>> 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 . >> (clapping.) >> thank you very much i'm on and on the and have the distinct

honor of being the executive director and ceo of the california historical society a true, true guarantor us chance to welcome you to the magnificent looker-on honor to be here i'm thankful to you for joining us during the week that giving thanks i'm grateful for mayor ed lee and senator mark leno and assembly member tilly chang to my team and volunteers our board of trustees particularly mike ourth president that the president of another company joined by tony gonzales and board president from la thank you and truly an honor to welcome the members of the press and the cultivate and business communities

in 1865 alfred the specifying architect of the treasurer took a trip to san francisco ideas for a second u.s. mint the state of california was 15 years old acquired in sight for the federal government in 1868 fifth and mission was an unlikely site two wars okay a lot of bars (laughter) a few schools and some hotels chosen for the sandy soils it can bear the weight of the magnificent foundation and construction was in 1869 and finished in 1874 of $4 million in 1974 and around this time really important events changed not only the course of the building but the course of history san francisco had