canopy and old we dpw standards a significant tree should receive special consideration and tree number two a smaller acacia also heath the dpw is requesting it should be removed there is no upkeep on those and in addition as you can see from the photo a third tree a peer that is connected by the root structure to tree number two the smaller one it will kill the third tree in number 2 is removed so we know there is various benefits from trees but those trees one noise reduction

adjacent to the 101, two we actually have bird in the area it will destroy their habitat and 3 pollutions the highways are the center pollution the trees abate that and four it reduces stormwater run off the intersection here is below grade the sewer is clogged this will increase the problem and lastly blight because of this area board caltrans dpw didn't respond to requests to remove garbage or abate trash and it is their responsibility if they had this takes months it increases the blight and becomes a circle

those photos are new from today and as you can see this is what a request and the request says quote case resolved belongs to caltrans on city property the first reason they want to remove those trees is safety due to a closed pedestrian bridge that is next to those trees this pedestrian bridge has a closed since the 80s because of security the police and caltrans jointly agreed to close it this bridge is located the efforts of several bridges in the area on 23 and 22 and cesar chavez it is really not necessary the majority of public does not want this bridge on the majority

said keep it closed why? because the brim that are open such as faith street the 22 street bridge, the hairball, and chavez bike paths are homeless camps dpw did not maintain the existence and no hope to maintain other structures so, yeah in an ideal world we'll open the bridge that is kind of silly to have the infrastructure centered but in a real world we wouldn't where mohammed nuru director of public works in 52015 he tried to pull a fast one $30,000 on 9 led light bulks and two days of lash for dwp

employees there are no lights on 22 which is right by general hospital that is used night and day in lights on the fight streets bridge and yet installed on a closed bridge you can say conspiracy history but the investigations against the director voter fraud misappropriation of funds by state lawyers and california secret and settlements in 2011 sorry that was for a repalliation suit from a former employee of dwp how fair the hearing said they'll remove 4 trees as you can see here at the hearing they couldn't state whether that was 4 or 2, but the

hearing was allowed to be continued without a clear course of action by dpw after the hearing chris buck i'm sure is nice but was allowed to provide additional information after the hearing to the hearing officer how is that fair that's not a hearing also this e-mail states from sandra former deputy director no right to open the bridge that is a caltrans bridge lastly clean the bridge there's a homeless camp we've tried to get it out for awhile here's what the last response in the bridge is closed dpw can't

access the debris or wait transfer to caltrans quickly sidewalk repair yes sidewalk is damaged as you can see that is lifted in a continuous manner like this for 9 or 10 years as far as i know so it is great they want to fix it but no reason to kill the trees the curb is below city standards 2 and three-quarters high-level the grade to 6 inches or 8 itches in that is state standards the root structure can remain underneath no need to kill the trees or disadvantage the root structure while fixing the walk that plan is feasible and economical a under the california environmental quality

act public agencies shouldn't approve >> thank you, sir, your time is up. >> and you'll have time in rebuttal. >> thank you. >> okay. mr. buck. >> welcome mr. buck. >> chris bureaucrat urban forestry with san francisco public works i'll go to overhead i've got a pretty good photo of the overall site there so there is a quite a bit community discussion right now about the state of this pedestrian bridge whether that will be opened or not i don't know the status of that my sense that may not open so for the moment we'll have to kind of table that i'm not here to talk about whether or not the bridge will be open what happened our project team brought to our

attention a couple of trees they were concerned about at the bridge two subject trees are black acacia they've volunteered there one is quite a sapling and in the incidental on the right this is tree number one a larger tree tree 2 subject to the appeal is the volunteer saping so the species didn't tolerant the root to repair the sidewalk we need to prune the roots of trees that cause expensive damage from the blue car thirty feet to the right and repairing the walk whether cause the tree to become severely declined in its vigor and potentially suffer a large root failure so we planted this species across san

francisco an hate and divisadero they have root failures and don't tolerant root print when we evaluated the site we immediately identified those two trees as worthy of removal the large acacia is right up against the because of that wall the retaining wall that is the ramp and here's on image of that so this is subject tree number 2 the large tree as you can see the volunteered up against the because of wall the second tree the saping and other acacia sprout here and there a back acacia a decent street in an open space that is exotic it

takes over open spaces it sprouts busy feed when we evaluated those to too obvious trees that need to be removed they'll cause damage to the retaining wall and regardless of whether the ramp is open at the public works hearing we don't believe there is adequate room but offer to one 24 inch box tree to the last of this tree here and just to clarify roving the acacia right here will not impact the health of that tree we'll not need to remove the tree we'll plant within 24 inch box tree one challenge of the site the narrow growing space for mature trees further down wider we planted the trees purposely this 0 the area is two

small of a space that's why we have expensive sidewalk damage it was an the retaining wall and the curve there is really no room for the roots that retaining wall must go down those roots are running up and down the sidewalk the curve is 16 inches down enough of that sort of barricade so did roots are really all in this area of the sidewalk increasing the height of the curve is not an option and so therefore public works recommends that our resulting order be upheld with the removal of acacia and the small saping where replacement with one 24 inch box tree i understand it is challenging anyone living near 101 the goal to be as much remain as much

greenery as possible the challenges there is limited growing space and regardless of whether the bridge is opened up or not public works seeks the removal of those two trees we'll see what happens to the status whether or not the bridge opens from my perspective those are trees that should be etch removed public works seeks to make the repairs whether or not the bridge is not and planted the required replacement tree one final note our inspector for the area sarah stacey met with the appellant to talk about the concerns of the general area regarding greening that sound wall such possible public works by default is responsible for the public right-of-way outside of the retaining wall there are a number of jack remand trees

not doing well, we'll ask to be replaced too much overhang and from the eucalyptus above goss close to the site plant evergreen not a lot of extra or sidewalk damage and evergreen year-round we're committed to up the amount of greenery in the area i'm hopeful with the passage of prop we'll have more trees to plant that pretty much concluded any testify testimony it is a challenging site anyone that lives across the bridge wants canopy but a confined space for planting one final

comment from the project team is that one scenario to install a bulb out and plant two or three trees in the sidewalk out towards the curve in places of parking that's way down the road from the bridge is allowed to open that's one possibly mitigation that public works can pursue from the bridge is in fact, opened right now the status of bridge opening or closing i don't think anyone knows the current status at this point. >> thank you, mr. buck i have a question a scheduled repair dates slated for the sidewalk. >> not yet depended on the outcome of this hearing generally i'd like say a few months. >> the second question the appellant put a document or picture on the overhead

indicating that who's responsibility is it to clean the side of the pedestrian walkway where the trees are planted. >> what i'll do following the hearing bring it to 9 attention of larry stringer he oversees the services and also our project team for the feedback i'm sure they've received that that feedback he need to forward to them unfortunately, i can't speak on behalf of public works related to the cleanliness issues. >> who's responsibility are you unsure of who's responsibility. >> i know street trees responsibility is ours i assume the area in the public right-of-way will be our responsibility the state didn't have the resources to attend to the. >> i think the e-mail

indicated it is the states issue. >> i believe it is public works responsibility and there's other ordinances about whether or not you know access to the bridge to clean up the debris maybe often the bridge that needs to be figured out. >> thank you sure. >> is the ramp caltrans property. >> my sense the ramp is caltrans property and public works helps to maintain it the it is certainly on caltrans property one scenario to modify the ram to have both the - >> we don't need to get into that. >> how about access to the ram is that city or state property. >> i believe access is it would be shared but seems like mostly on caltrans property inside caltrans property when i

look at the configuration let's see if i have a side angle my sense is that the public right-of-way if you go to the image to the right the image to the right there is a perpendicular fence an access point i don't know in the property line of the ramp is the state or set in other 6 feet my sense this is a caltrans property. >> but the tree was that planted by the city and the tree volunteered and kind of - >> in. >> those other trees were planted most likely by the city caltrans or refer to undocumented trees. >> i thought the small one was volunteer. >> and it was. >> okay. >> so since you're up there

can you give me a sense of the chronology that might occur in the process of removing the trees and then replacing the trees and while at the same time at some point the sidewalk might be repaired. >> how does that go. >> sure so we would if approved for removal we've remove the trees within the next month or two after the trees are removed the large trees we need to remove the stumble another month we can bump that up to try to recognize the priority level to the board of appeals and try to satisfy the public so repair

sidewalk will then occur after we removed the tree a good amount of sidewalk to repair within a few months of tree removal we'll go ahead and repair the sidewalks in that area we'll be looking at a few months. >> the replacement tree comes in. >> after we repair the sidewalk so we'll repair the tree as long as that sidewalk with repaired things are progressing with sidewalk repair and ord the tree make sure we have the tree in the shop ready to be planted once the sidewalk work is completed. >> now this will happen can you - but i'm sensitive to the appellant in the conversation related to what is occurred in general dpw has been

unresponsive to the general situation of the space he points out that it is below grade and in addition the condition of the sidewalk might contribute to flooding or run off of more junk that would matrix into the area where the trees provide what is the safeguard i'm not questioning the merits of project but what i'm concerned with the the risks of the neighborhood should shall we say the projects extends beyond our description and fits blighted. >> uh-huh. >> the right word blighted for on expended period of time and

the tries to climb what's the protection mr. buck. >> sure one thing to point out if there are - continues progress from the conversation about how modifying the retaining wall the ramp all over the place adding a stairway i see that slowing down the sidewalk repair we'll go ahead and install want bought and wait until that is dead in the water before we move forward with the repairs that's one potential hiccup to add to the chronology we've talked about i think the key thing here is the site as received a lot of discussion amongst the community clear a lot of people opposed to opening the bridge and folks feel strongly about opening that regardless of whether that is the way it is enough light has been shined open it is priority

of public works to get it right that's one safeguard it has a lot of transaction supervisor cowen for district 10 is heavy involved along with the community we've met the appellant for the first time for us at the urban forestry this is the first exacts i've been with the city for a long no interaction for 11 years but showing our inspection met with the appellant on 09 issues on the same block kind of shows once in uttering hands we're very, very responsive and public works will urban design responsive to the concerns of the public addressing that i mean public safety and compliments are huge issues for public works and although may not seem like that is to the public they don't realize how many requests and

moving people in camps to have them show up the next day because of lack of policy there is a lot of reasons why not every corner of the city is spectacularly and clean in 24/7. >> other situations and other policies will aside would you think that that would be prudent and with our own concerns that the decision on the walkway is still unclear at best would you think that if we were to take our suggestion about removing the trees and replacing the trees on the sidewalk we might want to tie that action not to a occur before there's clarity and closure from the city to deal

with the walkway. >> so we my sense is that we would like to make the repairs regardless of the outcome of the bridge open or not we believe itself sidewalk now that we're aware of it is hazardous we should return it to good order regardless of outcome i think we should move forward with the repairs and with tree removal make the sidewalk right get the tree out the way and focusing replanting the focus on the site. >> that with that said what happens if tomorrow or tomorrow in a relative short time the conversation heaps up with our best intentions the subject on the walkway heats up and

suddenly goes into discussion and you kind of have a half baked project where the trees are cut down and everything comes to a halt that is what i agree with myself i was reading the material we can make a good decision but a bad mistake. >> sure. >> if subject to another other situation what are your thoughts. >> i don't think - so i'm a tree geek the public may not release that obviously used to be a hippie in and earlier days the tree is in the wrong place the wrong tree a fact we love mature trees we have a tree here this tree will not benefit the site the power lines is one thing i forgot to mention not to make that much larger the

idea to improve this site people want to feel safe and i've been a strong advocate current trees don't cause crime people cause crime people need viability in order to access whether they'll go up the ramp that is imperative to rove the tree and in terms of safeguard leaving the tree in a state the neglect i don't think that will improve the situation at all. >> thank you. >> is there dpw staff here who are involved with the bridge and the. >> they're not here this evening but extensive conversations a week ago i thought they were the liaisons and the bridge is so far amongst

