destination, job training, and career development, affordable space for community-based organizations, green open spaces for events, a hub to connect and network, a child care center and playground, and a building of high air quality and energy efficiency. from there, we established the programatic components of the project, including providing space for future education component at the site. the community center is designed to have a public realm on the ground fair, community space and classrooms on the second floor, and affordable cooffice space for our workforce development partners on the third floor. the public realm includes a child care center for over 70 children, a public cafe, and the alex pitcher pavilion. the multipurpose space on the

second level is available for workforce training, community meetings, and affordable event space. activated open space was also a very high priority for the community in a neighborhood where there's disproportionately less green space than other areas of the city. the desired open place included play areas, garden space, picnic gardens, and demonstration wetlands. with the key components of the project determined, studies were completed to evaluate the best layout for the site. with this layout, the campus floor cart garden will be a destination on third street, with open space for special evented and weekend picnicking. the layout provides street-lined views for high visibility of all components of the project. the placement of the buildings frame the open space and separate activities from the parking in the rear of the

site. several architectural concept studies were evaluated with sccf committee and civic design commission. key components of the project included carports and entry canopy which span the buildings and will portray a sense of welcome to the community and provide a place of respite from the sun while providing a place to gather outdoors. other key concepts included a cafe in the lobby with outdoor seating and a central plaza on coron -- anchored by public art. a this slide illustrates how the features of pattern, views, and

sun shieds were incorporated into the -- shades were incorporated into the architecture. the facade of the lead design shade the southwest facing glass while maintaining views to the surrounding open space and campus. the use of natural warm tones and durable exterior materials complements the green surroundings and further reinforces this is a place for community. the tall, trans -- two-story transparent entry lobby linked by the protective canopy expresses a grand entry, and the use of masonry creates a base to another transparent facade. each of the daycare classrooms are expressed with a punch room opening and canopy. the back facade continues the use of warm stone and wood

veneer materials and will have views looking towards downtown. key features for the activated open space include open cafe seating, an am if i theater adjacent to the alex pitcher paflian, a family plaza, natural play areas for children, a play area for the child care center, and gardens with you can with aing paths. the project includes 150 new trees for the site, for a net of 70 trees that currently exist. here are additional renderings of some of the landscaping features that show the character of the space. the first view is image of the wood, showing meandering paths,

and natural gistic planting. this image is of the embarkment slide, using the topography to create a natural play area. the final area is a boulder hill, using boulders for exploration and play. here is a picture of the corner of third and evans. we're a ready for a big year. we'll complete design and start construction this summer. we hope to award the cmgc contract today and hope to have them on board for preconstruction by march. we will also advertise for construction management services by the end of this month. we received three proposals in response to the cmcgrfqp. all three are significant general contractors in san francisco, and as a result, the final scores were very close.

we request your approval to award the contract value to pankow for a contract not to exceed 72 million, of which approximately 600,000 is for preconstruction services. the contract work requires a strategy to maximize local workforce and participation. pankow is partnering with l.p.c. and j.b.r. to partner on the local hiring requirements. now i'd like to share with you just a real brief video that gives you more of a 3-d perspective of the building? >> you know, i think if it's similar to what the presentation you just gave us, i think we should move on. whi we have a very big agenda today. i think we want to talk about -- well, one thing i want to ask about, is why did it

have to be readvertised? >> the cmgc -- >> mm-hmm. >> rfqp? the reason it had to be readvertised is all three responders were not able to respond to the local participation patient requirements, and we realized we had to readvertise to meet all requirements. >> what's really unique about this is we're using cmgc, construction management general contracting in a way that the contractor is responsible for identifying businesses in the community and getting them ready to actually work in the building and plugging them in and deciding how break packages up so they can give opportunities to them. so as a part of this whole solicitation is what -- we

