proceed, the planning condition must grant the conditional use under planning section 303 and 317. the project was deemed to not be financially feasible, as the project sponsor submitted two property appraisal reports. one at the value of the property as it is, and one with a legalized unit, and there was no appreciative difference in the two appraisals. furthermore, the cost to legalize is estimated to be approximately $552,500, and that difference makes it financially infeasible for the property owner. the department is recommending approval and finds that the project is on balance, consistent with the policies of the general plan and the mission area plan objectives. it also finds it compatible with

the surrounding neighborhood and not to be detrimental to persons or adjacent properties in the vicinity. that concludes my presentation. if you have questions, i'm available. >> president hillis: okay, thank you. project sponsor? >> good afternoon. my name is gloria lopez. i am 53 years old. i'm an immigration attorney. i feel for tenants, and i try to provide affordable housing. legalizing the unit would take away my retirement. i am self employed, so i don't have a pension coming. in addition, i suffer an injury two years ago that has left me affected in my ability to support myself, as i used to before. the half million dollars it would cost to legalize this unit, plus another half a million dollars in interest, plus property taxes, plus utilities and repairs and

maintenance, would amount to about $5,000 a month for this unit, and the unit would not rent for $5,000 a month, because it would be a small one bedroom in the basement. so i would have to come out of my pocket every month to support this unit. i do not have anyone in the world to help me. i come from a very humble family, and i'm single. so i ask you to approve this application so my ability to support myself in illness or disability or old age is not affected. thank you. >> president hillis: thank you. any public comment on this item? seeing none, we'll close public comment. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i guess, project sponsor, i absolutely feel for you. i want to make sure we're thorough before we make our decision. question is, when you bought the

building in the year 2000, did you rent the unit out? >> i did rent it. >> commissioner richards: for how long? >> it's been rented until recently. >> commissioner richards: and somebody recently vacated? >> yes, when the inspectors came and inspected. >> commissioner richards: okay, and you live in one of the other two units? >> i used to. not anymore. >> commissioner richards: not seeing you in front of us, as i read this, i thought this reminded me of a couple of other times where we were asked to demolish a unit and i drew the conclusion, rightly or wrongly, we were asked to demolish a unit in order for the building condo to convert and bypass the lottery that's not happening yet, and that's started to raise hackles with me. >> no, that's not what this is about. it's just about the cost, that it would require excavation, and i submitted two estimates from contractors that i met through d.b.i., so they are very reputable. almost $600,000 is an estimate,

so it could be a lot more, once we get to it. so my plan is to -- because i'm 52, in about 12 years i'll be of retirement age, so ten to 12 years, that's when i plan to sell it. so when i sell it at that point, that's going to be my retirement. so i don't have 30 years in my life. i would be in my late 80s by the time i finished paying this loan, if i take a half million dollar loan, so i think the whole discussion about the conversion, that was what the department is analyzing, that that's why the unit doesn't add any value to the property, because two units are more desirable than three units for condo conversion, but i'm not looking to condo convert. >> commissioner richards: i'd love to hear what other commissioners may think.

>> president hillis: commissioner melgar? >> vice president melgar: i make the motion we approve this. >> commissioner richards: second. >> secretary: commissioners, there's a motion and second to approve this matter on conditions. on that motion -- [ roll call ] so moved, commissioners, motion passes unanimously 6-0, placing us under your discretionary review calendar for items 16, 2015-0097733-drp, 1026 clayton street. discretionary review. >> good afternoon, president hillis and commissioners. david windslow, staff architect. this is a request for a discretionary review for

application permit 2015-009733. permitted work done in 2007 for access stairs and a roof deck on top of a one-story garage on top of the yard. variance decision letter dated 2006.0508, no additional work is proposed. the reason for the d.r. request of 1055 ashbury, adjacent property north is concerned with two primary issues, one the original variance was not acted upon with a timely manner with appropriate building permits, and, two, because of that in presence because of the newly constructed d.r. building adjacent to the roof deck, a new variance should be sought and justified with consideration to unspecified impacts to the d.r. requester's property. to date the department has received no letters in opposition, but 15 letters, plus, in support of the d.r. of

the project sponsor. in light of the d.r. requester, the department reviewed the project and found that the zoning administrator had determined that the variance, the 2006 variance decision letter issued on october 11, 2006, remains valid and the work performed consistent with that approval. the d.r. requester came to that existing physical condition that is neither exceptional, nor extraordinary, in its circumstance or impacts and was able to build a residential building in a similar location with no impact from that roof deck. with this, staff finds the project meets the department's standards and guidelines and recommend the commission not take d.r. and approve as proposed. it does not justify further modifications. that concludes my report. i'm ready for answers. >> president hillis: okay, d.r. requester?