a agreed upon thing an issue with the public works tree so i was like then we'll not be talking about the brim we'll be talking about the bridge and site they're not here this evening and not able to shed a lot of light a lot of con jurassic a key takeaway is are focusing on this by public works. >> thank you. >> thank you any public comment on this item? please step forward. >> hi, my name is ernie an architect in the city so i'm fairly familiar are tree removal permits i'm a neighbor i've lived on the block for over 35 years before a sound wall and any vegetation at all none of

which came from the city only 9 generosity of neighbors trying to make that a lot better basically, he look at this as a giant smoke screen dpw would care about our bloke equip someone had a brilliant idea the offer pass should be opening it and i'm not going to go through that but chris mentioned they kept e keep on spending money on the over pass to force to be completed they have to open if they've spent too much money it is a passive aggressive way to force on the communities and nobody wants to open the other thing the dpw you have to remember the people that are responsible for issuing tree permits we're like doing a fox to henhouse who is looking out for the public trust at all and

quickly in terms of security the problem with that overpass there is a very significant one story grade change from the street up to the offer pass non-nobody can say the tree has nothing to do with with the - they closed the offer pass mr. sweet i appreciate you saying something let's mitigate as a show of face by dpw they'll not cut the trees and walk away they're paying the buck to something else i appreciate your time thank you very much. >> sir question you and perhaps others who are against the opening of this bridge primarily due to security i issues. >> it was just somebody would

get on the bridge and close each end when they built the workshop i didn't people take the bridge and walk across there and everyday someone was mugged the other problem because you can't see the bridge people get smash and grab out of the cars and police can't see the police jurisdiction line it the freeway like a chp is bayview or southern who responsibility 0 so - >> thank you. >> any other public comment. >> hi, my name is mona i live on 25th street i did write a letter but wanted to speak i also don't want the footbridge

open because of the same thing with security i'm worried about they're doing this with the tree like necessary put the lights i wish we can decide if that is going to be open or not before we went ahead i'll hate to replant trees if it opens up again. >> thank you. >> thank you. any other public comment. seeing none, we'll have rebuttal starting with the appellant. >> so firstly mr. buck explain why the curve quaint be rails didn't make sense the city has proposed widening the sidewalk

it didn't make sense to rip auto the trees and widened it later it is ridiculous in my brief he said they tore up the sidewalk on the corner here and in the process damaged the local trees and at first i thought no purpose but the actual purpose to fill in a tree well with concrete instead of replanting the tree on 25th and vermont at that exact corner the city is mandated by i did unifying to expanding our trees not decreasing them i did a little we're going supposed to be replacing one for one when we remove them if you can see the chart from 2011 to 2016 in the 6 block radius 20

trees have been removed i verified i did 5 years i could verify with google street maps zero trees have been planted in that same timeframe so there altruistic plan is not what they're doing they can say okay. this is bryant public school on san bruno and 25th notice the tree in the center july 15th it is young and small and green june 16th a dirt hole i would like you to send a message to dpw as you may know the work orders are and remove and replant one order for both processes i would like you to deny the removal of those two trees and mandate dpw replant 10 trees in this 6 block radius to make up

for the 20 trees we've lost over the past 5 years san francisco is supposed to be the trend set are for virtual issues for the country and currently san francisco see canopy is 13 percent we're the worst city in the country blow detroit to say not nice and went bankrupt and had more trees than we do please help me to make my neighborhood better and the city better thanks. >> thank you. >> mr. buck. >> thank you, chris buck urban forester of public works i look forward to working with the appellant hope to be the urban forestryer for 20 years and with the

proposition e passage we hope to expand the urban forest we can work tote with the appellant to look at sites not replanned we uphold our urban forestry unit we require trees are replanted when there is adequate space and fine owners when not done there's a utility closet not require the property owner to replant we can use more recognizes in the urban forestry we work with everyone i've been active for friends of forest he understand when you care about quality of life issues and no one is listening to i, assure you the staff will be different

from other experiences with that said, i used to building in conspire theory. >> don't have enough resources to conspire but do what you can there is not enough room to plant the replacement trees despite the appellants frustration that's a fact we can look at planting trees with the passing the proposition we can plant more trees and way above 10 i'm here to work with the appellant smoke screen i don't know. i get contacted and is you got trees near this project tells you what is up are the trees good or bad we say those trees are volunteers that neglected let's remove them and repair the walk and room for one replacement tree that's where we

are >> mr. buck. >> i guess the funding has not hit for prop e. >> no prop e has hurdles a termination clause we need to wait a few more months. >> do you have any information on what a the appellant mentioned about the sidewalk being expanded or widened. >> yeah. he mentions one scenario for the site could be an expansion of that sidewalk a bought that will allow more trees to be planted there so we'll have to monitor this project and see what will happen. >> i saw his comment definitely removing parking he was talking about the sidewalk widened. >> the with only way introduce a bulb out no other way to widen

that sidewalk at that location and the reason for not bringing the curve up is the cost the tree is the volunteer tree very poor condition poor structure up against the foundation felt wall that will cause foundation not a tree to pout resources on. >> a different tree in a different setting back we'll be for repairing the sidewalk and keeping the tree but expansion it will have to be a bulb out. >> i have a question mr. buck. >> it is just this tree removal and sidewalk repair seems timing as to the bridge opening or not opening from the public comment this evening has there been a sidewalk repair program in the neighborhood already i know that on my property i have marked on all the properties. >> i can check i can check there is multiple inspection

programs. >> i'm interested what caused this and there's been sidewalk repair why not marked prior to this bridge situation. >> i do know that the discussion about opening the bridge is what made the city departments look at the site what do we have we haven't looked it in a while so it is really new to us the site like what is going on out there. >> i'm concerned i mean in my neighborhood my sidewalk was marked for repair yet the full bloke in front of the elementary school that didn't have a mark it belonged to the city. >> we prioritize schools and institutions heavy use. >> that's the opposite of what i explained any walk was marched for a bit unevenness but the school had a 3 inch in front of

the school left no marks. >> sure that's largely due to cuts to urban forestry budget over the repeated years why we've relinquished trees to the property owners the sidewalk inspection program is robust through the mapping and they're going through systematically to all corners of city they're not over cited for areas that are under cited as well i know that is being addressed. >> okay. >> that really didn't answer any question but that's okay. >> thank you thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> well, you building in conspire theories. >> so i'm absolutely not

against the theory that mr. buck advocated by my paranoia conspire theory or realty checked this project will be halfway down trees will be torn out the sidewalk will not be repaired or deeply appointed in perpetuity we might be doing a disservice while we're trying to do if mr. buck is right do the right thing so i a lot of feedback from commissioners on that conspiracconspiracy.

>> i'm a tree guy but the location is not appropriate at the same time the public has the ability to document and call 311 and since this particular case is elevated to the board of appeals i'll imagine that department didn't want to come back here again, i'm for removing the trees as they are now. >> is. >> you can condition. >> - the demolition of the tree with the defying forgive plan to repair the sidewalk. >> that's the director i'm going so would that be fine for the appellant with the condition. >> grant the appeal and condition. >> that everything be done but not done until some perimeter are set. >> i have a smooek position

that commissioner fung is sympathetic will be better in framing that motion. >> i'm the with only one up here that walked the bridge as a kid. >> that was in 18 hundred. >> yeah. i'll share that thought that you don't necessarily want to have something occur unless everything can be done at the same time i'll make the motion to grant the appeal and condition the permit on the basis that the tree removal be tied to an active by the

sidewalk replacement. >> i'm not clear what definitive action for a date for the removal or have the trees removed within a certain timeframe when the sidewalk repair la took place. >> i would think that would be to allow the demolition of the trees when they redefinitively scheduled the sidewalk repair. >> i'm sorry tree replacement. >> i'm sorry we're in closed session right now. >> thank you. >> okay. >> commissioner fung the basis for that motion is - >> is it for the least amount

of disruption for the neighborhood? >> yeah. i think that is partially that but i'll add that it is also to allow the screening of the freeway to last as long as possible. >> okay. >> so that motion from the vice president to grant the appeal and upheld the permit on the condition the trees not removed until the sidewalk replacement has been skeleton and allow the screening the freeway to last as long as possible commissioner lazarus commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig thank you that motion carries with a vote of 5 to zero. >> we've move on to item 6

david and france versus public works bureau of street use and mapping on valencia on the issuance of 2016 to douglas construction of a minor encroachment permit with only now trash encroachment into the tiffany public right-of-way we'll start with the appellant. >> you will have 7 minutes to be present your case. >> welcome. >> good evening, everybody my name is david i moved to san francisco in 1980 my wife and i lived on tiffany for almost 13 years it is a small two bedrooms cottage drizzle facing planted are parents hood we believe the permit process was not followed on the permit application

clearly states on the permit application. >> overhead please. that a failure to follow the process will render the permit newly and void those are my reasons number one not notified that the shed was to be on tiffany avenue number 2 the applicant failed to schedule an inspection 72 hours for the procedures and number 3 the dpiechltsd of larger than specified on the permit application and number one in january 2016 we received a letter from dpw that a permit application was made for a minor public sidewalk encroachment and copies the permit applications the copy we were sent this is the notification we were sent the address on both was listed

as 1650 valencia street no map or indication that the encroachment was on tiffany of any further questions directed to dpw mr. - who's contact number 415434 zero, zero 5 i clearly said we assumed a courtesy we were within one and 50 feet and the address list on the notification in any message he said since the bins the garbage bins westbound placed on valencia street this will not impact us i stated in the enclosure on tiffany we'll objectivity i received no response from dpw thus, we all assumed right structure was to matrix on valencia street from

the respondents briefs we learned this was in planning over one year 12 they never included the residents in the plans the notification we are received in january did in the include any indication the closer was an tiffany on douglas construction on page 5 the respondents were notified is a fabrication residents of '86 i didn't didn't receive a notification of the structure was actual to be on tiffany no. nothing from douglas construction in description no map no pictures if they sent it to us why no copy of that in their exhibits if douglas construction submit a map, etc. to dpw that was not forwarded to us either we received a copy of the permit application both

listed the address and 1650 valencia street one thinks the mapping will include a map or actual address speaking of mapping an inspection of dpws exhibit g illustrating the alleged lack of space in front of the the parenthood - the alleged lack of space is miss labeled 1660 is the premise 1650 very hard to read on the premise to the extreme left the premise that is labeled 1650

is actually 140 we'll show if you look at the location of the tree and the curve the bulb out it is that is the tree there that's on the boarder line of their property we have photographs to illustrate that if we have time to show the footage of they're building 14 square foot the rontsdz failed to have an inspection 72 hours per the procedures it states on the permit application that failure will render this permit newly and void it was - they told me this violation was grounds for a hearing referring to the douglas construction brief on page 5 quote this is what they said we skipped the inspection and a

site visit would have been a pointless waste of time since douglas thought it was unimportant went ahead and built the shed i find it, it is clearly stated on the permit application my third point douglas built the shed larger than specified 9 foot by 3 foot 6 by 6 feet sorry 6 feet two instead they built that 5 by 7 foot two 6 inches wider this is the illustration of their - a structure with smaller structure a hazard even the height of a trash can someone can hide we

have photographs of the dumping this blights our neighborhood and compromises the health and safety of the neighbors and i'll take this moment to show you some photographs this is a photograph of the front of the clinic where you can see the edge from the bought is to the right there which is over the property line they have the space to the left that's another photograph of - >> i'm sorry your time is up. >> may i ask a question. >> sure. >> what was there before there was a shed. >> nothing. >> nothing. >> plan wall. >> and i knew the answer he wanted to make that clear for the record. >> what was planned parenthood - why now a shed what's the

justification. >> the justification they wanted to put their garbage can a garbage enclosure that was on valencia with all the adjacent businesses on that block went on valencia street they built this shed like i said, we lived within one hundred and 50 feet behind the building when we got the notification we assumed where they always put their garbage cans that makes a lot of sense but on tiffany avenue to please let us know we'll object to that. >> madam director is 24 before us i remember the homeless encampment behind the tree and the parking lot and the building to the rossi haven't been on any boards in the last 4 years.