wanted to know what is their plan to actually accomplish this versus us identifying folks and trying to force them to hire. they need to identify people in the community, see what the capacity is, where -- you know, what type of trades they're in, and then break up the work to try to bring them on board. so that was something we wanted to make sure was clear, what our expectations was. >> i have a question, yeah. thank you so much. it looks like a beautiful building, so i really appreciate the work that's going into it, but i would also be remiss if i didn't dig a little deeper, no pun intended, on some of the sustainability questions. i saw that you lifted up the solar piece, some of the energy efficient sun shieding. i would hope like 525, like our headquarters, that this would also be a model that people

will really go to and look to as a model for sustainability, especially around water energy and wastewater, since we're the p.u.c. but also around materials and toxicity and keeping down chemical content and all that. i know that lead gold is pretty good, but it's not lead platinum. so i don't know if you've gotten that far, but i would urge and encourage you to make sure that you're tracking that, and that those components and elements can get integrated now before the building is built. >> yeah. we're very close to platinum. we're pushing it, but we're not there yet. >> yeah. just to give you a tidbit of stuff that shelby's bringing to my attention. she's saying, you know the building has a kitchen. and you know you like gas ranges. if you do induction, then, you

get more points. i'm like induction? every time you see top she hch it's, like, gas. i'm, like, what is induction? so she convinced me we're going platinum to the highest level that we can achieve. >> you know, especially if there issy a component around water-wastewater, i think if we can do something else with the community center, that's fantastic. if harlan tries to give you a hard time about it, i've got your back. >> yeah. we're -- the rain water from the roof visibly draining to the wetlands, so we'll have a run off from the roof. >> any black water? >> the building doesn't support it. i mean, it's not a large enough building for that. >> mm-hmm.

>> great. well, i'd like to move the item. >> i'll second. >> any public comment? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? motion carries. it does sound very exciting. next item. krerk clerk item 17, approve the terms and conditions of and authorize the general manager to seek approval by the board of supervisors and mayor to execute a termination of lease between the city and county of san francisco and orchard supply company at a ground rental rate of approximately 1,304,915 per year over the remaining five-year term of the lease. >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> any public comment? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? motion carries. i have a little side story on this. i heard it the other day on the radio. there's a very famous sign that

the orchard supply company, and so it was going to go where all famous signs go. there must be some graveyard for famous signs, and it was going to be displayed, it was going to be very wonderful. and then, the sign was stolen, so they had to go out and find the sign, which they did, and it turned out somebody stole it because they wanted to preserve it. so they stole it and put it in their garage, so that's the story of the sign. >> so where is the sign going to end up? >> well, we don't know. >> but not in this garage. >> that's right. okay. next item. >> clerk: item 17, approve the san francisco public utilities commission wildfire mitigation plan dated december 2018. >> i'll move the item. >> i think that's 18.

>> clerk: oh. >> item 18. >> clerk: we just did 17, which was the orchard supply. >> we just -- so this is 18. >> clerk: 18. sorry. >> i'd like to move item 18. >> i'll second. i do have a comment. it looks very thorough and that there's a process in place to take care of the business. i just want to make sure staff knows there is a sense of urgency, the flash over of the sites, and i'd like to make sure the -- we move aggressively on those. and the other is that in the litigation with pg&e -- or i guess it's probation compliance issues on -- on the criminal

trial, the judge seems to be making up new obligations and new procedures for them to follow, like inspecting lines and -- for all of them as they stack up against wind risks and that kind of thing. i just want to make sure that this does seem to be a very fast moving area in terms of law and regulation, and we are having to face a degree of environmental threat that we're not used to. and i want to make sure that we listen not only to the regul regulator, but a sense of where that is going, and the judge will give us views as far as what's best practice, in that we have a sense of urgency and listening to that and responding ahead of regulation where that's appropriate. >> yeah. steve ritchie, assistant

general manage he of water. >> we are very cognizant of the issues here, and it has been very fast moving. this is one area where we're not letting grass grow under our feet with our staff and frankly, the attorneys, as well, looking