>> good afternoon, commission. i'm mark churnov on behalf of the requesting party. first of all, i would like to comment that there is actually an impact on the neighboring property that was built. when this variance was given, that property, the variance was given, what was next door was a vacant lot. it was an empty lot. there is, in fact, a house there. there are windows in the new house that face the illegally constructed deck. that is a photograph from the window of the new property, looking down at the illegal deck. you can see it. so because of the change in circumstances, that's one reason why the application should be denied. the second reason, i think, is a lot more telling. essentially, what the project sponsor is asking for, what he wants, is he wants to rely on a variance that was given or

applied for essentially a decade ago, that had two requirements in it. one, the first requirement, was that he legalize swiftly all of the illegal structures that were on the property that were built without the benefit of permits. they were already existing n.o.v.s, that he legalize all of those diligently, and he require all the necessary permits to build the new deck. he did neither of those things. the only thing that he did was he built the deck. so in relying on building the new deck, he completely ignores the fact that he took no efforts to legalize the structures that were already there, the decking and the staircase going from the house to the garage. completely ignores that entirely. and then builds the new deck. so essentially what happened was, he gets the variance, he fires the architect without paying her all the money that was due, hires a roofing

contractor to start building a deck pursuant to a roofing permit in may of 2007, pursuant to these preliminary variance plans, not signed-off plans by an architect, not signed off by a structural engineer, but preliminary plans used simply to apply for a variance. the roofing contractor got a roofing permit, starts building this structure on top of the garage, then he gets another permit to replace dry rot, to raise the parapet, further do work on the garage to complete this roof, and then has the permits signed off on on august 1 of 2007. after the permits were signed off on, the project sponsor was still negotiating with the contractor to do the deck. that contract was not finally

signed until august -- on august 7 of 2007, which was after the final permit had been signed off on. so d.b.i. went out there, they signed off on it, said everything is done here pursuant to this roofing permit, the contract to complete the deck wasn't even done yet, ink wasn't even put on the paper until august of -- august 7, which was a week later, then they agree to build the deck, and that's the permit that he says he relied on, that he knew about. another term that was negotiated between the contractor and the project sponsor was that the contractor be responsible for getting all the necessary permits. the contractor knew that that was not going to happen, so he specifically told the project sponsor, you're responsible for getting these permits. i'm including this waiver in the contract and i'm not taking it out. this is sworn testimony from the contractor. so when mr. ryan asked you to be

responsible for getting the permits, you said no, and you kept the waivers in there? correct. and you had put the waiver in there for the permit requirement to build the rooftop deck, correct? correct. mr. ryan asked you to take that out. i'm sorry, he asked you to be responsible. and you said no? correct. and he signed the contract anyway. he knew that this deck was being built illegally and without the benefit of any permits, then for the next seven years, 2008, 2009, 2010, '11, '12, '13, '14, d.b.i. is on him for this illegal structure. they are issuing notices of violation saying you need to do everything to legalize this. he points fingers at everybody, he doesn't take responsibility for anything, and d.b.i. told him back in 2014 you need to get this done. he didn't do anything. an order of abatement was issued in november of 2016. that is still on the property. it's been two years.

and now he wants the benefit of relying on a variance from a decade ago, that he did not follow under the obligations, he ignored the requirements -- >> president hillis: thank you, very much. you'll have a two-minute rebuttal. is there any public testimony in support of the d.r. requester? seeing none, project sponsor? you have five minutes, then you'll have a two-minute rebuttal. >> thank you. >> hello, commissioners. the story is exactly as mr. windslow has pointed out. mr. chernoff fails to point out he's a lawyer for zach friedman and paterson, who have been pursuing us since 2015 with a lawsuit. he needs to keep his lawsuit going. originally, the decision here

was made in continuances on this matter that the decision of an a.a.b. would preempt the legal outcome. now, what's happened is, the a.a.b., the abatements appeal board, have gone through this matter in extraordinary detail already, and they have given us the instructions to provide this documentation. so here it is in the continuation, and remember, he wants to see his lawsuit going. that's what this is really about at this point. so the a.a.b. has already made this decision. here is the documentation from the a.a.b. hearing. there's a variety of complaints that chernoff is coming up with, but let me, first of all, just show you what we're talking about here. this is the d.o.o. requester's