>> i don't recall that. >> we have an appeal on a similar type of report. >> okay. okay. >> thank you so last question is your house frontals into tiffany. >> yes, sir. we live on tiffany at the end house on tiffany. >> are you directly. >> we're directly across from planted parenthood i have photographs of the behind if i may add we welcomed them to the neighborhood and been very good neighbors i suggested to them at the time they put in lights and video camera. >> because of - thank you, thank you. >> okay. thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit

holder now. >> thanks if anything my voice. >> i assume you've read the brief. >> state your name for the record. >> benjamin smith. >> thank you. >> without being redundant i'll try to be short you know the permit process was followed and dpw was strict about that there's an outside organization that doesn't most of delivery there maybe you're familiar with them i think what happened and not limited to speculation the neighbors saw the address and assumed and didn't read the description it is right on there so you know i don't think they're trying to - i saw what

went out it is on there so there's a comment about the process with respect to the inspection uniquely this is true this is unusual i had staff members from dpw and public works and code enforcement we met onsite and talked about that with the director of the center and you know they were just there so, yes it's true i didn't schedule the preinspection, of course, before it was finalize and with that would have about catch up none of that matters the permit was voided because of the initially appeal process they threw out the permit saying you have to make that smaller and do this and add a camera and

all this stuff that he was automatically put on hold pending the outcome of this hearing i think that is a technicality the 72 hours inspection thing i should have called i sent an e-mail admittedly they've just been there i was not going to ask them to look at the same sidewalk in the same pictures a short time later nothing to see that is a technicality and i've not violated that permit with any lack of inspection i think the issue is whether or not you know this thing should exist in the context of you guys looking at the situation moving forward so you know again, you read the brief we've been cited for multiple times with trash no

where to put 2 planning department agreed we've had there and over and over again no where to put it 24 way we'll lock it up i don't know po want to trash - a trash enclobber in front of any door either this is upsetting but got to matrix somewhere i think that most people agree that that make sense to have a trash someplace to contain the trash someplace to lock it up and i think an important point at the risk of negative incendiary waugs while the trash closure now on their street they don't want it obviously i want you to you upgrading uphold the decision. >> i have a question

i don't know why i've heard this case before but why not put your trash inside of our own building. >> there's no where to put it a tiny closest. >> how large is your building per square footage wise. >> i'd like to guessed the whole ground floor is the health center examine rooms i mean. >> i don't think - you have a one street to another street and two levels? is there one level or two. >> the entire building is two stories. >> 3 thousand square feet i don't know i'll be guessing. >> the other question sir, that the dimensions that the appellant mentioned where it required space did you guys over build as per the original preempt. >> yes. >> so okay. thank you

that was - i'm sure we'll not get away making that any bigger. >> we'll hear from the department now. >> mr. cowen. >> good evening, commissioners and the board members i'm brent cowen the here representing the department of public works i'll be present a brief overview for the permit i'm sorry ms e zero, zero 7 for the trash enclosure for the fronting of the property on 1550 valencia and i'll try to address some of the comments from the appellant

the department applicant had received a recommendation to apply for the minor encroachment in october 2017 after a assessment by the planning department and public works bureau streets and environmental services the applicant applied for the minor encroachment permit on january 2016 public works reviewed the site and determined the proposed proposal was in general compliance with the code and current policy for the proposed track enclosure encroachments and public right-of-way on january 27, 2016, public works had the 10 day public notification no written objections were filed during the application period and permit

was approved on february 19, 2016, construction on the trash enclosure began in 2016 due to complaints and due to the neighborhood complaints that the notification was not clear and the applicant began prior before the inspection public works issued a correction nose and scheduled a public hearing public works public hearings held on june 2016 on august 26, 2016, public works issued dpw order with the decorators decision from the hearing the permit was conditioned as follows condition one reduce the enar closer no more than with an foot creating a viability for a smaller blight which are the

primary concerns doesn't mention the dimensions on the permit had been followed condition two the finish of new trash enclosure with the stucco finish allowing for more aesthetic appeal and condition 3 proper eliminations on the trash enclosure shall be permitted by the dwp and condition four planned parenthood remove all debris and garbage and or human waste and deposit on top of the walls or in any other area adjacent to the trash enclosure within the frontage in a period no longer 72 hours after it occurs and condition 5 relocation of the encroachment permit for the codes maybe an option bans the types of complaints and violations and from the complaints and trash violations

are valid the following - sorry following the directors decision a new permit was generated to replace the permit because it was previously recorded at the city recorders office this is to replace following - sorry the permit was issued - sorry not issued - sorry let me start over the permit was not approved and suspended pending the depreciation by the board today and i'm sorry - and respectfully recommends the board of appeals uphold the

departments decision. >> we all have questions sir what is the notification requirement for bs m. >> the minor encroachment permit one hundred and 50 notice for 10 calendar days. >> do owners and tenants or just owners. >> typically i believe owners. >> owners? >> how often has a minor sidewalk encroachment permit been issued for a structure on the sidewalk. >> well, i mean we issue them for pretty much any encroachment that is - >> and can you issue for a partial door swing. >> we issue them for benches.

>> so for a structure. >> we issue them for trash encloser therefore when the planning department and the bureaucracy the streets and environmental services determine it there is no space on the property that's when we move forward with that and let the applicant apply for that permit there are instances people apply for the trash encloser and determine they have room on the property we deny that. >> have access to your database. >> not currently no. >> not here. >> no. >> yep. >> so i'm looking at the notice to the property owners and i'm looking at the permit and they call say 1550 valencia street. >> the permit is issued to the

property address an oversight we didn't include the specific address on the notice but following the complaint we did follow our current process of having a public hearing once we received that complaint so someone getting the notice through will video no idea where it is actually going. >> it will be fronting that property not specifically frontage correct. >> different street. >> go ahead. >> no. >> i've a question i mean, the structure is built to the wrong dimensions supposed to be stuccoed and the wrong material ply board directly. >> but got the plywood hitting the concrete and non-material and a ton of trash on the

pictures right here i'm having an issue how the the department feels that they can allow someone to use the public right-of-way they don't center the space in their particular building i mean i'd like to put a big old thing in front of any house. >> we had conditions from the hearing you know all those pictures are from after that i mean public works has been out there as a department but not our group has not been out there to respond to that but i refer to the applicant to respond that to kind of question. >> okay. any other questions. >> in terms of cleanliness. >> i think we're good thank you. >> we can take public comment. >> before we matrix there does

planning have anything to say. >> okay. >> i have a question what the heck you you know. >> welcome tait. >> so a building basically got built in the right-of-way this is a planning atrocity. >> it is different if you move garbage cans out in front of a building to be picked up every tuesday but encroaching in the public right-of-way and then the fact that the building as admitted by the project sponsor

that was built beyond the scope of the permit and discovered whether or not it is finished not with the materials that it was supposed to be that - >> you have a question there. >> where doesn't planning come in on that is that our job to make sure both public works didn't abuse the public trust. >> i'm sorry this is exactly in the planning code but just specifically about the permitting authority obviously the public right-of-way is out of purview generally speaking of the planning code and the theoretician of the planning department and planning commission generally the public right-of-way is regulate by code and department such public works and mta so that's why the permitting process in this case is through dpw not through the planning department it is their permit

their process their notification their authority to approve or deny an encroachment sometimes concern encroachments require a referral there are triggers for this this is not triggering that note a general plan referral. >> what will trigger that, please. >> i don't have the exact dimensions my understanding is that if it is actually like more of a physical extension as opposed to to a stand-alone feature and work with the sidewalk such as ramps and stairs as opposed to to this stand alone this project didn't require - the planning department if have a former role with that said, there is coordination between public works and the planning

department with urban design group from the grant they offer the input on the overall design i know in 2, 3, 4 situation our urban design team was consulted if it is valencia or tiffany i believe they were perennial to construction on valencia street and also the amount of other kind of encroachments on valencia street and so they supported between those two putting it on tiffany instead of valencia helped to support the overall site but again that was kind of a consumption as opposed to to any authority we don't have

authority on whether or not it is approved or not. >> shall we move on to public comment. >> yes. we'll get back with you. >> sir. >> public comment, sir. >> please step forward. >> hello my name is gabriel i'm the senior public officer for planned parenthood. >> your time to pack was with the permit holder anyone. >> we're not the permit holder their acting as our agent there will be 3 minutes for rebuttal if you want to share if it with them. >> oh, okay. >> good evening, commissioners i'm david commissioner president honda i appreciate your time a resident of '86 i didn't after a

block away not at the end of the street i'm here to oppose this use and i opposed it as well as yesterday and a neighborhoods 12 of my neighbors and one business that i'm circulating a letter and speaking on behalf of of them we're opposed to this for two primary reasons public safety and security as each of you alluded to and prioritization of a public right-of-way planned parenthood rents this they knew how much space and hopefully, they'll planned to know they'll have a place for garbage that garbage belongs inside if i had the opportunity to put might garbage on the street maybe i'll have more room for any storage of my personal abhorrences and in addition the location of this is

can i have the overhead, please? it is not ideal with a heavy street canopy the street lights don't penetrate the sidewalk as you can see it creates a hiding area for people and since being built a lot of having ranlt i walk by this twice and day and weekends with my 10-year-old daughter under its current condition i'll not quack on this side of the street a creates a dark hiding planning commission in in this area this business operated without it in excess of 3 thousand square feet within attire facility and allowing this sets a bad precedence if anyone not to put their garbage on the street we'll allow that that takes from the public right-of-way i think encroachment for cafe zones and thing that activate the streets

are grant planned parenthood is a good neighbor equip this is this a bad idea maybe on valencia i oppose the public right-of-way but at least more foot traffic and lighting and at fair front door not my front door or neighbors front door. >> thank you. >> i have a question a homeless issue on that block as well. >> i'm sorry fred who he was earlier here called contacted 311, 21 times since this encroachment for issues related to vandalism and homelessness and asked me to pass on his response since this was built. >> thank you. >> any other public comment. >> okay. seeing none we have rebuttal starting with the

appellant. >> my name is france. >> i've been a residence of san francisco for 25 years about 10 years ago we and may neighbors an tiffany formed a neighborhood watch for gardeners we were successful and tiffany is a cleaner and safer place that was prior to parents hood moving in the clinics had e have the benefits when the trash enclosure was built it rolled back the progress there is duvenlg graffiti and defecation and sexual activity and public camping due to the blind spot see exhibit g it has blighted our street the clinic is not diligent a number 311 calls if i

compare the 311 calls you'll see a spike in submissions as the enclosure has a prim spot for dumping construction is their response they've cleaned up around the area they have not this is a spray paint over graffiti the camps put their lock on it and stored a mattress on top of the roof it is to the residents to contact 311 and the city services clean up the mess it is out-of-sight out of mind the trash enclosure is for the clinic they don't see the problems and go home the respondents had is about supporting our efforts the local businesses and dpw should be

making the area better for everyone instead we're not included in the planning process and not following their own processes and what happens this is sdimg and feces and public urination tea they don't respond people don't feel safe and don't walk on that side of the street i opened my door and a man exposing himself next to the shed putting stucco and paint are superficial measures not make an unsafe area safe they're known start for esteem i thought why a blind spot on a resident street no other responsibility live on tiffany avenue and don't see the republic concussion of their decisions and supervisor wiener office planned to leave in two years why do we have to

pay the price and we'll be stuck with the enclosure. >> thank you. >> thank you we'll hear rebuttal from the permit holder. >> hello gabriel with planted parenthood i'm happy to be here to answer our questions he know the discussion was that why not store our trash benefit inside as a matter of fact the planned parenthood serves over 15 thousand people every year in an incredible small space the top floor is the clinic and the second floor - but might understanding an enclosure we've within united for our trash bins out front and needs to be a

resolution obviously the health and safety of our implies our staff and community is number one we are here we may not sleep will there but our health centers open over 12 hours a day for 4 days a week and open on the wednesday having our clients in and out and staff is of importance safely we have installed lights when we first moved in and cameras and happy to work two the dpw hearing saying they like us to install more lights more cameras we're happy to do that we want to work with the community and want to work with dpw he can assure you, we are you know we care about this community through there is a rampant homeless problem in