public utilities commission and the aquatics science center in an amount not to exceed 1,184,389. >> i'll move it. >> second. >> i have a question. does this involve any open

trails? >> first on the follow up on the wildfire mitigation. the question again? i'm sorry. >> the first question, number 20, does that involve any public open trails? >> well, the bay area ridge trail is one of the trails we have there, so it would not add any trails. this is just technical support for us on management interpretation of what's out there, so these are really a group that provides understanding of the watershed lands and how they're managed so that we can help create better interpretive facilities among other things, but there are no additional trails anticipated by this. >> nothing it being opened up. >> no. >> thank you. any other public comment? all those in favor?

[voting] >> opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. [agenda item read] >> i'll move it. >> second. >> i do have a speaker card on this. susan ryan. wou would you like to come forward? [inaudible] >> thank you, commissioners. i'm susan ryan, the principal of john rope aye an school. i'm pleased to be able to speak on this proposal. we have at our school a partnership with the public utilities commission that's been in progress for 2.5 years, and we have students from 9 through 12 grade that are

working with p.u.c. experts and teachers that are going out for sternships at the p.u.c. to build curriculum that has the academic skills but also the career readiness to be able to enter into skilled trades pathways that were preefg mentioned by kathleen curtis. so the p.u.c. and wastewater, we have 55 families that resides in the bayview. really excited to hear about the community center and how there'll be this aalignment between sfusd and the public utilities commission and city college. and that is what we've been doing at o'connell. we're really hopeful if you have any questions of me. it's really exciting to see our students working right now with green infrastructure. we have 8th and 9th graders designing homes, anticipating what would happen with earthquakes, and we have

students working on -- in our environmental technology pathway working with green power and thinking about wind power and solar power as these applies to careers and academics, so thank you. >> well, it's so nice for you to take your time to come to us and tell us about all of those wonderful things. >> thank you. [inaudible] >> -- continue in scale and replicate this program, so thank you for your work. >> we also don't get an opportunity to thank the public school principals very often for the work that they do, so thank you for your time. >> yeah, thank you for coming. [applause] >> all those in favor?

[voting] >> opposed? motion carries. of course it would. next item, please. >> clerk: item 22, authorize the general manager to negotiate and execute a purchase and sales agreement and any relates documents with the state of california department of transportation for the purchase of approximately 1.7 acres of unimproved real property located at 2 rankin street in san francisco, for 8,991,000. >> i'll move the item. >> second. >> public comment on this item? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: item 23, approve the terms and conditions of and authorize the general manager to execute a five-year lease with a single three-year option to extend the term, for an annual rent of 118,332 for the

first three years and annual rent of 121,882 for the fourth and fifth years of the term. >> i'll move it. >> second. >> public comment on this item? all those in favor? opposed? the motion carries. next item, please. >> clerk: item 24. approve and authorize the general manager to execute amendment number one to the september 28 memorandum of agreement for the bay area regional reliability drug contingency plan extending the plan by 36 months for a total duration of 75 months. >> i have a question. the parties to the agreement include bawsca, but it doesn't include hayward and alameda, which are two alameda -- alameda, and the city of hayward. those are two entities that are going to be pretty important to

any kind of regional cooperation that it talks about. the question, i'm not sure how to ask it and i'm not sure how the answer -- >> one correction. it does include the alameda county water district. >> it does? >> yeah. >> and hayward. >> well, it depends on how the tie is interconnected. they are very interested in any discussion. i'm -- i don't think that any future thing would actually go necessarily through that same kind of plumbing on that intertie. that's their biggest concern. they're an interested party here, but they're not putting resources into it. >> well, i guess that's my concern. i mean, as we've looked at various ways, if we deal with desal, regional desal, water