building, this huge structure here. and the pictures that chernoff shows, they are complaining about this garage. you can't even see the deck. it has no public access. it has no public concern. he has taken a picture from the very top of a section of a railing that projects out and made it appear as if -- there's no windows on this wall. and made it look as if that -- his concern, he bought the place. he bought the place in 2013, and he's coming along now and complaining, exactly as mr. windslow said. i've done a -- chernoff is bringing up new issues now, but if you go through the actual paperwork, and i've done it, and his complaints are this building -- my garage deck causes shading. this is -- in addition, he complains that there's a fire

risk from our deck, and then finally, he complains about this blue section, indicating all this business that the variance should not be -- the variance decision should not be held in place. well, obviously, as mr. windslow said, variance has already agreed it be kept in place. i pulled the fire department record, and for fire incidents, there were zero, for all time. the planning department has already approved this. and here's the notification he's doing the d.r.r. again. it is absolutely unbelievable what's going on here. it's beyond any imaginable belief, that somebody would come to the neighborhood, build a building, get their huge, enormous building built, and then they come along and sue us.

i mean, it's extraordinary. i'm going to cite a case in the board of appeals back in 2006, based on the area of equitable estimatable, and both came and approved our deck. and we were completely ignorant of any issues. we had the permits. we have the permits. they are not written perfectly. we don't have english measures building decks, so the building isn't perfect, but certainly came out and inspected it. we acted on the approvals. we assumed that everything was good. you get the sign-off from the city, get the sign-off from d.b.i. and d.c.p., i mean, to what extent can we be overseers of the planning process, the d.b.i. process? i say to you, that's ridiculous. and the final criteria, is there an injury to the public in this matter?

there's absolutely no injury. is there an injury to us? there's a huge injury. we've been fighting in courts. normally you go through the administrative process, then when that fails, you go to the legal process. that's what normally happens. not in chernoff's case. so what i'm putting to you is this pure retaliation, it's documented in the hearing, the a.a.b. hearing. it's absolutely clear that that's retaliation. they said it's retaliation, and it's retaliation in the -- i have 18 e-mails. there have been some more arrived. there's 18 e-mails from the neighbors that support us. [ bell rings ] >> president hillis: okay, thank you. is there public testimony in support of the project? okay. >> no. >> president hillis: d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> i'll keep my comments brief. once again, the project sponsor is blaming everybody, he's blaming me, he's blaming my

firm, he's blaming everybody except taking responsibility. he does not dispute anything that i've said. he does not dispute not knowing that this deck was built illegally, and he simply does not dispute not complying with the terms of the variance. mr. ryan was told in 2007 by his architect, while the work was being done, i looked up the permits that have been pulled. one is for a new garage roof, the other is to replace dry rot, existing decking and siding. neither permit are for the scope of the work we've been working on, neither are they for the exterior stairs or garage roof this has now built. nobody is telling mr. ryan he can't build his deck, but he can't rely and get the benefit of relying on a decade-old variance that he did not comply with. if you permit him to do that, it sends the message that people can get a variance, ignore the obligations, do what they want to anyway, and then come ten years later and get the benefit of relying on that variance.

it's like robbing and bank, disputing that you robbed the bank after you get caught, giving the money back, and saying, well, all is fair. no harm. nobody's saying mr. ryan can't build his deck, but he cannot rely on a decade-old variance when there's been a change in circumstances and he did not comply with the terms of the variance that was given. he should not be rewarded for the behavior. he needs to apply for a new variance. >> president hillis: all right, d.r. requester, you have a two-minute rebuttal. >> mr. chernoff is absolutely wrong. we did get permits. the permits were signed off. this has been gone through the a.a.b. let me just read to you some of the highlights from some of the

letters. this d.r. filed by chris dirken is clearly a vindictive move after the ryan family and many other neighbors opposed the multilevel building built at 1055 ashbury. let me read from another e-mail in support. i am a neighbor, 1067 ashbury, and took time to do some research on mr. dirken, who has a track record of making unfair and retaliatory allegations in an effort to boost his own personal net worth at the expense of the people around him. this type of deplorable behavior is what will eventually destroy what remains of neighborly camaraderie. another e-mail. "we feel this action is just more evidence that builders in san francisco increasingly use city building codes and frivolous lawsuits to bully whole neighborhoods into silence into whatever gets built." . absolutely untrue. we paid our architect at the time. our architect actually went into the city at the time, and this