the city of san francisco we're doing our best we've seen the pictures a lot of overhang and growth the burgerer king next door you're referring to something that happened at some point an appeal that was potentially an or closer 24 the burgerer king parking lot to the right of us has 4r506s overhang and attracts a lot of homelessness and has for years as well as they have an enclosure kept our enclosure locked someone cut our lock and put their own on we asked them to leave and put our lock back on and we are vigilant and whether continue. >> i have a question. >> how long is your lease at the property. >> i'm not sure i will is that

we are going to be there i don't want to say we'll leave any time soon. >> you renegotiated a lease. >> we're current in a lease but i don't know about the expiration we have no reason to leave. >> there's a burgerer king parking lot adjacent to the property did you try negotiate with putting a structure. >> they've not been miff that's their property they've not been supportive. >> okay. he think. >> i appellants stated in their brief that planted parenthood of excuse me - - the receipt of this property has not been responsive to them you

want to comment on that. >> i do thank you. i've been very responsive i've usually the one getting the calls and e-mails i it's my job and duty to respond as quickly as possible most of e-mails come sunday night with pictures of feces we have angle internal policy to clean up graffiti and trash within twenty-four hours to 48 hours i want to say that the appellant has yelled at the staff about being bad neighbors and like to ask any complaints come to me and not my health care staff. >> thank you. >> thanks. >> we can hear rebuttal from the department. >> good evening commissioners

public works outreach and enforcement i'm responsible for managing the division that enforces the trash and where they can store their bins wife issued them violations in violation of side code we conducted the site visit with the members of the department of health and the environment we reviewed the space no available space within the building for the garbage bin storage the health department is opposed to use this for private trash closure i've been on thirty to 40 site visits as approved permits this is a unique situation and the health department was in support of the enar closer built on tiffany side as well

the - >> i wanted to clarify the structure that was built out there currently is not what public works will be approving based on the order so all of the pictures and everything of it yeah, the reason as halted because of the hearings and everything so thankful not been allowed to do any work i wanted to clarify. >> part of the progress. >> i want to - let him finish. >> are you finished. >> yeah. yeah. >> what we've determined is that the contractor which and might as well been planned parenthood i hate to accuse them built a structure not according to the plan and we've learned

beans something we don't have the benefit of or a problem with that it doesn't work it is a magnet for bright to try inbarf. >> the existing structure will not be allowed to stand as is. >> it is appropriate therefore to revisit dpw to revisit this as you're already doing as it seems under another permit and do it right and move it to the appropriate location and create the appropriate. >> that's why we're here. >> commissioner swig the

permit on appeal is for a structure different than the one that is built but the second permit is issued that's what is appealed. >> i'm not sure i've heard. >> that's why we're here and the right location or anything that right about it. >> that's up to the board to decide yeah. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i have a question for the other gentleman of the department when you say you've done 40 or something you've done full enclosure are you talking about garbage surrounded by a fence. >> the camp can't be visible from the public right-of-way and commissioner president honda mentioned resident and businesses don't of the their bins with an the envelope of the building space they request to apply for a permit the agreement what the planning department to do a site visit for any.

>> you said that how many have walls and a roof of those that you've done. >> because the bins are not allowed to be visible the enclosure has a obscure that from plain views walls high enough to obscure the bins and a roof will present unauthorized assess from people not allowed to scale the bins. >> of those how many are roofs. >> the planning department's has allowed 3 applications to move forward. >> and 40 is an estimate between thirty and 40 site visits the vast majority center to store within their backyard, etc. >> thank you commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> who wants to start.

>> i think that is unfortunate in the first place that the occupant of the space did terrible planning not to realize they have garbage and therefore force the public into this situation that's water under the bridge and that's unfortunate and water under the bridge but i think it is our role here to take the data that is already available to us which are the photos when a when are the clear experiences of the neighbors have observed and do something positive they may not like what we'll end up with and mitigate what is already happened

either by - using the experience and adjusting the permit, or not allowing the structure at all i don't think that possible because we'll have garbage cans. >> it is possible. >> it is possible. >> if we deny this permit. >> so i'll start after i think one this is terrible i'm useable to keep a straight face during this case i've not be able to i don't know anyone that wanted to walk by a stirring in the public right-of-way that someone what hide from and pop out at any given time that's me as a document and as a parent it is a travesty this was approved that is a health and safety issue if you're not able i understand

that maybe you're not able to handle our trash in your space at which point look for another space being a business owner i had to wheel my twresh trashing and during the daytime that's the way we did it i'm personally going to accept the appeal that's my thoughts. >> i can't remember which i've seen on approval for a minor street encroachment permit to do a structure like this and i'm talking about for many decades within the city structure i believe that the department

erred with respect to the right under the minor street encroachment process and this permit should be revoked. >> would you you like to make a motion commissioner. >> no further comment. >> nun from me. >> move to revoke the permit on the basis that the department erred in issuing a minor street encroachment preliminary for the structure on the public right-of-way. >> a motion to grant the ideal and row revoke on the basis that the department erred in issuing the permit to use the public right-of-way on that motion commissioner lazarus commissioner honda's

commissioner wilson and commissioner swig okay. that monoxide that motion carries with the vote of 5 to zero and move to the next item item 7 appeal versus the department of buildibreak. >> we're going to call the item 7 versus the citibuild on 2085 and 89 broderick street appealing of an alteration permit - for the structural addition of a new deck and stair

and start with the appellant tell me greg how do you show something on the street. >> his name a gary not greg. >> oh, i see i'm on broderick street next door neighbor to the permit holder you granted a variance a few weeks ago i say the construction had begun and we never received any structural notification that is required by city code i want to depend upon screening and issued a request the work be stopped and notification for neighbors one and 50 feet he strongly support mr. yeager's support and desire to center a deck i was one of the ones that suggested since a backstair case to center a deck

identical 0 ours we've been there over 50 years the previous owner barbara was there and built the stares that are currently there and what happened was with when i came around to the place a if you weeks ago they started the construction and planned out the piers you could see the extent of the project i am one of the people he can't visualize a plan but once laid out i see that our four lots broderick and filbert and union is filed with historic homes their historic resources from the bay tradition time and i was that of those 1906 and they're short lots 80 feet deep only the rest are between one plus and the filbert does it all the housing from the presidio for the northern caucasian members

of the presidio in the 19 century and required to live on filbert street that is what the going on the deck is almost the entire backyard it is left about 5 feet of backyard it means that they're between 6 and 7 percent of lot is dedicated to a backyard yet our historic quadrant is filed with a very lush open spaces between the homes going with the entire quadrant i will show you now our deck which was built over 50 years and as you can see the deck is basically 5 feet and you see an indemnification it is identical that mr. yeager has with a bay window if you take the broadest point of the bay window to the

house it is exactly a foot they're also the same that was built so essentially our deck 4 foot 7 and the railings another 5 inches is 5 feet - so this is what is it looks like basically from the backyard i don't know if this is you can see it is close to building 5 feet there is a backyard of will 17 feet remaining so that our deck allows the backyard of 17 feet to remain on the premises what happens now is that the entire backyard is basically filed and here's the construction site and as you can see the fence is

right here and the whole deck now you see is staircase that staircase is the original staircase of mr. yeager that barbara built and it is 5 feet if you extend it will be the same as everybody else a backyard and deck that will work everybody on the street has a deck but our proportionally if you look at our lots they're so small if you stick to a proportion ratio between the deck and backyard you don't have any open space the most recently building that has the deep i did lot of one and 35 feet built a deck 36 inches, 3 feet across what happened to us is that we're on the right is the white head property broderick that will come up for an injury trial

an march 6 and mr. yeager we're locked in with a small lot and no repressive why not scale back a little bit of the staircase and the deck to that in fact, out have a deck and enjoy it and we'll have light and air for the lower flat he said that basically, he of time if he spends money on the deck he wants the biggest bank for the bucky he is entitled to get the most but a year ago we called our hallow association and called in the neighbors and with his architect and us all sit down and see if we can work this out how she gracely met with her and the neighbors but not us so we have left at this point

really without a resource or recourse to revisit with you and show you now you're seeing the layout of the deck and the extent that covers the backyard not not scale back a little bit and live together with his neighbors why can't we have a little bit of open space next to us this is enormous it goes from the ground floor all the way down to the top floor think of a fire escape built all the way up all i'm asking is we are we're supportive but scale it back and live with your neighbors that's basically the issue. >> thank you. >> we'll hear from the permit

holder now. >> my name is michael you really don't care aim the co-sponsor owner with mike jones and members of the board of appeals i appreciate your hearing this tonight as we've done this before our view is that obviously the permit appeal should be denied and the permit orientated was valid the permit should have no standing since the permit appeals are exactly the same and those reconfirmed the variance appeal rehearing the building department says the permit race valid, however, for some reason the building department didn't send out the notice to the neighbors and this created a

hardship for the permit holder we knowing the situation waited for the appeal period to inspire before ord our materials that should have been completed by winter in the brief he went over what the gentleman's comments he's told a lot of untruths about this entire process the permit was issued a long time ago it not true we filed in 2013 but irving has been involved sins 2013 he was a structural engineer we didn't submit the plans until we had his sign off in 2013 and the spiral staircase was not allowable i met for 4 or 5 months to get he's sign off

he's been fighting with the other neighbors i agreed to sign off one located with the code compliant with the possibility farther property line opposite his and confirmed in an eel part of the variance appeal we resubmitted and there was an issue with the nose he was given an extra thirty day special review period he couldn't make a comment because immediately when he heard he said no notice he met with him in 52015 he brought the plans i submitted the second time those are the last plans he approved and you know what was he doing those are the plans that were submitted he said i want additional concessions i

want you to make the decks different a bay window on the first story and not the second story i knew that irving will not sign off and initially not going through the sign off he's it's been to costly and disaster us why for him barbara bought the property in the 1970's there was no preempt appealing for renovating we're the only house on the block that is mother renovated their rear deck and stairs because of i'veing i've taken it on we're taking this seriously an abuse of public process so we've gone way beyond working with irving and no to the neighbors that have

concerned everybody is part of a process we take seriously building a deck and honoring the issue is the code compliant stairs under the current code embedded in the deck to deal with the 3 foot exiting at the registration of the deck irving is right didn't make sense to build a bay window but totally wrong that will fill the entire lot we have glass on is upper floor and it will be open on the stairwells and if you take a look at the lot the 4 lots he's talking about the corner lot is actually built to the corner in back lot a garbage with a deck above and the second a sad story a woman owned that and irving is

fighting with her, she had to sell her house to a friend to rebuild he riled all the neighbors against her and she's also building into the backyard the variance was required because those houses are to old we take is this seriously if you look at the picture he put up the foot'sing are for the code compliant stairs so we applied with the revised platoon mr. sanchez through june of this year then reroute to the building in august the permit was received august 24th we waited until the end of september and didn't know the notice didn't go out we're just trying to renovate our stairs that is half constructed and a hazard and the permit holder feels this

process has been kind of ridiculous but shouldn't be standing for on appeal because the plans are the same as submitted for the variances thank you. >> thank you mr. duffy. >> good evening commissioners joe duffy dbi the permits under appeal i think you've heard it into the gentleman and the permit holder the - permit got issued for the deck and due to the dbi error rerealized after contract by the gentleman we didn't had had structural notification that is required by the san francisco building code so in the interest of fairness we would dr. have gotten an appeal on the original permit

anyway, we want to give the gentleman anyone else for that matter their opportunity for the notification so the only way to do that issue this building permit under appeal the permit has been properly issued we did the notification as long as we issued the permit and got the appeal the work on the previous scope of work on the deck appears to be code compliant i don't have any issues i'm looking at the plans on the computers here it is a standard deck that we see a lot in san francisco. >> and i'm available for any questions. >> those i'm sorry does it match what was submitted previously. >> according to the drawings there this was a modification to the stairs original a spiral and

changed to a - the regular stair landing configuration. >> but in terms of with the width of the deck. >> it appears to be yes you know, i think the permit holder has the drawings there was no drawings in the brief if so hard to tell i see an approved set of the drawings stepson that's my question thank you. >> this appeal against dbi but if i like you can convict the zoning administrator - no. >> okay. >> let them off. >> only if we wants to only if you have a question. >> like we tell everybody and korea from planning. >> you don't get up here often. >> in the interest of time i was not going to you is but i have at past information on the permits and variance if you're interested i'm available. >> okay. no public comment

and no public here we'll go back into rebuttal gentleman if you have anything further. >> the deck was built by mrs. williams before barbara we've been there over 50 years and barbara did redo the entire staircase their reasonably within the last 20 years at any rate i show you that the question that is before us is what is approved there right now and what exists is leaves 94 percent of lot totally built up i don't know what the criteria for doing that 09 people in the quadrant came in and said we want a much larger deck we have larger lots they can come in with a 20 foot deck some are numerous but the plan for that

part of cal hallow to have a greenbelt that's why people buy homes there and live for decades at this point i don't understand what is the necessity of having such a deep deck to the fence of property line why can't say there be a deck that is scaled back you've never be able to an an 80 foot lot get what you get when you have one and 35 foot lot, of course not those that have those kinds of lots stuck to a 3 foot deck i don't understand what are we left to do go to court and now have a san francisco injure it didn't make sense is there a necessity

is there a fairness issue how do i have to use the same criteria foreclose everyone in the quadrant you'll say some people can build 94 percent of lot and others can't what's the basis no explanation - here it is this is precisely what the deck is we also have a spiral staircase that is 36 inches wide the same as his and a 7 foot space for a garden i don't think so why this is going on here's a 17 foot garden behind the deck i don't understand it it anymore. >> thank you. >> mr. yeager rebuttal? >> so the deck is not covering