has to get to that area, and hayward is in that line. >> it's an option, but it's not a particularly attractive option compared to los vaqueros expansion and the aqueduct, coming all the way around. it has some challenges, as well, but certainly, hayward will be a part of any discussion on actual use of that project. this is particularly built around a grant that we obtained from the bureau of reclamation for looking at a regional water marketing program and trying to find opportunities there that work. >> okay. that's probably good enough. my concern is that they are key players in all of this, and i would like it better if they were more explicitly involved in this process. that may not be possible at this point, but i will hold out

hope for that and hope that anything that can be done to include them productively. >> and i would recommend we have some offline discussion about hayward and all of this. >> okay. thank you. i'll move it. >> i'll second it. i can do that. any public comment? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? motion carries. >> next item. >> i want to go on record saying i, too, do have some similar concerns just because of the timing of it all, but -- but, you know, here we go. >> about hayward? >> and about this item, and you know, since we're in the middle of our v.s.a. negotiations and whatnot -- about desal. >> all right. well, if we can do that at

another time. that's all right? >> yes. >> next item, please. >> clerk: item 25, adopt a conditional finding of sur plas for sfpuc sewer and streetlight easeme easements in the s.f. project site. >> move approval. >> second. >> any public comment? all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? motion carries. i would like to make an announcement before we go into closed session. we're going to read the closed session item and go to public comment, and then, we're going to take a ten-minute break. madam secretary? >> clerk: item 28 is an unlitigated claim antera

investment and trading l.l.c. versus city and county of san francisco. [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> is there any public comment on the items to be addressed in closed session? seeing none, may i have a motion whether to disclose? >> motion to assert. >> assert. >> second. >> all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? the motion carrie

>> the commission has reconvened into open session. the renouncement following closed session is item 28, settle items 29 through 36, no action. may i have a motion whether to disclose. >> move not to disclose. >> second. >> all those in favor? [voting] >> opposed? the motion carries. other new business? seeing none, meeting is adjourned at 5:15

>> chair peskin: good afternoon and welcome to the land use and transportation committee of the board of supervisors, our first committee of the new committee

structure of the new year. monday, january 28, 2019. i am the chair, aaron peskin, joined to my right by supervisor 5 hsha safai and shortly to be joined by supervisor and new committee member matt haney. our clerk is erica major. we are joined in the audience by planning commissioner dennis richards. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? >> clerk: yes. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: do you have any other extraneous announcements that you would like to make, madam clerk? >> clerk: i do not. >> chair peskin: okay. i thought you wanted to make an announcement about emergency evacuation procedures?

>> clerk: that would be in the case of an emergency evacuation. >> chair peskin: thank you. madam clerk, i would like to welcome the counsel to this committee, counsel john give mer. welcome, mr. givner. madam clerk, the first item, please. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss major. and let me just start out by saying when i became the chair of this committee, i found out that there were actually a number of landmark designations that had been recommended by the historic reservation commission that were on the backlog of this committee's calendar, and i intend to bring them forward to this committee, including several at our next meeting on the 11th day of

february . and this measure has been sponsored by supervisor mandelman. and i see his representative today. sir, if you'd like to come back on behalf of supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, supervisors. i am here to speak in support of the historic landmark designation for the property at 22 beaver street, one of the oldest homes in the duboce triangle of district eight. the home originally built in the 1870's is one of the few structures in the neighborhood to survive the 1906 earthquake with minimal renovations to the italian style exterior. it is our belief that the duboce triangle neighborhood and san francisco at large would benefit from the designation of this property, and i ask that you support the history torque designation.

i thank you, supervisors for your time. >> chair peskin: thank you. and on behalf of the planning department, miss ferguson. >> good afternoon, supervisors. janet ferguson, planning department staff. i'm here to present the historic preservation commission's finding. the department received a community sponsored landmark designation from the property owner in june 2018. the landmark designation report was prepared by the planning department preservation consulting, and the h.p.c. initiated designation on september 19, 2018 and unanimously recommended landmark designation on november 7, 2018. constructed circa 1870, it's architecturally significant as a very early and well preserved italian villa within a garden

setting. in contrast to the much more italian eight row houses, the house has italian detailing on three of its four destinations, indicating that it was meant to be appreciated in its garden setting. out buildings include a historic carriage house and nonhistoric garage. character defining features include the exterior as well as that landscape garden setting. the property owner is very supportive of landmark designation and also planning commissioner richards has been very involved in helping with the landmark designation. the department believes the building meeted the established eligibility status, and the designation is warranted. this concludes my presentation. happy to answer any questions.