was gone through at the a.a.b., and discussed what the project was being built. and they were told, we'll have it inspected, we'll go out there and inspect it, and the inspection records show, as of december -- the records show that it is remarkably, to this day, if you go on the planning information map for this address, it shows everything signed off in 2007. 2007. december 2007. so mr. chernoff is putting smoke in mirrors here. he just needs to keep his lawsuit going. i'm saying i need the orders of abatement cleared on this matter. >> president hillis: all right, thank you. we'll open up to commissioner comments and questions. commissioner richards? >> commissioner richards: so i sat through the 1065 ashbury --

sorry, 1065 clayton d.r. i very much remember mr. dirken saying he was going to get back at the next-door neighbor for this illegal deck. here's a big building that's been constructed with an enormous wall that has absolutely no impact on mr. dirken's property at 1065. i honestly feel that these kinds of things are a waste of time, and i'm sorry to say, give zach friedman a very bad name. we sat through so many, castro street, had gone on for eight years. this seems like retaliatory litigation, and i'd be embarrassed if i were the owner or the attorney doing this. i vote to -- move to not approve the project as opposed. >> second. >> secretary: seeing nothing further, motion that's seconded to not take d.r. on that motion -- [ roll call ]

so moved, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously 6-0. >> president hillis: okay, and the meeting is adjourned.

>> good morning everyone. the meeting will come to order. welcome to the november 14th, 2018 regular meeting of the public safety and neighborhood services committee. i am chair of the committee. to my right is vice chair supervisor ronen. supervisor peskin will not be joining us today and shall be excuse -- would you like to make a motion to excuse him? all right. without objection. he is excused. our clerk is john carroll and i would like to thank my hernandez and jesse larson at san francisco government t.v. for staffing this meeting.

do you have any announcements? >> thank you. and insure you silence your cell phones and electronic devices and your completed speaker cards to be included as part of the file should be submitted to me. items acted upon today will appear on the november 27th 2018 board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated by motion. >> thank you. please call the first item. >> agenda item number 1 is a hearing to consider the premise to premise transfer of the onset public premises liquor licenses doing business is asked tonic. on post street. >> great. >> good morning. i am with the san francisco police department. the alcohol liaison unit. you have before you a report for tonic. they have applied for a type 48 license and if approved, will allow them to sell, be -- fair, wind, and distilled beers. they have one letter of support

and are located in plot 542 which is a high crime area. they are in census tract 122.01 which is a high saturation area. central station has no opposition to this license and a ou approves with the following conditions. no noise should be audible at any nearby residents. petitioner should actively monitor the area under their control in an effort to prevent the loitering of persons of any property adjacent to the licensed premises as depicted on the a.b.c. 2538 form. number 3, the sale of alcoholic beverages for consumption off the premises is prohibited. and it should also be noted the applicant has signed the above list of conditions on august 14 th of this year. >> great. >> thank you. >> thank you. public comments? or project sponsor?

>> thank you for having us here today. i will tell you a bit about the project and some of the work we've done with community outreach and our vision for it. we are asking you to approve this to relocate our flagship bar from the corner of union and spoke to the corner of hide and post. it existed at polk and union for 20 years and we owned it for ten of those years. it was our first business where we bartend it for years. six days a week each and we built our largest businesses around it. it is very near and dear to our hearts. our first couple leases expired and the new landlords' rent expectations were way above what we could afford or operate through. so we were forced to make a decision with the old tonic.

we were either going to sell it which would hurt our hearts or find a new location. luckily, we found a new location with a flexible landlord who is known for a lot of integrity and he offered us a lease terms that were very amiable to us and give us a solid shot for long-term financial stability and the ability to be a fixture in the neighborhood for years to come. best of all, the space was principally zoned for bar, which i didn't know could happen. so though it had not been a bar before the planning authorization authorization was over-the-counter, which was a spectacular turn of events. i also want to note quickly that the previous tenant, which was a laundromat, moved out on their own accord before we got in there and they requested to be let out of their lease and there is a letter that they sent to the landlord requesting that. so the over-the-counter planning authorization was great but the process has been quite a journey for us. we signed the lease in march and