94 percent it is a bay window that is one foot and a half no spiral case on the favorites property line so i think this is what we're arguing is you know irving and i will end up in court do the right thing at the end of the day and this is what it is that's what it is this was reasonable this was also the plan and we worked for this for years in the reasonable right we take the greenbelt seriously when the permit was valid we did the appropriate foot's and had them inspected and i6ing said you don't have a permit and in his claim to give us a red tag

so much falsehood it is hard to separate but at the end of the day one the issues that code compliant stairs a requirement we've taken great papers to put those as far away from irving one of the mitigating factors you know we went through the variance process that was upheld and this is in my view an unsubstantive appeal the plans are the same there's a lot of falsehoods that are put fort thank you. >> thank you. >> i want to commend you for keeping our composure. >> mr. duffy. >> commissioners joe duffy dbi i actually was going to say the same that's what i came up to

say mr. yeager was anger with us but he settled down he got issued a notice of violation stop work order he had a good permit because of the error we stopped him we had a good discussion and realized what had happened i want to thank him when you're working and we stop you because of our error it is not a good situation he was good about that the stairway will meet the building permit not a spiraling staircase you need that stair on the plans and i think that is the issue with that going into further into the yard thank you. >> thank you. >> okay commissioners, the matter is submitted. >> eejs to start i'm trying to contain myself also with with

all due respect to mr. duffy if no mistake there would be no basis for being here i'm happy extort of short of an additional discussion to make a motion deny the appeal and uphold that was properly issued. >> okay. thank you. >> on that motion motion on the basis it was properly issued commissioner fung commissioner president honda commissioner wilson and commissioner swig and thank you that motion carries and commissioner president honda before you younger the meeting we want to recognize this is our deputy city attorney last meeting we've been fortunate to have him assistant him and thank him on behalf of the board for his service for us and the city.

>> yes. your awesome exactly. >> your freely to tune in on wednesday nights to watch. >> he start with 10. >> there's no further business. >> okay. thank . >> good morning and welcome to the san francisco planning commission and recreation and

park commission special hearing for thursday, november 10, 2016. i'd like to remind members of the public that the commission does not tolerate any disruption or outburst of any kind. please silence your mobile devices that may sound off during these proceedings and when speaking before the commission, if you'd care to do state your name for the record. i'd like to take roll at this time. commission president fong, here. commissionment richards, here. commissioner coffle, here. commissioner moore, here. >> now for the recreation and park commission, commissioner buel, here. commissioner anderson, here. commissioner harrison. here. both commissioner board of education &erson have excused absences. >> commissioners, under your special calendar, please note the joint commissions will hold one public hearing for the public to provide testimony on

all of the items listed below. following the public hearing the recreation and parlg commission the act jointly with the joint to consider raising the shad did he and adopt findings under the california environmental quality act and will consider making recommendations to the possible adverse effects of shadow. following that the recreation and park commission will adjourn and planning will remain in session and consider action on all other entitlements. item 1a, b, c and 20 for 2013.1377k, and x at 345 6th street, discussion and possible joint action by the planning commission and recreation and park commission to raise the cumulative shadow

for jean fran park to adopt a resolution to recommend to the planning commission that the shadow cast by the proposed project at 345 6th street will not have an adverse effect on shadow for the center, then the planning commission will consider adoption of findings as well as a large project authorization. >> thank you, john ram, planning department. i wanted to reintroduce to you a former planner who has returned to the planning department after many years ago, daniel seria with 17 years of experience in north america and the middle east, early in his career daniel worked in redevelopment planning in skautsz dail, arizona and on the willamette river in portland and went on

to vancouver where he worked for the both the city and the uefrtd of british columbia, then moved on to become an urban planner in qat a. r in the middle east and a number of efforts there and he also sat on the architectural design xlit responsible for approvals on major projects there. he holds a master's in you are be ban planning, a bachelor of arts in sociology from the university of ottawa and we welcome him back after a many year absence to the department. >> thanks for that intro duex, john, i appreciate that. >> pleasure. >> good morning, commissioners, i'm dan sua from the planning department staff. i'm joined by jordan harris from the recreation and park department, as well as erica jackson, our shadow specialist at the planning department. the project before you is a request fer a large project authorization for a new mixed use building at 345 shad did he

impacts will be provided by jordan harrison. please note the materials passed out to you today include amendments to the recreation and park and planning commission resolution so that they are talking to each other, the record meetings, the findings. also include nd this packet is the final shadow memo that makes corrections to the project description and some report language. the shadow study findings remain the same. the proposed project includes the demolition of the existing single story parking garage

structure and the construction of a 9 story, 85 foot tall residential building with 102 sro dwelling units. there's approximately 1700 square feet of ground floor commercial space, there's 102 class 1 bicycle spaces and 7 class 2 bicycle spaces. under the large project authorization the proposal is seeking exceptions to the planning code requirements for rear yard under section 134, permitted obstructions under streets under section 136 and dwelling unit exposure under section 140.. project has elected the on site affordable housing alternative in section 4.913. the project contains 102 sro dwelling units and will include 14 affordable units on

site which will be for rent. the project has entered into a cost of hawkins agreement with the city. in compliance with ordinance 1715 the entertainment commission held a hearing for this project and proposed conditions of approval for the project. the entertainment commission requests the commission adopt those conditions which have been reviewed and accepted by the project sponsor. those conditions are in the materials passed out to you today. the department has received two letters in opposition to the project and one letter supporting the project signed by united plaez, the west philipino center, the philipino american development foundation. after studying all the aspects of the project of the department recommends approvals with conditions, specifically the project is in general conformance with the

planning code, the project is consistent with the objectives and policies of the general plan, the project is located in the zoning district where residential and ground floor commercial uses are principallily permitted and encouraged. it includes 102 sro units and ground floor retail. the project is consistent with and respects the existing neighborhood character and provides an appropriate massing and scale for the large parcel. the project will fully utilize eastern area plan controls and will pay the appropriate impact fees. this concludes my presentation and i will be available for questions. >> okay, opening up to public comment -- i'm sorry, project sponsor? >> we also need to hear, i believe, from rec park staff. >> thank you.

>> good morning, commissioners, my name is jordan harrison, i'm with the recreation and parks department. with my presentation i will walk through the shadow impacts from 345 6th street on to the jean frand recreation property. as you are aware, with the voter approved sunlight ordinance, section 295 requires specific findings related to shadow and rec park properties, memorandum adopted jointly by the two commissions provides guidance on how to assess that shadow. with existing shadow greater than 20 percent of the year, jean frand has an annual limit of zero percent. do you ever the presentation in front of you? >> no. >> this map provides the

position relative to two properties. the shadow analysis determined there would be no project shadow on vmd because the buildings between the project and vmd intercept the shadow, so my presentation will focus only on jean frand, which features a grassy area and playground. this hard to read slide is an illustration of the preliminary park layout that the department is working on. we're in the process of redesigning the jean frand property. this layout was presented to the specific design review committee and the eastern cac in december 2015. this is not an adopted concept plan and is being provided to

you only for information purposes. the preliminary design is currently in development. we are currently working on a feasibility study and features may shift. you can see the proposal moves the rec building corner to the corner of 6th and folsom to activate that corner. this image is the largest shadow, largest project shadow. it would occur on march 8 and october 4th around 8:00 to 10:00 in the morning. the greatest shadow impacts occur in the mornings in the early spring and fall. and this animation illustrates the shadow crossing the park property. and as you can see, it leaves the property just before 9:00. it shades the entry areas, grassy area and playground

portions of the play ground. this animation for informational purposes is the proposed park layout that i mentioned, is subject to change but as you can see the building being moved forward to the corner of folsom and 6th intercepts some of the project's shadow. this table provides a summary of the shadow impact on to the park property. the shadows occur in the mornings in the spring and fall and parts of the window. on days with new shadow the range is from just over 4 minutes to just under 30 minutes. the shadows fall on the northwest corner of the property where the grassy area and pathways are currently located and the shadow leaves the property before 9 am which is when the property currently opens. the 1989 memo provides

guidance on how to assess shadows for the purpose and acl of zero percent, annual cumulative limit was established for jean frand the property would introduce an additional 0.39 of shadow annually which would increase the shadow load for the park to 47.66 for the year. fear this reason the joint action by the commissions is necessary. so in addition the commission likes to consider cumulative projects within the vicinity of the park, so this map illustrates other projects in the vicinity that have the potential to shade jean frand one of the properties immediately adjacent to the subject property, which is 363, is the yellow property there. 363 was approved by this commission last fall and the

one just south of that, 988 harrison, wouldn't reach jean friend. this hard to read table provides you the numeric summary of the shadow impacts based on preliminary analysis of those project site illustrated in that last map. these are all preliminary assessments the design of these buildings is still underway so these could change, but we would like to provide you this information, the best that we have right now. cumulative these projects could increase the shadow load on jean friend by 1.3 percent, but as i mentioned, these are preliminary designs. the number would probably be lower because those shadows may intercept one another but it's too early to say right now. finally, the sponsor will speak to this more, but to summarize community outreach and benefits for the project, the sponsor facilitated 11 meetings for local stake holder groups and letters of support and opposition were received by

the departments and included in your packets. as explained, the project will provide 14 affordable units as well as pay required impact fees and make required improved. this concludes my presentation, i am available with planning staff to answer any questions you may have. >> can you pass that around, your presentation so we can see what you are referring to? >> which. >> your presentation. >> i had a hard time following. maybe in the future we can get a copy of the presentations. thank you. >> okay, project sponsor, please. >> good morning, commissioner, joseph thompson. on behalf of sponsor we would like to thank

you for the opportunity to present this project. i would like to extend our gratitude to the planning department and various neighborhood organizations that have helped us refine our project. this will result in practical housing replete with commercial housing space that will activate this corridor and add to our market in affordable housing. morover it will be hoer sdaupblgtsly aligned with projects on 6th and folsom street. we will now provide a summary of the project at 345 6th street. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners, this is red (inaudible) consults. also i would like to thank you for taking the time to hear our case. i would like to make it quick, as they say. i'm going to

point out why this project we feel that it fits within the neighborhood properly and it helps the street expanse and how does it fit into the block. if i may have the overhead, this building is 345 6th street as we are proposing. next door is the project, also a 9 story building with ground floor commercial. and you see the rest of the block as we go down shiply street. the way the building is designed, is that we have