>> chair peskin: thank you, miss ferguson. before i bring up mr. verplank who prepared the report, i'd like to bring forward our esteemed planning commissioner dennis richards, mr. richards. >> commissioner richards: thank you. dennis richards here as an individual citizen because the commission did not hear this item. this house was a special house. i see -- i live directly across the street and i've been looking at it ever since i've lived in my house. people walk up the street and marvel that this house survived. it was on an 80 foot lot, and a 20-foot section was cut in 1953 as per the case report. the palm tree on the next door lot is also going to be coming before you as a separate landmarking of the tree because it was original to the house -- i think it was built in 1869.

people walk up the street. it's an amazing house, even on the inside. we have the owner of the house, miss geiling, who's been in the house since 1966, and against all odds, in the '60's and '70's, and the federal government came in, and we were supposed to be a redevelopment 2.0 area, she actually participated in the federally assisted code enforcement program known as face. it also created the landscape that we have in duboce triangle that many, many people including tour buses drive through the city and can't believe how lush it is. a couple of other things. this house, in its setting, plus most of the rest of duboce triangle is a california registered district. we had, as a planning department, determined in 200 #

when the market octavia program was passed, several of us are going to be getting duboce triangle on the historic register because if it's on the california register, it is exempt. and i'm also working with several other folks from several other neighborhoods that are also eligible districts to get them on the register. one last thing, if this esteemed committee or the board of supervisors can hold a hearing on s.b.-50 and its actual impact on san francisco because i've read the legislation and i've seen all the places where it points to, and you really need to understand it. it's -- it's going to rezone everything again, so thank you very much. i support this landmarking. >> chair peskin: thank you, commissioner richards, testifying in your capacity as a citizen of the city and county of san francisco and the matter that you just brought up

is not before us, so we, as you know, pursuant to the brown act, cannot discuss that, but thank you for edifying us on the history of this property. with that, mr. verplank, who wrote the case report on this, please come forward. >> thank you, chair peskin. justin sevplank. i want to thank the owner of the property, miss te tess geiling. without her effort and the effort of her husband, john, this property would be a stucco home or parking lot, no doubt about it. they painstakingly preserved 22 beaver street, but they've also put the personal touches on the property in the time they've

owned it, which is why we decided to call it the benedict-gieling house. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. verplank, and thank you for all the work you do on behalf of historic preservation. you do it scientifically. miss gieling, if you want to come forward, and if you don't, i see just want to thank you for stewarding the house since before i was born, but if you'd like to come forward, we'd like to hear from you. right there. there you go. miss gieling, the floor is yours. >> i'm jean gieling. i've owned beaver street, 22 beaver for more than 60 years,

and i think i've seen it at its worst, and i'm beginning to see it at its best. in the beginning, the house was in such miserable condition, it was rumored that it would become motel. well, nobody on the street wanted that, and when we bought it, the neighbors came one by one to tell me how grateful they were that we would be able to restore the house and to

live there. i've been in restoration for more than 60 years, but i'm sure i can finish it. and the neighbors told me a great deal about the beginnings of the house. but what i've been seeing is the fact as i've worked on the house to bring it up to standard, the rest of the neighborhood came with me. beaver street had been left more or less neglected because

of the rumor that it would become a park, a -- well, it was to become something they did not want, either a motel or a nursing home. and as i've worked, the neighborhood has improved. everybody has painted his house and made it the street it is today, which i think is one of the best, most livable places