we haven't been able to start any construction or work until after the pcm. and just waiting for the bureaucracy to play out. it has, i will admit it has been somewhat frustrating for us but we are not complaining. we will not complain because this time that we had gave us a chance to do some real community outreach, which i thank you will see in your packets. there was one letter of support but since his intel came in, we have over 50, which are in the pocket. we really tried to focus on support. we could have gone out and gotten anybody to sign a letter but you will see from the packet we went out to try and find someone who live in the immediate vicinity are people who have a reputation for community engagement. and we were especially proud to get the support of a lot of local community groups immediate to that neighborhood and organizers in that neighborhood. you will see a honey mahogany around the shop, mike nolte and

the lines for better district six, peter khill low tech, glide church also sent us a letter attesting to our integrity, having worked with them before. most excitingly, we got final word this morning that the supervisor for that district is offering her full support to this. so we've always prioritized our communities and we try to lift up neighboring communities with businesses and engage typically in free time on the entertainment commission and on other boards. duncan has been the president of the polk street merchants for years and currently he is not but he was for five years and served on the same financial and book -- financial boards. we met through the big brother program 12 years ago. i was assigned to be his big brother and he has been my little brother since since then he has worked at literally every position in our establishment

and he will be a co-owner of the new establishment and be the general manager. we are really proud of him. he is just starting to volunteer at a high school, as soon as he, in his words, he is working on getting a tb test to make sure he can do that. i'm sure he can pull that off. so i'm not mentioning those things to try to impress you but i think it shows our actions are there and we do care about our community. we try to make sure our businesses are very engaged community wise and try to make our businesses better places. i want to address the 26 protests we did get. we have never had to mail and a.b.c. announcement to so many people. there are over 3,000. twenty-six percentagewise isn't that bad. we did multiple community meetings. we had three community meetings. the first was for just members of the immediate building that we are in. there's a number of apartments in there peerk we felt they would have the right to come and talk to us because we are

actually in their building. a bunch of people came and nobody who was against it everyone was for its. they did have some current -- concerns and we gave them our cell phone numbers. we did and another community meeting for anybody in the community. i put ten large posters on the wall with mr rogers on them. all around the bar with my cell phone on it and that was there for weeks before the meeting. and to that meeting, we had 12- 14 people. twelve of them were supportive and two or may be three who were leery of the project. then we received actual protest and you get the names of the people who protested. there were 12 for people who lived within 100 feet of us, which we wanted to take very seriously. we try to reach out to them multiple times. we reach out to them through a handwritten note that we put in their mailslot. they never contacted us. that is their decision which we totally respect. and then the other 24 seemed to

be coming from a group of people organized around one person. we did do a meeting where lieutenant gordon attended where he reached out to every single person who protested and asked them to come and we would address them. there is only one who showed up for that meeting. i just wanted to make sure it is on record we did our homework in that sense. that is its. and one of them wrote has to tell us she thought we were a liquor store. she thought we would be a liquor store so she retracted her protest. anything else i mystically i think that is enough of your time that i've taken. but i appreciate you hearing us out here and i look forward to speaking about it. >> i don't think we have any questions. >> good. now we will take public comment. speakers will have 21 minutes. we ask that you state your first and last name clearly and speak directly into the microphone. those who have prepared written statements are encouraged to

leave a copy with the committee clerk for inclusion in the additional file. no applause or billing is permitted. in the interest of time, speakers are encouraged to avoid repetition of previous statements. we also ask if you can fill out a speaker card to make it easier for us to keep track of who has spoken. i do have three speaker cards here. if anyone who wants to speak would line up on your right side of the room, that would be great first speaker. >> commissioners, good morning. my name is dave. for purposes of disclosure, i created the a.b.c. liaison unit for the san francisco police department and did licensing for the last two decades up until a year ago. i got to say, it is a shame that supervisor peskin is in here this morning. in my almost two decades of appearing before this committee, this is the first time i'm not being paid to be here.

i think the supervisor would have enjoyed that. seriously, my comments are very brief. i've dealt with the tonic group. i have known duncan and ben since the beginning and all i wanted to say was i found them always to be a responsive group and always very concerned about their community and more than anything, i always got a sense that to them, this was more than just a business. i have heard many businesses tell me that over the years. not only did they say it, they did it and it was part of their business model and time and again, i always saw them reach out to their community. really all i wanted to say was share that with you and encourage you to support this application. i do need to mention a couple things on a more technical side. i am a city commissioner and i'm here today on my own. i am off duty. i'm not being page. i'm here is a citizen.