matched the neighbors' rear yard. at this point there is no open space, there is no pattern of midblock open space due to the building that is sitting on both our lot and the neighboring lot. and what we are proposing is just like the neighbors' property you guys approved last year, we are proposing a 25 foot setback to their property line totals to 50 feet, which creates an open space that will benefit the rest of the homes, you know, down the block. in addition, on the ground floor also to give you orientation we have 6th street on one side and shiply going down the street. so again we have carefully designed, you know, this layout so that we

have a generous commercial space with approximately 19 foot ceiling which makes a great inviting commercial space that is nonexistent at this point. and as we go down shiply street, which we're getting to more residential block face, you know, we have provided the residential entrance and 4 residential units at the back of the sidewalks. so one thing i want to point out about this project and some of the concerns that i may say, the only concern that we have heard face to face with the neighborhood was that during these meetings that we held at the site, the neighbors came and they thought this was group housing with one kitchen in every level and more of a transient housing and made everybody nervous. so we explained to them that, you know, this is in fact a studio

units. they are rentals and they have the kitchen in the units. they have high ceilings by virtue of the concrete construction that we are proposing, which allows for a 7-inch thickness of the floors. at ground floor we are providing 8 foot, 11 inches of ceiling height which is not -- which is more generous than most of the units that you see in town at 8 feet or even less in some areas. and on the upper floors we have 8 foot, 8 inch ceiling so by virtue of the ceiling height and fenestration if you look at the elevations we feel that there's a lot of volume, there's a lot of light coming into these units and by far they are not a cramped unit, cramped, dark

units. this is a building that is going to be keeping a family for a very long time, our office is a few blocks from there, it's personal to us, we manage the units ourselves and we design the project and engineer the projects and when we are through we manage the construction. so we are proud of that, we want to make sure that the residents are comfortable in the units and we are not jamming units into this building. in addition the other aspect of this building that is rather abnormal to most of the projectness this town is in 9 floors of occupancy we have 6 levels of decks. so the occupants would have a choice to, they don't have to go all the way to the 9th floor roof deck to be able to get fresh air and light, we are providing various decks, whether private or common, for the enjoyment of

the tenants and we feel that it's got to be a good building and it's got to be comfortable to live in. in addition, one thing that i would like you guys to also look at, we added an alternate floor plan for the ground floor. under 8th floor we lost one unit as a result of putting a community room on the 8th floor. we were hoping to see whether you would be acceptable to the commissioners if we are to reduce our ground floor footprint and provide a veer yard at grade somewhat such as the adjacent building has and to be able to provide a generous ground floor community room which could, you know, upper floor, community room was about 12 feet wide. here we could provide 25 by 25 or even

larger, you know, at the ground floor openings into a ground floor garden. that concludes my presentation. i have mr. brad terrell who did a great job with the facade, he's going to talk about the architecture of the building. i'm available for any questions you may have. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is brad terrel, i'm the design lead for the team. i'm really pleased to introduce the project and draw a little closer to the design that's been in development for over 3 years. from a distance, the building is composed of a simple cubic volume atop a glass podium at 6th street. complementing this volume is a 4 story expression that's organized with garden units, projecting bays and terraces fronting on to shiply street. this is important to note given the orientation of the building. it fronts a very

busy primary street and then also fronts a very intimate secondary alley this is something we've taken into account both in the planning of the ground floor floor and as much as the elevation can express. along the shiply alleyway the street wall is set back to provide more face at ground and this was important we felt to make the street more inviting and to align with some of our adjacent contexts that we have. looking closer at the primary mapping again at the corner the volume is further differentiates by the horizontal structure that we have, as rachel mentioned. these bands of horizontal structure are further expressed by alternating bands of fenestration and that fenestration is composed of both solid and void with fiber cement panels and glazing floor

to ceiling stretching from slab to slab. this pattern is solid, it's accentuated by these projecting bays, these projecting slab edges, raert, that provide shadows and further invigorate the elevation with direction be it the morning or afternoon where the shad did hes and light are coming from. with that said, we've invested a good bit of time and interest into the materials and the relief on the building and that's something i feel we want to draw attention to. thank you. >> that is it from project sponsor, opening it up to public comment. >> good morning, commissioners, president fong, good morning to the new commissioners. cunningham. my name is rudy corpus, i'm

the executive director of violence prevention program called united players that's housed in the south of market. i'm also a resident of south of market, born and raised. i'm here to support the project. i'm here because we have met with some of the developers and, you know, made agreements upon what would be best for the community, for organizations and also what's best for the community. it's very rewarding when you can meet developers in a community that wants to meet with the community and wants to build with the community. i don't think they're just, like, developers that just came and build something, make some money and get on. they are here also as a community partner and to me that's more important than anything that we can get is building a relationship. our motto is it takes a hood to save a hood and now they are in the community with us and they've been in the community with us, it's time that we start building these bridges, not these walls, in

particular in the district we're in, in district 6 south of market. i'm here to support these guys in full and say let's move forward the project and thank you for letting me speak. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is bernadette sea, i'm the director of the philipino development corporation and also the project sponsor for the philipino district. the project sponsor has offered to support our community. one of the things we are requesting from the project is also to provide affordable commercial space. as we build out our philipino small business district in south of market it's really imperative that we try to retain a lot of our business that is already here. we know

there's (inaudible) that's been here 15 years and their family is about to be displaced. the project sponsor has offered to provide the low market rate in its commercial space. for that we are supporting the project. thank you. >> good morning, commissioners, my name is luisa antonio and i am the director of the veteran's equity center. i want to echo bernadette's comments about the developer's support for our community. as a worker in the south of market for the last 25 years and have been working with a lot of philipino families, what we have seen is small businesses that are providing the services for the philipino families have gone and there's an asian market in fact on mission street that is getting displaced. and one of the

things that we appreciate about the developer is coming to our community and making a xhisment to help us preserve the small businesses and support for alvia march's office space for the small businesses and it is really important that we have it as we are working on making sure that we have a thriving philipino community in the south of market. it's important to have philipino businesses that are serving the community. thank you. >> okay, any additional public comment?

>> i'm not going to speak on shadows. this is a map the mraplt gives out when they have ppa's to this site and it shows this site is full. it's a map the planning department gives out on all ppa's. i didn't understand the qualifications of the person who spoke as the designer. is he an engineer? what kind of an engineer? what kind of analysis was done of the structural structure of this building in light of the soils they are on? i've been dealing with projects back to the 90's on soft soils in this area of south of market. there was

enormous disruption in lola prieta we now are having hearings on soils and south of market the board of supervisors downtown. what qualifications underlie the plans engineering wise because engineering plans affect the architecture. they have to have real implications for the structure part of the plan. so i have separate questions on the shadows but i am very concerned about the soils so i refer to you to map the planning department's map, it's california seismic hazard zone official map, november 17, 2000. it's a real map. it was given to this developer when they did a ppa, so please

credentialize your plans and the person who spoke. thank you. >> tom gilberti on shadows. is it possible to do a tiered set back upper levels, minimal loss of apartments, of housing rooms? but they may add a little bit more slant, less shadow? better -- i like a tiered building much better than a box. next issue, roof top garden. i came here today to speak to the combined commissions and if anything is above 9 stories a

roof top garden gets to be a windy effect. but a roof top garden is one way for people that live in a building to meet each other in a noncommercial space. they are not being sold. and i'm sorry i don't know all the facts here, do they have a roof top garden here planned? those are the only two issues that i am concerned about. again, on shadow, the tiered upper level set back, that can work. thank you. >>. >> thank you, commissioners, welcome to the new members. we are the members of prozak, the

park and rec. i would echo the person who spoke before me, we are concerned in general about shadowing any of our parks. you know, we all know about the city ordinance that forbids shadowing of the parks. we have so little open space as it is in our district that the precious bit that we have we would like to preserve the sunlight. so if there is any way in a planning or architectural sense that that could be avoided, we would like to have that considered. we would also like to see if there's a way that the green space that is being suggested would be able to be open to the public. we have popo's all over our district, most of them are unusable, they are not accessible to the public even though they have a small sign that says that they are, and once again to reiterate there is so little open space in our district that we would like to

see if that can be accessible to everyone. the last question we have is the distinction at planning between an sro and a studio. so we heard each unit would have a kitchen, but does each unit have a bathroom or are they shared bathrooms? that would make a difference in terms of family usage of the units and we would just like to have that clarified. so as the last thing i would like to make is a sort of addition to that we live in both soma and the tender loin and our neighborhood is becoming denser by the day. there are over 10,000 new units either in the pipeline or already open in our immediate neighborhood in the sort of mid-market, central market district and there is so little open space for the families that are being built for. so on the one hand to park and rec we really thank you for approving the proposed

acquisition on 11th street, we are very excited about that and that will be really an addition for us. but our concern is it won't be available to us until at the least 2024, which doesn't do a single thing for all of the 10,000 new units and the rest of the people that live there. so we would like to ask you to reconsider this second proposed acquisition in the neighborhood. park and rec has already done all the research for it. prozak passed resolutions supporting both of them, we don't see this as an either/or proposition, we'd like to have you reconsider acquiring both. thank you all very much. >> okay, is there any additional public comment? okay, not seeing any, public comment is closed and opening up to both commission

commissioners. commissioner moore. >> speaking on the context of our joint discussion, i want to briefly say i find the building to be interesting in response to the challenges the site poses, opening up to a broader mid-block open space is a very good idea, stepping the building is a very good idea because it will indeed deemphasize the impact on a smaller residential community to the north/northwest, but i have one question and one i would like to explore in front of you together with mr. suka because i had to place a call to the planning department with respect to one particular aspect of the project where i don't quite think we are meeting the general requirement that this commission upholds when it comes to ground floor units. mr. suka, would you mind engaging with me in a conversation? typically when it comes to alleys anywhere, be that on stevenson, be that on

(inaudible) valley, wherever a strong residential set of guidelines which deals with a privacy issue, four units which you enter off an alley into the unit and come not guilty level is just not assuring the privacy we're looking for because you would have to have your shades drawn all day in order to have privacy. we are not living in holland where everybody just doesn't look into each others units and shades are not the rule. here it is and because we have studio units, which are well sized yet they are only studios, we do not have much space to distinguish between the more private parts of our -- between the private zones in our units versus other rooms which are for the bath. these units are compliant units relative to bedroom units, however they need to be raised

3 feet above the sidewalk in order to have the privacy we are looking for. i placed a call and mr. suka, if you want to pick up where i'm leaving off here, perhaps you could fill us in. >> rick suka, staff. mr. moore is referring to our ground floor guidelines. typically we like to have units along the street to help activate the area. typically we look at the overall benefit of the project, the specifics of the street and the overall development. the raising and introduction of stoops is a pretty common method that we will look at. in this instance we have the architect had originally proposed a kind of forecourt like private entry way into that provided a buffer to the street and then to the unit, which we didn't find very favorable considering the kind of shade that it would cast on

the street and given the constraints of the overall height it wasn't -- we were, we found the current design acceptable relative to that. however, commissioner moore is correct in the sense that this isn't typical of our ground floor residential dwelling guidelines. >> i want to take it away and you can look at the pictures of very well-developed document done in 2011 by the department, very much guidance to rules we have enforced pretty much all along, including the more recent ones throughout the city. as we are starting to discover the importance of our alley's as a new neighborhood street, i believe this project would greatly fail by not realizing the step up, what it would require is adjusting the yofr all volume metric parts of the lower piece and the upper piece by potentially dropping a

floor. i am not as much concerned about the unit yield as i am interested in the overall proper functioning of those units which we're bringing to market today. it's not for me between one and the other, new mayorally one is better, the department's guidelines is very persuasive. i am sending out the pick taur to do it correctly, which means let's lift the ground floor but in order to stay with the height limit we may have to drop an additional floor which would help us with potentially lessening any residual impact we have on parks, which meets the larger objective of protecting our parks when it comes to the public interests which in this particular neighborhood is praitd by the fact some of the newer parks

only will come in 2024, as the group just said. nobody loses, i think the developer will have a good building but there needs to be a couple adjustments for the project to fly. >> xlir low. >> jordan, can you talk to us about the proposed development of jean friend rec center. you mentioned you're bringing the building closer to foal come street but what's the intended use there? >> the objectives of the redesign process were to increase the amount of basketball space on the interior of the building and maintain the existing programs which is an exercise room, basketball and multi purpose room. the new building will be two stories so we are achieving some of those goals by using upstairs and in terms of moving it forward the purpose of that

was to improve the activation of that corner, having it recessed makes it a little less activity. >> are we talking outdoor space or indoor space? >> indoor space, the building slides forward. >> so the proposed shadow would hit the building, not necessarily basketball courts. >> correct. >> the proposed redevelopment plan, the shadow would hit a building first as active outdoor space. >> yes, most of the shadow would. do you have any further questions about that? >> no. >> commissioner harrison. >> you are not -- who's here? >> i was misadvised. commissioner richards. >> staff, if you may one more

time, please, on the shadow, the park plan. maybe in the future if we could have a copy of this. >> yeah, we didn't realize that that was -- i appall wriez -- apologize for that. >> what's currently in our packet looks at the current site. on the current site we have the time of the day, the duration and what it actually hits, right? and it didn't mention anything about a play ground but on the new conceptual site that has yet to be adopted or even voted on, whatever, it seems like there is a longer duration than i've read in the packet on certain times of the day as well as it hits a playground? where are we today and where are we dwoiing tomorrow and where does the shadow actually does hit? >> where we are today is the shadow hits the front quarter of the property which is mostly grassy area and a bit of playground. >> this here? >> yes.