in the entire city. thank you. >> chair peskin: thank you, miss gieling, for your stewardship and for resisting the worst of development. and to my two new colleagues on this panel, that i've serve off and on on this panel for their part of a generation, i would like to see that we will see landmark designations come before us, some of them with the support of landowners, some of them with the vociferous opposition of landowners. of course, within our laws, we can landmark a building with or without support of property owner, but when a property owner like miss gieling comes forward and wants to do the right thing for the next seven generations, i personally want to salute her and people like

here. to people like dennis richards, thank you for making this happen, albeit, it probably ads value to your property across the street, but you're doing it in your personal capacity so you have no conflict. mr. givner has assured me of such. with that, is there any public comment on this matter? you already spoke. seeing no public comment, colleagues, would we like to allow commissioner richards to speak again? without objection, mr. richards, the floor is yours. >> commissioner richards: i just want to say one thing about mrs. gieling. she is a living part of san francisco history. she is a metallurgist. some of her friends were imogene cunningham, who was a

photographer of past, as well as ruth isawa, who helped her restore the house. >> chair peskin: thank you very much, commissioner richards. miss gieling, if we could preserve you, we would. colleagues, is there a motion to forward this to the full board? >> supervisor haney: so moved. >> chair peskin: motion made by supervisor haney. we'll take that without objection. thank you, one and all. madam clerk, next item please. >> thank you. [agenda item read]. >> chair peskin: thank you,

miss major. colleagues, i do believe that supervisor vice chair safai is very familiar with what is a major encroachment permit, and i do not know, before i do not violate the brown act, whether supervisor haney knows what a major encroachment permit is. but over the last couple of years, my office has endeavored to make sense of a pellmell scheme around major encroachment schemes where in private parties have a license or right to the public right-of-way, and there are many of these that have issued over the last 150-plus years in

the city and county of san francisco. and i want to thank the number of interns who actually assembled a list of major encroachment permits that had issued. and there was no real clear way in our code as to how they should be revoked. and with the help of the city attorney, we actually created some changes to the major encroachment law which were unanimously passed. i believe supervisor safai was on the board and voted in favor of that. but as with all pieces of legislation, this is an evolving area of law, and akin to a piece of legislation i passed i think in 2002 or '03. the change that is scheduled before the board of supervisors would allow us to schedule a

hearing before the board regarding revocation of a permit when the director of public works has not timely scheduled and held a hearing or issued a decision regarding said revocation. i am happy to explain this. and before i do that, is there anybody here from the department of public works who would like to speak to this item? thank you for coming here this afternoon, and i do not know your name, so if you could tell me what it is, i would be happy to announce that. >> thank you. my name is jeremy spitz. i am in the director's office, and i work on legislative affairs. >> chair peskin: jeremy spitz, like as the swimmer, mark? >> yes. no relation. the director of public works

has reviewed this legislation. there is no major change, and it is a policy direction to the board. >> chair peskin: thank you, mr. spitz. i look forward to getting to know you, and thank you for coming this afternoon. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thank you. that's always music to supervisor peskin's ears, when he hears the director has no objection to his legislation. so i have a few questions. we worked on this last year. we moved forward, but i know we sent this back to committee to have further conversations. one of the things i wanted to talk about on page 3, line 23, when it talks about the director shall mail notice of this decision, i wanted to know if we could add language, by

certified mail just so -- >> chair peskin: upon filing of the notice -- no, line 21. >> supervisor safai: page 22 and 23. >> chair peskin: excuse me. >> supervisor safai: you're on the wrong page. >> chair peskin: within a reasonable -- this is the subsection b-1. >> supervisor safai: yes. >> chair peskin: within a reasonable period of time after the administrative hearing, this is for anybody who's watching, old language -- the director shall issue a written decision on the permittee's cure, if any, and the public revocation petition and fine based on the public interest that the director will reject the petition, approve the petition or initiate revocation of the permit on the grounds -- on grounds other than those identified in the petition. the director shall mail notice of this decision to the lead petitioner, the permit holder, and you are suggesting at line 22 that the director shall do