i live downtown and i raised my kids downtown. i am very familiar with the dynamics. thank you, very much. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm the president of the lower business collaborative edge you have our letter of support in your jacket. i'm also here as a neighbor. my wife and my child and i live a block and a half from this address and we are in full support of this application. these people have a long history of being responsible business owners in the give a lot back to the community. we appreciate having them in our community. we hope you support this application. thank you. >> thank you. >> good morning. it's an honour to stand before you guys and wax poetic about duncan and ben and the tonic group. for us a little bit about myself i am a san francisco native and

i work for a government funding agency that supports c.b.o. for children, youth, and family in san francisco. i am also the vice chair of the entertainment commission. and i have been active in the a.p.i. community since the nineties. i have been very active in the tenderloin and all the neighboring communities working and fundraising with community advocacy. i will stand here and waxed poetic a little bit about the tonic group. during my tenure, the tonic group has been super generous and supporting all of our good work. i really believe in their presence in the community. they have always made it a core value to support their neighbors and community-based organizations. and the fact that they have generated over $1 million in their philanthropy programs has been amazing. one of my first experiences was at tonic. i think i may have over served, not intentionally. but with that said, i also fit on the entertainment commission

with the president and i will say both countless hours sitting next to him, i have watched him be very dedicated in holding our operators accountable. and making sure that they are good neighbors and they are good actors in our industry. i support them 100%. i say yes to tonic and they will be great additions to the neighborhood. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is honey mahogany. i am wearing two turbines. i am here as a co-owner of the stud bar at ninth and harrison, and also here as a district manager for the transgendered cultural district. as an owner at the stud, we have definitely been -- we know what it's like to have the wool or the rug pulled out from under us

as a small business. luckily, we have had positive negotiations with our current co-owner -- current owners of our building but we know many borrowers who have had to close over the last few years and bars can be more where you can go to drink and party, it is a place where people build community and get to meet their neighbors. it is often times a safe space for people. i want to congratulate tonic bar for lasting 20 years in san francisco in this ever-changing landscape and for them for finding a new home that is already preapproved to be of use to a bar. that is a tremendous feat. i also want to speak on behalf of the tonic group process -- group post s. -- we have really explored different economic opportunities for the district and for our members. and one of them was the

marijuana equity legislation and we were very generous. some of the ins and outs of the challenges of the nightlife industry as well as the marijuana industry. i believe them to be very heavily specifically invested in our communities and able to help and very willing to give up their time and energy. i fully support them opening this establishment. >> next speaker. >> my name is michael and i am the executive director of district six and i am here on behalf of our organization. it is very supportive for the convenience and necessity resolution from the board of supervisors for this liquor license for tonic.

the alliance for better district six is met with the honours and discuss the proposed business and received our questions which is why we fully support the tonic type 48 liquor license. we also want to point out that in dealing with various applications over the years, it is important when there is already some history that a business owner has done, which helps us decide whether they will be good neighbors are not. i think that's one of the things we look at when we look at and review liquor licenses. i say this again for the first -- the last time i was here, i wanted to point out for the benefit of any tenders and new members on the committee that there is importance to community outreach when any licenses are brought before you that community outreach has done and the applicant has done that.

and that it's done effectively. a lot of times, businesses just want to come in and do their thing and then the community it later finds that there is something there that they can't take care of because they've already received the license and it will be there until the next owner takes over. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. i own shambala heating centre. i am a very close neighbor of ben and duncan in mission street knowing how they operate, how much they are involved in the community and how much they care about being safe and taking care of the people around them with neighbors, i very much encourage you to support their new addition. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker.

>> good morning. i am at an extreme advantage because i have supervisors from the mission district here today. as president of the mission market association, i would like to echo what the speaker before said. as you know, we have dr chief which is part owned by mr byman and mr lei. these people take care of business in the community. doing business on mission street is not the easiest place in the world to do business and we have high density, lots of people living around them. it is an honour having them there and wonderful members of the merchants association for a long time. whenever we do any community events, including inviting the supervisors into the fray, they are always helping. we are looking forward to having

them on post street as well. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. my name is christian. i am a current bartender for tonic. a little bit about myself, i'm 23 years old. i have worked for tonic for about three years now and my time working with this company, i can say personally, and professionally, i do love working for this company. tonic does provide a variety of opportunities for young adults such as myself, and i feel this new bar opening is just going to provide a lot more opportunity and learning experience for a lot of people in the company. thank you. >> next speaker. >> i am in the mission district. we just spoke about dr chief.