>> so the building is in the back. >> the building is about 50 feet back from the intersection. >> and the new proposal would be to build a building that is larger? >> on that proposal on the very back of the property, where your finger is now, that is an outdoor basketball court. >> okay. >> and at the corner of folsom and 6th is the building. >> right here, uh-huh, where no building is today. >> right, where no building is today and then the grassy area, entry area, and to the left is the current play ground. so the shadow sort of diagonally crosses the property, hits the edge of the playground and the grassy area and the entry way. exactly where your fickle are are. >> in the future it's going to hit the building and the cafe is like a carousel cafe? >> let me reiterate, that is potential -- turn it over to --.

>> commissioner, fill ginsberg, rec and park. jordan is correct in that that is still in the design phase. this is a partnership with the partnership for public land. the goal is to add capacity in the site because of increased density in the area and as the prozac members noted. the cafe is tentative. we are doing the possibility of including an indoor pool in the space. the closest public pool in the south of market area is actualliality garfield so in partnership discussion with community members we wanted to take a look at that. the cafe element is sort of an optional element, it is in the design that you have. i think this design is going to move a little bit but i think our intent, the project intent, is

to activate what is the southeast corner of the property with building, because right now the frontage of the building is only on 6th street. under any scenario we want to move a larger building forward to the corner of 6th and folsom. as jordan noted there will be a second floor and there will be additional program space. how that program space ends up being carved up will depend on the feasibility of a swimming pool. >> so there's a play ground for the children and proposed there isn't any? >> there will probably be 1, it just hasn't been decided where. >> for the purposes of our decision today we need to look at the current situation. >> you need to look at the current design that's on site there. i think there's a little bit of quaul litative

image. it is likely some of the shadow will end up falling on structure, a significant amount of shadow. >> while you are speaking, if you may, i think i asked this question before, are there any plans to expand programming before 9 am? >> i remember that. i remember that. i wish i had actually done something about it since the last time you asked. right now the facility operates close to, is it 9 or 10 hours a way. -- a day. we do have robust programming. san francisco voters just passed proposition d which gives us a little bit more wiggle room and we are in the process of actually having a look at all our program and program hours and i still have something that i need to get back to you about. >> are there any other current parks in district 6 that are open before 9:00?

>> don't forget, this is a structure. this is a rec center and not a park. victoria, mineol graves, most of our parks are operating at 6 klpl am and midnight. for example victoria mineola graves is open early, south park is or will be open earth. we have a number of parks that are actually within a 5-minute walk of jean friend rec center in the tender loin, we have 17th and folsom which i'm proud will be opening in january, i believe. >> so there are patrons that use this as a park, for purposes of people's programming they can lay on the grass. >> it's possible the new design would allow us to think differently about the operating hours. right now with the old design, as you know, there's kind of a weird fenced-in

structure and having the building open and eyes on the back yard, eyes on the open space, has been important. but with the new design that's something that we can certainly take a look at. our goal is to have both our buildings and our parks open as much hours a day, as many days a week, as many weeks a year as we can possibly program. >> commissioner johnson. >> thank you. i am highly supportive of this project, i think it's great. we've talked about the need for sro's and sort of where they fit in our parket when we also have similar discussions about larger size be units and i personally feel like this is a great project because sro's are the entry way for a lot of people into the city and it's also great housing stock for a lot of our pop place. so i think it's great. commissioner moore brought up something i had been thinking about, i hadn't thought about

too much, but i totally agree on her comments about ground floor. i was recently walking around my neighborhood in mission bay where many of the apartment buildings do you have ground floors, you have blocks and blocks of buildings that have ground floor apartments and the shades are down on all of them. in some ways it's no different than when we questioned the wisdom of having ground floor parking podiums where you are looking at a blank wall. i think it's worthwhile to look at options around that, whether it's raising the building so that you have the front door, even if you don't have an extented foop area, you have the front door above the main sidewalk area or if we need to look at permitted ub strutions and see if that should include some further obstructioning, something in front of the doors of the apartments. in order to have eyes on the street, people need to feel like they are not on a zoo and i think that's something we should be thinking

about. before you hear rich, because i know you have something to say -- something smart, the one thing i agree with commissioner moore, whatever we come up with, especially if it involves raising the building, something like that, i am not interested in decreasing the number of units. we'll have to see how that works out with the site direction but that's not something i want to go in. >> in talking to the architect it sounds like they can accommodate a kind of raised open area on the ground floor, kind of back to what we originally looked at. you would see street, a kind of raised, open area used for private open space, and then the unit which was basically harkening back to an earlier scheme that we had looked at. the architect mepbsed they can basically get, there is

additional height on the nroupbd floor so we are still within our minimum tolerances for ground floor ceiling height but still accommodating, he mentioned we likely cannot accommodate a 3 foot but anywhere between 7 and 14 inches, basically about two steps up above the public right of way so you git a little bit of separation from street and open space, basically. >> if i may, thank you for hearing me again. at this point we have a 7 inch step up into the building and we have ceiling heights, you know, varying from 8 foot 11 inches to 8 foot 8 inches so if we have to hypothetically reduce the ceiling height to 8 foot 6, which is still rather generous, then we could raise the building, raise the ground floor by an additional 12 inches because raising the look

of the building. it would be 18 to 20 inches of raised stoop that we could accommodate without loss of square -- any units. >> i'd like to hear other comments on that. i mean i think if there's any way we can -- i mean i don't want to diminish the living quality of the units, they are already smaller in size and i do think that that sort of what would be created with that open space would be used by those units because they are not that big. okay, we consider things like stepping up and then stopping down into the units so you are not decreasing your ceiling height, is it more about increasing physical barrier between the private space and the public space of the sidewalk with screens or awnings, i'm thinking out of the box here and that's one reason why i want to bring it up because i have residential ground floor guidelines, i

found them online. i think there's more we can do with that but generally speaking i like the project. in terms of the jean friend rec center i think it's fantastic we are looking at updates for that center, i see a lot of people playing basketball on the folsom street side well swoot neighborhood so it is well used by the neighborhood. commissioner rich are erd's question if there is a feasibility study around pools that would certainly change the hours because pools tend to open at 5:00 in the morning. still a little more we can do around some certainty how to create that, a little bit of that gateway between the public space and the public private and the ground floor, but generally speaking, good project. >> mr. rizzo

>> i looked at project they showed us -- this is for the ground floor picture and alleys. they showed me pictures of units in london where you would step down then step up. could you do that here where you can get another floor? >> absolutely. we have hallways in the back of these units that initially when we had raised units designed we were using that hallway to (inaudible) so we can raise steps up and step down and still allow for units that are accessible to people with disability or we just raise it by 18 inches or so and, yeah, we have, there are some ways we could do it. definitely. >> i will refer to commissioner moore on some of the finer points of that design. >> commissioner moore. >> any project when it comes forward we have to attempt to

be compliant where we have concrete construction here where the ceiling height is shallower than other kinds of construction, we have rather low ceilings, we all know how to do the height limit if you want to put 9 floors in there. you still have to accommodate structure and i think in order on meet the code requirement for proper treatment on the alleys, and i don't want to make science out of it except just to rely on the consistency by which we do what the departments held us to do. this will be a stretch and i am personally not prepared to let this go to quiet height because this should have been considered from the get go. i don't personally feel i can negotiate stepping up or stepping down because stepping down will only exacerbate the fact you will be looking even more into the unit. so that is

just basically not going to work. i just have to ask that this project does the right research, comes forward with the right unit yield for the commercial purpose that this building comes forward but does not try to negotiate around rules that we are only simply here to use what the planning department has very eloquently developed at least for me as guidance. so i cannot do anything else, just say that this project needs more study and also to commissioner johnson and to everybody's edification, this is not an sro in the conventional way, this is basically an sro which deals more with the crunch on tech workers who nreed to find a smaller unit, a well-sized unit and again it can be open for anybody but its primary purpose is private development and that's when i am saying you need to look a little bit closer if you want a unit yield, you've got to meet some basic requirements of what the

code asks all of us to do. i cannot invent a more acceptable solution except is asking this project does the proper research and will challenges we have in light of the livability of units on alleys. >> commissioners, if i may, a couple -- i think as rich pointed out, the typical preferences to either set the unit back at the ground level or raise it up or both because of privacy issues. and i think what we've been trying to figure out here is a way to do that without losing units. so i would ask, could you clarify, rich or the project sponsor, on the height limit? the lower level building is at the height limit or close to it. >> yes. >> so the lower level building is within the tall raupbses for the alley setbacks. >> i mean i think perhaps the

way to approach this would be to say, to have the commissioners consider approving the project with a couple of options or direction to staff on exactly what you'd want to see. i hear general support from the commission. oh, the other question i have is -- well, we're at the height limit. nothing we would do at the ground level if it khaifrpbs the form of the building in any way would create different park shadow issues, right? >> correct. as long as it's not the larger mass, it's the smaller one. >> so it's the taller part of the building that creates the shadow, not the shorter? >> correct. >> i don't know, i mean i don't think, i think i would ask phil to weigh in but i don't know from a park standpoint that there's a direct issue, but perhaps for park users going back and forth by the building it might be something we can look at.