this by certified mail? >> supervisor safai: yes, just based on problems that we've had in the past based on individuals not receiving. that's a friendly amendment. >> chair peskin: i personally do not care. there are many notice provisions, and there are many definitions of notice, and i will ask deputy city attorney jon givner to opine about the definition of notice. >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney jon givner. i'm not sure whether in article 15 or elsewhere in the public works code, there's any requirement for the director of public works when providing mailed notice to do it by certified mail. i can check. you can certainly make this amendment next tuesday at the board. >> supervisor safai: yeah. i guess i started a little bit later through the chair. i started -- no longer a question to you, deputy city

attorney, but my question would be i sounded like you had interns do a lot of research. one of my questions was how many, if any, have ever been -- how many major encroachments have not been revoked? and i would imagine because we're talking about, when often times -- just for the public's edification, i know you're aware of this. often times when you're doing development, some of that development leads into or has a relationship in the public right-of-way, and that's what the minor and major encroachments are for. very often, it's required, not necessarily anticipated, but it's required by the planning department or those that are designing the projects on the frontage or on the side of the property, depending on where it lays in the alley and so on and so forth. one of the ways they often will solve for the problem is to ask the folks that are developing

something to -- they pretty much require a major encroachment. so it becomes part of the overall development. so my question was, in a lot of instances, this is essentially part of the design and part of the overall building or envelope and so on. so you don't have to answer this now, and i'm sure we would get that as part of this process. but i would imagine that we probably haven't ever revoked any major encroachment. i know that that authority is there, and it lies within the ability -- i know one of the projects that we worked on when i was at public works was a home, and it was in the san jose gulch, where they took, by eminent domain, many of the parcels, and then, they left some of the parcels adjacent to existing structures. and so one of them was a property that the actual yard or the open space, it seemed as though it was adjacent, but actually was a major encroachment -- >> chair peskin: in the driveway.

>> supervisor safai: no, this one was not. it was the entire yard, and at some point, d.p.w. was considering revoking it, but then, they formalized an agreement. but in that agreement always rested the authority if necessary in the future, the director of public works had the ability to revoke that. and that was understood and it was disclosed in the property. so i just wanted to make sure if we were going to go down this route, and i would imagine there would be a very few situations that we wouldn't get into -- adding that would be more like a friendly amendment. >> chair peskin: sure. let's take the first and the second issue. the first, i think the director has the authority to send it by certified mail should the director desire, so we can let the city attorney drill down on that between now and next tuesday. >> supervisor safai: yes. >> chair peskin: but with regard to revocation -- and

this is related to the new member of this panel, the difference between minor and major encroachment permits, minor can be issued by the director, and major encroachment permits can only be issued by the body. there are tons of minor. if you would like to put a planter in front of your house or apartment building on the street, and you want to do it properly, you actually go and ask for a minor encroachment permit. a major encroachment is much more akin to a license or right, but the city retains in that instrument the ability to revoke it. and there actually -- and i would be misrepresenting if i told you the number of major encroachments that would be

revoked in my intern's research of 2.5 years ago, but there actually have been some that have been revoked by the city for a variety of reasons. but insofar as they are granted by the elected body, i want today make sure -- >> supervisor safai: we have the ability -- >> chair peskin: right. we have the ability to revoke them. in this particular amendment, the issue is a fine-tuning of what we voted for unanimously after some back and forth and rereferral to committee, and that is what i would call justice delayed is justice denied which is to the extent that the director, whoever he or she may be now and in the future does not issue a written decision or does not hold a hearing that five of us, as we do in the case of conditional use authorization appeals can bring that matter before this board. this is really a