i am very close they are because i live right above the place. i want to let you know, i used to have a mom living with me who passed away, and she was feeling very comfortable and very protected every time because she knows downstairs people were very safe in taking care of her. every time you succumb to their house, people were helping and asking about her. the guys have been phenomenal with me. i feel like they are always around when i need them. they are really offering things for the community and they are great guys. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. my name is dean smith and i want to talk about my experience as a neighbor to tonic. i live one block away from their old location. may be i wasn't impacted direct -- directly because a block as far as far as noise goes. but on multiple occasions, i use my relationship with ben and duncan to address noise issues i

was having with bars on my block one was late on a sunday night when i called and within 15 minutes, it was resolved. incredible neighbors and keeping their industry accountable. the second thing i briefly wanted to touch on is the community that they have been able to create. i am from australia and i have been here ten years. the reason i have been here for the last five years is because of friends, relationships and the contacts i've made at their establishments. because of the last five years, i've started a business in san francisco. i've had a kid and i am now married. i became an american last year. a lot of this has to do with the friendships and relationships made. this liquor transfer has my full support to. >> thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. [laughter] >> good morning. my name is chris.

i grew up in louisiana and came to the u.s. for a basketball scholarship. i started working in mental health. with my experience, i met duncan and been playing basketball at the bay club and when i played basketball, i can tell somebody 's character. both of those guys are both givers. a few months ago, i was going to louisiana for business and ben asked me how can he help me or give back to the organization. i. i said to contact the high school and give back. i came back three months later and he executed that with his little brother. so it meant so much to me that he came and asked me what i wanted to do and did it. as a property manager, which is a -- at 930 post street, it was going to bring so much support and social awareness to the

community. i have been to the bars all over san francisco and i have a great time. he is always open to feedback. the more that it opens up, there will be less crime. i totally support tonic moving. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning. i am here as an individual neighbor. i live at the end of the block. i'm here to support the liquor license transfer. in the short time that i've spoken to him, i have heard about what they've done as an organization and the plans of what they want to do and continue to do. i think it's a great opportunity for our small neighborhoods to have a group like this come in and be so supportive of the community. they have my full support. >> next speaker. >> good morning.

i am the owner of chief plus. i've known these fellows for a long time. we have worked in a lot of community-oriented events and projects together. and what can i say. you are hearing all this great stuff because these guys know how to pay it forward. they reap what they sow. they put good stuff down and good stuff happens around them. i think that this would be a great idea to do this and anecdotally, i don't even know if these guys know this or not, but my wife and i, when we were dating a number of years ago, tonic is where we would meet. i looked over in mill valley and i would come across the bridge and my wife would take the bus and get off at the corner. that is where we would meet for our dates and things like that. i would come across any would be such a nice and inviting atmosphere to come in. some people have images of bars, like it is the wild west and those type of things. it is nothing like that at all.

now we are married and happily so. a very successful business. i turned out okay. the bars are good. they are community building spaces. i think that you should approve this 100%. >> next comment. or cap next speaker. >> hello. i am an owner of a business called bow wow meow. not in the entertainment industry and not in the bar industry. so i am here speaking solely as a neighbor and part of the community. any area that could get these guys invested are going to be better off for it. i would say that less than one% of merchants are engaged. if you can get people like these guys to be part of the fabric of your community, you will be pretty darn lucky because we definitely need more engagement in people who speak up for the neighborhood. they don't speak just for themselves when they show up for

community. they actually take a much broader picture into minds. so they will be there. not just for their own interest but for half -- behalf of the community. >> thank you. are there any other persons interested in testifying before public comment is closed we -- closed? seeing none, public comment is closed. this is back before us. comments clearly. >> sure. i have to say, you had me at good morning. but in typical fashion, nothing is done without being incredibly thorough and really organizing and getting the community involved. i think this is one of the most compelling hearings i've ever seen for a liquor license. it is a best of san francisco. i even teared up at one point thinking that marco posta his

mom felt safe because tonic was below her or dr chief was below her. but as a supervisor of the mission district, i know the reputation and the responsible way in which dr chief is run. i have had nothing but good experiences working with the owners of tonic and i am extremely proud and excited and supportive of this transfer. and would make a motion to say that this will meets the public necessity and convenience and recommend that this move forward with recommendations. >> good. >> that meets the clerk process requirements. we will do that without objection. >> great. congratulations. >> mr. clerk, call our next item >> is a hearing to discuss updates and outcomes from year