>> yeah, we typically don't weigh in directly on design, but i think our preference would certainly be for either step up or setback to the extent the units are facing privacy concerns in the park, that tends to create a little more conflict with park users if the spaces are so close together. i think maybe kind of a healthier coexistence between the residential units and, you know, outdoor play actually would be well served by that kind of, by pursuing that kind of option. >> okay, commissioner richards. >> yes, procedural question, understanding we're talking about the design of the building, tall structure will not change the shadow impact and now we're getting into design issues. as i look at the way the schedule is, should we go ahead and vote on the shadow issue and then deal with the design issue in a

commission meeting or what should we do here? >> entirely up to you, commissioners, at this point. if the rec and park commission is prepared to move their portion of the items forward you can continue deliberation regarding design or you can take up the entire matter now and then take up the matter after the rec and park commission adjourn. >> and the rec and park's approval of it, though, would be on the mass propozd and it we got into design and change the mass, that would bring this back to another hearing, correct? >> potentially, yes. >> we need to deal with the mass. >> if you are going to change it, yes. >> as proposed. >> commissioner moore. >> let me make a suggestion. the two buildings are engaged at the ground level. in order for the shiply street units to perform and be raised 3 levels,

at the point where the two buildings lock is properly done you could sep step up through the corridor into the annex, into the shiply street annex. that can be done in a number of ways with steps as well as a ramp in order for somebody who has something to carry or whatever, for that grade transition to occur at that level. in response to director ginsberg's comment, i do believe the alley is complemented by elevating the ground floor unit. it is already older residential, smaller buildings, now the alley completes itself as a complete alley rather than this awkward what's going on there. i think it will be comfortable for the people who live in the units as well as those who are walking by. so i think it is a win-win by consider not guilty some form or other to do the

grade change within the building, there's also a large bicycle room which could be reconsidered, that way transition is much easier to accomplish. there's possibilities but we cannot design this building together but i would ask mr. terrell, the architect, to possibly acknowledge that is possible. could you step up and explain that to both commissions? >> absolutely, this is an important issue and something we've given a great deal of attention to. a project of this sort sometimes is cast by what is its primary image and that's the corner of the building. the secondary portion of this building, which is the first 4 floors of the building in terms of the organization of the commercial space point of sbli for the overall building and lastly these garden units has been something we've been back and forth on, not just this project but several projects in the past. so we've learned some things about just these things and i don't say anything in

terms of what solution might be important. given the size of the units and the pressure on that ground floor plate to do what what's going to do nr terms of bicycle storage and amenity we've been looking at negotiating how that can come and go. i think the floor plate that might be rendered by virtue of picking this up a few steps, we actually have that, the last solution we provided before we came to commission and that is something we negotiated back to where we are today. my preference would be to look closely in the existing six-foot sidewalks with the condition the little alley we have that's coming, by planting and surfaces and the like but look at the threshold between the 6 mot existing sidewalk and the band that we have now, which is still hardscape but think becomes something of a

buffer because it's planted, then develop a forecourt, would safe as a place to take off your shoes. these units are rather small so entering dregtly from the sidewalk experience into the unit is a little less than what we would hope at this point. so my preference would be to raise the units by a matter of 18 to 24 inches, several steps, if you will, and propose a gated entry as we had before with vertical bars of sorts that would be something he will -- elegant, something complementary to the plat we have now would be recessed, that gives the elevation that would give added space to these units that they could benefit from. as i said, we had several solutions to this end, we tried to work closely with the intuition and the judgment of the planning staff to come up with a solution that we felt

we could all bring for the benefit of the project. >> do you still have that particular stech sketch with you? >> i don't have it today. >> it was too dark. >> it was a concern. it was a concern both about is it too shaded and is it safe and that was a concern we last shook hands on, decided we would bring it forward and raise it by one step and utilize the planting xhepx that xhepx that dimension that we had that would be permeable but not planted. . >> commissioners, so you'll see here, this is the original version of this step where we have the unit basically over here, a small forecourt over here and then basically the sidewalk over here. and i think it sounds like it's going

to accommodate a raised entry, a stoop, over here especially if we reorganize where the storefront is over here and not have it censors, basically push over the side that we can create that public-private zone between the public right of way, the private open space for the units here as well as give that buffer between where the units is and where the street is. >> if i may, i think the difference between what you saw before and what you just -- that drawing and the potential better solution is that there wouldn't be a solid wall, it would be more transparent. >> correct. >> but still raise up and provide that public-private zone in front of you. >> yeah, the architects can certainly look at some kind of gate to separate between the

two or some kind of screen or transition element that works with the overall design of the building. >> and if i may, to respond to mr. gilberti's question, most of the roof is actually an outdoor space for the residents to use. >> good. i'm supportive of the items commissioner moore brought up and i'm even more delight toad hear there has been through the study of this at least one version that comes close to meeting that and staying within the mass of the project size. commissioner richards. >> just one question, mr. sucrai, this would look something like in the guidelines where there's a gate, there's a landing and there's a door recessed or there would be --. >> yeah, i'm confident we can work with the architects to basically develop a scheme or a forecourt scheme that basically hits upon the intensive ground floor --. >> that wouldn't change the

massing of the building? >> it would not. >> so we are still good. >> commissioner johnson. >> fantastic. i think you've answered my question and we can talk in a second about the findings we should make about the large project authorization to sort of memorialize that. i know there's potential for the landing to be dark but you don't necessarily have to have an awning or something to provide privacy. i'm referencing newer buildings on keen and second right across from the ballpark and the ground floor units that are there, yeah, they have two steps up, glass, three-foot gate and then the door. there's no awning, there's no obstruction, there's no big huge planters and those people see thousands of people walking by their doors going to giants games but i notice many of them do have their shades up at least halfway on one or more stories. those sorts of changes really do impact the street life so i appreciate

that. okay, do we ask them to do the shadow? >> commissioner moore. >> i have one more comment to mr. sucrai, i would like to encourage that support to mr. ginsberg's comments that appropriate lighting is added to these little stoop up setbacks so that at night when somebody in late afternoon comes from any of our rec and park facilities walking through the alley, which is now on the street, et cetera, also has a feeling, yeah, people are home and the lights are on and there's a proper residential feel to what is now a pretty dark, deeply recessed front door. >> great. >> thanks, appreciate it. >> one last question to the project sponsor with regard to the commercial space. is it my understanding that you are providing below market rate commercial space as a part of the agreement with the community? we heard a couple

people get up and talk about this business and that business staying. >> we have been in negotiation with various neighborhood groups to see what we can do to help the neighborhood and this was one of those that that portion of the commercial space could be assigned to them. the size of it, you know, we haven't hashed out yet but we told them, that, yes, a portion of it would be used for them. >> this space from a commercial point of view is challenging because of the neighborhood? i'm trying to understand. i'm walking down through new buildings, some of them have been built in 2000 in the mission they are still empty after 15 years. i really want you to work with the community on trying to get local businesses in there. >> sure, absolutely. >> the other thing is, as i look at the map and i look at the community room and then the storage area down on the ground floor it seemed a little counter intuitive to me that we would have -- bike stores make sense but is there storage for

apartment interior stuff down on the ground floor? what is that storage area, the bike storage area? >> you can see circulation of the building and all the amenities that is needed, the panels, the pump rooms and all that, a rather generous -- this is why we came up with this idea of having that open space, you know, to reduce the size of the massing, the size of the building at ground floor, provide open space at grade, you know, and provide open space in that area. >> so community space at the ground floor versus the 8th floor. >> that's right. >> ground floor makes more sense to me because people come and go, it has access maybe off the lobby? >> that's right. 8th floor, first of all, we are using one, we'll be using one unit. the sound rating of that floor is

going to be an issue because there's, i don't know, 10 or 11 units there and have people hanging out. >> sure. >> it would be an issue at that level. so we are, again, you know --. >> what's the logic of putting the community room on the 8th floor, is there some view or some other benefit i'm missing? you are losing a unit, you have to kind of soundproof it because people are going to be playing games and tv and things like that. is there a benefit i'm missing at having it on the 8th floor? >> this was working with the planning department. we had a unit at that location. >> so if you took the community room and put it on the first floor, on the 8th floor would there be storage? >> no, on the 8th floor would be additional unit, 103 units, it would have view. >> if we move the unit what

does it do? >> nothing. >> i strongly believe that we're losing a unit for rec room on the ground floor and putting storage on the 8th floor is not something i would support. >> commissioners, typically with the sro units we are definitely looking for some kind of common amenity space that the residents can use, given the small size of the units. it's something we've asked from a lot of the sro projects. in this case given they have that common roof deck on the top floor we found that a kind of community room for the residents, which is what what it would be used for was complementary to the roof deck area. the sponsor in this case was will ing to sacrifice a unit. in terms of storage, the small size of the units lends itself to a need for

residential storage which is something that is commonly lacking in a lot of these new developments so it's actually good they included storage space that could be used for the units. >> so the community room has great views of the downtown, you can stand up there with your friends and that's why it's connected to the roof. >> precisely. >> if it's a rainy day you can just -- okay, i understand that. thank you. >> i see no more questions by rec and park. margaret, what's your advice? commissioner low, did you want to make some recommendations on the matter before us? >> yes, the shadow that is case on to jean friend you just have to evaluate the shadow as the conditions currently exist at jean friend. it does hit an

active play ground area as well as basketball court, but it is before the facility is open and i do have some amendments to the resolution, they are nonsubstantive in general, it just cleans up the resolution and cleans up language that is repeated and would like to move this forward based on these amendments to the resolution. >> commissioners, all of you have those resolutions in front of you. >> yeah, the red line resolutions. >> we need a second. >> we have a motion. is there a second? >> second. >> it's been moved and seconded. >> commissioner low, aye. commissioner harrison, aye. commissioner anderson, aye. and commissioner buell, aye.

commissioner johnson, aye. commissioner coppell, aye. that motionses unanimously 5-0. >> now rec and park commission, you are on 1b, which is to adopt a resolution to recommend to the planning commission that the new shadow cast by the proposed project at 345 6th street will not have a significant adverse impact on the use of the jean friend recreation center as required by planning code section 295 and i think commissioner low you had some amendments there also. >> thank you. again i make some modifications to the resolution. it is nonsubstantive in nature, again is just to clean up language as well as some language that's not necessary in the resolution. on that basis i'd like to move this matter forward for the rec and park commission to approve this matter based on the amendments to the resolution. >> and you are finding that it does not have adverse

significant -- right? >> right. >> i heard a second. it's been moved and seconded. >> commissioner low, aye. commissioner harrison, aye. commissioner harrison, aye, and commissioner buell, aye. we are adjourned. >> it's always a pleasure to have these joint meetings but it's frustrating because it would be nice to weigh in on all these design issues and we wish you the very best. >> commissioner, we'll be here several hours. i'm sure the planning commission would love your attendance. >> we appreciate the invitation and pass. >> i'm sure we will see each other again in soon. >> planning commissioners, we are still in session. i'm sure the rec and park will retire quietly to allow us to continue

with the large project authorization and 1b and 1c >> commissioner richards. >> i move that the findings for the shadow project -- i move to approve the project with the direction to staff to have a transition point between the sidewalk private and public space, have a step up of at least 18 inches and a recessed entry. >> second. >> to the ground floor. >> to the ground floor on shiply. >> second. >> 18 inches isn't enough, it has to be up at least two steps. >> two steps would be 14 inches. >> 18 inches, better. >> minimum of 18? >> minimum of 18, that's better. >> that's what he said. >> second. >> on that motion, then,

commissioner johnson, aye. commissioner coppell, aye. xhoor moore, aye. commissioner president fong, aye. that motion passes unanimously 5-0 and concludes this special hearing. >> okay, great. so this -- general public comment? okay, the meeting is adjourned. (meeting adjourned).you. >> ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ in landing a contract with the sfoifk is pretty champ but now

with the opened contracting center visitors can get opportunity at the new state of the arc facility and attend workshops and receive one-on-one technical assistance and learner what you need to become a primary contractor or what information to be a subcontractor and a created bed public commission it will help people to assist people to compete for and performance open city contract a lot of small businesses do have the resources to loblth the opportunity so one of the things we wanted to do was provide ways to access contract >> access to the plans spiefkz and a data place basis ease

contracting opportunity and funding or capital training. this is and other documents that needs to be submitted. to compete is a technical skill that it takes to win a scheduling for a popular to you can win a professional services job or how to put together a quote it's all those technical pieces. looking at the contracting assistance center is our touch point with we get the people to come and see the planning specks and later than about projects earlier is he get training so you're ready to go arrest hello engineering it has all the tools that a contractor small or large can come here. i can't say enough about the

center it's a blessing. we do business all over the country and world and a place like the contractor center to identify the business in san francisco >> the reality is you need training and that's what the center is here to train and make you better qualified to go work with the city and county and to be successful at the end. >> that will give people the competitive edge e edge at receiving contracts with the city. >> we have krafshth services here that help you find out where you need to get the skills forbidding. >> i mean local businesses participation in city projects

is a winning factor it helms help the business their local businesses they're paying savings and a property tax and payroll tax and normally adhere san franciscans so their bowing goods and services in san francisco it really helps the economy of san francisco grow so its not only a benefit to the project but to the city. the contractors center is 5 thomas melon circle in the bayview area open 8:30 to 5 welcom

>> planning commission this is the regular meeting any kind. proceedings. and when speaking before the commission, if you care to, do state your name for the record. i'd like to call roll at this time. commissioner president fong commissioner bobby wilson commissioner hillis and scope we expect all