one of the bureau of urban forestry's street tree s.f. program. >> thank you. i'm very excited for this hearing. in 2016, 79% of san franciscans voted to pass proposition e. declaring, by an overwhelming majority of the maintenance of our overwhelming forest should be the responsibility of city government and not neighbors. i want to give special recognition first to say centre -- to safe centre supervisor, scott weiner. in this regard, he was carrying a torch handed to him by his predecessor, mark leno who had long been a member of friends of the urban forest and a champion of our street trees. at any right, following passage of proposition e., we inherited

almost 100,000 additional trees. with that came a dedicated $19 million a year for the hundred 25,000 street trees lining the sidewalks and public right of way. growing pains are to be expected with any transition of this magnitude and implementation of property now deb street tree s.f. is no difference. i called this hearing to provide the bureau of urban forestry and the public works the opportunity to talk about the impacts and challenges and to share early successes. since i joined this board in july, my office has received thousands of calls and e-mails from constituents with requests for help and information with all sorts of topics. tree maintenance is actually second after homelessness. some constituents have raised concerns about trees they believed to be dangerous and requiring immediate removal. some are frustrated with overgrown trees that are not being trimmed or pruned quickly enough. others have been concerned to see crews show up to prune a tree that does not seem to need

pruning. others have been horrified to see beloved trees removed without explanation. they believe or an error, they may believe. our street trees are a process -- precious resource that provides san francisco with clean air and can transform otherwise barren and blighted neighborhoods. some of these trees have very special meaning for neighbors that planted and cared for them lovingly for years. many of these trees, as we will learn during the hearing are suffering after years or decades of preferred maintenance by neighbors in the city. i want us to recognize that in spite of the many challenges, they have gone above and beyond in a number of cases since the program began. i'm familiar with at least two such stories. one involves the beautiful and gorgeous ficus trees around everett middle school. they needed to be -- there are potentially dangerous and needed to be removed.

they worked closely with my office and the neighbors to come up with a plan that involved not just replacement of the trees that were removed, that a significant expansion of the trees in that area. i am very grateful for that. then along market street, i'm particularly pleased we have managed to get the palm trees trimmed after, what was five years, but it was more like a decade since there is a complete full pruning. thank you for that. again, i want to thank beth and superintendent short from friends of the urban forestry for their commitment in implementing this in a way that fulfils it while hearing and responding to concerns. i look forward to building on the successes of street tree s.f. and to begin a conversation of how to further grow our street canopy in the years to come. i want to give thanks to my aid

for all the work that she has done in pulling this hearing together. and the way this will run is first, i will give the floor to michael mcdonald from senator weiner process office to read on behalf of senator weiner. and then we will hear from carla shirt -- published short. and finally we will hear from dan flanagan on behalf of the friends of the urban forest. mr mcdonald? >> honourable chair, good morning. my name is michael mcdonald. on behalf of senator scott weiner, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to read a brief statement. as proposition e.'s author, senator weiner would like to thank supervisor mandelman and would like to thank the other supervisors for the continued interest in the street tree s.f. program. after years of collaboration, among my office, city departments and advocates, san

francisco voters approved proposition 80 by 79%. they made clear that protecting and caring for her san francisco 's urban forest was a high priority. for too long, had our cities trees been neglected or healthy trees removed because homeowners did not want to bear the cost of maintenance. with the implementation of street tree s.f., we can make sure that san francisco's trees are well cared for and this will benefit the city for decades to come. the incentive to remove trees is gone. in fact, more and more trees are being planted each year. our friends a public works and friends of the urban forest continue to do amazing work in making sure that the urban forest is in every neighborhood. senator weiner has great confidence that this body will work diligently to ensure the best possible outcome for street tree s.f. with just over a year since the program was adopted, senator weiner is optimistic that these

reports will show the success and future potential of street tree s.f. supervisor mandelman, the senator would like to thank you for your attention in this matter and allowing me to read the statement. thank you. >> thank you. message -- ms. miss short? i got to know her a decade ago pick one of the most frustrating experiences of being on the board of appeals was at that time, trees were all the responsibility of the neighboring property owner and there was a tremendous incentive for neighbors to get those removed. a someone who did not want to see those trees removed, it put us on the board of appeals in a pretty hard spot of trying to balance those. she is doing a great job now and was doing a great job than. i'm looking forward to hearing your presentation. >> thank you. thank you for convening this hearing and giving us the opportunity to highlight the work we've de